Leadership Interactions and Performance:
The interacting effect of leadership styles of leaders and their superiors on affective work responses and self-perceived performance.
Date:
July 1, 2012
E.H. Bolt
Student number: s1621742 University of Groningen
MSc HRM, Faculty of Economics and Business Saffierstraat 28
9743 LH Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 28 43 66 05 E-mail: elliebolt@gmail.com
First Supervisor:
Dr. F.A. Rink
Second Supervisor:
Dr. L.B. Mulder
Acknowledgement: First of all, I would like to thank all the managers that participated in this
research. Second, I would want to thank my supervisor Floor Rink, who patiently answered all
my questions. A special thanks to Jeff Shoulak who took the time to sit down and read my thesis
to give me feedback and advice. And finally, I want to thank my parents, siblings and friends for
all their support and love during my studies and their never ending faith in my abilities.
Abstract
Leaders in organization are in most cases not only leaders, but they are also followers of a superior. This research focused on how this relation did affect affective work responses and self- perceived performance of transformational and transactional leaders. A questionnaire was filled out by 160 leaders. The results of this research proved that transformational leaders are less satisfied, motivated, committed and perform less when they had a transactional superior, while transactional leaders were unaffected by the leadership style of their superior. Furthermore, it proved that affective work responses do mediate the relation with the interaction of leader superior on the one hand and self-perceived performance on the other hand. Satisfaction and motivation of transformational leaders positively affected their self-perceived performance as long as they had a similar transformational superior. This research helps us understand that it is important to invest in a match between a transformational leader and a transformational superior to increase performance.
KEYWORDS: TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP, LEADER-SUPERIOR INTERACTION, IDENTIFICATION, SATISFACTION,
MOTIVATION, COMMITMENT, LEADER-SUPERIOR FIT, PERFORMANCE.
Leadership Interactions and Performance:
The interacting effect of leadership styles of leaders and their superiors on affective work responses and self-perceived performance.
‘When a team outgrows individual performance and learns team confidence, excellence becomes a reality’ – Joe Paterno, American Football Coach
Organizations are constantly looking for possibilities to increase their overall
performance, especially now, in order to recover from the recent financial crisis. One way of achieving this is to enhance effective leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Yukl, 2010). A new item in this field of research is the interaction between leaders, referred to as the leader-leader concept (Bedell-Avers, Hunter, Angie, Eubanks, & Mumford, 2009) or the leader-leader exchange (LLX) (Tangirala, Green, & Ramanujam, 2007). Tangirala, Green and Ramanujam (2007) suggest that the interaction of a superior leader with lower leaders strongly affects the lower leader. This shows that leaders are often not exclusively leaders, but are followers themselves as well.
This influence of a superior on leaders has been investigated more into depth by Stoker, Rink, Ryan and Nederveen Pieterse (2011), with a focus on two leadership styles:
transformational leadership and transactional leadership. They proved that the organizational commitment, motivation and self-efficacy of transformational leaders are impacted by the style of their superiors, while the commitment, motivation and self-efficacy of transactional leaders were not. This can be explained by the interdependence of the transformational leader, who relies more on the behavior of his followers as well as on the behavior of his superior. The
transactional leader is not affected by a superior to the same extent because of his or her
independent focus on his or her work and tasks at hand. A conclusion drawn from two studies by Stoker and colleagues (2011) is that the leadership style of a superior is clearly more important to transformational leaders than to transactional leaders. However, given that the studies were partly conducted amongst students imagining hypothetical leadership situations, further research is necessary to prove that the results can be ratified at the work place.
My research will draw from this work. It is my aim to demonstrate that the moderating impact of a superior’s leadership style on the self-perceived performance of leaders with a transformational leadership style exists in the field. I will argue that there is indeed an impact of the superior’s leadership style on transformational leaders, because of their tendency to
interrelate with others, while there will be no impact of the superior’s leadership style on
transactional leaders, because of their focus on the task at hand. Furthermore, I want to state that the affective work responses will have a mediating effect on the moderated relation of the interaction between the leader and the superior and the self-perceived performance of
transformational leaders, but it will not mediate the performance of transactional leaders. First, I will explain the main concepts of transactional leadership and transformational leadership. Then I will clarify the relation between the affective work responses and performance.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Transformational and Transactional leadership
Theories about transformational and transactional leadership have been strongly
influenced by Burns (1978). These theories have been further developed and researched by Bass
(1985, 1997, 2003). The four main components he defined for transformational leadership are
inspirational motivation, idealized influence or charisma, individualized consideration and
intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1997; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Inspirational motivation can
be defined as the behavior of the leader that shows the expectation for excellence, quality and high performance of his or her followers (Bass, 1997). Idealized influence is the act of being a personal example as a leader through the behavior of making sacrifices for the benefit of the group and demonstrating high ethical standards (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Individualized consideration is explained by Wang and Howell (2010) as the effort of paying attention to the need for achievement of individuals by acting as a coach or mentor and providing opportunities for followers to learn. The final component, intellectual stimulation, is the act of encouraging followers to participate actively by reframing problems, questioning assumptions and allowing and encouraging them to think out of the box (Bass, & Riggio, 2006). These four components of transformational leaders demonstrate that these leaders have the ability to indicate feelings, needs and requirements of his or her followers and superior.
Bass (1997) gives three components that are essential to transactional leadership:
contingent reward, active management by exception and passive management by exception. The
component of contingent reward explains the rewarding behavior of a transactional leader. He or
she will clarify his or her expectations about a given task as well as the rewards that will be
received if the task is performed according to the expectations (Bass, 1985). The other two
components are active or passive management by exception. These components explain the
moment of intervention by the leader, which is active intervention when a leader intervenes
before deviations have occurred and passive when a leader intervenes after the deviations have
already occurred (Bass, 1997). These components indicate that the transactional leader will focus
on the task and might neglect their followers and superiors.
Superior Style and Self Leader Style
According to Yukl (2010) transformational leadership can be influenced by organizations and superiors by using internalization. He defines internalization as the act of an agent to align his or her proposal to the underlying values and beliefs of the follower. This is in line with inspirational motivation, one of the main components of transformational leadership, which does include the effort to link the task to the values and ideals of the follower. To be able to make this alignment requires a high level of personal identification. Conger and Kanungo (1998) confirm that personal identification is one of the main characteristics of a transformational leader. A high level of identification does not only hold for the relation between the leader and his or her
followers, but as well for the relation between the transformational leader and his or her superior.
For this reason, it is likely that transformational leaders are more sensitive to how their own superior is treating them and if there is a fit or misfit between them and their superior. Therefore, it is important to these leaders that they and their superiors have a shared vision on how
followers should be guided and motivated (Stoker et al., 2011). This is why it can be argued that the leadership style of the superior will have an impact on the outcome of the affective work responses, such as satisfaction, motivation and commitment of transformational leaders.
The focus of the transactional leader is on the rules and the goals of the organization (Yukl, 2010). When this focus is combined with the three components of transactional
leadership, it can be stated that a transactional leadership is task-oriented. The leader will focus
on the outcome of the tasks of his followers as well as on the outcome of the tasks that he or she
received from his or her superior. Therefore, it is likely that transactional leaders are more
concerned about the actual outcome of their performance and less concerned about the
interpersonal relation between themselves and others, including their superiors. Yukl (2010)
confirms this, stating that the most important manner to influence transactional leaders is through
instrumental compliance. This is defined as the action of carrying ‘out a requested action for the purpose of obtaining tangible reward or avoiding a punishment’ (Yukl, 2010). Hence, the leadership style of the superior will have no impact on the affective work responses of a transactional leader.
The theories about transformational and transactional leadership lead to the following hypothesis, which is illustrated in the conceptual model in Figure 1 of Appendix B:
H1: The superior style will moderate the relationship between one’s own leadership style and affective work responses, such that this style is more important for
transformational leaders than for transactional leaders.
Affective Work Responses and Self-Perceived Performance
Tangirala, Green and Ramanujam (2007) found in their research that the relation between a leader and his or her superior did moderate perceptual attitudinal measures. Then they
proposed that as this relation moderated perceptual attitudinal measures, it also might influence affective work responses. This has been proven in the research by Stoker and colleagues (2011) for organizational commitment and motivation. For these affective work responses a mediating affect on performance has already been found. Vandenabeele (2007) found that organizational commitment and satisfaction indeed had a mediating affect on performance in his study.
Moreover, motivation was found to be a mediator in the relation between autonomy support and
performance in a research by Halvari, Ulstad, Bagøien and Skjesol (2009). The other two
affective work responses that are studied in this research, anticipated identification and leader-
superior fit, also have proven to have a mediating affect on performance. Tse, Askanasy and
Dasborough (2009) found that identification mediated the relationship between the relative
leader-member exchange and job performance. Xu, Cavusgil and White (2006) found a
mediation effect of strategic fit on multinational corporate performance. While the final research on strategic fit is not measuring precisely the leader-superior fit, it does raise the assumption that this fit might also have a mediating affect on performance.
These previous studies have proven that a mediating relation does exist between the affective work responses and performance. The four components of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, idealized influence or charisma, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1997; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), indicate that identification, satisfaction, motivation, commitment and fit might be of importance to the transformational leader. Therefore, I expect that these affective work responses will mediate the self-perceived performance of these leaders. By contrast, as the three components of transactional leadership contingent reward, active management by exception and passive management by exception (Bass, 1997) emphasize the task orientation of the transactional leader, I do not expect these affective work responses to mediate the self-perceived performance of transactional leaders.
These two assumptions can be summarized into the next hypothesis, which is illustrated in the conceptual model in Figure 2 of Appendix B:
H2: There will be a moderated mediation of the superior style and the affective work responses on the self-perceived performance of transformational leaders, while there will be no moderated mediation affect on the self-perceived performance of transactional leaders.
METHOD Design and Participants
I applied a 2 (Leadership style self: Transformational vs. Transactional) by 2 (Leadership
style superior; Transformational vs. Transactional) between participants experimental design in
which a total of 180 respondents participated. A requirement for the participants to participate in this research was to have leadership experience; participants without leadership experience were deleted from the sample. Furthermore, all of the participants had work experience for longer than one year as well as experience with a superior. In total 20 participants were deleted from the sample, resulting in a final sample of 160 participants. This final sample of participants was represented by 93 (59%) male and 65 (41%) female respondents and had an average age of 38.7 years (SD = 11.9). 4.6% of the participants described themselves to be high-level managers in terms of seniority, 28.9% described themselves to be middle-level managers and 66.4%
described to be lower-level managers.
Experimental Procedure
A high amount of leaders were approached by email social media or in person to participate in this research. Participants filled out the questionnaire online through
thesistools.com or on paper (for the questionnaire see Appendix C). Participants were randomly
assigned to one of the two scenarios about either a transformational superior or a transactional
superior. First, they were asked to answer questions about their own leadership style on a
transformational or transactional scale. Then the definitions for both transformational and
transactional leadership were presented and the participants were asked to indicate whether they
thought they mostly used the transformational or transactional style. After indicating their own
leadership style, a scenario was presented describing the style of a superior. Subsequently, the
participants had to answer questions on my dependent measures. The questionnaire took about
20 minutes to complete. The participants were thanked for their time and their participation and
had the possibility to request the final results of the research. Participation was voluntary, no
other reimbursements were granted for participation.
Manipulation of own leadership style
To indicate to which extent participants engaged with the transformational leadership style a 23-item scale was used. This scale has been developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990;
Cronbach’s α = 0.86). Questions from this scale were, for example, “I lead by example”, “I show respect for personal feelings of others” and “I challenge others to think about old problems in new ways”. The engagement of participants with the transactional leadership style was measured by six items from the Charismatic Leadership in Organizations Questionnaire (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopmans, 2005; α = 0.87). This is in line with the work of Stoker and colleagues (2011). Items for the transactional scale were, for example, “I clearly state what others can expect to receive, when they do as is required” and “I tell others what they have to do to be rewarded for their efforts”.
When the participants had finished the questions on their own leadership style, they were
presented with a short definition of both the transactional and the transformational leadership
styles. Transformational leadership was defined as: “Invoking high norms and values to motivate
their subordinates. They treat their subordinates in an emotional and personal manner. These
leaders often put to discussion how things are organized within the organization.” Transactional
leadership was defined as: “Using rewarding systems to motivate their subordinates. They
control and are action-oriented. It is important to these leaders to achieve their goals within the
existing structure and culture of the organization.” Participants were asked to indicate in a check
box which style they thought they applied in their own leadership. This check box should create
awareness of their own leadership style. 116 participants indicated to be a transformational
leader, 35 participants indicated to be a transactional leader, 9 participants did not indicate a
leadership style.
Manipulation of superior leadership style
Next, participants were given a short scenario about their superior. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the scenarios, 46% received a scenario about a transformational superior and 54% received the scenario about a transactional superior. The scenario for a transformational superior was presented as follows: “Imagine that your superior to whom you have to report is a transformational leader. He or she cares a lot about the norms and values and uses these to motivate you. He or she deals with you in a personal manner and is not afraid to show emotions as well as interest in how you are doing and/or feeling. He or she often questions the status quo within the organization and wants everyone to openly talk about the situation and if changes are required” The scenario about a transactional superior was presented as: “Imagine that your superior to whom you have to report is a transactional leader. He or she uses reward systems to motivate you. He or she controls the situation and is action-oriented. To him or her it is important that you achieve the goals that have been set and to do this within the established culture and structure of the organization.”
Later on in the questionnaire the participants were asked to indicate if they remembered in which situation they were placed through the scenario. They were asked to indicate through check in a check box, as developed by Stoker et al (2011), if the presented superior used the transformational or transactional leadership style.
Dependent Measures
After the participants indicated their own leadership style and were informed about their
alleged superiors style, they were asked to indicate their anticipated identification, satisfaction,
motivation, commitment, fit and performance in that particular scenario. All measures were
obtained on 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) and
presented to the participants in the following order.
Anticipated Identification. After the scenario and the indication of a similar or different leadership style, the participants were asked to indicate to what extent they identified themselves with the given superior, by answering items such as “Do you think that you have many things in common with your superior?” and “Do you expect to identify with your superior?”. This was tested within a set of five questions developed by Rink & Ellemers (2006; 2007; α = 0.92).
Satisfaction. In a two-item scale satisfaction was measured, questioning “To what extent are you happy with your superior” and “To what extent are you satisfied with your superior”
(Stoker et al., 2011; α = 0.94).
Work motivation. This variable is measured by a 4-item scale based on the work from Ellemers et al (1999; α = 0.90). Examples of items of this scale are “You are motivated to work for you superior” and “You will do your utmost best for your superior”.
Organizational commitment. Then the participants were asked to indicate their
commitment to the organization and superior in the given situation. “This is the best organization for me to work for” and “You proudly tell others that you work for this organization” are
examples of the four items of Mowday, Steers and Porter’s ‘Organizational commitment questionnaire’ that measure this commitment (1979; α = 0.93).
Leader-Superior Fit. The 3-item scale from Cable and DeRue (2002; α = 0.94) was used to measure the leader-superior fit of the participants. The items are (1) “The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my superior values”, (2) “My personal values match my superior’s values and culture” and (3) “My superior’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life”.
Self-Perceived Performance. The self-efficacy scale as used by Stoker and colleagues
(2011) was replaced by a 5-item scale measuring self-perceived performance of the respondents.
The participants had to indicate whether they agreed that they (1) “are on the top end of the company’s rating scale”, (2) “if they are often congratulated on the quality of their work”, (3) “if they have a highly successful association with their employer”, (4) “if they highly rate their own performance” and (5) “if their superiors complained about their performance the last year (R)”
(Bennett, 2011; α = 0.65). Although the reliability of self-reported performance can be criticized, Bennett (2011) argues that there is a substantial volume of researches that support ‘the
proposition that self-assessments of this nature provide valid and reasonably reliable measures of actual achievement’. This is in line with the conclusion of the study of Franks et al (1999) that states that self-reported performance was often more accurate than the performance ratings provided by others.
Control variables. The control variables used in the questionnaire were age, gender, work experience, level of leadership, gender of superior, level of leadership of the superior, the
percentage of women within the organization and percentage of women at leadership positions within the organization.
RESULTS Manipulation Checks
It was found that 32% of the respondents were not able to correctly indicate their own leadership style, that is, the choice made in the check box did not match their answers to the transformational and transactional scales. Evidently, people find it difficult to discern from these questions what their own dominant style actually is – some who indicated that they were
primarily transformational on the scales later on said that they were transactional, but most of the
individuals who were transactional according to the existing scales themselves believed to be
transformational. As for the superior style, 47% of the respondents also answered incorrectly to
the question with what kind of leadership style of the superior they were dealing, suggesting that they had their own superior in mind, rather than the alleged superior presented to them in the scenario.
Means and Correlations
Table 1 (Appendix A) shows the means, standard deviations and correlations among the different dependent and independent variables. The correlations demonstrate that all mediators (Anticipated Identification, Satisfaction, Motivation, Commitment, Leader-Superior Fit) do correlate with each other and with the ultimate independent variable Performance. All mediators did correlate to both transformational and transactional leadership styles of the respondents.
Transformational leadership was positively related to the control variables of work experience (r
= 1.22, p = <.05) and function experience (r = .70, p = <.05). Transactional leadership was positively related to function experience (r = 1.15, p = <.05),
Dependent Measures
Due to the fact that the manipulation did not function, the interaction between the styles of the respondents and the style given in the scenario could not be analyzed using the built-in-
manipulation. Therefore, first, a set of ANOVAs was executed based on the answers given by the respondents, indicating their own leadership style, assuming this was the style they had in mind while answering the questionnaire. The independent factors for the ANOVA were thus the self- indicated leader leadership style and the superior leadership style. Second, regression analyses were performed based on the results from the transformational and transactional scales. The hierarchical regressions were performed on the standardized results of the scales on
transformational and transactional leadership (Aiken & West, 1991). First, the two leadership
styles of the leaders and the two styles of the superiors were entered. Then the interaction terms
between the personal styles of the leaders and the styles of the superiors were added. This procedure was performed for all mediators and the ultimate dependent variable (Appendix A, Table 3 - 8).
The ANOVA analysis found significant results for organizational commitment and leader-superior fit. Because these findings were in line with the findings of the hierarchical regression analyses, I decided to focus on the results of the latter analysis to maintain the overall focus on the results found in this study. The results of the ANOVA are presented in Table 2 of Appendix A.
Note that in a set of preliminary analyses, I tested whether the control variables – age, gender, work experience, level of leadership, gender of superior, level of leadership of the superior, percentage of women within the organization and percentage of women at leadership positions within the organization - significantly affected the influence of the independent factors on any of my dependent measures. This was not the case.
Anticipated Identification. The performed hierarchical regression did reveal significant effects for anticipated identification. Before the interactions were taken into account, the
transactional leadership style, the transformational leadership style and the leadership style of the
superior were significantly predicting anticipated identification. Therefore, respondents having a
higher level of transactional leadership (b = .24, p = .03) as well as those having a higher level
of transformational leadership (b = .36, p = .00) anticipated that they would identify more
strongly with their superior than those low on both styles. Furthermore, having a superior with a
transactional style was expected to result in lower levels of anticipated identification than having
a superior with a transformational style (b = -.33, p = .00).
Adding the interaction terms, however, did add significant value to the overall model (ΔR² = .09*). A simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) was performed. As can be seen in Figure 3 (Appendix B), leaders who are high on transactional leadership (one standard deviation above the mean) had a higher level of anticipated identification with a transactional superior (b=
.79, β = .51, p = .00). The anticipated identification with a transformational superior is always high, whether the leader is high or low on transactional leadership. Figure 4 demonstrates the interaction for the transformational leader with his or her superior. Leaders high on
transformational leadership do have a higher level of anticipated identification with a
transformational superior (b= -.58, β = -.33, p = .00). Furthermore, neither leaders that are high on transformational leadership, nor leaders that are low on transformational leadership identify with a transactional superior. These results do not support hypothesis 1, however, are in line with the theory about fit.
Satisfaction. The regression analysis performed for satisfaction yielded significant main and interaction effects. Before taking the interactions into account, transactional leadership and the leadership style of the superior significantly predicted satisfaction. Respondents with a high level of transactional leadership were more satisfied with their leader than respondents low in transactional leadership (b = .42, p = .00). On average though, the respondents were less satisfied with a transactional superior than with a transformational superior (b = -.44, p = .00).
Importantly, the interactions did add significant value to the model (ΔR² = .05*). As
illustrated in Figure 5, leaders high on transformational leadership are more satisfied with a
transformational superior than with a transactional superior (b= -.61, β = -.34, p = .00). As in line
with the theory, the level of satisfaction of leaders using a transactional leadership style was not
affected by the superior’s style (b= .33, β = .21, p = .11). Therefore, these findings support hypothesis 1.
Work Motivation. A similar pattern was found for motivation; transactional leadership had a significant relation to motivation, as was the superior’s style. Thus, respondents who were high on transactional leadership anticipated to be more motivated to work for their superior than those low in transactional leadership (b = .33, p = .00). Yet, on average, the leaders were less motivated to work for a transactional leader than for a transformational leader (b = -.20, p = .01).
Adding the interaction added significant value to the overall model (ΔR² = .04*). A simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) demonstrated, as is illustrated in Figure 6, that leaders high on transformational leadership are more motivated with a similar transformational superior than those low in transformational leadership. Moreover, high transformational leaders were less motivated with a transactional superior than leaders low in transformational leadership (b= -.48, β = -.33, p = .01). In line with the theory, leaders with a transactional leadership style were not affected by the leadership style of their superior (b= .23, β = .18, p = .19). Therefore, these findings again supported hypothesis 1.
Organizational Commitment. Performing the hierarchical regression for commitment
resulted in significant main effects for transactional leadership, transformational leadership and
the leadership style of the superior before the interaction was taken into account. Being high on
transactional leadership (b = .40, p = .00) or being high on transformational leadership (b = .28,
p = .02) led to the assumption of respondents that they were more committed to the organization
than those who scored low on transactional or transformational leadership. However, on average
the respondents anticipated a lower level of organizational commitment when they were working
for a transactional superior than for a transformational superior (b =-.27, p = .01).
Importantly, when the interaction was added to the model, significant value was added to the overall model (ΔR² = .04*). Supporting hypothesis 1, results demonstrate that after adding the interaction only a significant interaction effect was found for the relation between the
transformational leader and his or her superior (b= -.54, β = -.29, p = .01). As is demonstrated in Figure 7, leaders high on transformational leadership do assume they will have a higher level of commitment with a similar transformational superior than those low on transformational
leadership. Having a transactional superior does not have any influence on the transformational leader’s commitment. In line with the theory, no significant effect was found for the interaction between a transactional leader and the style of his or her superior (b= .43, β = .26, p = .05). The leadership style of the superior therefore does not influence the level of motivation of the leader.
Leader-Superior Fit. The described hierarchical regression analysis was performed on leader-superior fit. Before the interactions were taken into account, a significant main effect was found for transactional leadership and the leadership style of the superior. The regression
demonstrated that respondents who scored high on transactional leadership anticipated a better fit with their superior than those low on transactional leadership (b = .27, p = .04). Yet, on average the respondents expected a better leader-superior fit with a transformational superior than with a transactional superior (b =- .22, p = .05).
Significant value was added to the model when the interactions were taken into account (ΔR² = .08*). Significant interactions were found for both transactional and transformational superiors and their superior. Another simple slopes analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) was
performed to understand the nature of the interactions. Figure 8 illustrates that leaders who were high on transactional leadership anticipated a better fit with a similar transactional superior (b=
.84, β = .49, p = .00). Leaders who were high on transformational leadership anticipated a better
fit with a similar transformational superior (b= -.54, β = -.27, p = .02), as is illustrated in Figure 9. These results are not in line with hypothesis 1, but can be explained by the overall fit theory.
Self-Perceived Performance. The performed regression revealed a main effect for transformational leadership. Respondents with a high level of transformational leadership had a higher level of self-perceived performance than respondents with a low level of transactional leadership (b = .23, p = .00).
Importantly, the interaction terms added significant value to the overall model (ΔR²
=.05*). A significant interaction effect was found for transformational leaders and the leadership style of their superior. Figure 10 shows that respondents high on transformational leadership anticipated higher self-perceived performance with a similar transformational superior, while having a transactional superior did not change their expectations on performance (b= -.37, β = - .34, p = .01). This is in line with the theory and does support hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 1 is as well supported by the insignificant result for the interaction between transactional leaders and the leadership style of their superiors (b= .19, β = .20, p = .16).
Moderated Mediation
To test whether the different affective work responses (anticipated identification, satisfaction, work motivation, organizational commitment, leader-superior fit) had a mediating affect on the relationship between the leader-superior interactions and performance, I used the Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping methods (Model 7, 1000 bootstrapping sample sizes).
Importantly, the conditional indirect effect estimates should reveal that this pattern only occurs
for transformational respondents, and not for transactional respondents. The results of these
bootstrap tests are summarized in Table 9 – 13 of Appendix A.
Anticipated identification. First, I tested the indirect effect of anticipated identification for performance by entering into the model the leadership style of the leader as the independent variable, the leadership style of the superior as moderator and anticipated identification as
mediator. Although the anticipated identification was added to mediate the relation, the results of this analysis demonstrated that the direct effect of transformational leadership of a leader on self- perceived performance remained (b = .16, SE = .06, p = .00). However, the conditional indirect effect estimates revealed that anticipated identification does mediate the relation between the interaction term of transformational respondents and their superiors and the self-perceived performance of these respondents (transformational superior: Boot β = .09, SE = .03, LLCI95 = .04, ULCI95 = .16; transactional superior: Boot β = .05, SE = .03, LLCI95 = .01, ULCI95 = .12).
The results for transactional leadership of the leaders demonstrated that the direct effect of this leadership style on self-perceived performance dropped significantly (b = .10, SE = .06, p = .07). The conditional indirect effect estimates demonstrated that for a transactional leader the level of identification does mediate his or her self-perceived performance when he or she was presented with a transactional superior (Boot β = .11, SE = .04, LLCI95 = .05, ULCI95 = .19), but not when he or she was presented with a transformational superior (Boot β = .04, SE = .03, LLCI95 = -.00, ULCI95 = .11). These results partly support hypothesis 2. While the mediation effect does exist on self-perceived performance, it does exist for transformational leaders as well as for transactional leaders. Furthermore, this effect is even more specific for transactional leaders, because it only holds for transactional leaders with a transactional superior.
Satisfaction. The same procedure was performed for satisfaction. While satisfaction was added as a mediator, the direct effect of transformational leadership on self-perceived
performance remained (b = .19, SE = .05, p = .00). Although the direct effect remained, the
indirect effect estimates demonstrated that satisfaction did have a significant indirect effect.
When a transformational respondent was presented with a similar transformational superior, his or her level of satisfaction had a positive mediating effect on their self-perceived performance (Boot β = .08, SE =.03, LLCI95 = .04, ULCI95 = .15). But when a transformational respondent was presented with a different transactional superior, his or her level did not affect the self- perceived performance (Boot β = -.00, SE = .04, LLCI95 = -.08, ULCI95 = .07). For transactional respondents the direct effect of transactional leadership on self-perceived performance was not significant (b = .10, SE = .06, p = .07). The conditional indirect effect estimates demonstrated that there was indeed a mediating effect for transactional leaders in both cases, presented either with a transformational or a transactional superior (transformational superior: Boot β = .08, SE = .03, LLCI95 = .03, ULCI95 = .16; transactional superior: Boot β = .10, SE = .04, LLCI95 = .04, ULCI95 = .18). These results are partly in line with the
expectations of hypothesis 2. It does support the expected mediating effect; however, the effect was not expected for transactional leaders.
Work Motivation. A third moderated mediation analysis was performed for motivation and a similar pattern as for satisfaction was found. The direct effect on self-perceived
performance of transformational leaders remained (b = .12, SE = .05, p = .07). However,
transformational respondents who were presented with a transformational superior did have
significant results for the indirect effect estimates. Their level of work motivation positively
mediated their self-perceived performance (Boot β = .15, SE =.04, LLCI95 = .08, ULCI95 =
.24). But when transformational respondents were presented with a transactional superior, the
mediating affect did not exist (Boot β = .07, SE = .06, LLCI95 = -.05, ULCI95 = .19). The direct
effect for transactional leaders on self-perceived performance was insignificant (b = .04, SE =
.05, p = .41). According to the conditional indirect effect estimates, a mediated relation existed for transactional leaders with both transactional and transformational superiors (transformational superior: Boot β = .13, SE = .04, LLCI95 = .06, ULCI95 = .22; transactional superior: Boot β = .15, SE = .05, LLCI95 = .06, ULCI95 = .26). These findings do support the expectation that a mediating effect would exist for transformational leaders. However, a mediating effect was also found for transactional leaders.
Organizational Commitment. The moderated mediation analysis for organizational commitment revealed that the direct effect of transformational leadership on self-perceived performance remains (b = .14, SE = .06, p = .01). However, besides the direct effect, the indirect effect estimates were significant as well, demonstrating a mediating effect of organizational commitment on self-perceived performance (transformational superior: Boot β = .12, SE =.04, LLCI95 = .05, ULCI95 = .21; transactional superior: Boot β = .07, SE = .04, LLCI95 = .01, ULCI95 = .16). No direct effect was found for transactional leadership on self-perceived performance, when the mediator was added to the model (b = .09, SE = .06, p = .09).
Conditional indirect effect estimates demonstrated that this relation was mediated by
organizational commitment, regardless of the style of the superior (transformational superior:
Boot β = .09, SE =.05, LLCI95 = .02, ULCI95 = .20; transactional superior: Boot β = .09, SE = .04, LLCI95 = .03, ULCI95 = .19).
Leader-Superior Fit. A final moderated mediation analysis was performed for leader- superior fit. The direct effect of transformational leadership on self-perceived performance remained (b = .18, SE = .05, p = .00). Beside the direct effect, the conditional indirect effect estimates demonstrated that for transformational respondents who were presented with a
transformational superior, the leader-superior fit did have a positive mediating effect on the self-
perceived performance of the respondents (Boot β = .08, SE =.03, LLCI95 = .03, ULCI95 = .15).
When transformational respondents were confronted with a transactional superior, there was no mediating effect on self-perceived performance (Boot β = .04, SE = .04, LLCI95 = -.04, ULCI95
= .11). When leader-superior fit was added as a mediator to the model, the direct effect of
transactional leadership on self-perceived performance remained significant (b = .14, SE = .05, p
= .00). However, the conditional indirect effect estimates demonstrated significant results for transactional leaders as well. When transactional respondents were presented with a similar transactional superior, a mediating effect of leader-superior fit existed on their self-perceived performance (Boot β = .08, SE = .03, LLCI95 = .03, ULCI95 = .16). When transactional
respondents were presented with a transformational superior, leader-superior fit did not mediate their self-perceived performance (Boot β = .00, SE =.03, LLCI95 = -.06, ULCI95 = .07). The results demonstrate that as long as a leader has a superior with a similar leadership style to his or her own leadership style, leader-superior fit will have a positive mediating effect on the
performance of the leaders. Because the results are significant for both transformational and transactional leaders it does not support hypothesis 2, but it is in line with the fit theory.
DISCUSSION Findings
In this research I have made two main propositions. First, I proposed that the superior style will moderate the relationship between one’s own leadership style and the affective work responses, such that this style is more important for transformational leaders than for
transactional leaders. The results indicate on average that the affective work responses
satisfaction, motivation, commitment and performance of transformational leaders are impacted
by the leadership style of their superior. The results also indicate that this impact does not exist
for transactional leaders. Second, I proposed that there would be a moderated mediation of the superior style and the affective work responses on the self-perceived performance of the transformational leader, while there would not be a moderated mediation effect on the self- perceived performance of transactional leaders. On average, I found that the moderated mediation does exist on self-perceived performance. However, against the expectations, this moderated mediation does exist not only for transformational leaders, but for transactional leaders as well.
The findings for the first hypothesis are in line with the findings from Stoker and her colleagues (2011). Their research proved that the superior style does moderate commitment, motivation and self-efficacy of transformational leaders, but it does not moderate the affective work responses of transactional leaders. While their research proved this in an experiment with students, my research proves that these findings hold in the field as well. Furthermore, I found that it does not only influence commitment, motivation and self-efficacy, but that it also affects satisfaction and self-perceived performance of transformational leaders. The satisfaction of transformational leaders was actually proven to be the most affected by the moderation. This means that matching a transformational leader to a transformational superior will have the
biggest impact in a positive manner on the satisfaction level of this leader, but when this leader is
matched to a transactional superior it will have a negative effect on the level of satisfaction. As
expected, I found that the satisfaction and self-perceived performance of transactional leaders is
not affected by the leadership style of their superior. Apparently, anticipated identification and
leader-superior fit is of importance to leaders in general. I found that both transformational and
transactional leaders do have a higher level of anticipated identification and leader-superior fit
with a superior that applies a leadership style similar to their own. Therefore, anticipated
identification and leader-superior fit are most likely not specifically related to either one of the leadership styles, but to being a leader in general.
The second hypothesis was partly supported by the results. Based on the literature I did expect to find this mediation affect for transformational leaders, but not for the transactional leaders. I found, as expected, that there is a moderated mediation affect for anticipated
identification, satisfaction, work motivation, organizational commitment and leader-superior fit on self-perceived performance. I did not expect to find this for both transformational leaders and transactional leaders. These findings demonstrated that, although, transactional leaders are task oriented, their levels of affective work response do mediate their ultimate self-perceived
performance. However, the overall results for satisfaction and work motivation did demonstrate
that the leadership style of the superior was more important to transformational leaders than to
transactional leaders. For these two affective work responses the moderated mediation was only
found when the transformational leaders were presented with a similar transformational superior
and not when the leaders were presented with a transactional superior. The moderated mediation
did exist for transactional leaders, regardless of the leadership style of their superiors. Though
these results do not completely support hypothesis 2, they form another confirmation that the
style of the superior is of importance to the transformational leader, but not to the transactional
leader. Furthermore, although the findings for leader-superior fit did not support hypothesis 2
either, I found that the moderated mediation analysis did confirm the findings of leader-superior
fit from the hierarchical regression. That is, a fit between themselves and their superior is
important to leaders in general, because a positive significant moderated mediation effect was
only found for transformational leaders with transformational superiors and transactional leaders
with transactional superiors.
Limitations and Future Research
Of course, this study is not flawless. The first and most obvious limitation of this research is the dysfunctional manipulation. The manipulation and the use of check boxes did not function in this research. A reason for this can be that these leaders are biased by the existence of an actual superior in their daily life. With this superior in mind, it could have been difficult for respondents to make the distinction between their actual superior and the alleged superior from the presented scenario. Therefore, a proposal for future research is to extend the surveyed sample with the actual superiors of the respondents. Yukl (2010) explains that most descriptive and comparative studies on transformational leadership are done with leaders and a few followers.
The followers are then asked to indicate the level of transformational or transactional leadership of their leader. This information is then used to indicate the actual leadership style of the leader.
This method can be reversed to research the aspects of leader-leader interaction as proposed in this study. A superior should then be approached to fill out a survey with the scales of
transformational leadership and transactional leadership about his own leadership style. By doing this, no scenario is needed and the leadership style of the actual superior of the respondent can be used in the research. Performing the research in this manner will improve the overall reliability, due to the fact that the probability of an existing bias will be deleted.
In this study I have used self-perceived performance as a measurement for performance.
Although the use of this self-perceived measurement can be justified by the argumentation of Bennett (2011) and the research of Franks et al (1999), it can be criticized and managers might prefer other performance measurements over self-perceived measurements. Therefore, I propose for further research to test if the results of this research remain when the self-perceived
performance is replaced by a different performance measure, such as actual sales numbers of
salesmen.
Stoker and her colleagues (2011) performed a moderated mediation analysis in their research to test the indirect effect of anticipated identification on the interaction between the leadership styles on the one hand and the affective work responses on the other. They did find that anticipated identification did mediate the relation for transformational leaders, but not for transactional leaders. This analysis could be a next step for the performed research of this study as well. The idea would be to test if there is an indirect effect of anticipated identification and leader-superior fit on the relationship between the interaction of the leader’s leadership style and the superior leadership style on the one hand and performance on the other, which is already mediated by the affective work responses. By doing so, the theory of organizational fit (O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991; Cable & DeRue, 2002) can be integrated into the research field of leader-leader interactions. By performing such an analysis it could be tested which mediator, the fit concepts (anticipated identification and leader-superior fit) or the affective work responses, has the strongest effect on performance. Unfortunately, this conceptual research model is quite complex and testing a moderated mediation for a multiple mediated model (in this case
anticipated identification or leaders-superior fit and the affective work responses) is not yet possible with the currently available bootstrap methods. Therefore, to further explore the different relations between the leadership styles of leaders and their superiors, how this relation affects affective work responses and performance, and how it is affected by the concept of organizational fit, one should focus on specific separate aspects for further testing. When performing this further research, I propose that the primary focus should be on the
transformational leaders, because this research has proven that these leaders are affected and
influenced the most.
This research does add more information to the research field of the leader-leader
interaction. It does explain how the leadership style of the superior does influence leaders. In this situation the leader was not only a leader, but a follower as well. Therefore, the results
emphasize on the effect of a leader on a follower. During the process of this research I did notice that there are a high number of researches emphasizing the expectations of leaders on followers and the effect of leaders on followers. However, not much is known about the expectations of followers about their leaders, or about the expectations of leaders about their superiors and how these expectations influence affective work responses and performance. Unfortunately, this study does not add new information to this particular side of the interaction either. For future research, I suggest that the leader side of the leader-superior interaction should be emphasized.
Expectations that leaders or followers have about the focus and behavior of their superior could explain the positive or negative effect that superiors have on the affective work responses and performance of these leaders or followers, especially transformational leaders. Furthermore, the personality of leaders could also explain the effect that superiors can have on them. Examples for further testing are the personal interest for fit and personal need for participation.
CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
I found that the leadership style of the superior leader in an organization does influence satisfaction, motivation, commitment and performance of transformational leaders, but they do not influence the satisfaction, motivation, commitment and performance of transactional leaders.
Furthermore, I found that the performance of transformational leaders is positively affected by
satisfaction and motivation when they have a transformational superior, but not when they have a
transactional superior.
An important contribution of this research is that it proves that the influence of superiors on their following leaders does exist. Organizational focus on individual leaders should therefore be changed into a focus on the different interaction of leadership layers that exist within
organizations. Awareness should be created within organizations and by superiors that the leadership style of these superiors does influence the affective work responses and the
performance of the lower leaders. They should be aware of two main points. On the one hand, organizations should be aware of the high amount of influence that superiors have on
transformational leaders. Therefore, it is valuable to put some additional effort into finding a match between transformational leaders and transformational superiors. On the other hand, organizations should be aware that this influence of superiors does not exist for transactional leaders. Therefore, it is useless to invest valuable time for internalization and matching leaders and superiors for this type of leader. Transactional leaders can still be motivated best by instrumental compliance.
Satisfaction appeared to be the most important of the different affective work responses.
First, it was the affective work response that was affected the most in a positive way when a transformational leader was matched to a transformational superior. Second, the moderated mediation analysis demonstrated that satisfaction also does influence performance in a positive manner, if the transformational leader is matched to a transformational superior. Therefore, improving the performance of transformational leaders is possible for organizations by increasing the level of work related satisfaction of these leaders. And satisfaction can be
increased by investing time, as mentioned before, in finding a similar transformational superior
for transformational leaders.
As quoted at the very beginning of this thesis ‘When a team outgrows individual
performance and learns team confidence, excellence becomes a reality’ by the American football coach Joe Paterno, the study about leader-leader interactions do help understand individual performance, but also demonstrates that one should look beyond the performance of the
individual and focus on the different interactions that do exist between the different layers of the
organization. If these interactions get the necessary attention, team confidence can be learned
within organizations. Excellence as reality is still at long distance. However, the results of this
research can bring excellence a little closer.
References
Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regressions: testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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 transformation 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 Brand Management, 18(8), 545-569.
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.
Conger, J.A., & Kanungo, R.N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopmans, P.L. (2005). Linking the Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership: Perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 839-865.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.
Franks, D., Ferguson, E., Rolls, S., & Henderson, F. (1999). Self-assessments in HRM: An example from an assessment centre. Personal Review 29(1/2), 124-133.
Halvari, H., Ulstad, S.O., Bagøien, T.E., & Skjesol, K. (2009). Autonomy support and its links to physical activity and competitive performance: mediations through motivation, competence, action orientation and harmonious passion, and the moderator role of autonomy support by perceived competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 533-555.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Nauman, S., Khan, A.M., Ehsan, N. (2010). Patterns of empowerment and leadership style in project environment. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 638-349.
O’Reilly III, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a
profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(3), 487-516.
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.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effect in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research methods, 40, 879-891.
Rink, F.A., & Ellemers, N. (2006). What can you expect? The influence of gender diversity on work goal expectancies and subsequent work commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 490-510.
Rink, F.A., & Ellemers, N. (2007). 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.
Spreitzer, G. M., (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
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.
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.
Vandenabeele, W. (2009). The mediating effect of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment on self-reported performance: more robust evidence of the PSM –
performance relationship. International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(11), 11-34.
Wang, X., & Howell, J. (2010). Exploring the Dual-Level Effects of Transformational Leadership on Followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134-1144.
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. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
APPENDIX A: TABLES
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of the variables
n M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Age 157 38.69 11.93
2 Gender 158 .41 .49 -.19
3 Leadership Experience 160 1.00 .00 - -
4 Level of Leadership 152 1.62 .58 -1.74* .03 -
5 Superior Experience 160 1.00 .00 - - - -
6 Gender Superior 155 .26 .44 .182 .05* - .04 -
7 Level of Superior 157 .97 .58 -1.78* .08* - .17* - .06*
8 Transformational 160 5.23 .55 1.03 .01 - -.06** - .01 -.03
9 Transactional 159 4.62 1.04 -1.77 -.02 - -.06 - -.01 .07 .24*
10 Superior Leadership Style 160 .54 .50 -.45 -.03 - -.00 - .02 -.03 -.01
11 Identification 160 4.87 1.16 .69 -.05 - -.06 - .01 .07 .24*
12 Satisfaction 160 4.95 1.20 -1.50 -.03 - -.03 - -.00 .12** .12**
13 Motivation 160 5.46 .98 -.78 .00 - .10 - .01 .09** .17*
14 Commitment 160 4.98 1.24 1.57 .03 - .07 - -.06 .03 .27*
15 Person Superior Fit 159 4.61 1.29 2.00 -.02 - .05 - -.03 -.06 .17*
16 Performance 158 4.96 .72 .05 .02 - -.02 - -.00 -.02 .13*
* p < .005, ** p < .05
TABLE 1 – Continued
n M SD 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 Age 157 38.69 11.93
2 Gender 158 .41 .49
3 Leadership Experience 160 1.00 .00 4 Level of Leadership 152 1.62 .58 5 Superior Experience 160 1.00 .00 6 Gender Superior 155 .26 .43 7 Level of Superior 157 .97 .58 8 Transformational 160 5.23 .55 9 Transactional 159 4.62 1.04
10 Superior Leadership Style 160 .54 .50 -.07
11 Anticipated Identification 160 4.87 1.16 .48* -.16*
12 Satisfaction 160 4.95 1.20 .49* -.19* 1.01*
13 Motivation 160 5.46 .98 .39* -.08 .79* .94*
14 Commitment 160 4.98 1.24 .46* -.12** 1.01* .95* .88*
15 Leader-Superior Fit 159 4.61 1.29 .28* -.10 .91* .83* .66* 1.08*
16 Performance 158 4.96 .72 .20* -.04 .31* .36* .39* .38* .37*
* p < .005, ** p < .05
