• No results found

On the Importance of Leader-Superior Fit for the Performance of Transformational Leaders

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "On the Importance of Leader-Superior Fit for the Performance of Transformational Leaders"

Copied!
69
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

On the Importance of Leader-Superior Fit for the Performance of Transformational Leaders 25-06-2013 S.J. Klatter Student number: s1771280 University of Groningen

MSc HRM, Faculty of Economics and Business

Madeliefstraat 1 9731 CB Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 40 93 64 58 E-mail: sietskeklatter@gmail.com First Supervisor: Dr. F.A. Rink Second Supervisor:

Prof. Dr. J.I. Stoker

(2)

1 ABSTRACT

Only few leaders operate in top management layers and enjoy full autonomy; most leaders are

also followers themselves. This research tested how fit in the leadership styles of leaders and

their superiors (transformational vs. transactional) affected the affective work responses and

performance of leaders. In a study among 80 management dyads from several Dutch

organizations operating in different sectors, I found that leaders who scored relatively high on

transformational leadership experience more fit, identify more strongly, report greater work

satisfaction, greater self-efficacy, greater self-esteem and objectively perform better when

their superior also scored relatively high on this leadership style than when their superior

scored relatively low on this style. Leaders who scored relatively high on transactional

leadership and leaders who scored relatively low on both leadership styles were not affected

by the leadership style of their superior. These findings contribute to the understanding of the

importance of leader-superior fit for transformational leaders.

(3)

2

On the Importance of Leader-Superior Fit for the Performance of Transformational Leaders

INTRODUCTION

Effective leadership has a unique impact on the identification, commitment, motivation and

performance of followers. Therefore, one way to improve organizational performance is to

foster effective leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass, 1987; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003;

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Yukl, 2010). Numerous leadership studies

tried to identify the predictors of effective leadership behaviors and their effects on followers

(Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011; Judge, & Piccolo, 2004; Podsakoff, Bommer,

Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006; Yukl, 2010). Many of these studies acknowledge that

leadership effectiveness is determined by the use of certain leadership styles (Bass, 1985,

1997; Burns, 1978). One commonly used distinction in leadership styles is the use of either a

transformational leadership style or a transactional leadership style (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,

1999; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).These leadership styles are known for yielding unique effects

on the performance of their followers (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000). To date, however,

leadership research has paid relatively little attention to the performance of leaders

themselves. The fact that most leaders are not exclusively leaders - they too are often

followers as well – raises the question whether the performance of leaders is likewise

determined by how their superiors approach and manage them (see the leader-leader exchange

concept, LLX; Bedell-Avers, Hunter, Angie, Eubanks, & Mumford, 2009; Tangirala, Green,

& Ramanujam, 2007).

On the one hand, research suggests that leaders should be less susceptible to the

behaviors of others than non-leaders because they occupy a relatively powerful management

(4)

3

leaders are not fully autonomous and often still have to account for their actions to higher

management layers (i.e., their superiors; Bedell-Avers et al., 2009; Tangirala et al., 2007).

Recognizing this issue, Stoker, Rink, Ryan and Nederveen Pieterse (2011) and Bolt (2012)

investigated whether fit in transformational leadership and transactional leadership across

different management levels in an organization (i.e., leader versus superior) influenced the

affective work outcomes and performance of leaders. They found that the leadership style of a

superior (i.e., either transformational or transactional) can indeed have a profound influence

on leaders’ perceptions of fit between themselves and their superior, leader work-motivation,

and leader self-efficacy, but only when leaders themselves score relatively high on the

transformational style. Leaders who used a transactional leadership style were not affected by

the style of their superior. It is my aim to replicate this finding and in so doing, to improve

this new line of research in a number of ways.

First, the previous leader-superior fit studies obtained only self-report ratings of leader

performance. However, a leader’s self-perceived performance can be influenced by this

leader’s base-level of self-esteem and/or self-efficacy (Baird, 1977). Moreover, the use of

single source data (i.e., where respondents are the source of their own performance data) often

leads to inflated associations (Cascio, 2011). I will therefore include an objective measure of

leader performance in my research (i.e., independently rated by the superior), that consists of

three important dimensions (in-role performance behaviors, organizational citizenship

behaviors that benefit individuals and organizational citizenship behaviors benefiting the

organization; Williams, & Anderson, 1992).

Second, the previous studies partly relied on a scenario methodology to examine

whether or not leader performance is determined by their own leadership style and the

leadership style of their superior. However the scenario methodology tends to report stronger

(5)

4

investment of leaders and superiors in their relationship and earlier experiences (Hausknecht,

Day, & Thomas, 2004). This points to the risk of overestimating effects when using scenarios.

Besides, the scenario methodology only enabled the examination of high transformational

leadership of both the leader and the superior versus high transactional leadership of both the

leader and the superior. However, this excluded the testing of two other forms of fit, namely

the fit between low transformational leadership of both the leader and the superior and low

transactional leadership of both the leader and the superior. From the previous research

method you could thus derive that a fit between a transformational leader and a

transformational superior was better than a non-fit (i.e. a transformational leader and a

transactional superior), but it was not possible to examine whether this effect could be

explained by the negative assessment of transactional leadership or by the positive assessment

of transformational leadership. I therefore extended the previous research method by

measuring actual leadership styles of the superiors (i.e. also approaching superiors to fill in a

questionnaire). Performing the research in this way, I improved the overall reliability of the

study.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Transactional and Transformational Leadership

Transactional leaders achieve their goal through a relatively straightforward exchange

orientation. They attempt to influence their followers through reciprocity. The transactional

leadership style is based on the objective that both the leader and the follower can derive

something of value (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1986; Yukl, 1981). Transactional leaders achieve this

goal through appealing and motivating followers to their self-interest and exchanging benefits

(Bass, 1985, 1997; Burns, 1978; Yukl, 2010). Transactional leadership behaviors generally

(6)

5

are not very likely to foster commitment and enthusiasm to task objectives (Kuhnert & Lewis,

1986; Yukl, 2010).

In contrast, transformational leadership is a more visionary approach, that attempts to

raise awareness among followers about ethical issues and attempts to inspire and motivate

them to surpass their own self-interest and to do more than is expected from them (Bass,

1985, 1997; Burns, 1987; Yukl, 2010). Transformational leaders achieve this goal through

encouragement, support and coaching, and by using symbols and communicating an

appealing vision (Bass, 1985, 1997; Burns 1987; Yukl, 2010). These leadership behaviors

generally increase followers’ positive emotions and their level of identification with the

leader, which are both crucial for their work motivation and performance (Bass, 1985, 1997;

Burns, 1987; Yukl, 2010).

In short, the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership points at

different routes through which leaders can influence their followers (DeGroot et al., 2000;

Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Leader - Superior Interactions

A growing number of studies stress the importance of examining the interaction

between leaders and their superiors, as only a few leaders operate in top management layers

and enjoy full autonomy. This means that most leaders are in fact also followers themselves

(Bedell-Avers et al., 2009; Tangirala et al., 2007; Wood & Sobel, 1970). The leader-leader

exchange concept (LLX) alludes to this idea, and suggests that the quality of the relationship

between a leader and his or her superior influences the leader’s work attitudes, just as the

relationship between a follower and his or her leader affects the follower (see LMX theory;

Bedell-Avers et al., 2009; Tangirala et al., 2007). According to LLX theory, leaders and

superiors who are similar in how they approach and view each other experience more

(7)

6

1970). However, the LLX perspective does not focus on the transactional and

transformational leadership styles and does not nuance this simple matching process. Other

research stresses that perceived fit is not equally important to all leaders, nor will a perceived

misfit be equally bad to all leaders (Rink & Ellemers, 2007b; Stoker et al., 2011; Wood, &

Sobel, 1970).

Leader - Superior Fit and Affective Work Responses

When a leader perceives similarity in leadership styles with his/her superior, the leader

and the superior share the same values and their relation can be described as a fit relation. To

be more clear, a fit relation refers to perceptions of value congruence between two parties

(Cable, & DeRue 2002). This fit increases the leader’s identification with and trust in the

superior, the leader’s job satisfaction and the leader’s willingness to help the superior (Cable,

& DeRue 2002; Wood, & Sobel, 1970). Identification can be conceptualized as the perceptual

and cognitive awareness of being part of an organization (or dyad) and the emotional

importance of this identity (Rink & Ellemers, 2007a). In their study, Stoker et al. (2011)

proposed and found that effects for leader-superior fit are stronger for transformational

leaders, than for transactional leaders. In other words, for transformational leaders it is more

important to be able to identify and experience a fit with their superior than for transactional

leaders. This finding corresponds to the idea that it is not uniformly important to all leaders to

be able to identify and experience a fit with their superior. Moreover, this finding is consistent

with what you would expect from these two leadership styles when considering their

characteristics.

According to Yukl (2010), the focus of transactional leaders is on rules and goals. In

other words, the transactional leadership style can be described as task-oriented and

independent. Transactional leaders are less focused on the interpersonal relations between

(8)

7

generally influence through instrumental compliance; requesting an action in exchange for

tangible rewards or avoiding punishment. Transactional leaders thus use tit-for-tat strategies

to reach their goals (Yukl, 2010). Due to the little importance transactional leaders attach to

relations, fit and identification with others should not have a strong impact on their affective

work responses.

Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is a more inspirational and

interdependent approach (Yukl, 2010). Transformational leaders believe that one needs to

influence others through the internalization of certain underlying values by the follower. In

this way, a follower becomes committed to the proposals of the leader as they seem to be in

line with the followers’ own beliefs and self-image (Yukl, 2010). According to Conger and

Kanungo (1998) and Yukl (2010), transformational leaders are therefore strongly focused on

relationships, and value a fit relation and a sense of identification with whom they work with

more than transactional leaders.Due the sensitivity of transformational leaders to

identification, fit with others will have a large impact on their affective work responses. As

such, the two types of leaders attach different value to high quality relationships as a

prerequisite of identification with others (Lord et al., 2011).

The importance that transformational and transactional leaders attach to fit and

identification with their followers also translates to their relations with their superior

(Bedell-Avers et al., 2009; Tangirala et al., 2007). On basis of the aforementioned different nature of

transformational and transactional leaders, one could assume that transformational leaders

show a stronger affective reaction to fit between their own and their superior’s leadership

style and the extent to which they can identify with their superior, than transactional leaders.

Transformational leaders will experience higher work satisfaction, higher self-efficacy and

higher self-esteem as a result of fit and identification with their superior. Work satisfaction

(9)

8

by the job features, intensions of job-related behavior and emotional responses to events on

the job (Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, & Cooper, 2008; Locke, 1976). Self-efficacy reflects the belief

that one is capable of executing a future task or achieve a result on a certain level (Gardner, &

Pierce, 1998). And self-esteem can be defined as the degree to which people evaluate their

personal worth (Gardner, & Pierce, 1998). This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis.

H1: Transformational leaders value fit more than transactional leaders and therefore show a stronger affective reaction (i.e., work satisfaction, efficacy and self-esteem) to the style of their superiors than transactional leaders.

Leader – Superior Fit and Performance

Besides the effect of a fit between a transformational leader and its transformational

superior on affective work outcomes, Bolt (2012) also found that through the mediation of

affective work outcomes, the extent to which leaders identified with their superior affected

their self-perceived performance. On the one hand, this result might be surprising. One might

expect a leader to be able to separate feelings from outputs (i.e., performance). On the other

hand, superior affect is often related to either negative or positive feelings and outputs

(Johnson, 2008). The effect of fit on performance can be explained by below reasoning.

Because of the strong task-orientation of transactional leaders and their weaker

orientation on interpersonal relations (Yukl, 2010), the performance of transactional leaders

will not be influenced by their affective work responses. Literature proposes that transactional

leaders will more likely be able to separate their actions from their relations, as they see

themselves as independent, and therefore do not need others to make them perform well (Lord

et al., 2001).In other words, transactional leaders will not show affective reactions to the

leadership style of their superior and therefore the affective work outcomes will not mediate

(10)

9

Transformational leaders on the other hand, are more focused on other people and they

consider relations with others as a prerequisite for developing a shared identity. The behaviors

of transformational leaders can therefore be characterized as interpersonal (Lord et al., 2001).

A lack of interpersonal behaviors from their superior would logically lead to negative feelings

of affect towards their superior. Therefore transformational leaders will demonstrate relatively

strong affective reactions to the leadership style of their superior, which will in turn also

affect their performance. This effect on performance can be explained by the mediation of

affective work outcomes, such as identification (Tse, Askanasy, & Dasborough, 2012) and fit

(Xu, Cavusgil & White, 2006), satisfaction (Fried et al., 2008), self-esteem (Gardner, &

Pierce, 1998), and self-efficacy (Bandura, & Locke, 2003). According to Tse, Askanasy and

Dasborough (2012), identification mediates the relationship between leader-member exchange

and job performance. Xu, Cavusgil and White (2006) raise the assumption of a mediation

effect of leader-superior fit on performance with their finding that strategic fit affects

multinational performance. Fried and colleagues (2008) show in their work the mediating role

of job satisfaction on job performance. Gardner and Pierce (1998) tested and found in their

study a mediation of self-esteem of managers on their performance. Finally, Bandura and

Locke (2003) showed on basis of 9 meta-analyses the effect of self-efficacy on performance

attainments in a variety of laboratory and field studies.

All in all, Transformational leaders will perform better when they have a superior who

is transformational as well, because they can then experience a fit and identification with their

superior. In contrast, the performance of transactional leaders will not be affected by a fit or

non-fit with their superior. This line of reasoning leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Leader-superior fit will enhance the performance of transformational leaders, while this will not be the case for transactional leaders.

(11)
(12)

11 METHOD Sample and Procedure

To test the above hypotheses, I collected data from 80 dyads of leaders and their superiors, of

multiple Dutch companies in both the public and private sector. The majority of these dyads

(55.0%) operated in industries such as retail, wholesale and crafts. 27.5 percent of these dyads

operated in industries such as education, and government, and 17.5 percent in industries such

as business services, banking and telecommunication. I approached the dyads via personal

contacts by e-mail or phone, or by visiting them in person in their workplace. Different

questionnaire versions were distributed among leaders and their superiors to minimize

common method variance concerns (Cascio, 2011). In these questionnaires leaders and their

superiors rated their own and each other’s leadership style, their anticipated identification,

satisfaction, fit, performance and self-esteem. Participants either filled in the questionnaires

online through thesistools.com, or on paper. The questionnaires can be found in appendix C.

There were 80 dyads that filled in the questionnaire. However, there were 10 dyads

that did not answer all the questions. I therefore tested my hypothesis using data from 70

dyads. The average age of the leaders was 38 years. This group existed of 49.4 percent males

and 50.6 percent females. In terms of seniority, 72.4 percent fulfilled a lower management

position, 25 percent a middle management position and 2.5 percent a higher management

position. In the group of superiors, the average age was 42 years. Of this group 60.8 percent

was male and 39.2 percent was female. 21.1 percent of the superiors operated in lower

management, 61.8 percent in middle management, and 17.1 percent in higher management.

Participation in my research was voluntary and confidentiality was guaranteed.

Measures

My study was conducted by means of two large scale questionnaires; one for the leader and

(13)

12

leadership style, his or her anticipated identification and fit with the superior, work

satisfaction and the leader’s level of self-esteem and self-efficacy. The superior’s

questionnaire contained questions about the superior’s leadership style and measured the

performance of the leader.

Notably, I have included other constructs in both questionnaires that did not yield any

significant results. I therefore leave them out for further discussion in the main body of the

thesis. However, the complete questionnaires are presented in appendix C.

Leadership styles. The extent to which the leaders and superiors engage in

transformational leadership was measured with a number of questions based on the 23-item

scale developed by Podsakoff et al., (1990; cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). Items for the

transformational scale were, for example, ‘I get the group together to work for the same goal’,

and ‘I paint an interesting picture for the future of our group’. The transactional leadership

style was measured by using a six-item scale derived from the Charismatic Leadership in

Organizations Questionnaire (de Hoogh, den Hartog, & Koopmans, 2005; cronbach’s alpha =

0.78). For this purpose I used the contingent-reward-part (and not the

management-by-exception part). Examples of these items are ‘I clearly state what others can expect to receive,

when they do as required’, and ‘I set certain rewards in prospect for good work’ (see appendix

C for the full scales). All items were rated on a seven-point Likert-scale varying from 1

(totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree).

Leader’s value from fit with superior. The leader-superior fit items were drawn from the work of Cable and DeRue (2002). The three-item scale (cronbach’s alpha = 0.95)

consisted of the following questions: ‘The things that you value in life are very similar to the

things your superior values in life’, ‘Your personal values match your superior’s values and

(14)

13

value in life’. The items were rated on a seven-point Likert-scale varying from 1 (small

extent) to 7 (large extent).

Leader’s identification with superior. A five-item scale from Rink and Ellemers (2006; 2007a; 2007b; cronbach’s alpha = 0.94) measured the anticipated identification of the

leader with their superior. The participants were requested to indicate their level of agreement

or disagreement with statementssuch as ‘You and your superior have many similarities’ and

‘You and your superior form a strong duo’ (see appendix C for the full scales). The

identification items were rated on a seven-point Likert-scale varying from 1 (small extent) to

7 (large extent).

Leader’s work satisfaction. Satisfaction was measured on a two-item scale (based on Stoker et al., 2011; cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). Questions were ‘You are happy with your

superior’ and ‘You are satisfied with your superior’. The seven-point Likert-scale of these

questions varied from 1 (small extent) to 7 (large extent).

Leader’s efficacy. Self-efficacy of the respondents was measured by the self-efficacy scale as used by Stoker and colleagues (2011) and Bolt (2012; cronbach’s alpha =

.73). Two examples of the five items were: ‘I am confident about my ability to do my work’

and ‘I have mastered the skills necessary for my job’ (see appendix C for the full scales). The

self-efficacy items were rated on a seven-point Likert-scale varying from 1 (totally disagree)

to 7 (totally agree).

Leader’s self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured on a ten-item scale based on the widely used work of Rosenberg (1965; cronbach’s alpha = .82). Two examples of the items

were: ‘I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis’ and ‘I am able to do things

as well as most people’ (see appendix C for the full scales). The ten items were rated on a

(15)

14

Superior’s ratings of leader performance. The performance of the leaders was assessed with a 21-item scale rated by the superiors (based on Williams & Anderson, 1991;

cronbach’s alpha = .81). This scale comprised three seven-item scales measuring distinct

facets of performance. Superiors were first requested to indicate their level of agreement or

disagreement with statements concerning in-role behaviors (performance sub 1; cronbach’s

alpha = .70). These were statements such as, ‘Indicate to what extent you think your

subordinate adequately completes assigned duties’, and ‘Indicate to what extent you think

your subordinate fulfills responsibilities specified in job description’. The second subscale

reflected organizational citizenship behaviors that benefit individuals. Example items are;

‘Indicate to what extent you think your subordinate helps others who have heavy workloads’

and ‘Indicate to what extent you think your subordinate takes a personal interest in other

employees’,(performance sub 2; cronbach’s alpha = .71). The third subscale reflected

organizational citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization (performance sub 3;

cronbach’s alpha = .68) and was measured by questions such as, ‘Indicate to what extent you

think your subordinate’s attendance at work is above the norm’ and ‘Indicate to what extent

you think your subordinate adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order’. (see

appendix C for the full scales). The performance items were rated on a seven-point

Likert-scale varying from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree).

Control Variables. Both questionnaires also contained several control variables. These variables were the leader’s and superior’s age, gender and leadership-levels. Age was

included, because as Carmeli, Atwater and Levi (2011) argue, older leaders with long tenure

tend to have developed higher quality relationships with their superiors than younger leaders.

Superiors may therefore by default rate older employees relatively favorably. I included

gender, because as Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and Van Engen (2003) found, female leaders

(16)

15

to which leaders and superiors see themselves (or each other) as being transformational. The

leadership levels of both the leader and the superior were included as a control variable,

because leaders at higher levels within an organization are in general rated as more

transformational, while leaders at lower levels are more likely to be rated as more

transactional (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Finally, I included the sector of the

organization as a control variable, because as Hooijberg and Choi (1998) state, organizational

sector may impact the discretionary behaviors of leaders. This, in turn could influence the

frame of reference concerning the way leaders and superiors see themselves (or each other) as

being transformational.

RESULTS Data-Analysis

The hypotheses have been tested by a series of hierarchical step-wise regression

analyses. For this purpose, all independent and dependent variables were mean centered

(Aiken & West, 1991). In the first series of regressions, step 1 included the control variables,

step 2 included the transformational leadership style of both the leaders and the superiors as

independent predictors of my outcomes and step 3 included the interaction term of the

transformational leadership style of the leaders and the transformational leadership style of

the superiors. This final step thus tested whether the transformational leadership style of the

superior moderated the relationship between the extent to which leaders were transformational

and their affective work responses or performance levels respectively. In the second series of

regressions, I used the same procedure, but included the transactional leadership styles of both

the leaders and the superiors. As proposed by Aiken and West (1991) I standardized the

predictor variables and multiplied the standardized predictor variables to compute the

interaction effects.

(17)

16

Table 1 (Appendix A) shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the

predictor variables, the control variables and the dependent measures.

As can be seen, the correlation between transformational leadership and transactional

leadership is fairly high for both leaders (r = .49 P < .01) and superiors (r = .64 P < .01).

Notably, a basic assumption of regression analyses is that the different independent variables

are independent, or at least uncorrelated with each other. This would mean that, for example,

relatively high transformational leadership of a leader provides no information as to whether

the leader scores also high on transactional leadership. However, considering the fairly high

correlation between the leadership styles, this is not the case. This dependence needs to be

accounted for, as otherwise the variables will eat each other’s variance (Liang & Zeger,

1993). A widely used method to overcome this problem is to perform separate regression

analyses on the correlated independent variables; one for each response component (Song, Li,

and Yuan, 2009). Therefore I performed separate regression analyses for transformational and

transactional leadership of the leader when testing the hypotheses of this study. 1

Although not all control variables significantly correlate to each other, most of them

do at least correlate to one of the dependent measures. Besides, there is enough reason to

assume that these variables are legitimate covariates (see above: method). Therefore, I include

all of them in my analyses.

The extent to which leaders were transformational correlates to the identification and the fit of the leader with his/her superior, the leader’s self-efficacy, the leader’s satisfaction and the

1

The initial results, obtained through a series of combined regression analyses for both leadership styles show to be weaker than in the series of separate regression analysis, which is logical since the interactions eat each other’s variance. However, remarkable is that the results are not completely different from each other and most effects remain at least marginally significant.

(18)

17

leader’s performance. The extent to which leaders were transactional correlates to the identification and the fit of the leader with his/her superior and the leader’s satisfaction. The extent to which the superiors were transformational correlates also positively the identification and the fit of the leader with his/her superior and the leader’s satisfaction.

Fit Effects on Affective Work Responses of Leaders

Appendix A (table 2 – 11) presents the direct- and interaction effects of leadership styles on the affective work outcomes.

Leader’s value from fit with superior. From table 2, one can derive that, before taking the interactions into account, the extent to which leaders were transformational was an important predictor of the extent to which leaders valued the fit with their superior (table 2; leader: Beta = .34, p < .05). Adding the interaction terms added value to the overall model (∆R2 = .04). Consistent with hypothesis 1, the interaction between a relatively transformational leader and

a relatively transformational superior yields significant effects on the valued fit of a leader

with his/her superior (table 2; Beta = .38 p < .05). As can be seen in figure 2, a simple slope

analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) further revealed that the effect of the transformational leader -

transformational superior interaction on the leader’s value from fit was significant and

positive when the extent to which superiors were transformational was high (figure 2; simple

slope at -1 SD: B = .46, β = .37, SE = .19, p= .02), but not significant when the extent to

which superiors were transformational was low (figure 2; simple slope at +1 SD: B = .19, β =

.16, SE = .21, n.s.).

The extent to which superiors were transactional also showed a significant direct effect on the leader’s value from fit with the superior (table 3; Beta = .30, p < .05). However, no other

effects for the extent to which participants were relatively transactional were found.

(19)

18

leaders identified with their superior (table 4: leader: Beta = .36, p < .005; superior: Beta = .31, p < .05). Adding the interaction terms added value to the overall model (∆R2 = .03). Consistent with hypothesis 1, the interaction effect between a relatively transformational leader and a

relatively transformational superior shows to significantly affect the identification of the

leader with his/her superior (table 4; Beta = .29, p < .05). As can be seen in figure 3, a simple

slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) further revealed that the effect of the transformational

leader - transformational superior interaction on the leader’s identification with the superior

was significant and positive when transformational leadership of the superior was high (figure

3: simple slope at -1 SD: B = -.51, β = .43, SE = .15, p= .00). While this same relationship was

not significant when the transformational leadership style of the superior was low (figure 3:

simple slope at +1 SD: B = .16, β = .13, SE = .16, n.s.).

The extent to which superiors were transactional also shows to directly and significantly affect the extent to which leaders identified with their superior (table 5; Beta = .35, p < .005). No

other direct or interaction effects were found for the extent to which leaders or superiors were transactional.

Leader’s work satisfaction. From table 6, one can derive that there were no direct effects from leadership style on the leader’s work satisfaction. However, adding the interaction terms

added value to the overall model (∆R2 = .07). Consistent with hypothesis 1, the interaction between a relatively transformational leader and a relatively transformational superior yields

significant effects on the work satisfaction of a leader (table 6; Beta = .40 p < .05), The

subsequently performed simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) as shown in figure 4,

further confirmed that the transformational leader - transformational superior interaction

effects were significant and positive when transformational leadership of the superior was

high (figure 4; simple slope at -1 SD: B = .47, β = .42, SE = .17, p= .01). On the other hand,

(20)

19

not yield any significant results for the work satisfaction of a leader (figure 4; simple slope at

+1 SD: B = -.07, β = -.06, SE = .20, n.s.)

No direct or interaction effects on leader’s work satisfaction were found for the extent to which leaders or superiors were transactional.

Leader’s self-efficacy. From table 8, one can derive that, before taking the interactions into account, the extent to which leaders were transformational was an important predictor of the self-efficacy of leaders (table 8: Beta = .34, p < .005). adding the interaction terms added value to

the overall model (∆R2 = .06). Consistent with hypothesis 1, the interaction between a

relatively transformational leader and a relatively transformational superior yields significant

effects on the self-efficacy of a leader (table 8; Beta = .25 p < .05). The performed simple

slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) shown in figure 5 further confirmed that the

transformational leader - transformational superior interaction effects on leader self-efficacy

were significant and positive when transformational leadership of the superior was high

(figure 5; simple slope at -1 SD: B = .42, β = .61, SE = .11, p= .00), but not when the

transformational leadership style of the superior was low (figure 5; simple slope at +1 SD: B =

.22, β = .32, SE = .13, n.s.).

No direct or interaction effects on leader’s self-efficacy were found for the extent to which leaders or superiors were transactional.

Leader’s self-esteem. From table 10, one can derive that there were no direct effects from leadership style on the leader’s work satisfaction. However, adding the interaction terms

added value to the overall model (∆R2 = .08). Consistent with hypothesis 1, the interaction between a relatively transformational leader and a relatively transformational superior yields

significant effects on the self-esteem of a leader (table 10; Beta = .32 p < .05). However,

although the interaction effect of a transformational leader and a transformational superior on

(21)

20

analysis, the simple slopes analysis did not endorse this effect (figure 6; simple slope at -1

SD: B = .06, β = .08, SE = .15, n.s.).

No direct or interaction effects on leader’s self-esteem were found for the extent to which leaders or superiors were transactional.

Fit Effects on the Superior Rated Performance of Leaders

Consistent with hypothesis 2, I found that the coefficient of the cross-product of

transformational leadership of the leader and transformational leadership of the superior

showed significant effects on the superior perceived performance of the leader (figure 12;

Beta = .19, p < .05). The simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) further confirmed that the effect of the transformational leader - transformational superior interaction on the superior

rated performance of the leader was significant and positive when transformational leadership

of the superior was high (figure 7; simple slope at -1 SD: B = .25, β = .42, SE = .09, p= .01).

This same relationship did not affect the superior rated performance of the leader when the

transformational leadership style of the superior was low (figure 7; simple slope at +1 SD: B =

-.04, β = -.06, SE = .10, n.s.).

No significant direct or interaction effects on the superior rated performance of leaders were found for the extent to which leaders or superiors were transactional.

Supplementary Analyses

I also tested hypothesis 2 using the distinctive types of performance instead of the composite

performance construct, as the overall effect might have been induced by one of the

sub-effects. These distinct types were in-role behaviors (performance sub 1), organizational

citizenship behaviors that benefit individuals (performance sub 2) and organizational

citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization (performance sub 3). Organizational

citizenship behavior represents ‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or

(22)

21

are by nature focused on helping others and going the extra mile (Yukl, 2010), one could

assume that the superior’s performance ratings of these leaders must have been driven by the

extent to which the leaders displayed organizational citizenship behavior that benefit

individuals, since these behaviors are strongly focused on relations. This effect is also known

as the demand effect and refers to changes in behavior (i.e., filling in the questionnaire) due to

cues about what conveys appropriate behavior (i.e., citizenship behavior; Zizzo, 2010).

However, according to Zizzo (2010) this effect is only a potential problem when the outcomes

(i.e., organizational citizenship behavior that benefit individuals) positively correlate with the

prediction (i.e., leadership style of the leader). Importantly, none of the correlations between

organizational citizenship behavior that benefit individuals and leadership styles of the leader

shows significant results (table 1).

Tables 14 – 16, in appendix A, present the regression results for the three constructs

separately. The interaction effect of the transformational leadership style of the leader and the

transformational leadership style of the superior was refuted for both the organizational

citizenship behaviors that benefit individuals (table 15; Beta = .13, p < n.s.) and the

organizational citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization (table 16; Beta = .7, p <

n.s.), but was confirmed for the in-role behaviors (table 14; Beta = .28, p < .05). I therefore

conclude that the overall performance effects are strongly drawn by the in-role behaviors.

However, since the in-role behaviors strongly correlate to both organizational citizenship

behaviors that benefit individuals (table 1: r = .34 P < .01) and organizational citizenship

behaviors that benefit the organization (table 1: r = .67 P < .01), I will not treat these effects

as completely different constructs.

DISCUSSION

In my research, I focused on transformational and transactional leadership, which is the most

(23)

22

proposed and found support for a fit theory of transformational leadership. Using data from a

field study of 80 managerial dyads, I found that leaders who scored relatively high on

transformational leadership experience more fit, identify more strongly, report greater work

satisfaction, greater self-efficacy, greater self-esteem and objectively perform better when

their superior also scores relatively high on this leadership style, than when their superior

scored relatively low on this style. Leaders who scored relatively high on transactional

leadership and leaders who scored relatively low on both leadership styles were not affected

by the leadership style of their superior. These findings contribute to the understanding of the

importance of leader-superior fit for transformational leaders. Accordingly, my findings

clearly demonstrate that fit between a transformational leader and a transformational superior

can lead to substantial desirable work outcomes. Below, I discuss the theoretical and practical

implications of my study, review the strengths and limitations of my work, and propose future

research directions.

Theoretical Implications

The theoretical relevance of this study resides in the fact that prior research examining the

leader-superior fit has been mainly based on self-report ratings of leader performance.

Besides, the previous studies partly relied on a scenario methodology to examine whether or

not leader performance is determined by their own leadership style and the leadership style of

their superior. In this paper, I provide insight into the mechanisms that impact the affective

work outcomes and performance of leaders and identify the conditions under which the

effects are or are not likely to occur.

By identifying when and why leadership styles conduce to more favorable affective

work outcomes and performance of the leader, my research findings provide additional

support for the fit perspective on the role of leadership styles of leaders and superiors. Earlier

(24)

23

not equally important for all leaders. More specifically, transformational leaders are more

concerned with this fit than transactional leaders and a (imaginary) transformational superior

positively impacts the affective work outcomes and (self-perceived) performance of a

transformational leader (Bolt, 2012; Stoker et al., 2011). However, my study is the first to

show that this effect also exists in actual dyads of leaders and superiors and affects the actual

performance of leaders as rated by their superiors. Testing my hypothesis in actual dyads,

enabled me to study four forms of fit (i.e., high transformational leader vs. high

transformational superior, high transactional leader vs. high transactional superior, low

transformational leader vs. low transformational superior, low transactional leader vs. low

transactional superior), which was not possible with a scenario methodology. Doing this, I

could discard the negative assessment of a transactional leadership fit and confirm the positive

assessment of a high transformational leadership fit as an explanation for greater affective

work outcomes and better performance, as the low fit interactions were also taken into

account when studying actual dyads.

Notably, the positive relationship between leader-superior fit and performance was

mainly due to the in-role behavior that the leader showed. Perhaps organizational citizenship

behavior is so natural to transformational leaders and part of their personality that they always

display this, regardless of their superior. Therefore these behaviors may less likely be subject

to a fit between transformational leaders and transformational superiors. The fact that

relatively transformational leaders performed better on in-role behaviors that are recognized

in the job specification and by formal reward systems when their superior was also relatively

transformational, implies that superiors can positively influence the most essential behaviors

that constitute ones job. This is important, since the performance of individual middle

managers has a large impact on organizational performance (Mollick, 2012).

(25)

24

An important strength of my study is that I conducted my data collection in actual

organizations operating in different business sectors. Moreover, to further strengthen the

validity of my findings, I collected data from actual dyads (i.e., both a leaders and their

superiors). In my analyses, I controlled for the leader’s and superior’s age, gender and

leadership-levels and the sector of the organization to minimize their effects on the studied

relationships. I am therefore confident that my findings can be generalized to a broad range of

organizations and dyads.

Another strength of my study is that I used an objective performance measure. As

shortly mentioned in the method section of this thesis, earlier research has measured

performance only with self-reports, but given that self-perceived measures can be influenced

by a leader’s base-level of self-esteem and/or self-efficacy (Baird, 1977), I believe that the

superior-perceived performance measure is an important contribution to the strength of this

line of research.

Despite the strengths of my study, there are obviously also some limitations. First, as

suggested by leadership theory (Bass, 1985), I assessed the transformational and transactional

leadership styles of leaders and their superiors contemporaneously. This means that any given

individual could vary on each dimension. However, apart from initially testing this idea, I did

not further elaborate on the contemporaneous variety. My hypothesis were focused on high

transformational leadership and the latter was therefore conceptually unnecessary.

Nevertheless, with the two-dimensional analyses as I conducted them in this study, I certainly

did indicate a fit between low transformational leadership of a leader and low

transformational leadership of a superior and moderate transformational leadership of a leader

and moderate transformational leadership of a superior. Yet, I do acknowledge that, as

suggested by Edwards (1996), three-dimensional fit analyses would be required to confirm the

(26)

25

types of fit analyses will minimize reduced reliability, avoid confounded leader-superior fit

effects, and will preserve the relation between the leader’s leadership style, the superior’s

leadership style and the work outcomes (Edwards, 1996).

Second, Bolt (2012) performed a moderated mediation analysis in her study to

measure the effect of a moderation between leader-superior leadership styles and a mediation

of affective work outcomes on the performance of the leaders. Due to time concerns I did not

perform this analysis. However, this could have strengthened my reasoning concerning the

effect of affective work outcomes on performance.

For future research, it would be interesting to confirm the causality of the relationships

between my study variables with a longitudinal design. By using such a design, it becomes

possible to measure the long-term consequences of fit in leadership styles. This will provide

insights in how changeable or fixed the two leadership styles are in a certain context.

Second, I examined the role of leadership fit between a leader and his/her superior as

an important characteristic for affective work outcomes and performance. Yet, I recognize

that for future research it would be interesting to examine what other behaviors of superiors

may influence the affect and performance of a leader. My research shows that transactional

leaders are not concerned with fit with their superiors. However, they might be concerned

with other leadership behaviors. As Stoker et al. (2011) argue, it might be possible that

transactional leaders are affected by a superior giving them inappropriate rewards and

unsatisfactory transactions. Furthermore, fairness perceptions, trust and certainty/uncertainty

may also play a role in the identification of transformational leaders with transformational

superiors (Hogg, Van Knippenberg & Rast III, 2012).

Finally, for future research on a more theoretical level, the very recent and severe

recommendations of Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) could be taken in consideration. Van

(27)

26

transformational leadership. According to Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013), a clear

definition of transformational leadership and its dimensions is lacking, the causality,

mediating, moderating processes and outcomes of the dimension require further research, and

more distinctive tools to measure transformational leadership are needed. Reconsidering

transformational leadership will favor more clearly defined aspects of leadership and foster

the empirical study to these aspects (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013).

Conclusion and Practical Implications

In this paper, I show why and under which circumstances a leader-superior fit of leadership

styles conduces to optimal affective- and performance outcomes of leaders in organizational

work settings. I conclude that fit between a leader and a superior can be beneficial for the

affective work outcomes and performance of leaders. However, this is most likely to be the

case when both the leader and superior are transformational. One clear practical implication

for organizations would thus be to simultaneously monitor leadership at multiple levels within

an organization. Moreover, given the effects of fit in leadership styles, it would be interesting

for organizations to match transformational leaders to transformational superiors. All in all,

this study should stimulate organizations to take combinations and interactions in leadership

styles into account when hiring and developing potential managers in order to foster their

(28)

27 References

Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regressions: testing and interpreting interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. (1999). Reexamining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 7, 441–462.

Baird, L.S. (1977). Self and Superior Ratings of Performance: As related to Self-Esteem and

Satisfaction with Supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 20(2), 291-300.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E.A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free

Press.

Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by

assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 207-217.

Bedell-Avers, K., Hunter, S.T., Angie, A.D., Eubanks, D.L., & Mumford, M.D. (2009).

Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: An examination of leader-leader

interactions. Leadership quarterly, 20, 299-315.

Bennett, R. (2011). Brand managers’ mindful self-management of their professional

experience: Consequences for pay, self-efficacy and job performance. Journal of

(29)

28

Bolt, E.H. (2012). Leadership Interactions and Performance: The interacting effect of

leadership styles of leaders and their superiors on affective work responses and self-

perceived performance.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective

fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.

Carmeli, A., Atwater, L., & Levi, A. (2011). How leadership enhances employees’ knowledge

sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification. Journal of

Technology Transfer, 36(3), 257-274.

Cascio, W.F. (2011). Methodological issues in international HR management Research. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(12), 2532- 2545.

Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S., & Cross, T.C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational

outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian journal of Administrative

Sciences, 17, 356 – 371.

De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopmans, P.I. (2005). Linking the Five-Factors of

personality to charismatic and transformational leadership: perceived dynamic work

environments as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 839-865.

Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & Van Engen, M.L. (2003). Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and

women. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591.

Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit

(30)

29

Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job

satisfaction and propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships:

Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal Of

Stress Management, 15(4), 305-328.

Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational

context. Group and Organization Management, 23(1), 48–70.

Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V., & Thomas, S.C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection

procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57,

639– 683.

Hiller, N.J., DeChurch, L.A., Murase, T., & Doy, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of

leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37, 1137-1177.

Hogg, M.A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast III, D.E. (2012). The social identity theory of

leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments,

European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 258-304.

Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (1998). The impact of organizational characteristics on leadership

effectiveness models: An examination of leadership in private and public sector

organizations. Academy Of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory,

B1-B8.

Johnson, S. K. (2008). I second that emotion: Effects of emotional contagion and affect at

work on leader and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 1-19.

Judge, T.A., & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-

analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Kuhnert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-

(31)

30

Liang, K., & Zeger, S. (1993). Regression analysis for correlated data. Annual Review Of

Public Health, 14, 43-68.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Fried, Y., Shirom, A.,

Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job satisfaction and

propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships: Combining meta-

analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal Of Stress

Management, 15(4), 305-328.

Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J., Harvey, J.L., & Hall, R.J. (2001). The Leadership Quarterly, 12,

311-338.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, G. K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: the role of individuals in firm

performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(9), 1001-1015.

Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader

behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Podsakoff, P.M., Bommer, W.H., Podsakoff, N.P., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Relationships

between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes,

perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 99, 113-142.

Rink, F.A., & Ellemers, N. (2006). What can you expect? The influence of gender diversity in

dyads on work goal expectancies and subsequent work commitment. Group Processes

(32)

31

Rink, F.A., & Ellemers, N. (2007a). Diversity as a Basis for Shared Organizational Identity:

The Norm Congruity Principle. British Journal Of Management, 18, 17-27.

Rink, F.A., & Ellemers, N. (2007b). The role of expectancies in accepting task-related

diversity: Do disappointment and lack of commitment stem from actual differences or

violated expectations? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 842-854.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Song, P. K., Li, M., & Yuan, Y. (2009). Joint Regression Analysis of Correlated Data Using

Gaussian Copulas. Biometrics, 65(1), 60-68

Stoker, J.I., Rink, F., Ryan, M.K., & Nederveen Pieterse, A. (2011) The impact of leadership

on leaders: The importance of interacting leadership styles of leaders and their

superiors for affective work outcomes of transformational leaders.

Tirangala, S., Green, S.G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss’s boss:

Effects of managers’ upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 309-320.

Tse, H.H.M., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Dasborough, M.T. (2012) Relative leader-member

exchange, negative affectivity and social identification: a moderated-mediation

examination. Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 354-366.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A Critical Assessment of Charismatic—

Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?. Academy Of

Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.

Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,

(33)

32

Wood, M.T., & Sobel, R.S. (1970). Effects of similarity of leadership style at two levels of

management on the job satisfaction of the first level manager. Personnel Psychology,

23, 577 – 590.

Xu, S., Cavusgil, S.T., & White, J.C. (2006). The impact of strategic fit among strategy,

structure, and processes on multinational corporation performance: a multimethod

assessment. Journal of International Marketing, 14(2), 1-31.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Zizzo, D. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental

(34)

33 APPENDIX A: TABLES

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables

(35)

34

TABLE 1 - CONTINUED

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables

(36)

35

TABLE 1 - CONTINUED

Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among the Study Variables

(37)

36 TABLE 2

Leader-Superior Fit Transformational Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad -.01 .01 -.02* .01 -.02* .01 Branche .13 .18 .31 .18 .33 .18 Age leader .00 .02 .01 .02 .01 .02 Age superior -.01 .02 -.00 .01 .00 .01 Gender leader .44 .32 .45 .30 .62* .31 Gender superior -.20 .34 -.44 .33 -.44 .33 Management level leader -.01 .39 -.15 .38 -.40 .39 Management level superior -.66 .37 -.46 .36 -.18 .38 Main effects TFL leader .34* .15 .33* .15 TFL superior .23 .16 .31 .17 Two-way interactions TFL leader * TFL Superior 0.38* 0.19 TFL leader * TA superior -0.33 0.19 R2 (Adjusted R2) .29 (.20)** .39 (.28)* .43 (.31) ∆R2 .29 .10 .04

(38)

37 TABLE 3

Leader-Superior Fit Transactional Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Branche .13 .18 .18 .18 .19 .17 Age leader .00 .02 .01 .02 .01 .02 Age superior -.01 .02 -.01 .02 -.01 .02 Gender leader .44 .32 .49 .32 .53 .31 Gender superior -.20 .34 -.23 .34 -.20 .33 Management level leader -.01 .39 -.02 .38 -.01 .37 Management level superior -.66 .37 -.61 .36 -.66 .37 Main effects TA leader -.02 .15 -.04 .15 TA superior .30* .14 .27 .14 Two-way interactions TA leader * TA superior 0.06 0.20 TA leader * TFL superior -0.36 0.20 R2 (Adjusted R2) .29 (.20)** .34 (.23) .39 (.26) ∆R2 .29 .05 .05

(39)

38 TABLE 4

Identification Transformational Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad -.02** .01 -.24** .01 -.03** .01 Branche .23** .15 .43** .14 .42** .14 Age leader -.01 .01 -.00 .01 -.00 .01 Age superior -.02 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Gender leader .37 .27 .40 .24 .48 .25 Gender superior .11 .29 -.16 .26 -.19 .26 Management level leader .13 .33 -.04 .30 -.21 .31 Management level superior -.33 .31 -.07 .29 .13 .31 Main effects TFL leader .36** .12 .34* .12 TFL superior .31* .13 .39** .13 Two-way interactions TFL leader * TFL Superior .29* .15 TFL leader * TA superior -.16 .15 R2 (Adjusted R2) .43 (.36)** .58 (.50)** .60 (.52) ∆R2 .41 .14 .03

(40)

39 TABLE 5

Identification Transactional Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad -.02** .01 -.02** .01 -0.02** .01 Branche .23 .15 .29* .15 .30* .15 Age leader -.01 .01 -.00 .01 -.00 .01 Age superior -.02 .01 -.01 .01 -.02 .01 Gender leader .37 .27 .43 .26 .45 .26 Gender superior .11 .29 .08 .28 .10 .28 Management level leader .13 .33 .12 .32 .13 .32 Management level superior -.33 .32 -.27 .30 -.30 .31 Main effects TA leader -.03 .13 -.04 .13 TA superior .35** .12 .33* .12 Two-way interactions TA leader * TA superior .04 .17 TA leader * TFL superior -.21 .17 R2 (Adjusted R2) .43 (.36)** .51 (.42)* .52 (.43) ∆R2 .43 .08 .02

(41)

40 TABLE 6

Satisfaction Transformational Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01* .01 Branche .25 .17 .38* .17 .36* .17 Age leader -.00 .02 .00 .02 -.00 .01 Age superior -.02 .01 -.02 .01 -.01 .01 Gender leader .14 .30 .15 .29 .24 .30 Gender superior .06 .32 -.12 .32 -.19 .31 Management level leader .66 .37 .55 .37 .34 .38 Management level superior -.44 .35 -.28 .35 -.02 .37 Main effects TFL leader .24 .14 .20 .14 TFL superior .20 .16 .30 .16 Two-way interactions TFL leader * TFL Superior 0.40* 0.18 TFL leader * TA superior -0.17 0.18 R2 (Adjusted R2) .24 (.14)* .31 (.19) .37 (.24) ∆R2 .24 .07 .07

(42)

41 TABLE 7

Satisfaction Transactional Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Branche .25 .17 .26 .17 .29 .17 Age leader -.00 .02 .00 .02 .00 .02 Age superior -.02 .01 -.02 .01 -.02 .01 Gender leader .14 .30 .10 .30 .10 .30 Gender superior .06 .32 .11 .32 .08 .32 Management level leader .66 .37 .64 .36 .64 .36 Management level superior -.44 .35 -.43 .34 -.50 .36 Main effects TA leader -.21 .14 -.22 .15 TA superior .23 .13 .23 .14 Two-way interactions TA leader * TA superior 0.16 0.20 TA leader * TFL superior -0.21 0.19 R2 (Adjusted R2) .24 (.14)* .29 (.17) .31 (.16) ∆R2 .24 .05 .01

(43)

42 TABLE 8

Self-Efficacy Transformational Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad .00 .01 -.00 .00 -.01 .01 Branche -.06 .11 .07 .11 .08 .11 Age leader -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Age superior -.01 .01 -.00 .01 .00 .01 Gender leader -.22 .20 -.24 .18 -.14 .19 Gender superior .33 .21 .16 .20 .15 .20 Management level leader .14 .25 .17 .23 .00 .24 Management level superior .10 .24 .12 .22 .30 .24 Main effects TFL leader .34** .09 .33** .09 TFL superior -.06 .10 -.01 .10 Two-way interactions TFL leader * TFL Superior 0.25* 0.12 TFL leader * TA superior -0.20 0.12 R2 (Adjusted R2) .10 (-.01) .27 (.15)** .32 (.18) ∆R2 .10 .17 .06

(44)

43 TABLE 9

Self-Efficacy Transactional Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 Branche -.06 .11 -.04 .11 -.06 .12 Age leader -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Age superior -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Gender leader -.22 .20 -.19 .21 -.17 .21 Gender superior .33 .21 .30 .22 .35 .22 Management level leader .14 .25 .14 .25 .15 .25 Management level superior .10 .24 .12 .24 .17 .24 Main effects TA leader .04 .10 .05 .10 TA superior .08 .09 .06 .09 Two-way interactions TA leader * TA superior -.13 .14 TA leader * TFL superior .00 .13 R2 (Adjusted R2) .10 (-.01) .12 (-.03) .14 (-.04) ∆R2 .10 .02 .03

(45)

44 TABLE 10

Self-esteem Transformational Leader

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B SE B SE B SE Controls Dyad .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 Branche -.06 .13 -.04 .14 -.02 .14 Age leader -.00 .01 -.00 .01 -.00 .01 Age superior -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Gender leader -.20 .24 -.19 .24 -.04 .24 Gender superior .30 .25 .28 .26 .29 .26 Management level leader .21 .29 .13 .30 -.09 .31 Management level superior .12 .28 .20 .29 .44 .30 Main effects TFL leader -.02 .12 -.03 .12 TFL superior .13 .13 .19 .13 Two-way interactions TFL leader * TFL Superior 0.32* 0.15 TFL leader * TA superior -0.30* 0.15 R2 (Adjusted R2) .07 (-.07) .08 (-.07) .16(-.02) ∆R2 .07 .02 .08

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The fact that the clown (or preacher) embodies human frailty does not, however, mean that he (or she) is innocuous, or merely a figure whom you can laugh at and leave it at that.. As

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of

This figure shows that most mature teams have a leader with the transactional leadership style as the prominent style and the transformational leadership style as

[r]

Results indicate that there are six dimensions of leadership, of which three are positively related to performance over time: contingent reward; active management by exception;

Therefore, the extent to which people behave (un)ethical after witnessing an unethical leader is mediated by trust when the enacted leadership style is transformational:

Wanneer 'n persoon ander vergewe vir die pyn en seer wat hulle homlhaar aangedoen het, beteken dit dat so 'n persoon self verantwoordelikheid vir sylhaar lewe

In die metodologie van hierdie studie, waar ondersoek word hoe die bejaarde (wat 'n volwasse kind op 'n onnatuurlike wyse aan die dood afgestaan het) met behulp van pastorale