Date post: | 04-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | swarada-chitale |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 0 times |
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 1/49
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 2/49
appointments in HR management consulting with the PA Consulting Group in Southeast Asia and in
HR management in the textile and engineering industries in England.
2
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 3/49
Transformational Leadership across Hierarchical Levels in UK
Manufacturing Organizations
Purpose
This paper reports an empirical study of the effectiveness of transformational, transactional
and laissez -faire leadership across hierarchical levels in manufacturing organizations in the
UK. The aim was to develop a framework of leadership across hierarchical levels that would
be useful for leadership development programmes and interventions.
Design/methodology/approach
Managers from 38 companies completed a 360-degree version of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Multiple responses – self, superior, subordinate and peer ratings – were
obtained for 367 managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male, aged between 21 and
62 years (mean = 42 years), from 38 organizations in the UK manufacturing sector. Of the
367 subjects, unanimous (cases were used only if all ratings agreed on the hierarchical level
of the subject) opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%), which includes 30
top-level managers, 33 directors, 54 senior managers, 43 middle managers and 55 lower
managers. Data concerning time span was also obtained for 253 managers.
Findings
The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different
hierarchical levels of organizations. Transformational leadership is equally effective across
hierarchical levels in organizations, whereas transactional leadership is not effective at the
3
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 4/49
uppermost hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower down. Laissez-
faire leadership is ineffective at all hierarchical levels.
Originality/value
A framework of effective leadership behaviours across hierarchical levels in organizations
was developed from the findings. This framework can be used as a basis for leadership
development in UK manufacturing organisations and potentially wider more general
organisation contexts.
Key words: Transformational, Transactional, Leadership, Effectiveness, Hierarchical Level
Classification – Research Paper
1. Introduction
The literature regarding leadership has recently witnessed a shift toward studying leadership
in context (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Fairhurst, 2009; Fry and Kriger;
2009; Liden and Antonakis, 2009; Pawar and Eastman, 1997; Porter and McLaughlin, 2006)
and as a distributed phenomenon across organizations (e.g. Gronn, 2002). Studies on
transformational leadership have responded and have started to shift focus towards
identifying and understanding contextual and organizational variables (Zhu, Avolio and
Walumbwa, 2009). This paper contributes to this shift in focus by exploring the contextual
impact of hierarchical level on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership and
reports a framework of these leadership behaviours across five hierarchical levels in UK-
based manufacturing organizations. This paper adds to knowledge in the area of hierarchical
level and leadership research as it investigates leadership effectiveness across hierarchical
levels in a UK context, which has not been investigated to date. The paper also explores a
4
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 5/49
higher number of organisational levels than previous research and gathers data from a
broader number of rating sources, then previous research – self, superior, subordinate and
peer.
2. Leadership Behaviours across Hierarchical Levels
A number of writers have hypothesized differences in leadership style, behaviour and
processes across hierarchical levels (Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam, 2003;
Collins, 2005; Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, and Dorfman, 1999; Dubin,
1979; Grint, 1997; Hunt, 1991; Hunt, Osborn, and Boal, 2009; Mumford, Campion, and
Morgeson, 2007; Rowe, 2001; Saskin, 1988; Stogdill, 1974; Waldman and Yammarino,
1999; and Zaccaro, 2001). One ‘macro’ perspective (Dubin, 1979) has contrasted ‘leadership
of organizations’ and ‘leadership in organizations’. Leadership of organizations essentially
focuses on the leadership of the total organization, whereas, leadership in organizations
involves face-to-face interaction in pairs or groups at lower levels of an organization. A
similar distinction is that of visionary leadership and managerial leadership suggested by
Rowe (2001). A recent paper adds weight to these distinctions (Hunt et al ., 2009)
highlighting an important role of managerial leadership just below the strategic apex
(director-level) in organizations. This paper investigates these distinctions in a UK setting
through the lens of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership.
There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership
across organizational levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2003; Bass, Waldman,
Avolio, and Bebb, 1987; Bruch and Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck, and
Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Oshagbemi and Gill, 2004; Stordeur, Vandenberghe, and D’hoore,
2000; Yammarino and Bass, 1990; Yokochi, 1989). Results within this body of research,
5
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 6/49
however, have been varied. There are also areas that need further investigation, for example;
only four of these studies have investigated the relative effectiveness of transformational and
transactional leadership at differing levels (Bruch, and Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe et
al., 1996; Stordeur et al., 2000), none of which have been within the UK. Further research,
therefore, is needed to clarify the relative effectiveness of these behaviours across
organizational levels in UK organizations.
With this question regarding effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership
across hierarchical levels it is worth reviewing the general research regarding the
effectiveness of these behaviours. For example, recent research in 72 U.S. Army platoons
found that both active transactional and transformational leadership behaviours are positively
correlated with potency, cohesion and performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson 2003).
Previous research supports this finding, suggesting that the most effective leaders typically
display both transformational and transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass, 1998; Avolio,
Bass, and Jung, 1999; Bass and Avolio, 1993; Curphy, 1992; Hater and Bass, 1988; Howell
and Avolio, 1993; Kane and Tremble, 1998). In addition, it has been suggested that effective
transformational leadership behaviour augments effective transactional leadership behaviour
(Bass, 1985, 1998; Bass and Riggio, 2006). The effectiveness of transformational leadership,
therefore, builds on a foundation of transactional leadership behaviours. This paper
investigates these general findings regarding effectiveness across hierarchical levels in UK
manufacturing organisations.
Most of the studies regarding transformational and transactional leadership across
organisations report comparisons based on two levels (sometimes referred to loosely as
‘upper’ versus ‘lower’ levels) (Bass, et al., 1987; Bruch and Walter, 2007; Lowe, et al., 1996;
6
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 7/49
Stordeur, Vandenberghe, and D’hoore, 2000; Yammarino and Bass, 1990; Yokochi, 1989),
two have studied three levels (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2003; Oshagbemi and
Gill, 2004) and only one has studied four levels in organizations (Densten, 2003). This
research broadens the scope of previous research provides a more detailed examination of
differing management levels by exploring five levels in organisations – top, director, senior,
middle and lower level management.
In addition, Densten (2003) used Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Jaques,
1976, 1989, 1990; Jaques and Clement, 1991) (SST) as the framework to record the
frequency of leadership behaviours (as described in the FRL model) of 480 senior police
officers in Australia. Stratified-systems theory (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Jaques, 1976, 1989,
1990; Jaques and Clement, 1991) is a prescriptive model of organisational structure based on
defining hierarchical level according to the complexity of work at each level. The model
therefore is a useful addition to the already existing research literature concerning the FRL
model and hierarchical level that we review below. SST suggests a model of organisational
functioning whereby tasks or requirements increase in complexity with ascending
organisational levels. The increasing task complexity is a function of the uncertainties created
by the necessity to deal with a more encompassing and a more turbulent environment further
up the organisational hierarchy (Hunt, 1991). The model shows seven levels within
organisations grouped into three domains: systems, organisational, and direct leadership. The
grouping is based on a measure of task complexity at each level termed ‘time span of
discretion’. Time span is defined as the maximum time for a manager at a given hierarchical
level to complete critical tasks (Hunt, 1991) (see Table 1). This model is also considered in
this research project.
7
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 8/49
(Insert Table 1 about here)
In summary, the objective of the research was to investigate the effectiveness of
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership across five hierarchical levels in
organizations in a UK context and to develop a working model based on the findings of the
research. This has not been done to date in the UK and therefore would be deemed a new
contribution to our understanding of a well known theory. Indeed, the applicability of the Full
Range Leadership Model’s description of transformational leadership has, in the past, been
questioned (Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-
Metcalfe, 2001). This research, therefore, hopes to add to the investigation of this form of
leadership behaviour in the UK.
3. Method
3.1 Defining Hierarchical Level
8
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 9/49
The meaning of ‘organizational level’ and how it should be measured have been cited as
important considerations concerning multiple-level leadership research (Nealey and
Fiedler, 1968). Cognitive theories of organization (Weick and Bougon, 2001) need to
be considered. Perceptions of the hierarchical level of a manager using 360-degree
ratings arguably the most rigorous method. This is because management, hierarchy
and even organization have been theorised as being construed through cognitive maps
(Weick and Bougon, 2001). It seems, therefore, that the true nature of a hierarchy is
what people perceive it to be. Unanimous opinion of ratings was chosen as the
preferred method of defining hierarchical level as it was deemed the most rigorous.
Previous research on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership has
used two methods to define hierarchical level: job or vocation title or rank and the
manager’s own perception. Using job title or rank as a method of defining hierarchical
level seems adequate for structured organizations such as the military. An alternative
method, however, is needed for organizations where positions or ranks are more
ambiguous or unclear and, therefore, less comparable between organizations. The use
of a manager’s own opinion is adequate, but the discussion above concerning
cognitive maps implies that a consensus opinion would be more accurate. In addition,
data on Stratified-systems theory (SST) was also collected (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987;
Jaques, 1976, 1989, 1990; Jaques and Clement, 1991).
3.2 Design
The study used a between-groups design with 11 dependent variables. These variables were -
Attributed charisma (AC), Idealized influence (II), Inspirational motivation (IM), Intellectual
stimulation (IS), Individualized consideration (IC), Transformational leadership (TFL) (a
composite of the preceding five variables), Contingent reward (CR), Active management-by-
9
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 10/49
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 11/49
There were two independent variables: hierarchical level as judged by unanimous opinion
(cases were used only if all ratings agreed on the hierarchical level of the subject) and time
span. Five categories of hierarchical level were identified - Top-level management (e.g.
chairman, chief executive officer, managing director), Director-level management (e.g.
finance director, operations director and other directors), Senior management (e.g. general
manager, site manager), Middle management (e.g. production manager, sales manager),
Lower management (e.g. supervisor, team leader). The second independent variable was time
span of the manager’s role (as viewed by the manager him/herself). Four categories were
identified in line with SST (Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Jaques, 1976, 1989, 1990; Jaques and
Clement, 1991). These were ‘up to three months’ (Stratum I), ‘three months to one year’
(Stratum II), ‘one to two years’ (Stratum III), and ‘two to five years’ (Stratum IV). No data
were obtained for time spans above five years.
It was reasoned that the use of a quantitative methodology was beneficial for this piece
of research. Firstly, it would enable comparison with previous research. Secondly, it would
enable replication in future research initiatives. Indeed, the literature highlights the
importance of replication studies (Hubbard and Ryan, 2000): most researchers see replication
studies as providing genuine scientific knowledge. It is also suggested that ‘replication with
extension’, which modifies aspects of the original research design, is a highly suitable means
for knowledge creation (Hubbard and Ryan, 2000; Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1984).
3.3 Sample
The original sample consisted of 432 managers. Multiple responses were gained for 367
managers of whom 15% were female and 85% male, aged between 21 and 62 years (mean =
11
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 12/49
42 years), from 38 organizations in the UK manufacturing sector. Manufacturing
organizations were chosen because of their relatively well-defined hierarchical structures. A
solely-UK sample was used to control for national culture variance (Bass, 1998). The
organizations were of varying sizes, ranging from five to 3,000 employees (mean = 285
employees) and £0.2 million to £220 million turnover (mean = £27 million).
Of the 367 subjects, unanimous opinions on hierarchical level were gained for 215 (58%), of
whom 30 were top-level managers, 33 were director-level managers, 54 were senior
managers, 43 were middle managers and 55 were lower managers (see table 2 for a
breakdown of ratings by hierarchical level). Multiple MLQ ratings (self, peer, superior and
subordinate) data concerning time span was obtained for 253 managers, of whom 56 reported
a time span of up to three months, 53 a time span of three months to one year, 79 a time span
of one to two years, and 49 a time span of two to five years (see table 3 for a breakdown of
ratings by time span). There are some ‘rules of thumb’ cited in the literature for determining
sample size (Roscoe, 1975). Firstly, sample sizes of 30 to 500 are deemed appropriate for
quantitative empirical research. Secondly, where samples are to be divided into sub-samples,
a minimum sub-sample size of 30 for each category is deemed necessary (Sekaran, 2003).
(Insert Table 2 about here)
(Insert Table 3 about here)
3.4 Materials
The materials consisted of a 360-degree version of the Multi-factor Leadership
Questionnaire, Form 5X-short (Bass and Avolio, 1997) with both self-rating and other–rating
12
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 13/49
forms) and demographic sheets for all raters. This version of the MLQ is a 45-item
questionnaire with a five-point Likert-type scale for rating the frequency of use of leadership
behaviours associated with the scales that constitute the dimensions of transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership (see Table 2). The rating scale has the following
designations: 0 = ‘not at all’; 1 = ‘once in a while’; 2 = ‘sometimes’; 3 = ‘fairly often’; and 4
= ‘frequently, if not always’. The first 34 items measure leadership behaviour and the
remaining 11 items measure leader effectiveness (e.g.,, “leads a group that is effective”,
satisfaction with the leader and his or her methods, e.g.,, “uses methods of leadership that are
satisfying”, and the extra effort provided by followers, e.g.,, “increases others willingness to
try harder”).
As the study was a replication-with-extension, the MLQ was used for the research. There are,
however, concerns about the lack of supporting evidence for the factor model of
transformational leadership represented by the MLQ that have led some researchers to
suggest alternative factor models (Bycio, Hackett, and Allen, 1995; Carless, 1998; Deluga
and Souza, 1991; Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman, 1997; Hinkin and Schriesheim,
2008a; Hinkin and Tracy, 1999; Howell and Avolio, 1993; Kantse, et al., 2007; Koh, 1990;
Lievens, Van Geit, and Coetsier, 1997; Rafferty and Griffin, 2004; Tepper and Percy, 1994;
Yammarino and Dubinski, 1994). Although there are criticisms of the MLQ it has been
suggested that they do not necessarily detract from the theory of transformational and
transactional leadership (Avolio and Bass, 1993; Hinkin and Tracey, 1999). Indeed, past
independent meta-analyses (Gasper, 1992; Lowe et al., 1996; Patterson, Fuller, Kester, and
Stringer, 1995) have confirmed that the MLQ can be regarded as providing a satisfactory
model for assessing transformational leadership. In addition, a recent review has identified 14
studies that generated conflicting claims regarding the factor structure of the MLQ and the
13
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 14/49
number of factors that best represent the model (Antonakis et al., 2003). Taking differing
contextual considerations into account, however, a recent analysis of the MLQ concluded
that, firstly, the nine-factor model best represented the factor structure underlying the MLQ
(Form 5X) instrument. Secondly, the results of this research suggested that the MLQ can be
satisfactorily used to measure Full Range Leadership in relation to its underlying theory.
Lastly, research has indicated that it is premature to collapse factors in this model before
exploring the context in which the survey ratings are collected (Antonakis et al ., 2003). Since
this time, however, there have been further criticisms of the MLQ suggesting the theory for
the four dimensions – contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-
by-exception (passive) and laissez-faire – is underdeveloped (Hinkin and Schriesheim,
2008b). Furthermore there has also been criticism of the items that constitute the MLQ,
which have been seen to be too ambiguous with respect to level of analysis, i.e. it is unclear
whether they are measuring at an individual, group or organisational level (Schriesheim et al.,
2009).
Given the debate above an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the
current data set and is reported in a separate paper (Author 1, et al., under review). This
analysis suggested a slightly different variant of the MLQ model which comprises: active
constructive leadership, active management-by-exception and passive avoidant leadership
based on the exploratory factor analysis. This model has been found in a previous study of
nurses in Finland (Kantse, et al., 2007). The analysis conducted by Author 1, et al., however,
also provides support for the nine factor model in confirmatory factor analysis (Chi² =
2,103.583, DF = 558, CFI = 0.901, TLI = 0.888, RMEA = 0.047) (Author 1, et al., under
review). As the study was a replication-with-extension into the UK context, the full nine
factor model of the MLQ was used for comparative purposes.
14
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 15/49
3.5 Procedure
Organizations were approached via electronic mail to seek agreement for the participation of
their managers. The benefit to their organizations (a report on a comprehensive 360-degree
assessment of leadership in their organization) was explained. Agreement to take part in the
research was obtained, and a company representative (to receive the questionnaires) was
chosen by the contact person in the company. The questionnaires were mailed in sealed
envelopes to company representatives, who then distributed the sealed envelopes to the
participants in the study. The questionnaires were therefore of an ‘administered’ nature,
which is important to highlight (Baruch 1999, Baruch and Holtom, 2008). The completed
questionnaires were returned to the company representatives in sealed envelopes and
forwarded to the research co-ordinator in a pre-paid envelope. Data were collated and
analyzed using SPSS version 10.
3.6 Data Analysis
The study used mean values of the multiple responses (ratings by self, peer, superior and
subordinate) for analysis purposes. Previous research using multiple responses also used the
mean score for all individuals who responded to questionnaires as the measure for each scale
(Atwater and Yammarino, 1992; Hegarty, 1974; Shipper and Davy, 2002). We do
acknowledge, however, the importance of individual perceptions analysis was conducted on
the same basis for individual responses (self, peer, subordinate and superior) (e.g. Atwater, et
al., 1998). Results of this analysis and similarities and differences are discussed later in the
paper. Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r) were calculated to test for relationships between
the dependent variables - transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-
faire - and independent variables. More detailed multiple regression analysis was also
15
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 16/49
performed for hierarchical level and time span to investigate the impact of independent
variables (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction) for all dependent variables. Hierarchical
regression analysis was also performed to investigate the relative impact of other variables
that may have impacted the results – organization size and rating source.
4. Results
The dependent variable ‘transformational leadership’ failed the goodness-of-fit test. The
results of non-parametric test alternatives (Spearman’s ρ) was therefore reported for this
variable. The descriptive statistics for each dependent variable and the coefficients of
correlation between dependent variables and the outcome variables – ‘extra effort’,
‘leadership effectiveness’ and ‘follower satisfaction’ – were tabulated (see Tables 4, 5 and 6).
(Insert Table 4 about here)
(Insert Table 5 about here)
(Insert Table 6 about here)
Multiple regression analysis was also performed to investigate predictors (taken from the
independent variable list) of dependent variables (extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction)
for each category variable level. To ensure an adequate sample size of around 45 (five
observations for each independent variable) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1998) the
top-level manager category was merged with the director-level category. The results of the
multiple regression analysis are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The table reports standardised
16
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 17/49
betas ( β ) along with the adjusted regression coefficient (∆ R²) and F ratio. Regression
equations are available for examination upon request.
(Insert Table 7 about here)
(Insert Table 8 about here)
4.1 Hierarchical Regression Analysis
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are presented in table 9 and show that the
category variable hierarchical level and the variable rating have the strongest moderating
effect on independent and dependent variables. The results of the regression analyses show
the variable ‘organizational size’ had no moderating effect on independent and dependent
variables. Owing to the strong moderating effect of the variable ‘rating’ the independent and
dependent variables were subjected to further analysis by the original category variables
(hierarchical level and time span) split by each rating category (self, peer, superior and
subordinate). A full assessment of differences between each of these perspectives and
between these perspectives and the results obtained with the aggregated data set is available
on request and summarized in the discussion below.
(Insert Table 9 about here)
5. Discussion
The findings of the research show a distinct pattern of behaviours across different
hierarchical levels of organizations in the UK. Transformational leadership is equally
effective across hierarchical levels in organizations, whereas transactional leadership is not
17
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 18/49
effective at the uppermost hierarchical levels in organizations but effective at levels lower
down. Laissez-faire leadership is ineffective at all hierarchical levels. A framework of
effective leadership behaviours across hierarchical levels in organizations was developed
from the findings (see figure 1).
(Insert Figure 1 about here)
With regards to comparing hierarchical level and time span there is similarity in results for
transformational leadership as it is conducive to extra effort, effective, and satisfying at all
time spans. The results concerning extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction of transactional
leadership, however, show little similarity between category variables. For example,
transactional leadership appears to be conducive to extra effort when exhibited by senior-
level managers, conducive to extra effort, effective and satisfying when exhibited by middle-
level managers, and effective and satisfying when exhibited by lower-level managers; but in
comparison it appears to be conducive to extra effort, effective and satisfying only at the
highest time spans. Again this may have been due to the time spans used in the research being
related more to senior-level, middle-level and lower-level managers than to director-level and
top-level managers.
Laissez-faire leadership appears to be inhibitory to extra effort when exhibited by lower-level
managers, yet it was not inhibitory when exhibited by managers working to time spans of up
to three months. The results, however, were the same for both category variables for
effectiveness and satisfaction.
18
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 19/49
The results concerning individual responses (self, peer, superior and subordinate), highlighted
in Figure 2, show similar results, especially for subordinate and self ratings. Peer and superior
ratings appear to have differing view, especially in the case of superior ratings in which they
have almost the opposite view. This is reminiscent of the suggestion that aspects of behaviour
deemed to be important by one member of an organization may be different from those
regarded as important by others (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1996; Borman, 1974; Bradley, 1978;
Colvin, 2001; Ilgen and Feldman, 1983; Salam, Cox, and Sims, 1997). For example, Alimo-
Metcalfe (1996) suggests that superiors tend to focus on technical managerial skills, such as
decision making and problem solving, whereas subordinates are more concerned with
interpersonal skills, sensitivity, empowerment and visionary leadership. This appears to be
supported by these findings.
(Insert Figure 2 about here)
With regards to the constituent factors of transformational and transactional leadership, the
more detailed analysis given by the regression analysis shows a slightly different, more
confusing picture of effective and ineffective behaviours at differing levels. Similar to the
findings of Bruch and Walter (2007) idealised influence and inspirational motivation were
found to be ineffective at lower levels of organisations (hierarchical level and time span) in
the study. With regards to the transactional leadership behaviours (contingent reward and
active management-by-exception), they still appear to be related to effectiveness and
satisfaction at lower and middle levels and middle to lower time spans, with the exception of
contingent reward being effective at top and director level. Also individualised consideration
appears to be the most widespread behaviour, being satisfying at all organisational levels
measured. Also of interest were the nuances of intellectual stimulation being conducive to
19
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 20/49
extra effort at top and director-level, inspirational motivation and individualised
consideration being conducive to extra effort at senior levels and attributed charisma and
intellectual stimulation being conducive to extra effort at middle levels. Interestingly, no
behaviours were found to be conducive to extra effort at lower levels (except attributed
charisma for the lower time spans). This may suggest that transformational leadership may
not be achieving performance beyond normal expectations by changing how people feel
about themselves and what is possible and by raising their motivation to new heights (c.f.
Bass, 1985) at lower levels of organisations. And indeed, this may only be the case for certain
behaviours at certain levels in organisations.
This investigation has found a comparative lack of transformational leadership behaviours
and increased effectiveness of active transactional leadership behaviours at middle and lower
levels compared with higher levels in the organizational hierarchy. This may be due, as was
suggested earlier, to managers at lower levels being more oriented towards a steady workflow
and having to have a greater focus on maintaining effective operations. Higher-level
managers, in comparison, focus more on change and on the creation and communication of
new organizational policies (Katz and Kahn, 1966, 1978; Selznick, 1957). Indeed, a recent
study (Stewart and Johnson, 2009), suggests that as teams become increasingly diverse, as
would happen as a manager rises in the organization hierarchy, leadership may need to adapt
approaches that successfully manage interpersonal relationships and clearly establish roles to
ensure effective performance. This could mark the shift from transactional to
transformational behaviours found by this study.
Furthermore, the results of this research provide evidence to challenge previous findings
concerning the proposition that effective leaders typically display both transformational and
20
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 21/49
transactional leadership behaviours (Avolio and Bass, 1998; Avolio et al., 1999; Bass and
Avolio, 1993; Hater and Bass, 1998; Howell and Avolio, 1993). It appears that only senior,
middle and lower level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and
transformational leadership behaviours. Our research also supports concerns about the
generalizability of the Full-Range Leadership model (Bryman, 1992; Gill, 2006). It implies
that there are differences in leadership requirements across hierarchical levels in
organizations (Antonakis, et al., 2003; Den Hartog, et al., 1999; Grint, 1997; Hunt, 1991;
Saskin, 1988; Waldman and Yammarino, 1999; Zaccaro, 2001). Our findings, however, do
support the augmentation effect of transformational leadership on transactional leadership
(Bass, 1985; 1998; Bass and Riggio, 2006). Our results go further by illustrating that this
augmentation effect also occurs at a macro organizational level.
The framework reported in this paper reflects the more macro distinctions of leadership
discussed earlier in the paper (Dubin, 1979; Rowe, 2001). The findings also support the
suggestion made by Hunt et al. (2009) that the role of the managerial level just below the
strategic apex is critical. From the perspective of this research this is highlighted by a shift
from transformational and transactional leadership requirements to solely transformational
leadership requirements. The distinction found in this paper also reflects similar distinctions
made in the self-monitoring and effective leadership literature (Caligiuri and Day, 2000;
Sosik, Jung, and Dinger, 2009). There is a caveat attached to these summary comments,
however, as when behaviour is investigated at the more distinct level of constituent factors
the picture becomes much more specific to various organisational levels. There appears to be
a distinct pattern of behaviours relating to extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction at
different levels in organisations in the UK.
21
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 22/49
6. Implications for Leadership Development
The results of our research highlight the need for the development of transformational
leadership behaviours at all levels of UK manufacturing organizations. The results also
suggest that lower, middle and senior level managers (and potential managers) still require
the development of active transactional leadership behaviours as well as transformational
leadership behaviours. This form of leadership development needs to reflect the key
characteristics of active management-by-exception, such as setting objectives and techniques
for actively monitoring progress and taking corrective action as necessary. This reflects
programmes on the market (e.g. Edwards et al. 2002) where task orientation as well as
relationship building is seen as important in developing leadership ability and capacity. This
is recognised in this particular example by expressing the importance of self-development for
leadership and inter-relational aspects of leadership but without forgetting how managers and
leaders frame tasks and what is seen as a successful outcome for groups. The essence of
leadership in such programmes is to approach these tensions within an experiential process
(Edwards et al. 2002). In addition, higher-level managers, on the other hand, need
development that concentrates on moving from the use of active management-by-exception
to the use of more constructive transactional leadership behaviour – contingent reward – and
transformational leadership behaviours. In considering lower managers for more senior
positions in organizations, the use of transformational leadership behaviours by these
managers should be the basis for the assessment of their suitability.
The ‘Full-Range Leadership’ model has previously been hailed as ‘the leadership
development solution for all managers’ regardless of organizational and national boundaries
(Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1997). Indeed, the ‘Full-Range Leadership’ Programme (FRLP), which
focuses on developing transformational leadership, has had positive results in many
22
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 23/49
applications (Avolio and Bass 1994; 1998; Barling et al., 1996; Bass, 1998; Crookall, 1989;
Dvir 1998). These improvements, however, tend to be accompanied by a reduction in the use
of managing-by-exception (Bass, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1990; 1994).
This study has shown that a reduction in the use of management-by-exception (active),
therefore, may be detrimental at certain levels in organisations. The study has provided
evidence to suggest that the Full-Range Leadership Programme may need to be altered to
accommodate the need for the development of transactional leadership, especially active
management-by-exception, in managers at middle and lower levels of organizations. A
programme that develops transformational leadership at the cost of management-by-
exception (Bass and Avolio, 1990; 1994) may not be suitable for all managers if there is a
reduction in the use of active management-by-exception.
7. Limitations and Further Research
Firstly, there are concerns regarding the ‘effectiveness’ scales used in the MLQ (extra effort,
effectiveness and satisfaction). Indeed within this data analysis it is recognised that it may
not be appropriate to combine individual effectiveness items in to overarching constructs
(extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction). Items in this scale may be influenced by implicit
leadership theories (Lord, Foti, and De Vader, 1984; Meindl, 1990) or by halo effect. Using
the MLQ may, as a consequence, have exaggerated the importance of a leader’s behaviour
and removed attention from important interpersonal and situational factors (Pittenger, 2001).
More explicit effectiveness scales and other forms of effectiveness (e.g., financial targets,
goal accomplishment, etc.) therefore need to be used and analysed. The measures of
leadership effectiveness in this study represent individuals’ perceptions of leadership
effectiveness rather than objectively measured performance outcomes (e.g., team
23
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 24/49
performance) and could also contribute to common method variance. In addition, the
categorization of hierarchical level (e.g., senior, middle and lower) may mean different things
in different organizations (Hunt, 1991) and in previous research. Qualitative analysis of the
meaning of particular hierarchical levels such as lower, middle and senior across different
organizations is therefore recommended. Lastly, there are variables that might affect results
in the data analysis which have not been considered, such as gender, age, functional or
departmental background etc. Further analysis will consider such variables in relation to
leadership and hierarchical level.
8. Conclusions
The results of the research suggest a distinct pattern in the use and effectiveness of
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership at different levels of
organizational hierarchy. The use of transformational leadership is lacking at middle and
lower levels, and the effectiveness of transactional leadership is decreased both above and
below middle-level management. The effectiveness of transformational leadership, the use of
transactional leadership, and the use and ineffectiveness of laissez-faire leadership are
constant across the hierarchical levels of organizations.
We provide a working model based on this pattern. Evidence to support the model exists in
previous research and theory. The model is supported by theory in that transformational
leadership is more prevalent at upper levels than at lower levels, and transactional leadership
is more effective at middle and lower levels than at upper levels. The findings support general
distinctions made in the leadership literature of (Dubin, 1979; Hunt et al., 2009; Rowe, 2001).
24
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 25/49
The findings also add to knowledge in the area of leadership by providing new data and
conclusions on the effectiveness of transactional and the ineffectiveness of laissez-faire
leadership across hierarchical levels. Our research has also provided a more comprehensive
investigation in this area by addressing five hierarchical levels and data from multiple
responses, in most cases 360-degree assessment. No other research is known to have
provided such in-depth data.
Finally, we provide evidence to challenge previous findings that effective leaders typically
display both transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Only senior, middle
and lower-level managers are effective when displaying both transactional and
transformational leadership behaviours. There is evidence also to support concerns about the
generalizability of the Full-Range Leadership model and suggestions of differences of
leadership in general across hierarchical levels in organizations. We have suggested how the
Full-Range Leadership programme, reflecting the findings, may be modified to better suit the
leadership requirements of managers at different hierarchical levels of an organization.
9. References
Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000), “The transformational leadership
questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant validation study”,
Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol.21, pp. 280-296.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1996), “The feedback revolution”, Health Services Journal, 13 June, pp.
26-28.
25
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 26/49
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. (2001), “The development of a new
transformational leadership questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol.74, pp. 1-27.
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. (2003), “Under the influence”, People
Management, 6 March, pp. 32-35.
Antonakis, J. (2001), The Validity of the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership model as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (5X),
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden Univeristy, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-295.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. J. and Fleenor, J., W. (1998), “Self-other
agreement: Does it really matter?”, Personnel Psychology, 51, pp. 577-598.
Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1992), “Does self-other agreement on leadership
perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 141-164.
Author 1, Schyns, B., Higgs, M., and Author 2. (Under Review), “The MLQ factor structure
in a UK context”, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal.
Avolio, B.J. (1999), Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1993), Cross generations: A full range leadership development
program, Binghamton, NY: Center for Leadership Studies, Binghamton University.
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1994), Evaluation of the Impact of Transformational Leadership
Training at Individual, Group, Organizational and Community Levels, (Final report to the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation). Binghamton, NY: Binghamton University.
26
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 27/49
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1998), “You can drag a horse to water, but you can’t make it
drink except when it’s thirsty”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 1-17.
Avolio, B.J., Bass B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72, pp.
441-462.
Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, K.E. (1996), “Effects of transformational leadership
training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 827-832.
Baruch, Y. (1999), “Response rate in academic studies – A comparative analysis”, Human
Relations, Vol.52, pp. 421-438.
Baruch, Y., and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in
organizational research”, Human Relations, Vol. 61 , pp. 1139-1160.
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, Vol.52, pp. 130-139.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact,
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), “Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and
beyond”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14, pp. 21-27.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership: A response to critiques”,
in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman. R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives
and directions, San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 49-79.
27
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 28/49
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Introduction”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds.),
Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership, Thousands
Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 5-6.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1997), Full range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88, pp. 207-218.
Bass, B.M., and Riggio, R. (2006), Transformational leadership, second edition, Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., Avolio, B.J. and Bebb, M. (1987), “Transformational leadership
and the falling dominoes effect”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 73-87.
Borman, W. C. (1974), “The rating of individuals in organizations: An alternative approach”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 12, pp. 105-124.
Borman, W. C. (1991), Job behaviour, performance, and effectiveness. In M.D. Dunnette and
L.M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol.2, pp.
271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bradley, G.W. (1978), “Self-serving bias in the attribution process: A re-examination of the
fact of fiction question”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 56-
71.
Bruch, H., and Walter, F. (2007), “Leadership in context: Investigating hierarchical impacts
on transformational leadership”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, vol.
28, pp. 710-726.
Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and leadership in organizations, London: Sage.
28
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 29/49
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), ”Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 468-478.
Caligiuri, P.M., and Day, D.V. (2000), “Effects of self-monitoring on technical, contextual,
and assignment-specific performance: A study of cross-national work performance
ratings”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 25, pp. 154-174.
Carless, S.A. (1998), “Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader
behaviors as measured by the MLQ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 353-358.
Collins, J. (2005), “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve”,
Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 136-139.
Colvin, R.E. (2001), Leading from the middle: A challenge for middle managers, Paper
presented at the Festschrift for Bernard Bass, SUNY Binghamton, Center for Leadership
Studies, June.
Crampton, S.M. and Wagner III, J.A. (1994), “Percept-percept inflation in micro-
organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 67-76.
Crookall, P. (1989), Management of inmate workers: A field test of transformational and
situational leadership, Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario.
Curphy, G.J. (1992), “An empirical investigation of the effects of transformational and
transactional leadership on organizational climate, attrition and performance”, in Clark,
K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell D.R. (Eds.), Impact of leadership, Greensboro, NC: The
Center for Creative Leadership, pp. 177-188.
29
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 30/49
Deluga, R., and Souza, J. (1991), “The effects of transformational and transactional styles on
the influencing behavior of subordinate police officers”, Journal of Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 49-55.
Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. and Dorfman, P.W.
(1999), “Culture specific and cross-cultural generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are
attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 219-256.
Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J. and Koopman, P.L. (1997), “Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An observational field study”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 19-34.
Densten, I.L. (2003), “Senior Police Leadership: Does Rank Matter?”, Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 26, pp. 400-418.
Dubin, R. (1979), “Metaphors of leadership: An overview”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson L.L.
(Eds.), Cross currents in leadership, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press,
pp. 225-238.
Dvir, T. (1998), The impact of transformational leadership training on follower development
and performance: A field experiment, Doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Ramat,
Aviv, Israel.
Edwards, G.P., Winter, P.K. and Bailey, J. (2002), Leadership in Management. Ross-on-
Wye: The Leadership Trust Foundation.
Fairhurst, G.T. (2009), “Considering context in discursive leadership research” Human
Relations, vol. 62 , pp. 1607-1632.
Fry, L., and Kriger, M. (2009), “Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple
levels of being as context for effective leadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 62 , pp. 1667-
1696.
30
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 31/49
Furnham, A. and Stringfield. P. (1994), “Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of
managerial practices as a correlate of superior evaluation.” Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 57-67.
Furnham, A. and Stringfield, P. (1998), “Congruence in job-performance ratings: A study of
360-degree feedback examining self, manager, peers, and consultant ratings.” Human
Relations, Vol. 51, pp. 517-530.
Gasper, S. (1992), Transformational leadership: An integrative review of the literature,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Gill, R. (2006), Theory and Practice of Leadership, London: Sage Publications.
Goldberg, C., Riordan, C.M., and Zhang, L. (2008), “Employees’ perceptions of their leaders:
Is being similar always better?”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 33, pp. 330-
355.
Grint, K. (1997), Fuzzy management: Contemporary ideas and practices at work, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gronn, P. (2002), “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.
13, pp. 423-451.
Hair Jr, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Fifth Editio, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harris, M. and Schaubroeck, J. (1988), “A meta analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer and
peer-supervisor ratings.” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 43-61.
Hater, J.J., and Bass, B.M. (1988), ”Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73,
pp. 695-702.
Hegarty, W.H. (1974), “Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in
supervisors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 764-766.
31
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 32/49
Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008a), “An examination of ‘Nonleadership’: From
Laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 1234-1248.
Hinkin, T.R. and Schriesheim, C.A. (2008b), “A theoretical and empirical examination of the
transactional and non-leadership dimensions of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ)”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.19, pp. 501.513.
Hinkin, T.R. and Tracy, J.B. (1999), “The relevance of charisma for transformational
leadership in stable organizations”, Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol.
12, pp. 105-119.
Holzbach, R. (1978), “Rater bias in performance rating: Supervisor, self and peer ratings.”
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 579-588.
Hough, L, ; Eaton, N.K.; Dunnette, M.D.; Kemp, J.D. and McCloy, R.A. (1990), “Criterion-
related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
validities”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 581-595.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Predicting consolidated unit performance: Leadership
behavior, locus of control, and support for innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78, pp. 891-902.
Hubbard, R. and Ryan, P.A. (2000), “The historical growth of statistical significance testing
in psychology – and its future prospects.” Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 60, pp. 661-681.
Hunt, J.G. (1991), Leadership: A new synthesis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunt, J.G., Osborn, R.N., and Boal, K.B. (2009), “The architecture of managerial leadership:
Stimulation and channelling of organizational emergence”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20,
pp. 503-516.
32
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 33/49
Ilgen, D.R. and Feldman, J.M. (1983), “Performance appraisal: A process focus”, in
Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol.5, pp. 141-197.
Jacobs, T.O. and Jaques, E. (1987), Leadership in complex systems. In J.A. Zeidner (Ed.).
Human Productivity Enhancement, (Vol.2, pp. 7-65). New York: Praeger.
Jaques, E. (1976), A General Theory of Bureaucracy, London: Heinemann.
Jaques, E. (1989), Requisite Organisation, Arlington, VA: Cason Hall.
Jaques, E. (1990), ‘In praise of hierarchy’, Harvard Business Review, 68, 127-133.
Jaques, E. and Clement, S.D. (1991), Executive Leadership: A Practical Guide to Managing
Complexity, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Kane, T.D. and Tremble, T.R. Jr. (1998), Transformational leadership effects at different
levels of the army, Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., and Kyngäs, H. (2007), ”Psychometric properties of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire among nurses”, Journal of Advanced Nursing , Vol.
57, pp. 201-212.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The social psychology of organizations, New York: John
Wiley.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations, second edition, New
York: John Wiley.
Koh, W.L. (1990), An empirical validation of the theory of transformational leadership in
secondary schools in Singapore, Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Kruger, J., and Dunning, D. (1999), “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in
recognising one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp.1121-1134.
33
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 34/49
Liden, R.C., and Antonakis, J. (2009), “Considering context in psychological leadership
research”, Human Relations, Vol. 62, pp. 1587-1604.
Lievens, F., Van Geit, P. and Coetsier, P. (1997), “Identification of transformational
leadership qualities: An examination of potential bias”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 415-430.
Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. and De Vader, C.L. (1984), ”A test of leadership categorisation theory:
Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 34, pp. 343-378.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 385-
425.
Meindl, J.R. (1990), On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom, in Straw,
B.M. and Cummings L.L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, Vol. 12, pp. 159-203.
Mount, M.K. and Scullen, S.E. (2001), Multi-source feedback ratings: What do they really
measure. In M. London (Ed.). How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, (pp155-
176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mumford, T.V.; Campion, M.A., and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “The leadership skills
requirements across organizational levels”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 154-
166.
Nealey, S.M., and Fiedler, F.E. (1968), “Leadership functions of middle managers”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70, Issue 5, pp. 313-329.
Oshagbemi, T. and Gill, R.W.T. (2004), “Differences in leadership styles and behavior across
hierarchical levels in UK organizations”, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 93-106.
34
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 35/49
Patterson, C., Fuller, J.B., Kester, K. and Stringer, D.Y. (1995), A Meta-analytic examination
of leadership style and selected compliance outcomes, Paper presented to the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Pawar, B.S. and Eastman, K.K. (1997), “The nature and implications of contextual influences
on transformational leadership: a conceptual examination”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 22, pp. 90-109.
Pittenger, D.J. (2001), “Review of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research”, in
Plake, B.S. and Impara, J.C. (Eds.), The Fourteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook,
Lincoln, Nebraska: The Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, The University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, pp. 806-808.
Porter, L.W., and McLaughlin, G.B. (2006), “Leadership and the organizational context: Like
the weather?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 559-576.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership:
Conceptual and empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 329-354.
Roscoe, J.T. (1975), Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Second
Edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (1984), Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and
Data Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rowe, W.G. (2001), “Creating wealth in organizations: The role of strategic leadership”,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15, pp. 81-94.
Salam, S., Cox, J.F. and Sims, H.P. Jr. (1997), “In the eye of the beholder: How leadership
relates to 360-degree performance ratings”, Group and Organization Management, Vol.
22, pp. 185-209.
35
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 36/49
Saskin, M. (1988), “The visionary leader”, in Conger, J.A. and Kanungo R.A. (Eds.),
Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness, San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 122-160.
Saville, P., Sik, G., Nyfield, G., Hackston, J. and Maclver, R. (1996). “A demonstration of
the validity of the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) in the measurement of
job competencies across time in separate organizations.” Applied Psychology: An
International Review, Vol. 45, pp. 243-262.
Schriesheim, C.A., Wu, J.B. and Scandura, T.A. (2009), “A Meso measure? Examination of
the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 604-616.
Schwarz, N. (1999), “Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers”, American
Psychologist , Vol. 54, pp. 93-105.
Sekaran, U. (2003), Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach, Fourth
Edition, New York: John Wiley.
Selznick, P. (1957), Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation, Evanston,
IL: Row, Peterson.
Sosik, J.J., Jung, D., and Dinger, S.L. (2009), “Values in authentic action: Examining the
roots and rewards of altruistic leadership”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 34,
pp. 395-431.
Spector, P.E. (1994), “Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the
use of a controversial method”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 385-392.
Stewart, M.M., and Johnson, O.E. (2009), “Leader member exchange as a moderator of the
relationship between work group diversity and team performance”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 34 , pp. 507-535.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research, New York,
NY: Free Press.
36
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 37/49
Stordeur, S., Vandenberghe, C. and D'hoore, W. (2000), “Leadership styles across
hierarchical levels in nursing departments”, Nursing Research, Vol. 49, pp. 37-43.
Tepper, B.T. and Percy, P.M. (1994), “Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54, pp. 734-744.
Tornow, W.W. (1993), “Perceptions are a reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means
or an end.” Human Resource Management , Vol. 32, pp. 221-230.
Waldman, D.A. and Yammarino, F.J. (1999), “CEO charismatic leadership: Levels of
management and levels of analysis effects.” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24, p.
266.
Weick, K.E., and Bougon, M.G. (2001), “Organizations as cognitive maps: Charting ways to
success and failure”, in K.E. Weick (Ed.). Making Sense of the Organization, Oxford:
Blackwell, pp. 308-329.
Yammarino, F.J. and Bass, B.M. (1990), ”Long-term forecasting of transformational
leadership and its effects among naval officers: some preliminary findings”, in Clark, K.E.
and Clark M.R. (Eds.), Measures of leadership, Greenboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership. West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America, pp. 151-170.
Yammarino, F.J. and Dubinsky, A.J. (1994), ”Transformational leadership theory: using
levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp.
787-811.
Yokochi, N. (1989), Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers:
Transformational and transactional, Doctoral Dissertation. San Diego, CA: United States
International University.
Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), The nature of executive leadership, Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
37
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 38/49
Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “Moderating role of follower
chararcteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement”, Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 34, pp. 590-619.
38
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 39/49
Table 1. Domains and Levels in Stratified-systems Theory
Time span Level Domain
20 years and over VII - Corporation Systems10-20 years VI - Group Systems
5-10 years V - Company Organisational
2-5 years IV - Division (General
Management)
Organisational
1-2 years III - Department Direct
3 months to 1 year II - Section Direct
Up to 3 months I – Shop Floor (Direct Employee) Direct
Source. Hunt, J.G. (1991). Leadership: A New Synthesis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p.17.
39
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 40/49
Table 2. Ratings Breakdown by Hierarchical Level
Top-level
(n=30)
Director-level
(n=33)
Senior-level
(n=54)
Middle-level
(n=43)
Lower-level
(n=55)
Rating Sources
Self rating 29 (30.8%) 32 (30.5%) 48 (27.7%) 39 (28.0%) 49 (26.5%)Superior rating 5 (5.3%) 20 (19.0%) 48 (27.7%) 37 (26.6%) 49 (26.5%)
Peer rating 5 (5.3%) 22 (21.0%) 40 (23.1%) 24 (17.3%) 41 (22.2%)Subordinate rating 48 (51.1%) 29 (27.6%) 37 (21.4%) 34 (24.5%) 39 (21.1%)
Unstated 7 (7.4%) 2 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (3.6%) 7 (3.8%)Total 94 105 173 139 185
Rating Scope
360 degree 12 (40.0%) 15 (49.5%) 20 (37.0%) 19 (44.2%) 29 (52.7%)270 degree 10 (33.3%) 9 (27.3%) 25 (46.3%) 15 (34.9%) 17 (30.9%)
180 degree 8 (26.7%) 9 (27.3%) 9 (16.7%) 9 (20.9%) 9 (16.4%)Total 30 33 54 43 55
Total Ratings 94 105 173 139 185
40
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 41/49
Table 3. Ratings Breakdown by Time Span
Two years
and under
five years
(n=49)
One year and
under two
years (n=79)
Three
months and
under one
year (n=53)
Up to three
months
(n=56)
Rating Sources
Self rating 49 (29.0%) 79 (29.0%) 52 (29.7%) 54 (27.3%)Superior rating 37 (21.9%) 70 (25.7%) 37 (21.1%) 41 (20.7%)
Peer rating 31 (18.3%) 46 (16.9%) 41 (23.4%) 52 (26.3%)Subordinate rating 47 (27.8%) 76 (27.9%) 41 (23.4%) 45 (22.7%)
Unstated 5 (3.0%) 1 (0.4%) 4 (2.3%) 6 (3.0%)
Total 169 272 175 198
Rating Scope
360 degree 27 (55.1%) 45 (57.0%) 25 (47.2%) 34 (60.7%)
270 degree 17 (34.7%) 24 (30.4%) 19 (35.8%) 18 (32.1%)180 degree 5 (10.2%) 10 (12.6%) 9 (17.0%) 4 (7.5%)
Total 49 79 53 56
Total Ratings 169 272 175 198
41
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 42/49
Table 4: Inter-Correlations between Analysis Variables
Variable M SD X₁ X₂ X₃ X₄ X₅ X₅ X₅ X₅ X₅
X₁ AC 2.63 .80 1.00
X₂ II 2.55 .83 .67*** 1.00
X₃ IM 2.68 .84 .68*** .73*** 1.00
X₄ IS 2.60 .76 .62*** .58*** .61*** 1.00
X₅ IC 2.71 .83 .62*** .55*** .56*** .65*** 1.00
X₅ CR 2.67 .80 .64*** .65*** .66*** .60*** .63*** 1.00
X₅MBEA 2.31 .87 .23*** .26*** .18*** .19*** .13*** .29*** 1.00X₅MBEP 1.25 .79 -.37*** -.25*** -.32*** -.33*** -.32*** -.30*** -.05* 1.00
X₅ LF .81 .75 -.46*** -.35*** -.41*** -.38*** -.39*** -.40*** -.08** .64*** 1.00
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001,
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 43/49
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r and
Spearman’s ρ ) for Hierarchical Level and Outcome Variable Scores
Dependent
Variable
Top-level
(n=30)
Director-level
(n=33)
Senior-level
(n=54)
Middle-level
(n=43)
Lower-level
(n=55)
Means and
Standard
Deviations
TFL 2.92 (.30) 2.81 (.43) 2.74 (.41) 2.62 (.44) 2.35 (.47)
TAL 2.07 (.26) 2.09 (.30) 2.11 (.25) 2.11 (.32) 2.02 (.24)
LF .68 (.43) .75 (.48) .75 (.43) .87 (.51) .90 (.53)EE 2.87 (.43) 2.61 (.53) 2.50 (.58) 2.34 (.62) 2.10 (.53)
EFF 2.94 (.46) 3.07 (.36) 2.98 (.41) 2.88 (.51) 2.88 (.53)
Extra Effort
TFL .48**¦ .77***¦ .70***¦ .69***¦ .63***¦TAL -.27 -.04 .30* .32* .19
LF -.56** -.52** -.31* -.35* -.26 Effectiveness
TFL .57**¦ .75***¦ .73***¦ .75***¦ .56***¦TAL .15 .07 .12 .45** .31*
LF -.60*** -.64*** -.52*** -.55*** -.65*** Satisfaction
TFL .69***¦
.74***¦
.76***¦
.70***¦
.65***¦
TAL .19 -.00 .26 .33* .29*
LF -.65*** -.56** -.47*** -.66*** -.49***
N.B. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, ¦ Spearman’s ρ value (all other values are Pearson’s r)
* Standard deviations in parenthesis
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 44/49
Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlation Coefficients (Pearson’s r and
Spearman’s ρ ) for Time Span and Outcome Variable Scores
Dependent
Variable
Two years and
under five years
(n=49)
One year and
under two years
(n=79)
Three months
and under one
year (n=53)
Up to three
months (n=56)
Means and
Standard
Deviations
TFL 2.77 (.43) 2.76 (.40) 2.71 (.39) 2.52 (.42)
TAL 2.11 (.27) 2.12 (.25) 2.03 (.27) 2.07 (.22)LF .84 (.47) .73 (.42) .68 (.40) .75 (.51)
EE 2.47 (.51) 2.48 (.59) 2.62 (.55) 2.30 (.61)
EFF 2.84 (.47) 3.02 (.43) 2.95 (.44) 2.94 (.43)SAT 2.99 (.52) 3.02 (.48) 2.98 (.54) 3.00 (.57)
Extra Effort
TFL .66***¦ .77***¦ .72***¦ .59***¦TAL .34* .32** -.03 .18LF -.32* -.42*** -.62*** -.19
Effectiveness
TFL .69***¦ .72***¦ .73***¦ .67***¦TAL .39* .22* .14 .18
LF -.50*** -.64*** -.64*** -.63***
Satisfaction
TFL .71***¦ .67***¦ .80***¦ .64***¦
TAL .36* .24* .06 .11LF -.59*** -.70*** -.62*** -.65***
N.B. * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, ¦ Spearman’s ρ value (all other values are Pearson’s r)
* Standard deviations in parenthesis
44
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 45/49
Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction by
Hierarchical Level
Independent Variable Top-level and Director-
level
(n = 63)
Senior-level
(n = 54)
Middle-level
(n = 43)
Lower-level
(n = 55)
Extra Effort
AC .15 .05 .55* .35
II -.09 -.19 .38 .28IM .17 .62** -.34 .18IS .40** .11 .36* -.16
IC .09 .27* -.05 .02CR -.05 .09 -.05 .10MBEA -.15 -.02 .12 -.20
MBEP .10 .15 -.20 -.20LF -.32* -.04 .29 .10
∆ R² .50 .58 .55 .38
F 7.97*** 9.12*** 6.78*** 4.58*** Effectiveness
AC .16 .23 .23 .37*
II .08 .15 .21 -.37**IM -.13 .25 -.12 -.51***
IS -.01 .13 -.05 -.05IC .34* .15 .31 .40**
CR .28* -.14 .14 .44***MBEA .00 -.12 .22 .32**
MBEP -.12 .02 -.19 -.09LF -.15 -.23 .02 -.33**
∆ R² .58 .53 .64 .70F 10.36*** 7.73*** 9.37*** 14.64*** Satisfaction
AC .38** .60** .06 .47**
II .11 -.26 .15 -.03IM -.22 .21 -.04 -.20
IS .10 -.04 -.01 -.25IC .32** .28* .47** .52**
CR .17 .04 -.07 .23MBEA -.06 -.04 .21* .05
MBEP -.11 .02 -.23 .00LF -.07 -.13 -.21 -.13
∆ R² .68 .63 .70 .58F 15.31*** 10.93*** 12.13*** 9.38***
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001, ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient, , F = F Ratio
45
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 46/49
Table 8: Results of Multiple Regression for Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction by
Time Span
Independent Variable Two years and over
(n = 65)
One year and
under two years
(n = 79)
Three months
and under one
year
(n = 53)
Up to three
months
(n = 56)
Extra Effort
AC .21 .27 .40* .49*
II .16 .15 -.06 .00IM .21 .24 .02 .13
IS .17 .06 .24 .06IC .10 .27* -.05 -.01
CR .02 .08 .22 .16MBEA -.12 .02 -.18 -.21
MBEP .05 .23* -.12 .07LF .03 .00 -.12 .12∆ R² .41 .62 .56 .32
F 5.90*** 14.92*** 8.28*** 3.92** Effectiveness
AC .24 .56*** .26 .34*
II .03 -.04 .12 -.02IM .16 -.07 -.17 -.34*
IS -.10 -.24* .08 .16IC .26 .28** .38** .02
CR .20 .23* .07 .36*MBEA -.04 -.10 .05 -.07
MBEP -.05 -.13 .01 -.19LF -.13 -.06 -.29* -.30*
∆ R² .58 .67 .64 .61F 10.92*** 18.58*** 11.35*** 10.67*** Satisfaction
AC .42* .45*** .27 .23
II -.07 -.11 .05 .04IM -.07 -.18 .05 -.15
IS -.02 -.09 .15 -.01IC .32 .39*** .42** .16
CR .22 .19* -.05 .16MBEA -.04 -.06 .05 -.03MBEP .02 .00 -.07 -.16LF -.15 -.30** -.11 -.35*
∆ R² .62 .74 .71 .49F 12.79*** 26.07*** 15.10*** 6.96***
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001, ∆ R² = Adjusted regression Coefficient, , F = F Ratio
Table 9: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Independent and Dependent
Variables by Category Variables
Organization Size Hierarchical Level Rating
R
Square
Change
F Change R
Square
Change
F
Change
R
Square
Change
F
Change
AC .00 .15 .07 37.33*** .00 1.03
II .00 .14 .11 56.36*** .03 17.81***IM .00 .64 .10 53.82*** .02 11.78**
IS .00 .00 .08 39.67*** .04 22.30***IC .00 .00 .00 1.69 .11 56.62***
TFL .00 .04 .09 46.56*** .05 26.60***
46
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 47/49
CR .00 1.39 .03 13.99*** .04 23.09***MBEA .00 .28 .02 10.46** .00 2.20
MBEP .01 3.63 .00 .16 .02 7.66**TAL .00 .01 .00 .14 .00 .01
LF .00 .12 .02 10.04** .05 24.58***EE .00 .00 .08 40.94*** .02 8.04**
EFF .00 .14 .01 3.53 .02 10.76**SAT .00 .52 .00 2.18 .03 13.35***
ACLEAD .00 .00 .08 42.00*** .05 28.32***PALEAD .00 .74 .00 2.22 .04 17.59***
N.B. * = P<0.05, ** = P<0.01, *** = P<0.001,
47
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 48/49
Figure 1. A Working Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across
Hierarchical Levels
Notes: The reason for the diamond shape for transformational and transactional is that whiletransactional leadership was conducive to extraeffort, effective and satisfying at middlemanagement levels it was only conducive toextra effort at senior levels and effective andsatisfying at lower levels. Laissez-faire wasinhibitory to extra effort, ineffective andunsatisfying at all levels.
Transformational leadership
Transformational and transactional leadership
LOWER
MIDDLE
SENIOR
DIRECTOR
TOP
48
7/30/2019 Leadership Across Hierarchical Levels
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leadership-across-hierarchical-levels 49/49
Figure 2. A Model of Transformational and Transactional Leadership across Hierarchical
Levels according to Different Rating Sources
Superior ratings Self-ratings
Subordinate Peer ratings
Key
Both transformational and transactional deemed effective
Only transformational leadership deemed effective
Denotes divisions between hierarchical levels