Leadership amp Organization Development JournalLeadersrsquo managerial assumptions and transformational leadership the moderatingrole of genderFaruk Şahin Sait Guumlrbuumlz Harun Şeşen

Article informationTo cite this documentFaruk Şahin Sait Guumlrbuumlz Harun Şeşen (2017) Leadersrsquo managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership the moderating role of gender Leadership amp Organization DevelopmentJournal Vol 38 Iss 1 pp 105 - 125Permanent link to this documenthttpdxdoiorg101108LODJ-11-2015-0239

Downloaded on 14 February 2017 At 0936 (PT)References this document contains references to 111 other documentsTo copy this document permissionsemeraldinsightcomThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 81 times since 2017

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded(2017)Measuring leader behaviour evidence for a ldquobig fiverdquo model of leadership Leadership ampampOrganization Development Journal Vol 38 Iss 1 pp 126-144(2017)The influence of servant leadership trust in leader and thriving on employee creativityLeadership ampamp Organization Development Journal Vol 38 Iss 1 pp 2-21

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byTokenJournalAuthor217B7BDC-E834-4894-A6B7-4109C54CD4E6

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this or any other Emerald publication then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all Please visit wwwemeraldinsightcomauthors for more information

About Emerald wwwemeraldinsightcomEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2350 books and book series volumes aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation

Related content and download information correct at time of download

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Leadersrsquo managerial assumptionsand transformational leadershipthe moderating role of gender

Faruk ŞahinDepartment of Management Muğla Sıtkı Koccedilman University Mugla Turkey

Sait GuumlrbuumlzDepartment of Defense Management Turkish Military Academy

Ankara Turkey andHarun Şeşen

Economics and Administrative Sciences Department European University of LefkeLefka Cyprus

AbstractPurpose ndash Although McGregorrsquos Theory X and Y holds significant attention in literature research on themanagerial assumptions and leadership is very scarce The purpose of this paper is to examine the influenceof a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions on follower perceptions of transformational leadershipbehaviors and the moderating role of the leaderrsquos gender in this relationshipDesignmethodologyapproach ndash A total of 108 leaders provided ratings of their Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions 398 followers then rated their leadersrsquo transformational leadership behavior To testthe hypotheses moderated hierarchical regression analysis was conductedFindings ndash The results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively related tothe followersrsquo ratings of transformational leadership behavior while a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively related to the ratings of transformational leadership behavior Furthermore therelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and ratings of transformational leadership behaviorare stronger for female leaders than male leadersOriginalityvalue ndash This study provides important insights for leadership literature by depicting howcognitive mental schemas (ie Theory X and Y assumptions) and gender influence their transformationalleadership behaviorsKeywords Gender Transformational leadership Theory Y Theory XPaper type Research paper

IntroductionA recent PsycINFO (2015) search indicated that 3008 papers have been published on thetransformational leadership since 1985 The number of studies on transformationalleadership is greater than on all other leadership theories and models Apparentlytransformational leadership has over the years received a continuing interest from scholarsbecause it has been linked to key outcomes such as follower motivation and satisfactionleader effectiveness and organizational performance ( Judge and Piccolo 2004)While scholars have learned a lot about its outcomes relatively little research has beendevoted to its antecedents (Avolio et al 2009 Bommer et al 2004) Previous studies revealedthat the leaderrsquos locus of control (Howell and Avolio 1993) Machiavellianism andnarcissism (Deluga 1997 2001) proactive personality (Crant and Bateman 2000) the BigFive traits (Bono and Judge 2004) and participation in meaningful relationships(Trepanier et al 2012) positively influenced transformational leadership behaviorsAlthough McGregor (1966) contended that a leaderrsquos view of human nature influences his or

Leadership amp OrganizationDevelopment JournalVol 38 No 1 2017

pp 105-125copy Emerald Publishing Limited

0143-7739DOI 101108LODJ-11-2015-0239

Received 4 November 2015Revised 9 January 2016

27 January 2016Accepted 28 January 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight atwwwemeraldinsightcom0143-7739htm

The authors would like to thank Professor Robert Costigan for his helpful comments on earlier draft ofthis manuscript

105

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

her leadership style and behaviors only one research (Pastor and Mayo 2008) has testedthe relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and hishertransformational leadership behaviors

Since the introduction of Theory X and Y over a half century ago it continues to holdsignificant attention in the management literature For example it was ranked second in termsof recognition among 73 organizational behavior theories (Miner 2003) Moreover the fellowsof theAcademy ofManagement voted his bookThe Human Side Enterprise as the fourth mostinfluential management book in the last century (Bedeian and Wren 2001) Notwithstandingthis recognition empirical research on Theory X and Y managerial assumptions has beenlimited due to several reasons For a relatively long time there was not a valid and reliableinstrument to measure the construct (Kopelman et al 2008) It has also been criticized forignoring the impact of environmental factors (Thomas and Bennis 1972) and being too simpleand undeveloped (eg Bobic and Davis 2003 Morse and Lorsch 1970 Reddin 1969)

Despite these criticisms recent studies revealed that Theory X and Y managerialassumptionsmay serve as a predictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) a leaderrsquospropensity for participative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of exchange relationshipsbetween a leader and a follower (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affectivecommitment (Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Pastor and Mayo (2008) found that self-ratings oftransformational leadership are associated with a Theory Y philosophy of managementIn addition Schein (2011) called for more research on Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptionsAll of this research suggests that an examination of Theory X and Y managerial assumptionsas a possible predictor of leadership behavior is still relevant

In a different vein gender is one of the most researched demographic variables in theassessment of various leadership theories (Barbuto et al 2007) Male and female leadersmay be viewed differently due to stereotypes and expectations Generally males areperceived as being assertive dominant confident and aggressive whereas females areexpected to be gentle demure and nurturing (Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Duehr and Bono2006 Eagly and Karau 2002 Koenig et al 2011) Meta-analytic studies indicated thatfemales adopt a more democratic and transformational style in their leadership than domales (Eagly et al 2003 Eagly and Johnson 1990 van Engen and Willemsen 2004)However several researchers have suggested the use of more robust research designs foridentifying the role of gender in relation to leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003Leithwood and Jantzi 1997 Lewis 1998)

In sum individuals have managerial assumptions regarding human nature that mayguide their choice of different leadership styles McGregor (1966) postulated that Theory Xand Y managerial assumptions and beliefs about human nature can result in autocraticdirective or democraticparticipative leadership behavior In line with this thinking weexpect that managerial assumptions will influence leadership ratings even more thangender It may be that the inconsistent findings involving the association between genderand leadership in these studies could be due to the masking of gender effects by amultiplicity of other influences on leadership ratings Perhaps one of these robust influencesis managerial assumptions about human nature

Both managerial assumptions and gender are the focus of the present study We test theconceptual relationships depicted in Figure 1 We aim to investigate the relationships betweenTheory X and Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership behaviors and themoderating role of the leaderrsquos gender on the predicted relationship More specifically thisstudy provides an empirical test of how a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions and gender interactto influence their transformational leadership behaviors as perceived by the followers Such astudy might yield important contributions in several ways It may deepen our understandingof how leadersrsquo cognitive mental schemas (ie Theory X and Y assumptions) and genderinfluence their preferred leadership behaviors Scholars can then develop new theoretical

106

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

models of transformational leadership including a previously overlooked antecedent(ie managerial assumptions) The present study might also aid the practitionersrsquounderstanding of mental frames and assumptions that underlie leadership behaviors

Theoretical rationale and hypothesis developmentTheory X and Theory YMcGregor (1960) proposed that managers have two sets of assumptions about theirsubordinates Theory X and Y Managers possessing a Theory X orientation assume that atypical subordinate holds unfavorable opinions about work finds work to be aversiveavoids taking responsibility for organizational results is risk averse is unmotivated isincapable of self-direction needs top-down direction and must be forced to work(McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory X managers areinclined to assume that subordinates must be ldquocontrolled directed (or) threatened withpunishment to get them to put forth the adequate effort toward the achievement oforganizational objectivesrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34)

In contrast managers with Theory Y orientation assume that followers inherently like towork exhibit self-direction on the job take responsibility for work performed generatecreative solutions to organizational problems and are committed to maximize their outputs(McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) McGregor (1960) furthersuggested that Theory Y managers maintain optimistic views of employees and displaymore participative leadership styles with management practices that encourage internalmotivation and participative decision making

There is some research that has examined how managersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptionsserve as predictors of workplace outcomes Sager (2008) organized this body of research inthree different categories behavioral cognitive and affective outcomes We will nowpresent each set of outcomes in detail

Behavioral outcomes Previous research confirms the relationship between Theory Xand Y assumptions and behavioral outcomes Fiman (1973) found that subordinatesperceived Theory Y managers to be more considerate than Theory X managers He alsoconfirmed that Theory X managers are more inclined to exhibit initiating structurebehavior Neuliep (1987) found that Theory X managers choose anti-social strategies(ie deceit aversive stimulation and threat) while Theory Y managers choose pro-socialinfluence tactics (ie ingratiation and esteem)

Larsson et al (2007) found that managers with a Theory X mindset are regarded as lesseffective leaders with their subordinates experiencing more health issues (eg absent moreoften due to sickness) In contrast managers with a Theory Y mindset tended to havesubordinates who experienced better health outcomes Sager (2008) explored the possibilitythat Theory X and Y assumptions predict various communication styles His findingsrevealed that Theory X assumptions are positively associated with a more dominant

Theory Xmanagerial

assumptions

Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions

Transformationalleadership

Gender

Figure 1Conceptual model of

the relationshipsbetween Theory X

and Ytransformational

leadership and gender

107

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

communication style In contrast Theory Y assumptions were found to be negativelyrelated to an anxious communicator style and positively linked to supportive andnon-verbally expressive communication styles In a more recent study Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)found that possessing Theory Y assumptions is positively associated with subordinatesrsquoorganizational citizenship behavior while possessing Theory X assumptions is notassociated with citizenship behavior

Cognitive outcomes Scholars have sought a connection between the Theory X and Yassumptions and cognitive outcomes For example Neuliep (1996) investigated the impact ofa managerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on perceptions of ethical behavior He reportedthat Theory X and Y managers did not differ significantly in the degree to which theyjudged ethical and unethical behaviors However Neuliep did find that the managers with aTheory X orientation regarded unethical behaviors to be more effective than did managerswith a Theory Y orientation In a more recent study Russ (2011) explored the effect of amanagerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on participative decision making He reported thathigher scores on the Theory Y scale predict a managerrsquos propensity to judge participativedecision making to be effective in organizational strategy Russ also found that relative toTheory Y managers Theory X managers perceive participative decision making to bethreat to their power

Affectiveattitudinal outcomes Fiman (1973) examined the link between supervisorsrsquoTheory X and Y assumptions and five facets of subordinate satisfaction (ie satisfactionwith supervisor work people pay and promotion) He reported that each of the fivefacets of subordinate satisfaction is positively related to their perceptions of the supervisorholding Theory Y assumptions Contrary to Fimanrsquos (1973) findings Brown and Ladawan(1979) reported that subordinatesrsquo level of satisfaction is unrelated to a managerrsquos Theory Xand Y orientation

In a recent study Şahin (2012a) observed that Theory Y managerial assumptions arepositively associated with the subordinatersquos affective commitment to organization and thequality of leader-member exchange relationship More recently Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)employed a multi-level research design and tested the link between leadersrsquo Theory X and Yorientations and subordinatesrsquo satisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Theyfound that the Theory Y management style is positively associated with the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Guumlrbuumlz and his colleagues alsoreported that the Theory X management style had a negative impact on the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader but had no effect on affective commitment

Transformational leadershipSince its introduction by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) transformational leadership hasincluded four leader behaviors inspirational motivation idealized influence individualconsideration and intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985 Bass and Avolio 1990) Inspirationalmotivation involves the communication of a compelling vision and the use of symbols toarticulate this vision Idealized influence refers to leaders who engage in charismatic actionsdiscuss important values and beliefs and focus on the benefits of the group instead of theindividual Individualized consideration includes coaching supporting and understandingof followers as well as recognizing their unique developmental needs Finally intellectualstimulation involves the challenging of followers to see problems from differentperspectives pushing them to develop innovative strategies (Bass 1985)

Based on Podsakoff et alrsquos (1990) categorization Carless et al (2000) suggested anexpanded list of behaviors in the transformational leadership concept ldquo(i) communicates avision (ii) develops staff (iii) provides support (iv) empowers staff (v) is innovative(vi) leads by example and (vii) is charismaticrdquo (p 390) They developed a seven-item

108

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

global transformational leadership (GTL) scale to assess this broader range oftransformational leader behaviors In the present study we have used Carless et alrsquosoperationalization to measure transformational leadership The GTL scale was preferredbecause of its brevity and unidimensionality Moreover several researches (eg Loweet al 1996) indicated that the subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) are highly correlated

Predictors of transformational leadership Our study investigates whether a leaderrsquosTheory X and Y assumptions serve as significant cognitive determinants oftransformational leadership behavior as rated by the leaderrsquos followers The role of theleadersrsquo gender in moderating this association between Theory X and Y assumptions andleader behavior is also considered To our knowledge no studies have explored theseresearch questions Over the past couple of decades researchers have learned a great dealabout the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on important outcomes such asjob satisfaction and organizational performance (see Judge and Piccolo 2004) In facttransformational leadership research has focused more on outcomes than predictors(Avolio et al 2009) Relatively little is known about dispositional cognitive and contextualantecedents of leadersrsquo transformational leadership behaviors

Atwater and Yammarino (1993) reported that personal attributes (ie intelligencewarmth conformity sensingintuition thinkingfeeling emotional coping and athleticexperience) accounted for 28 percent of the variance in ratings of transformationalleadership behavior Howell and Avolio (1993) discovered that a leaderrsquos internal locus ofcontrol is associated with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration Crantand Bateman (2000) suggested that self-reported proactive personality is positively relatedto the supervisorrsquos ratings of their charismatic leadership Somewhat ominouslyDeluga (1997 2001) found that Machiavellianism and narcissism are positively associatedwith presidential charismatic leadership behavior

In their meta-analysis Bono and Judge (2004) found that four of the Big Five traits(ie extraversion neuroticism openness and agreeableness) are significantly related totransformational leadership Bommer et alrsquos (2004) findings revealed that managers who arehighly cynical about organizational change are less likely to engage in transformationalleadership behaviors Sosik (2005) discovered that the more traditional values such ascollectivism self-transcendence and self-enhancement are positively related to charismaticleadership Treacutepanier et al (2012) reported that leaders who believe they participate inmeaningful relationships at work tend to view themselves as transformational leadersinspiring and imparting a sense of mission to others

Linking Theory X and Y assumptions to transformational leadershipBuilding on implicit followership theories (IFTs) (eg Sy 2010) the present study exploresthe predictive influence of Theory X and Y assumptions on a leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior IFTs provide a theoretical justification for this proposed relationshipIFTs are described as ldquoindividualsrsquo personal assumptions about the traits and behaviorsthat characterize followersrdquo (Sy 2010 p 74) In a similar vein individuals in leadership rolesmay choose behaviors based on their implicit assumptions about human nature LikewiseEden (1990) argued that a leaderrsquos performance and behavior expectations are influenced bytheir own implicit follower theories From this perspective we posit that leaders establishmental schemas of follower attributes that are based on their Theory X and Y managerialassumptions Subsequently these cognitive schemas and corresponding assumptions mightcharacterize leader behaviors toward followers

Specifically leaders who establish their mental schemas around Theory Y assumptions aremore likely to maintain optimistic views of followers and display participative leadership

109

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

styles with practices that foster internal motivation and participative decision making(McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory Y leaders assume that their followers areintrinsically motivated to satisfy higher-order needs for esteem and self-actualization(McGregor 1960) They believe that a follower ldquowill exercise self-direction and self-control inthe service of objectives to which he is committedrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 47) Sabanci (2008)indicated that a leader who holds Theory Y assumptions tends to demonstrate a relationship-oriented democratic leadership style Thus holding Theory Y managerial assumptions isexpected to influence a leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviors

Prior studies have confirmed that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are asignificant predictor of leader-related outcomes For example Pastor and Mayorsquos (2008)study indicated that ratings of transformational leadership are associated with a Theory Yphilosophy of management Sager (2008) found that Theory Y assumptions are positivelyrelated to supportive non-verbally expressive communicator styles of leaders Russ (2011)reported that Theory Y managers perceive a positive consequence from participativedecision making on their power and organizational effectiveness Şahin (2012a) discoveredthat Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively associated with the quality ofleader-member exchange relationships Sager (2015) found that a Theory Y orientation is asignificant predictor of the superiorrsquos downward maintenance communication Based onthese arguments it is plausible that there is a positive relationship between a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions and their transformational leadership behavior This proposition ismore formally expressed in the following hypothesis

H1 The leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions will be positively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Leaders who establish mental schemas in line with Theory X assumptions are more likely toassume that a follower ldquoprefers to be directed wishes to avoid responsibility has relativelylittle ambition and wants security above allrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34) Theory X leaders areinclined to motivate employees using extrinsic rewards emphasize close supervision ofemployees and rely on the chain of command (McGregor 1960)

Because Theory X leaders assume that their followers are not capable of self-directionand self-control they may feel a greater need to assert control over their followers Sabanci(2008) indicated that a leader who holds Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate atask-oriented autocratic leadership style Similar to this claim Sager (2008) found a positiverelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and the leaderrsquos dominantcommunication style Russ (2011) reported that participative decision making is perceivedby Theory X leaders as having a negative impact on their power Based on these argumentsit is plausible that there is a negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X assumptionsand their transformational leadership behavior This proposition is expressed in thefollowing hypothesis

H2 The leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions will be negatively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Moderating role of genderAccording to social role theory (eg Eagly 1987 Eagly et al 2000) individuals behave inways that conform to the societal expectations of the gender role Based on socialroles females are traditionally expected to be communal and warm males are expectedto be agentic and competent (eg Duehr and Bono 2006 Eagly and Karau 2002Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Heilman et al 1989 1995 Koenig et al 2011) Historicallyeffective leadership was thought to require more masculine agentic qualities(eg Brenner et al 1989 Schein 1973 2007 Powell and Butterfield 1979 1984 1989)

110

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

her leadership style and behaviors only one research (Pastor and Mayo 2008) has testedthe relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and hishertransformational leadership behaviors

Since the introduction of Theory X and Y over a half century ago it continues to holdsignificant attention in the management literature For example it was ranked second in termsof recognition among 73 organizational behavior theories (Miner 2003) Moreover the fellowsof theAcademy ofManagement voted his bookThe Human Side Enterprise as the fourth mostinfluential management book in the last century (Bedeian and Wren 2001) Notwithstandingthis recognition empirical research on Theory X and Y managerial assumptions has beenlimited due to several reasons For a relatively long time there was not a valid and reliableinstrument to measure the construct (Kopelman et al 2008) It has also been criticized forignoring the impact of environmental factors (Thomas and Bennis 1972) and being too simpleand undeveloped (eg Bobic and Davis 2003 Morse and Lorsch 1970 Reddin 1969)

Despite these criticisms recent studies revealed that Theory X and Y managerialassumptionsmay serve as a predictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) a leaderrsquospropensity for participative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of exchange relationshipsbetween a leader and a follower (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affectivecommitment (Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Pastor and Mayo (2008) found that self-ratings oftransformational leadership are associated with a Theory Y philosophy of managementIn addition Schein (2011) called for more research on Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptionsAll of this research suggests that an examination of Theory X and Y managerial assumptionsas a possible predictor of leadership behavior is still relevant

In a different vein gender is one of the most researched demographic variables in theassessment of various leadership theories (Barbuto et al 2007) Male and female leadersmay be viewed differently due to stereotypes and expectations Generally males areperceived as being assertive dominant confident and aggressive whereas females areexpected to be gentle demure and nurturing (Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Duehr and Bono2006 Eagly and Karau 2002 Koenig et al 2011) Meta-analytic studies indicated thatfemales adopt a more democratic and transformational style in their leadership than domales (Eagly et al 2003 Eagly and Johnson 1990 van Engen and Willemsen 2004)However several researchers have suggested the use of more robust research designs foridentifying the role of gender in relation to leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003Leithwood and Jantzi 1997 Lewis 1998)

In sum individuals have managerial assumptions regarding human nature that mayguide their choice of different leadership styles McGregor (1966) postulated that Theory Xand Y managerial assumptions and beliefs about human nature can result in autocraticdirective or democraticparticipative leadership behavior In line with this thinking weexpect that managerial assumptions will influence leadership ratings even more thangender It may be that the inconsistent findings involving the association between genderand leadership in these studies could be due to the masking of gender effects by amultiplicity of other influences on leadership ratings Perhaps one of these robust influencesis managerial assumptions about human nature

Both managerial assumptions and gender are the focus of the present study We test theconceptual relationships depicted in Figure 1 We aim to investigate the relationships betweenTheory X and Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership behaviors and themoderating role of the leaderrsquos gender on the predicted relationship More specifically thisstudy provides an empirical test of how a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions and gender interactto influence their transformational leadership behaviors as perceived by the followers Such astudy might yield important contributions in several ways It may deepen our understandingof how leadersrsquo cognitive mental schemas (ie Theory X and Y assumptions) and genderinfluence their preferred leadership behaviors Scholars can then develop new theoretical

106

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

models of transformational leadership including a previously overlooked antecedent(ie managerial assumptions) The present study might also aid the practitionersrsquounderstanding of mental frames and assumptions that underlie leadership behaviors

Theoretical rationale and hypothesis developmentTheory X and Theory YMcGregor (1960) proposed that managers have two sets of assumptions about theirsubordinates Theory X and Y Managers possessing a Theory X orientation assume that atypical subordinate holds unfavorable opinions about work finds work to be aversiveavoids taking responsibility for organizational results is risk averse is unmotivated isincapable of self-direction needs top-down direction and must be forced to work(McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory X managers areinclined to assume that subordinates must be ldquocontrolled directed (or) threatened withpunishment to get them to put forth the adequate effort toward the achievement oforganizational objectivesrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34)

In contrast managers with Theory Y orientation assume that followers inherently like towork exhibit self-direction on the job take responsibility for work performed generatecreative solutions to organizational problems and are committed to maximize their outputs(McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) McGregor (1960) furthersuggested that Theory Y managers maintain optimistic views of employees and displaymore participative leadership styles with management practices that encourage internalmotivation and participative decision making

There is some research that has examined how managersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptionsserve as predictors of workplace outcomes Sager (2008) organized this body of research inthree different categories behavioral cognitive and affective outcomes We will nowpresent each set of outcomes in detail

Behavioral outcomes Previous research confirms the relationship between Theory Xand Y assumptions and behavioral outcomes Fiman (1973) found that subordinatesperceived Theory Y managers to be more considerate than Theory X managers He alsoconfirmed that Theory X managers are more inclined to exhibit initiating structurebehavior Neuliep (1987) found that Theory X managers choose anti-social strategies(ie deceit aversive stimulation and threat) while Theory Y managers choose pro-socialinfluence tactics (ie ingratiation and esteem)

Larsson et al (2007) found that managers with a Theory X mindset are regarded as lesseffective leaders with their subordinates experiencing more health issues (eg absent moreoften due to sickness) In contrast managers with a Theory Y mindset tended to havesubordinates who experienced better health outcomes Sager (2008) explored the possibilitythat Theory X and Y assumptions predict various communication styles His findingsrevealed that Theory X assumptions are positively associated with a more dominant

Theory Xmanagerial

assumptions

Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions

Transformationalleadership

Gender

Figure 1Conceptual model of

the relationshipsbetween Theory X

and Ytransformational

leadership and gender

107

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

communication style In contrast Theory Y assumptions were found to be negativelyrelated to an anxious communicator style and positively linked to supportive andnon-verbally expressive communication styles In a more recent study Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)found that possessing Theory Y assumptions is positively associated with subordinatesrsquoorganizational citizenship behavior while possessing Theory X assumptions is notassociated with citizenship behavior

Cognitive outcomes Scholars have sought a connection between the Theory X and Yassumptions and cognitive outcomes For example Neuliep (1996) investigated the impact ofa managerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on perceptions of ethical behavior He reportedthat Theory X and Y managers did not differ significantly in the degree to which theyjudged ethical and unethical behaviors However Neuliep did find that the managers with aTheory X orientation regarded unethical behaviors to be more effective than did managerswith a Theory Y orientation In a more recent study Russ (2011) explored the effect of amanagerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on participative decision making He reported thathigher scores on the Theory Y scale predict a managerrsquos propensity to judge participativedecision making to be effective in organizational strategy Russ also found that relative toTheory Y managers Theory X managers perceive participative decision making to bethreat to their power

Affectiveattitudinal outcomes Fiman (1973) examined the link between supervisorsrsquoTheory X and Y assumptions and five facets of subordinate satisfaction (ie satisfactionwith supervisor work people pay and promotion) He reported that each of the fivefacets of subordinate satisfaction is positively related to their perceptions of the supervisorholding Theory Y assumptions Contrary to Fimanrsquos (1973) findings Brown and Ladawan(1979) reported that subordinatesrsquo level of satisfaction is unrelated to a managerrsquos Theory Xand Y orientation

In a recent study Şahin (2012a) observed that Theory Y managerial assumptions arepositively associated with the subordinatersquos affective commitment to organization and thequality of leader-member exchange relationship More recently Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)employed a multi-level research design and tested the link between leadersrsquo Theory X and Yorientations and subordinatesrsquo satisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Theyfound that the Theory Y management style is positively associated with the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Guumlrbuumlz and his colleagues alsoreported that the Theory X management style had a negative impact on the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader but had no effect on affective commitment

Transformational leadershipSince its introduction by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) transformational leadership hasincluded four leader behaviors inspirational motivation idealized influence individualconsideration and intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985 Bass and Avolio 1990) Inspirationalmotivation involves the communication of a compelling vision and the use of symbols toarticulate this vision Idealized influence refers to leaders who engage in charismatic actionsdiscuss important values and beliefs and focus on the benefits of the group instead of theindividual Individualized consideration includes coaching supporting and understandingof followers as well as recognizing their unique developmental needs Finally intellectualstimulation involves the challenging of followers to see problems from differentperspectives pushing them to develop innovative strategies (Bass 1985)

Based on Podsakoff et alrsquos (1990) categorization Carless et al (2000) suggested anexpanded list of behaviors in the transformational leadership concept ldquo(i) communicates avision (ii) develops staff (iii) provides support (iv) empowers staff (v) is innovative(vi) leads by example and (vii) is charismaticrdquo (p 390) They developed a seven-item

108

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

global transformational leadership (GTL) scale to assess this broader range oftransformational leader behaviors In the present study we have used Carless et alrsquosoperationalization to measure transformational leadership The GTL scale was preferredbecause of its brevity and unidimensionality Moreover several researches (eg Loweet al 1996) indicated that the subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) are highly correlated

Predictors of transformational leadership Our study investigates whether a leaderrsquosTheory X and Y assumptions serve as significant cognitive determinants oftransformational leadership behavior as rated by the leaderrsquos followers The role of theleadersrsquo gender in moderating this association between Theory X and Y assumptions andleader behavior is also considered To our knowledge no studies have explored theseresearch questions Over the past couple of decades researchers have learned a great dealabout the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on important outcomes such asjob satisfaction and organizational performance (see Judge and Piccolo 2004) In facttransformational leadership research has focused more on outcomes than predictors(Avolio et al 2009) Relatively little is known about dispositional cognitive and contextualantecedents of leadersrsquo transformational leadership behaviors

Atwater and Yammarino (1993) reported that personal attributes (ie intelligencewarmth conformity sensingintuition thinkingfeeling emotional coping and athleticexperience) accounted for 28 percent of the variance in ratings of transformationalleadership behavior Howell and Avolio (1993) discovered that a leaderrsquos internal locus ofcontrol is associated with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration Crantand Bateman (2000) suggested that self-reported proactive personality is positively relatedto the supervisorrsquos ratings of their charismatic leadership Somewhat ominouslyDeluga (1997 2001) found that Machiavellianism and narcissism are positively associatedwith presidential charismatic leadership behavior

In their meta-analysis Bono and Judge (2004) found that four of the Big Five traits(ie extraversion neuroticism openness and agreeableness) are significantly related totransformational leadership Bommer et alrsquos (2004) findings revealed that managers who arehighly cynical about organizational change are less likely to engage in transformationalleadership behaviors Sosik (2005) discovered that the more traditional values such ascollectivism self-transcendence and self-enhancement are positively related to charismaticleadership Treacutepanier et al (2012) reported that leaders who believe they participate inmeaningful relationships at work tend to view themselves as transformational leadersinspiring and imparting a sense of mission to others

Linking Theory X and Y assumptions to transformational leadershipBuilding on implicit followership theories (IFTs) (eg Sy 2010) the present study exploresthe predictive influence of Theory X and Y assumptions on a leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior IFTs provide a theoretical justification for this proposed relationshipIFTs are described as ldquoindividualsrsquo personal assumptions about the traits and behaviorsthat characterize followersrdquo (Sy 2010 p 74) In a similar vein individuals in leadership rolesmay choose behaviors based on their implicit assumptions about human nature LikewiseEden (1990) argued that a leaderrsquos performance and behavior expectations are influenced bytheir own implicit follower theories From this perspective we posit that leaders establishmental schemas of follower attributes that are based on their Theory X and Y managerialassumptions Subsequently these cognitive schemas and corresponding assumptions mightcharacterize leader behaviors toward followers

Specifically leaders who establish their mental schemas around Theory Y assumptions aremore likely to maintain optimistic views of followers and display participative leadership

109

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

styles with practices that foster internal motivation and participative decision making(McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory Y leaders assume that their followers areintrinsically motivated to satisfy higher-order needs for esteem and self-actualization(McGregor 1960) They believe that a follower ldquowill exercise self-direction and self-control inthe service of objectives to which he is committedrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 47) Sabanci (2008)indicated that a leader who holds Theory Y assumptions tends to demonstrate a relationship-oriented democratic leadership style Thus holding Theory Y managerial assumptions isexpected to influence a leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviors

Prior studies have confirmed that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are asignificant predictor of leader-related outcomes For example Pastor and Mayorsquos (2008)study indicated that ratings of transformational leadership are associated with a Theory Yphilosophy of management Sager (2008) found that Theory Y assumptions are positivelyrelated to supportive non-verbally expressive communicator styles of leaders Russ (2011)reported that Theory Y managers perceive a positive consequence from participativedecision making on their power and organizational effectiveness Şahin (2012a) discoveredthat Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively associated with the quality ofleader-member exchange relationships Sager (2015) found that a Theory Y orientation is asignificant predictor of the superiorrsquos downward maintenance communication Based onthese arguments it is plausible that there is a positive relationship between a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions and their transformational leadership behavior This proposition ismore formally expressed in the following hypothesis

H1 The leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions will be positively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Leaders who establish mental schemas in line with Theory X assumptions are more likely toassume that a follower ldquoprefers to be directed wishes to avoid responsibility has relativelylittle ambition and wants security above allrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34) Theory X leaders areinclined to motivate employees using extrinsic rewards emphasize close supervision ofemployees and rely on the chain of command (McGregor 1960)

Because Theory X leaders assume that their followers are not capable of self-directionand self-control they may feel a greater need to assert control over their followers Sabanci(2008) indicated that a leader who holds Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate atask-oriented autocratic leadership style Similar to this claim Sager (2008) found a positiverelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and the leaderrsquos dominantcommunication style Russ (2011) reported that participative decision making is perceivedby Theory X leaders as having a negative impact on their power Based on these argumentsit is plausible that there is a negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X assumptionsand their transformational leadership behavior This proposition is expressed in thefollowing hypothesis

H2 The leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions will be negatively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Moderating role of genderAccording to social role theory (eg Eagly 1987 Eagly et al 2000) individuals behave inways that conform to the societal expectations of the gender role Based on socialroles females are traditionally expected to be communal and warm males are expectedto be agentic and competent (eg Duehr and Bono 2006 Eagly and Karau 2002Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Heilman et al 1989 1995 Koenig et al 2011) Historicallyeffective leadership was thought to require more masculine agentic qualities(eg Brenner et al 1989 Schein 1973 2007 Powell and Butterfield 1979 1984 1989)

110

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

models of transformational leadership including a previously overlooked antecedent(ie managerial assumptions) The present study might also aid the practitionersrsquounderstanding of mental frames and assumptions that underlie leadership behaviors

Theoretical rationale and hypothesis developmentTheory X and Theory YMcGregor (1960) proposed that managers have two sets of assumptions about theirsubordinates Theory X and Y Managers possessing a Theory X orientation assume that atypical subordinate holds unfavorable opinions about work finds work to be aversiveavoids taking responsibility for organizational results is risk averse is unmotivated isincapable of self-direction needs top-down direction and must be forced to work(McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory X managers areinclined to assume that subordinates must be ldquocontrolled directed (or) threatened withpunishment to get them to put forth the adequate effort toward the achievement oforganizational objectivesrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34)

In contrast managers with Theory Y orientation assume that followers inherently like towork exhibit self-direction on the job take responsibility for work performed generatecreative solutions to organizational problems and are committed to maximize their outputs(McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) McGregor (1960) furthersuggested that Theory Y managers maintain optimistic views of employees and displaymore participative leadership styles with management practices that encourage internalmotivation and participative decision making

There is some research that has examined how managersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptionsserve as predictors of workplace outcomes Sager (2008) organized this body of research inthree different categories behavioral cognitive and affective outcomes We will nowpresent each set of outcomes in detail

Behavioral outcomes Previous research confirms the relationship between Theory Xand Y assumptions and behavioral outcomes Fiman (1973) found that subordinatesperceived Theory Y managers to be more considerate than Theory X managers He alsoconfirmed that Theory X managers are more inclined to exhibit initiating structurebehavior Neuliep (1987) found that Theory X managers choose anti-social strategies(ie deceit aversive stimulation and threat) while Theory Y managers choose pro-socialinfluence tactics (ie ingratiation and esteem)

Larsson et al (2007) found that managers with a Theory X mindset are regarded as lesseffective leaders with their subordinates experiencing more health issues (eg absent moreoften due to sickness) In contrast managers with a Theory Y mindset tended to havesubordinates who experienced better health outcomes Sager (2008) explored the possibilitythat Theory X and Y assumptions predict various communication styles His findingsrevealed that Theory X assumptions are positively associated with a more dominant

Theory Xmanagerial

assumptions

Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions

Transformationalleadership

Gender

Figure 1Conceptual model of

the relationshipsbetween Theory X

and Ytransformational

leadership and gender

107

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

communication style In contrast Theory Y assumptions were found to be negativelyrelated to an anxious communicator style and positively linked to supportive andnon-verbally expressive communication styles In a more recent study Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)found that possessing Theory Y assumptions is positively associated with subordinatesrsquoorganizational citizenship behavior while possessing Theory X assumptions is notassociated with citizenship behavior

Cognitive outcomes Scholars have sought a connection between the Theory X and Yassumptions and cognitive outcomes For example Neuliep (1996) investigated the impact ofa managerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on perceptions of ethical behavior He reportedthat Theory X and Y managers did not differ significantly in the degree to which theyjudged ethical and unethical behaviors However Neuliep did find that the managers with aTheory X orientation regarded unethical behaviors to be more effective than did managerswith a Theory Y orientation In a more recent study Russ (2011) explored the effect of amanagerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on participative decision making He reported thathigher scores on the Theory Y scale predict a managerrsquos propensity to judge participativedecision making to be effective in organizational strategy Russ also found that relative toTheory Y managers Theory X managers perceive participative decision making to bethreat to their power

Affectiveattitudinal outcomes Fiman (1973) examined the link between supervisorsrsquoTheory X and Y assumptions and five facets of subordinate satisfaction (ie satisfactionwith supervisor work people pay and promotion) He reported that each of the fivefacets of subordinate satisfaction is positively related to their perceptions of the supervisorholding Theory Y assumptions Contrary to Fimanrsquos (1973) findings Brown and Ladawan(1979) reported that subordinatesrsquo level of satisfaction is unrelated to a managerrsquos Theory Xand Y orientation

In a recent study Şahin (2012a) observed that Theory Y managerial assumptions arepositively associated with the subordinatersquos affective commitment to organization and thequality of leader-member exchange relationship More recently Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)employed a multi-level research design and tested the link between leadersrsquo Theory X and Yorientations and subordinatesrsquo satisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Theyfound that the Theory Y management style is positively associated with the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Guumlrbuumlz and his colleagues alsoreported that the Theory X management style had a negative impact on the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader but had no effect on affective commitment

Transformational leadershipSince its introduction by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) transformational leadership hasincluded four leader behaviors inspirational motivation idealized influence individualconsideration and intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985 Bass and Avolio 1990) Inspirationalmotivation involves the communication of a compelling vision and the use of symbols toarticulate this vision Idealized influence refers to leaders who engage in charismatic actionsdiscuss important values and beliefs and focus on the benefits of the group instead of theindividual Individualized consideration includes coaching supporting and understandingof followers as well as recognizing their unique developmental needs Finally intellectualstimulation involves the challenging of followers to see problems from differentperspectives pushing them to develop innovative strategies (Bass 1985)

Based on Podsakoff et alrsquos (1990) categorization Carless et al (2000) suggested anexpanded list of behaviors in the transformational leadership concept ldquo(i) communicates avision (ii) develops staff (iii) provides support (iv) empowers staff (v) is innovative(vi) leads by example and (vii) is charismaticrdquo (p 390) They developed a seven-item

108

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

global transformational leadership (GTL) scale to assess this broader range oftransformational leader behaviors In the present study we have used Carless et alrsquosoperationalization to measure transformational leadership The GTL scale was preferredbecause of its brevity and unidimensionality Moreover several researches (eg Loweet al 1996) indicated that the subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) are highly correlated

Predictors of transformational leadership Our study investigates whether a leaderrsquosTheory X and Y assumptions serve as significant cognitive determinants oftransformational leadership behavior as rated by the leaderrsquos followers The role of theleadersrsquo gender in moderating this association between Theory X and Y assumptions andleader behavior is also considered To our knowledge no studies have explored theseresearch questions Over the past couple of decades researchers have learned a great dealabout the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on important outcomes such asjob satisfaction and organizational performance (see Judge and Piccolo 2004) In facttransformational leadership research has focused more on outcomes than predictors(Avolio et al 2009) Relatively little is known about dispositional cognitive and contextualantecedents of leadersrsquo transformational leadership behaviors

Atwater and Yammarino (1993) reported that personal attributes (ie intelligencewarmth conformity sensingintuition thinkingfeeling emotional coping and athleticexperience) accounted for 28 percent of the variance in ratings of transformationalleadership behavior Howell and Avolio (1993) discovered that a leaderrsquos internal locus ofcontrol is associated with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration Crantand Bateman (2000) suggested that self-reported proactive personality is positively relatedto the supervisorrsquos ratings of their charismatic leadership Somewhat ominouslyDeluga (1997 2001) found that Machiavellianism and narcissism are positively associatedwith presidential charismatic leadership behavior

In their meta-analysis Bono and Judge (2004) found that four of the Big Five traits(ie extraversion neuroticism openness and agreeableness) are significantly related totransformational leadership Bommer et alrsquos (2004) findings revealed that managers who arehighly cynical about organizational change are less likely to engage in transformationalleadership behaviors Sosik (2005) discovered that the more traditional values such ascollectivism self-transcendence and self-enhancement are positively related to charismaticleadership Treacutepanier et al (2012) reported that leaders who believe they participate inmeaningful relationships at work tend to view themselves as transformational leadersinspiring and imparting a sense of mission to others

Linking Theory X and Y assumptions to transformational leadershipBuilding on implicit followership theories (IFTs) (eg Sy 2010) the present study exploresthe predictive influence of Theory X and Y assumptions on a leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior IFTs provide a theoretical justification for this proposed relationshipIFTs are described as ldquoindividualsrsquo personal assumptions about the traits and behaviorsthat characterize followersrdquo (Sy 2010 p 74) In a similar vein individuals in leadership rolesmay choose behaviors based on their implicit assumptions about human nature LikewiseEden (1990) argued that a leaderrsquos performance and behavior expectations are influenced bytheir own implicit follower theories From this perspective we posit that leaders establishmental schemas of follower attributes that are based on their Theory X and Y managerialassumptions Subsequently these cognitive schemas and corresponding assumptions mightcharacterize leader behaviors toward followers

Specifically leaders who establish their mental schemas around Theory Y assumptions aremore likely to maintain optimistic views of followers and display participative leadership

109

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

styles with practices that foster internal motivation and participative decision making(McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory Y leaders assume that their followers areintrinsically motivated to satisfy higher-order needs for esteem and self-actualization(McGregor 1960) They believe that a follower ldquowill exercise self-direction and self-control inthe service of objectives to which he is committedrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 47) Sabanci (2008)indicated that a leader who holds Theory Y assumptions tends to demonstrate a relationship-oriented democratic leadership style Thus holding Theory Y managerial assumptions isexpected to influence a leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviors

Prior studies have confirmed that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are asignificant predictor of leader-related outcomes For example Pastor and Mayorsquos (2008)study indicated that ratings of transformational leadership are associated with a Theory Yphilosophy of management Sager (2008) found that Theory Y assumptions are positivelyrelated to supportive non-verbally expressive communicator styles of leaders Russ (2011)reported that Theory Y managers perceive a positive consequence from participativedecision making on their power and organizational effectiveness Şahin (2012a) discoveredthat Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively associated with the quality ofleader-member exchange relationships Sager (2015) found that a Theory Y orientation is asignificant predictor of the superiorrsquos downward maintenance communication Based onthese arguments it is plausible that there is a positive relationship between a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions and their transformational leadership behavior This proposition ismore formally expressed in the following hypothesis

H1 The leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions will be positively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Leaders who establish mental schemas in line with Theory X assumptions are more likely toassume that a follower ldquoprefers to be directed wishes to avoid responsibility has relativelylittle ambition and wants security above allrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34) Theory X leaders areinclined to motivate employees using extrinsic rewards emphasize close supervision ofemployees and rely on the chain of command (McGregor 1960)

Because Theory X leaders assume that their followers are not capable of self-directionand self-control they may feel a greater need to assert control over their followers Sabanci(2008) indicated that a leader who holds Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate atask-oriented autocratic leadership style Similar to this claim Sager (2008) found a positiverelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and the leaderrsquos dominantcommunication style Russ (2011) reported that participative decision making is perceivedby Theory X leaders as having a negative impact on their power Based on these argumentsit is plausible that there is a negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X assumptionsand their transformational leadership behavior This proposition is expressed in thefollowing hypothesis

H2 The leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions will be negatively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Moderating role of genderAccording to social role theory (eg Eagly 1987 Eagly et al 2000) individuals behave inways that conform to the societal expectations of the gender role Based on socialroles females are traditionally expected to be communal and warm males are expectedto be agentic and competent (eg Duehr and Bono 2006 Eagly and Karau 2002Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Heilman et al 1989 1995 Koenig et al 2011) Historicallyeffective leadership was thought to require more masculine agentic qualities(eg Brenner et al 1989 Schein 1973 2007 Powell and Butterfield 1979 1984 1989)

110

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

communication style In contrast Theory Y assumptions were found to be negativelyrelated to an anxious communicator style and positively linked to supportive andnon-verbally expressive communication styles In a more recent study Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)found that possessing Theory Y assumptions is positively associated with subordinatesrsquoorganizational citizenship behavior while possessing Theory X assumptions is notassociated with citizenship behavior

Cognitive outcomes Scholars have sought a connection between the Theory X and Yassumptions and cognitive outcomes For example Neuliep (1996) investigated the impact ofa managerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on perceptions of ethical behavior He reportedthat Theory X and Y managers did not differ significantly in the degree to which theyjudged ethical and unethical behaviors However Neuliep did find that the managers with aTheory X orientation regarded unethical behaviors to be more effective than did managerswith a Theory Y orientation In a more recent study Russ (2011) explored the effect of amanagerrsquos Theory X and Y assumptions on participative decision making He reported thathigher scores on the Theory Y scale predict a managerrsquos propensity to judge participativedecision making to be effective in organizational strategy Russ also found that relative toTheory Y managers Theory X managers perceive participative decision making to bethreat to their power

Affectiveattitudinal outcomes Fiman (1973) examined the link between supervisorsrsquoTheory X and Y assumptions and five facets of subordinate satisfaction (ie satisfactionwith supervisor work people pay and promotion) He reported that each of the fivefacets of subordinate satisfaction is positively related to their perceptions of the supervisorholding Theory Y assumptions Contrary to Fimanrsquos (1973) findings Brown and Ladawan(1979) reported that subordinatesrsquo level of satisfaction is unrelated to a managerrsquos Theory Xand Y orientation

In a recent study Şahin (2012a) observed that Theory Y managerial assumptions arepositively associated with the subordinatersquos affective commitment to organization and thequality of leader-member exchange relationship More recently Guumlrbuumlz et al (2014)employed a multi-level research design and tested the link between leadersrsquo Theory X and Yorientations and subordinatesrsquo satisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Theyfound that the Theory Y management style is positively associated with the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader and affective commitment Guumlrbuumlz and his colleagues alsoreported that the Theory X management style had a negative impact on the subordinatersquossatisfaction with the leader but had no effect on affective commitment

Transformational leadershipSince its introduction by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) transformational leadership hasincluded four leader behaviors inspirational motivation idealized influence individualconsideration and intellectual stimulation (Bass 1985 Bass and Avolio 1990) Inspirationalmotivation involves the communication of a compelling vision and the use of symbols toarticulate this vision Idealized influence refers to leaders who engage in charismatic actionsdiscuss important values and beliefs and focus on the benefits of the group instead of theindividual Individualized consideration includes coaching supporting and understandingof followers as well as recognizing their unique developmental needs Finally intellectualstimulation involves the challenging of followers to see problems from differentperspectives pushing them to develop innovative strategies (Bass 1985)

Based on Podsakoff et alrsquos (1990) categorization Carless et al (2000) suggested anexpanded list of behaviors in the transformational leadership concept ldquo(i) communicates avision (ii) develops staff (iii) provides support (iv) empowers staff (v) is innovative(vi) leads by example and (vii) is charismaticrdquo (p 390) They developed a seven-item

108

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

global transformational leadership (GTL) scale to assess this broader range oftransformational leader behaviors In the present study we have used Carless et alrsquosoperationalization to measure transformational leadership The GTL scale was preferredbecause of its brevity and unidimensionality Moreover several researches (eg Loweet al 1996) indicated that the subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) are highly correlated

Predictors of transformational leadership Our study investigates whether a leaderrsquosTheory X and Y assumptions serve as significant cognitive determinants oftransformational leadership behavior as rated by the leaderrsquos followers The role of theleadersrsquo gender in moderating this association between Theory X and Y assumptions andleader behavior is also considered To our knowledge no studies have explored theseresearch questions Over the past couple of decades researchers have learned a great dealabout the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on important outcomes such asjob satisfaction and organizational performance (see Judge and Piccolo 2004) In facttransformational leadership research has focused more on outcomes than predictors(Avolio et al 2009) Relatively little is known about dispositional cognitive and contextualantecedents of leadersrsquo transformational leadership behaviors

Atwater and Yammarino (1993) reported that personal attributes (ie intelligencewarmth conformity sensingintuition thinkingfeeling emotional coping and athleticexperience) accounted for 28 percent of the variance in ratings of transformationalleadership behavior Howell and Avolio (1993) discovered that a leaderrsquos internal locus ofcontrol is associated with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration Crantand Bateman (2000) suggested that self-reported proactive personality is positively relatedto the supervisorrsquos ratings of their charismatic leadership Somewhat ominouslyDeluga (1997 2001) found that Machiavellianism and narcissism are positively associatedwith presidential charismatic leadership behavior

In their meta-analysis Bono and Judge (2004) found that four of the Big Five traits(ie extraversion neuroticism openness and agreeableness) are significantly related totransformational leadership Bommer et alrsquos (2004) findings revealed that managers who arehighly cynical about organizational change are less likely to engage in transformationalleadership behaviors Sosik (2005) discovered that the more traditional values such ascollectivism self-transcendence and self-enhancement are positively related to charismaticleadership Treacutepanier et al (2012) reported that leaders who believe they participate inmeaningful relationships at work tend to view themselves as transformational leadersinspiring and imparting a sense of mission to others

Linking Theory X and Y assumptions to transformational leadershipBuilding on implicit followership theories (IFTs) (eg Sy 2010) the present study exploresthe predictive influence of Theory X and Y assumptions on a leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior IFTs provide a theoretical justification for this proposed relationshipIFTs are described as ldquoindividualsrsquo personal assumptions about the traits and behaviorsthat characterize followersrdquo (Sy 2010 p 74) In a similar vein individuals in leadership rolesmay choose behaviors based on their implicit assumptions about human nature LikewiseEden (1990) argued that a leaderrsquos performance and behavior expectations are influenced bytheir own implicit follower theories From this perspective we posit that leaders establishmental schemas of follower attributes that are based on their Theory X and Y managerialassumptions Subsequently these cognitive schemas and corresponding assumptions mightcharacterize leader behaviors toward followers

Specifically leaders who establish their mental schemas around Theory Y assumptions aremore likely to maintain optimistic views of followers and display participative leadership

109

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

styles with practices that foster internal motivation and participative decision making(McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory Y leaders assume that their followers areintrinsically motivated to satisfy higher-order needs for esteem and self-actualization(McGregor 1960) They believe that a follower ldquowill exercise self-direction and self-control inthe service of objectives to which he is committedrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 47) Sabanci (2008)indicated that a leader who holds Theory Y assumptions tends to demonstrate a relationship-oriented democratic leadership style Thus holding Theory Y managerial assumptions isexpected to influence a leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviors

Prior studies have confirmed that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are asignificant predictor of leader-related outcomes For example Pastor and Mayorsquos (2008)study indicated that ratings of transformational leadership are associated with a Theory Yphilosophy of management Sager (2008) found that Theory Y assumptions are positivelyrelated to supportive non-verbally expressive communicator styles of leaders Russ (2011)reported that Theory Y managers perceive a positive consequence from participativedecision making on their power and organizational effectiveness Şahin (2012a) discoveredthat Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively associated with the quality ofleader-member exchange relationships Sager (2015) found that a Theory Y orientation is asignificant predictor of the superiorrsquos downward maintenance communication Based onthese arguments it is plausible that there is a positive relationship between a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions and their transformational leadership behavior This proposition ismore formally expressed in the following hypothesis

H1 The leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions will be positively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Leaders who establish mental schemas in line with Theory X assumptions are more likely toassume that a follower ldquoprefers to be directed wishes to avoid responsibility has relativelylittle ambition and wants security above allrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34) Theory X leaders areinclined to motivate employees using extrinsic rewards emphasize close supervision ofemployees and rely on the chain of command (McGregor 1960)

Because Theory X leaders assume that their followers are not capable of self-directionand self-control they may feel a greater need to assert control over their followers Sabanci(2008) indicated that a leader who holds Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate atask-oriented autocratic leadership style Similar to this claim Sager (2008) found a positiverelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and the leaderrsquos dominantcommunication style Russ (2011) reported that participative decision making is perceivedby Theory X leaders as having a negative impact on their power Based on these argumentsit is plausible that there is a negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X assumptionsand their transformational leadership behavior This proposition is expressed in thefollowing hypothesis

H2 The leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions will be negatively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Moderating role of genderAccording to social role theory (eg Eagly 1987 Eagly et al 2000) individuals behave inways that conform to the societal expectations of the gender role Based on socialroles females are traditionally expected to be communal and warm males are expectedto be agentic and competent (eg Duehr and Bono 2006 Eagly and Karau 2002Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Heilman et al 1989 1995 Koenig et al 2011) Historicallyeffective leadership was thought to require more masculine agentic qualities(eg Brenner et al 1989 Schein 1973 2007 Powell and Butterfield 1979 1984 1989)

110

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

global transformational leadership (GTL) scale to assess this broader range oftransformational leader behaviors In the present study we have used Carless et alrsquosoperationalization to measure transformational leadership The GTL scale was preferredbecause of its brevity and unidimensionality Moreover several researches (eg Loweet al 1996) indicated that the subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ) are highly correlated

Predictors of transformational leadership Our study investigates whether a leaderrsquosTheory X and Y assumptions serve as significant cognitive determinants oftransformational leadership behavior as rated by the leaderrsquos followers The role of theleadersrsquo gender in moderating this association between Theory X and Y assumptions andleader behavior is also considered To our knowledge no studies have explored theseresearch questions Over the past couple of decades researchers have learned a great dealabout the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on important outcomes such asjob satisfaction and organizational performance (see Judge and Piccolo 2004) In facttransformational leadership research has focused more on outcomes than predictors(Avolio et al 2009) Relatively little is known about dispositional cognitive and contextualantecedents of leadersrsquo transformational leadership behaviors

Atwater and Yammarino (1993) reported that personal attributes (ie intelligencewarmth conformity sensingintuition thinkingfeeling emotional coping and athleticexperience) accounted for 28 percent of the variance in ratings of transformationalleadership behavior Howell and Avolio (1993) discovered that a leaderrsquos internal locus ofcontrol is associated with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration Crantand Bateman (2000) suggested that self-reported proactive personality is positively relatedto the supervisorrsquos ratings of their charismatic leadership Somewhat ominouslyDeluga (1997 2001) found that Machiavellianism and narcissism are positively associatedwith presidential charismatic leadership behavior

In their meta-analysis Bono and Judge (2004) found that four of the Big Five traits(ie extraversion neuroticism openness and agreeableness) are significantly related totransformational leadership Bommer et alrsquos (2004) findings revealed that managers who arehighly cynical about organizational change are less likely to engage in transformationalleadership behaviors Sosik (2005) discovered that the more traditional values such ascollectivism self-transcendence and self-enhancement are positively related to charismaticleadership Treacutepanier et al (2012) reported that leaders who believe they participate inmeaningful relationships at work tend to view themselves as transformational leadersinspiring and imparting a sense of mission to others

Linking Theory X and Y assumptions to transformational leadershipBuilding on implicit followership theories (IFTs) (eg Sy 2010) the present study exploresthe predictive influence of Theory X and Y assumptions on a leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior IFTs provide a theoretical justification for this proposed relationshipIFTs are described as ldquoindividualsrsquo personal assumptions about the traits and behaviorsthat characterize followersrdquo (Sy 2010 p 74) In a similar vein individuals in leadership rolesmay choose behaviors based on their implicit assumptions about human nature LikewiseEden (1990) argued that a leaderrsquos performance and behavior expectations are influenced bytheir own implicit follower theories From this perspective we posit that leaders establishmental schemas of follower attributes that are based on their Theory X and Y managerialassumptions Subsequently these cognitive schemas and corresponding assumptions mightcharacterize leader behaviors toward followers

Specifically leaders who establish their mental schemas around Theory Y assumptions aremore likely to maintain optimistic views of followers and display participative leadership

109

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

styles with practices that foster internal motivation and participative decision making(McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory Y leaders assume that their followers areintrinsically motivated to satisfy higher-order needs for esteem and self-actualization(McGregor 1960) They believe that a follower ldquowill exercise self-direction and self-control inthe service of objectives to which he is committedrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 47) Sabanci (2008)indicated that a leader who holds Theory Y assumptions tends to demonstrate a relationship-oriented democratic leadership style Thus holding Theory Y managerial assumptions isexpected to influence a leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviors

Prior studies have confirmed that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are asignificant predictor of leader-related outcomes For example Pastor and Mayorsquos (2008)study indicated that ratings of transformational leadership are associated with a Theory Yphilosophy of management Sager (2008) found that Theory Y assumptions are positivelyrelated to supportive non-verbally expressive communicator styles of leaders Russ (2011)reported that Theory Y managers perceive a positive consequence from participativedecision making on their power and organizational effectiveness Şahin (2012a) discoveredthat Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively associated with the quality ofleader-member exchange relationships Sager (2015) found that a Theory Y orientation is asignificant predictor of the superiorrsquos downward maintenance communication Based onthese arguments it is plausible that there is a positive relationship between a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions and their transformational leadership behavior This proposition ismore formally expressed in the following hypothesis

H1 The leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions will be positively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Leaders who establish mental schemas in line with Theory X assumptions are more likely toassume that a follower ldquoprefers to be directed wishes to avoid responsibility has relativelylittle ambition and wants security above allrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34) Theory X leaders areinclined to motivate employees using extrinsic rewards emphasize close supervision ofemployees and rely on the chain of command (McGregor 1960)

Because Theory X leaders assume that their followers are not capable of self-directionand self-control they may feel a greater need to assert control over their followers Sabanci(2008) indicated that a leader who holds Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate atask-oriented autocratic leadership style Similar to this claim Sager (2008) found a positiverelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and the leaderrsquos dominantcommunication style Russ (2011) reported that participative decision making is perceivedby Theory X leaders as having a negative impact on their power Based on these argumentsit is plausible that there is a negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X assumptionsand their transformational leadership behavior This proposition is expressed in thefollowing hypothesis

H2 The leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions will be negatively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Moderating role of genderAccording to social role theory (eg Eagly 1987 Eagly et al 2000) individuals behave inways that conform to the societal expectations of the gender role Based on socialroles females are traditionally expected to be communal and warm males are expectedto be agentic and competent (eg Duehr and Bono 2006 Eagly and Karau 2002Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Heilman et al 1989 1995 Koenig et al 2011) Historicallyeffective leadership was thought to require more masculine agentic qualities(eg Brenner et al 1989 Schein 1973 2007 Powell and Butterfield 1979 1984 1989)

110

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

styles with practices that foster internal motivation and participative decision making(McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Theory Y leaders assume that their followers areintrinsically motivated to satisfy higher-order needs for esteem and self-actualization(McGregor 1960) They believe that a follower ldquowill exercise self-direction and self-control inthe service of objectives to which he is committedrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 47) Sabanci (2008)indicated that a leader who holds Theory Y assumptions tends to demonstrate a relationship-oriented democratic leadership style Thus holding Theory Y managerial assumptions isexpected to influence a leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviors

Prior studies have confirmed that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions are asignificant predictor of leader-related outcomes For example Pastor and Mayorsquos (2008)study indicated that ratings of transformational leadership are associated with a Theory Yphilosophy of management Sager (2008) found that Theory Y assumptions are positivelyrelated to supportive non-verbally expressive communicator styles of leaders Russ (2011)reported that Theory Y managers perceive a positive consequence from participativedecision making on their power and organizational effectiveness Şahin (2012a) discoveredthat Theory Y managerial assumptions are positively associated with the quality ofleader-member exchange relationships Sager (2015) found that a Theory Y orientation is asignificant predictor of the superiorrsquos downward maintenance communication Based onthese arguments it is plausible that there is a positive relationship between a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions and their transformational leadership behavior This proposition ismore formally expressed in the following hypothesis

H1 The leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions will be positively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Leaders who establish mental schemas in line with Theory X assumptions are more likely toassume that a follower ldquoprefers to be directed wishes to avoid responsibility has relativelylittle ambition and wants security above allrdquo (McGregor 1960 p 34) Theory X leaders areinclined to motivate employees using extrinsic rewards emphasize close supervision ofemployees and rely on the chain of command (McGregor 1960)

Because Theory X leaders assume that their followers are not capable of self-directionand self-control they may feel a greater need to assert control over their followers Sabanci(2008) indicated that a leader who holds Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate atask-oriented autocratic leadership style Similar to this claim Sager (2008) found a positiverelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and the leaderrsquos dominantcommunication style Russ (2011) reported that participative decision making is perceivedby Theory X leaders as having a negative impact on their power Based on these argumentsit is plausible that there is a negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X assumptionsand their transformational leadership behavior This proposition is expressed in thefollowing hypothesis

H2 The leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions will be negatively related tofollowersrsquo reports of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

Moderating role of genderAccording to social role theory (eg Eagly 1987 Eagly et al 2000) individuals behave inways that conform to the societal expectations of the gender role Based on socialroles females are traditionally expected to be communal and warm males are expectedto be agentic and competent (eg Duehr and Bono 2006 Eagly and Karau 2002Heilman and Okimoto 2007 Heilman et al 1989 1995 Koenig et al 2011) Historicallyeffective leadership was thought to require more masculine agentic qualities(eg Brenner et al 1989 Schein 1973 2007 Powell and Butterfield 1979 1984 1989)

110

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly and Johnsonrsquos (1990) meta-analysis showed that there are significant genderdifferences in demonstrating democratic participatory leadership styles in three types ofresearch settings (laboratory assessment and organizational studies) That is femalestended to use democratic participative leadership styles whereas males tended to useautocratic directive leadership styles Eagly and Johnson also reported that females had amore interpersonal style than males Note that there were no gender differences detected inthe three research settings

Eagly and Karau (1991) conducted a follow up meta-analysis on leader emergence insmall groups They found that when a group was formed without leadership males tendedto emerge as leaders more often than did females However relative to males femalesemerged more often as a ldquosocial leaderrdquo who contributed to interpersonal relationsEagly et al (1995) suggested that the fit between leadership position and gender has animpact on leadership effectiveness In a cross-cultural study assessing gender preferences inleadership prototypes (Paris et al 2009) findings indicated that relative to male leadersfemales prefer participative team-oriented and charismatic leadership dimensionsTaken altogether the previous literature suggests that feminine leadership styles arecharacterized by consideration an interpersonal orientation and democratic relationshipswhereas masculine leadership styles are characterized by instrumentality a taskorientation and autocratic relationships (Appelbaum et al 2003 Cuadrado et al 2012Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt 2001 Eagly and Johnson 1990)

Furthermore past studies focused on examining gender differences in transformationalleadership behavior Several studies employing multiple raters in their research designsshowed that females were perceived to exhibit more transformational leadership behaviorsin the work setting than did males (eg Bass et al 1996 Carless 1998 Doherty 1997Druskat 1994 Rosener 1990) Note that there have been studies detecting no genderdifferences in transformational leadership behavior (eg Brown and Reilly 2008 Komives1991 Maher 1997 Mandell and Pherwani 2003 Manning 2002) Eagly et alrsquos (2003)meta-analysis revealed that female leaders are generally more transformational than aremale leaders they also engage in more contingent reward behavior than males

Researchers have devoted considerable attention to gender differences in leadershipstyles In the present study we focus on the moderating role of a leaderrsquos gender in affectingthe relationship between managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior A dominant approach in explaining the influences of a leaderrsquos gender on aleadership style is Calderrsquos (1977) social cognition perspective This theory proposes thatleadership is a social interaction in which the followers are observers of leaders Accordingto the social cognitive approach when followers observe their leader performing a behaviorand the consequences of that behavior they remember the schemas that guide theirjudgments The leadership schema that consists of masculine or agentic characteristics isfairly robust in the gender-leadership literature (Eagly and Karau 2002 Powell 1999)Based on the social cognition perspective (Calder 1977) and in line with societalexpectations of the gender role in leadership (eg Carli and Eagly 2011 Eagly et al 2000)we expect that gender will have a main effect on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior We also expect that the effects of managerialassumptions on followersrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorwill be moderated by leaderrsquos gender Despite its link with transformational leadershipbehavior (Eagly et al 2003) there has been no empirical research on the moderating role ofgender on the relationship between Theory X and Y managerial assumptions andtransformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier leaders with a Theory Y mindsettend to have positive optimistic views of subordinates and display more participativeleadership styles that encourage internal motivation and intrinsic rewards (McGregor 19601966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Moreover previous studies indicated that

111

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Theory Y assumptions are positively related to supportive and non-verbally expressivecommunicator styles of leaders (Sager 2008) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and relationship-oriented and democratic leadership styles(Sabanci 2008) These findings support the idea that the resulting leadership style fromTheory Y managerial assumptions should coincide with feminine leadership styles(ie interpersonally oriented considerate and democratic) Thus female leaders with aTheory Y mindset should demonstrate more transformational leadership behavior thanmale leaders

In contrast leaders with Theory X mindsets tend to have a negative pessimistic view ofsubordinates and display more coercive autocratic leadership styles using external meansof controls (McGregor 1960 1966 McGregor and Cutcher-Gershenfeld 2006) Previousstudies showed that Theory X assumptions are positively related to a domineeringcommunication style of the leader (Sager 2008) health outcomes (eg sickness absenceLarsson et al 2007) and negatively related to the subordinatersquos satisfaction with the leader(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) Russ (2011) also found that managers with the Theory X orientationperceive participative decision making to be threat to their power As expected a leaderwho holds the Theory X assumptions may tend to demonstrate the characteristics oftask-oriented autocratic leadership style (eg Sabancı 2008) which coincides with amasculine leadership style (ie instrumental task-oriented and autocratic) Thus a negativerelationship between Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadershipbehavior should be stronger for male leaders than female leaders Considering thisliterature it is plausible that there may be two-way interactions between Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions transformational leadership and gender These predictions areexpressed in the following hypotheses

H3 The positive relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderatedby gender with the relationship being stronger for female leaders than male leaders

H4 The negative relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Xmanagerial assumptions and thefollowersrsquo ratings of their leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior is moderated bygender with the relationship being stronger for male leaders than female leaders

MethodSample and procedureWe tested our hypotheses with multi-source field data collected from Turkish employeesand their direct supervisors who work in 19 different organizations in the education andmanufacturing sectors In general educational organizations are considered to be feminineoccupied by more females than males therefore we tried to include approximately the samenumber of male and female leaders from two sectors in our study and to have at least threesubordinates per leader The sample consisted of 108 managers and 398 subordinates fromvarious organizations employed in 14 educational institutions and five manufacturing firmsin Turkey These organizations were of varying sizes ranging from 16 to 212 employeesOf the 108 managers 50 (463 percent) were affiliated with educational institutions and58 (537 percent) were affiliated with manufacturing organizations

We collected data in the 2012-2014 time period The questionnaires were distributed atthe work sites the respondents received these questionnaires in person After completingthe questionnaire the respondents were asked to mail them to the authors via prepaidenvelopes A cover letter explained the purposes of the study and guaranteed anonymity ofresponses Participation in the study was voluntary We used two sets of questionnairesone for managers and the other for their immediate subordinates Data on managerial

112

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

assumptions were obtained through the questionnaires directed at the managers Data onthe perception of the managerrsquos transformational leadership behavior were obtained from thequestionnaire responses of the managerrsquos immediate subordinates We matched two setsof questionnaires using identification numbers We distributed a total of 300 managerquestionnaires and 850 subordinate questionnaires Altogether 116 completed questionnaireswere returned by managers and 461 were collected from their subordinates Because ofmissing data or incorrect markings in eight managersrsquo questionnaires and 63 subordinatesrsquoquestionnaires we excluded them from the analysis Finally we obtained 108 usablemanagerial questionnaires and 398 immediate subordinate questionnaires yielding a36 percent response rate for managers and a 468 percent response rate for subordinates

Of the 108 managers 509 percent were female The average age of the managers was3921 years (ranging from 26 to 55) mean length of time with the organization was1761 years and average staff size was nine individuals Most of the managers (713 percent)held a bachelorrsquos degree and the remaining held a graduate degree Of the 398 subordinates387 percent were female Their average age was 3111 they had been with the organizationfor about ten years and worked on average with their current manager 379 yearsEducational levels among subordinates ranged from a high school diploma (241 percent) toa bachelorrsquos degree (653 percent) to a graduate school degree (106 percent)

Results of the paired comparison test indicated no significant differences in the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions (tfrac14minus147 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 014) and the Theory X managerialassumptions (tfrac14minus019 dffrac14 106 pfrac14 084) between leaders from educational institutionsand those from organizations in the manufacturing sector Moreover for the 19organizations in educational and manufacturing sectors there was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the theory Y managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 279 pfrac14 011) andin the Theory X managerial assumptions (F (1 17)frac14 003 pfrac14 086)

MeasuresMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y We measured managersrsquo philosophy of management by usingeight items from the Theory X and Y scale adapted from the scale developed by Kopelmanet al (2008) and Kopelman et al (2010 2012) The scale has two dimensions four itemsmeasuring Theory Y attitudes and assumptions and four items measuring Theory Xattitudes and assumptions An example of item for the Theory Y scale is ldquoFor most peoplework is as natural as play or recreationrdquo and an example of item for the Theory X scale isldquoMost employees canrsquot be trustedrdquo Responses to the items were measured with a five-pointLikert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) A higher scoreindicated that the manager held either the Theory Y or the Theory X attitudes andassumptions in a work setting The scale was adapted and validated into the Turkishcontext previously (eg Şahin 2012a) The reliabilities of the scales (Cronbachrsquos α) were 074for the Theory Y and 076 for the Theory X

Transformational leadership To assess the dependent variable we used seven-item GTLby Carless et al (2000) for subordinatesrsquo rating of their managersrsquo leadership Although MLQ(Bass and Avolio 1995) is one of the most widely used instruments to measuretransformational and transactional leadersrsquo behaviors in the leadership studies the GTLscale was preferred because of its brevity and clear unidimensionality Moreover severalresearches indicated that the subscales of the MLQ are highly correlated (eg Lowe et al1996) which leads to a strong argument for employing a shorter global measureof transformational leadership In addition the GTL scale has shown a high degree ofconvergent validity in relation to lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and theLeadership Practices Inventory (Carless et al 2000) and has been well-validated(Tucker et al 2006) Together the seven items of the GTL scale are designed to represent

113

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

a global measure of transformational leadership An example of an item is ldquoMy immediatesupervisor fosters trust involvement and cooperation among team membersrdquo To measurebehavioral frequency the subordinates responded on a five-point Likert-type scale rangingfrom 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very frequently) The scale was adapted and validated in theTurkish context by Şahin (2012b) In the present study the reliability of the GTL scale(Cronbachrsquos α) was 095

Control variables Based on the leadership literature we controlled for managersrsquo agetenure education number of subordinates international experience and type oforganization The findings of previous studies on the relationship between age andtransformational leadership are too inconsistent to draw unambiguous conclusions (Walterand Scheibe 2013) However age may have effect on leadersrsquo managerial attitudes andassumptions because formative years in the work setting may affect and contribute topositive development in attitudes and assumptions regarding leadership and motivation(Pastor and Mayo 2008) Education level of managers may have effect on managerialattitudes and assumptions and leadership styles For example Holton and Lynham (2000)argued that formal education (eg MBA) plays a key role in managerial leadershipdevelopment Studies on leadership have also pointed to the influence of organizationalfactors (eg size) on leadership (eg House and Aditya 1997) More specifically previousstudies (eg Cogliser and Schriesheim 2000 Schriesheim et al 2000) indicated that when awork unit increases in size the relationships between managers and their subordinatesbecome less positive (low-quality leader-member exchange) Since exposure to other culturesoffers individuals the opportunity to experience a wider range of styles and values tomotivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) international experience may haveeffect on leadership styles and thus effectiveness Finally since educational organizationsare considered to be feminine and occupied by more females than males(Paustian-Underdahl et al 2014) we controlled for this to avoid the results being biaseddue to the type of organization

Analytical strategyOur data set had a hierarchical structure with individuals (ie subordinates) nested withingroups (ie managers) Because the dependent variable in the present study (ie subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership) is considered to be on different levels of analysishierarchical linear modeling (HLM) should be employed for our analyses (Raudenbush andBryk 2002) To test the cross-level associations among variables on the different levelsof analysis there had to be significant between-group variance in subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership Thus using HLM we estimated a null model to test thesignificant level of subordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership behavior

The χ2 estimates for the amount of variation in the changes in subordinatesrsquo perceptionof transformational leadership was not significant ( χ2frac14 11808 dffrac14 107 pfrac14 0218) Givenour preliminary results we aggregated individual-level data (subordinatesrsquo perception oftransformational leadership nfrac14 398) to group level (managers nfrac14 108) to test ourhypothesis Multiple statistics were calculated to justify the aggregation of subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership to the group level For the seven-item measure oftransformational leadership we calculated ICC (1)frac14 031 and ICC (2)frac14 083 These statisticsprobably indicates that approximately 31 percent of the variance in subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership can be accounted for by group membershipNevertheless based on the group mean transformational leadership score with an estimatedreliability of 83 percent groups can be differentiated from one another We calculated rwga measure of within-group agreement on a scale as 089 (eg James 1982 James et al 1984LeBreton and Senter 2008)

114

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

We used IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 220 IBM Corp Armonk NY)for data analysis Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was utilized to testthe hypothesis

ResultsTable I presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the studyrsquos variablesManagersrsquo age (rfrac14 022 po005) tenure with the organization (rfrac14 023 po005) andinternational experience (rfrac14 030 po001) were positively and significantly correlated withsubordinatesrsquo perception of transformational leadership Considering managersrsquo philosophy ofmanagement the correlation between the Theory X and Theory Y managerial assumptions(rfrac14minus022 po005) is consistent with previous research in this area (eg Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014)In addition Theory Xmanagerial assumptions were negatively and significantly correlated withtransformational leadership (rfrac14minus048 po001) while Theory Y managerial assumptions werepositively and significantly correlated with transformational leadership (rfrac14 061 po001)

Hierarchical moderated regression analyses were used to estimate the effects of managerialassumptions on subordinatesrsquo perception of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership andinvestigate whether the association between managerial assumptions and subordinatesrsquoperception of transformational leadership depends on the managersrsquo gender In the first stepcontrol variables were included In the second step we added the main effects of ourindependent and moderating variables Finally the third step included the two-wayinteractions formed by crossing independent and moderating variables Table II shows theresults of the hierarchical moderated regression analyses to test our hypotheses

In the first step control variables accounted for a significant amount of variance intransformational leadership ratings R2frac14 0155 F(6 101)frac14 3096 po001 Although leadersrsquoage education level tenure with the organization and type of organization were not significantpredictors in the final model the number of subordinates (bfrac14minus001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14minus015t(96)frac14minus2262 po005) and international experience (bfrac14 001 SEbfrac14 001 βfrac14 017t(96)frac14 2492 po005) were significant predictors of transformational leadership ratings

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Age 3921 682 ndash

2 Gendera 049 050 016 ndash

3 Educationb 028 045 009 019 ndash

4 Tenure 1761 704 094 010 008 ndash

5 Number ofsubordinates 930 775 022 007 minus001 025 ndash

6 Internationalexperience 1102 1453 039 007 012 042 minus002 ndash

7 Type oforganizationc 046 050 minus003 020 068 minus007 001 009 ndash

8 Theory Xmanagerialassumptions 209 096 minus039 minus038 minus005 minus033 001 minus013 002 076

9 Theory Ymanagerialassumptions 283 086 003 007 027 003 003 009 014 minus022 074

10 Transformationalleadershipd 313 089 022 018 013 023 minus013 030 015 minus048 061 095

Notes nfrac14 108 a0frac14 female 1frac14male b0frac14 bachelorrsquos degree and below 1frac14 graduate school degree c0frac14manufacturing1frac14 educational organizations daggregated subordinatesrsquo ratings The Cronbachrsquos αrsquos are indicated diagonallypo005 po001

Table IMeans standarddeviations and

correlations amongthe study variables

115

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

The leadersrsquo Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender were entered in the secondstep The addition of the independent and moderating variables in step 2 increasedthe explained variance significantly for transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0446 po0001)

H1 predicted that leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions would be positively related tofollowersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior As shown in Table IIthe results indicated a significant and positive main effect for the Theory Y managerialassumptions on transformational leadership (bfrac14 049 SEbfrac14 006 βfrac14 055 t(98)frac14 8050po0001) These results provide support for H1

H2 stated that the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions would be negativelyrelated to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior The resultsshown in Table II revealed a significant and negative main effect for the Theory Xmanagerial assumptions (bfrac14minus028 SEbfrac14 007 βfrac14minus032 t(98)frac14minus4180 po0001) ThusH2 was supported

In the final step of the regression analysis interaction terms accounted for a significantproportion of the variance in transformational leadership (ΔR2frac14 0022 po0001) H3proposed that gender would moderate the positive relationship between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that the relationship wouldbe stronger for female leaders than for male leaders The interaction between the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions and gender was significant (bfrac14minus027 SEbfrac14 012 βfrac14minus023t(96)frac14minus2199 po005) suggesting that the effect of the Theory Y managerial assumptionson transformational leadership depended on gender Following the recommendations byAiken and West (1991) we further probed the significant interaction effects by computingthe simple slopes for male and female leadersrsquo scores of Theory Y managerial assumptionsEach of the simple slope tests revealed a significant positive association between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership but the Theory Ymanagerial assumptions was more strongly related to transformational leadership forfemale leaders (bfrac14 081 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 083 tfrac14 6959 po001) than for male leaders

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3B SE β B SE β B SE β

ControlsAge 000 003 minus003 minus003 002 minus012 minus003 002 minus012Education level 002 015 001 004 018 011 004 018 012Tenure with the organization 003 003 013 004 002 014 004 002 014Number of subordinates minus002 001 minus018 minus002 001 minus018 minus001 001 minus015International experience 001 001 0020 001 001 016 001 001 017Type of organization 007 013 010 007 012 012 006 012 012

Main effectsTheory X managerial assumptions (X) minus028 007 minus032 minus030 007 minus034Theory Y managerial assumptions (Y) 049 006 055 065 009 073Gender (G) 004 012 002 003 013 001

InteractionsXtimesG 003 017 001YtimesG minus027 012 minus023R2 0155 0602 0623Adjusted R2 0105 0565 0580ΔR2 ndash 0446 0022F 3096 16438 14440ΔF ndash 36579 3974df 101 98 96Notes nfrac14 108 po005 po001 po0001

Table IIHierarchicalmoderatedregression analysespredictingtransformationalleadership

116

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

(bfrac14 051 SEbfrac14 009 βfrac14 048 tfrac14 5430 po001) The significant interaction between theTheory Y managerial assumptions and gender predicting transformational leadership isdisplayed in Figure 2 In sum H3 was supported

Last H4 predicted that gender would moderate the negative relationship betweenthe Theory X managerial assumptions and transformational leadership such that therelationship would be stronger for male leaders than for female leaders As shown in Table IIthe interaction between the Theory X managerial assumptions and gender was not significant(bfrac14 003 SEbfrac14 017 βfrac14 001 t(96)frac14 0184 pfrac14 0854) Therefore H4 was not supported

DiscussionIn the present study we examined the relationships between leadersrsquo Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior and the moderating roleof the leaderrsquos gender The results indicated that the leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions predict followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behaviorLikewise the leaderrsquos Theory X managerial assumptions were found to have a negativerelationship with the followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformational leadership behavior

While gender did not have a main effect on transformational leadership this variable didmoderate the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerial assumptions and theirratings of transformational leadership behavior These results confirmed that the positiverelationship between Theory Y managerial assumptions and transformational leadership isstronger for female leaders than for male leaders Contrary to expectations we did not find amoderating role of gender in the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions and transformational leadership behavior One potential explanation for this isthat without the comparison between their leaderrsquos gender and leadership stylessubordinates rated their leader as less transformational who demonstrates autocraticdirective leadership styles that stems from the Theory X mindset Although previousstudies showed that leaders are subject to the comparison between leadership roles andtheir gender roles (eg Scott and Brown 2006 Wang et al 2013) several studies indicatedno gender differences in leadership styles (eg Gibson 1995 van Engen et al 2001 Vecchio2002) There are also several studies indicating that female and male leaders differed

44

MenWomen

Gender

39

ndash18 ndash12 ndash06 07 13

Theory Y managerial assumptions

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

01 20

35

30

25

21

16

Figure 2Moderation of the

relationship betweenthe Theory Ymanagerial

assumptions andtransformational

leadership by gender

117

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

significantly for several leadership behaviors For example Oshagbemi and Gill (2003)found significant differences between female and male leaders only on one of sevendimensions namely inspirational motivation Additional research is needed to test forgender differences in leadership styles

In addition the study revealed a number of noteworthy relationships First the resultsshowed that the number of subordinates is negatively associated with subordinate ratingsof transformational leadership This finding is in line with previous studies indicating thathigher spans of control may decrease the positive effects of transformational leadershipstyles (eg McCutcheon et al 2009) Second leadersrsquo previous international experiencewas found to have a positive effect on subordinate ratings of transformational leadershipInternational experience offers leaders the opportunity to experience a wider range ofstyles and values to motivate subordinates (eg Carpenter et al 2001) In our study weonly measured work-related international experience however future research mightinvestigate different international experiences (ie education travel) and how they relateto leadership behaviors

Theoretical and practical implicationsOur study contributes to the transformational leadership and the Theory X and Y literaturesin several ways First by examining the link between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y assumptionsand their transformational leadership behaviors this study contributes to the scarceknowledge of the cognitive antecedents of transformational leadership Our results showedthat those leaders who establish their mental schema according to Theory Y assumptions arelikely to inspire develop support empower and impart a sense of mission to followersThis finding is consistent with McGregorrsquos (1960) assertion that a leaderrsquos view of humannature influences his or her leadership style and behaviors Thus we have expanded what isknown about predictors of transformational leadership We believe that such an inquiry couldhelp scholars develop new theoretical models of transformational leadership

Second the present study also makes an important contribution to the Theory X and Yliterature Recent work on Theory X and Y assumptions revealed that it serves as apredictor of a leaderrsquos communication style (Sager 2008) leaderrsquos propensity forparticipative decision making (Russ 2011) the quality of leader-member exchangerelationships (Şahin 2012a) and a followerrsquos satisfaction and affective commitment(Guumlrbuumlz et al 2014) We extended this body of research providing evidence that a leaderrsquosTheory Y assumptions also serve as a predictor of transformational leadership behavior

Third this study adds to previous research by offering a potential explanation for howgender influences transformational leadership behavior As discussed earlier results ofprevious studies on the link between gender and leadership behavior are fragmentedConsequently there has been a call for more robust study designs to identify the role ofgenderrsquos impact on leadership behavior (eg Eagly et al 2003) We have responded this callby examining the effects of gender on the relationship between a leaderrsquos Theory X and Ymanagerial assumptions and transformational leadership behavior

Our findings also point to some implications for theory development McGregor (1960)introduced Theory X and Y over a half century ago and postulated that managerialassumptions and beliefs about human nature can cause autocraticdirective and democraticparticipative leadership behaviors To our knowledge the present study is one of the first toprovide empirical evidence for the importance of a leaderrsquos managerial assumptions affectingleadership behavior Future theoretical work could identify additional leader cognitiveprototypes of followers which might have important influences on leadership practiceFor example IFTs (Sy 2010) refer to a leaderrsquos beliefs about followersrsquo personal attributes andcharacteristics Implicit assumptions are important for leadership because they influence themanner in which leaders interact with followers ( Junker and van Dick 2014)

118

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Our results may contribute to the positive way that practitioners think about leadershipIn general effective leadership is characterized by enabling participative empowering anddistributive in nature (eg Bass 1985 House and Aditya 1997) Hence leaders should firstidentify the potential advantage of adopting transformational leadership and particularlythe underlying managerial assumptions associated with transformational leadershipbehaviors We recognize that changing leadership behavior of any kind is difficultnevertheless some aspects of transformational leadership can be learned (Kelloway andBarling 2000) It is sensible to encourage such leadership training Indeed practitionersmight help leaders in becoming better aware of leadership behaviors than their managerialassumptions and beliefs Leadership development programs usually have adopted adevelopmental process which includes coaching and mentoring (eg Day 2001)This developmental process is likely to have impact on learning specific leadership skillsand behaviors probably without making any change in the values and beliefs system oneholds (Pastor and Mayo 2008) It seems that developmental approach in leadership trainingis effective in the short term to meet organizational needs

Strengths limitations and future researchThe present study has a number of strengths One of the major strengths of the study is thatdata were gathered from both leaders (Theory X and Y assumptions) and followers(transformational leadership behaviors) to test the hypotheses thereby lessening spuriousassociations due to common method bias (Podsakoff et al 2012) Moreover our findingsindicated significant interaction effect hence common method bias for the present studyis less likely to be a matter of concern (Evans 1985) Another strength of the present study isthe diverse sample We surveyed the respondents (ie leaders and followers) from severalorganizations in two specific sectors (educational institutions and manufacturing firms)Such a sample might contribute to the generalizability of the results

There are some weaknesses that need to be addressed Although we collectedmulti-source data we used a cross-sectional design in the study Without longitudinal datait is hard to draw definitive conclusions concerning the cause-and-effect relationshipsTo establish causality future research might consider a longitudinal research designexamining leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions and their transformational leadershipbehaviors multiple times over a longer term

Second we used Carless et alrsquos (2000) seven-item GTL scale to measure transformationalleadership behaviors We did not examine the full range of leadership models(ie transformational and transactional) and their sub-elements developed by Bass andAvolio (1990 1995) How do leadersrsquo Theory X and Y assumptions predict each ofsub-dimensions of the full range leadership model (eg laissez-faire management-by-exception contingent rewards) To gain a more complete understanding of the relationshipsamong the Theory X and Y assumptions and transformational leadership future studiesshould include full range leadership elements using MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1995) Third itmay be considered a limitation that our sample was comprised of Turkish leaders and theirsubordinates only We encourage future researchers to examine whether our findingsgeneralize to leaders and followers across nationalities

Finally we did not include any personality variables in our study To keep the survey shortwe limited the number of variables in our study However several researchers claim thatpersonality traits are important determinants of transformational leadership (eg Bono andJudge 2004 Crant and Bateman 2000 Deluga 1997 2001 Howell and Avolio 1993) To addressthis limitation we recommend that future research examine the associations among personalitytraits managerial assumptions and beliefs and leadership behaviors Specifically it would beuseful to assess the contribution of Theory X and Y assumptions on transformational leadershipbehaviors after controlling for several relevant personality traits

119

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

ConclusionWe expanded the set of transformational leadership predictors with our examination ofMcGregorrsquos Theory X and Y managerial assumptions and gender We found empiricalevidence that suggests the importance of a leaderrsquos Theory X and Y managerialassumptions in predicting their transformational leadership behavior as rated by theirsubordinates The results of our study demonstrated that a leaderrsquos Theory Y managerialassumptions are positively related to followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquos transformationalleadership behavior Furthermore this relationship was stronger for female leaders than formale leaders On the other hand the results indicated that a leaderrsquos Theory X managerialassumptions are negatively correlated with followersrsquo ratings of the leaderrsquostransformational leadership behavior however the gender of the leader did not moderatethis Theory X transformational leadership relationship Given these promising resultswe encourage future research to continue to explore the link between managerialassumptions and leadership

References

Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions SageNewbury Park CA

Appelbaum SH Audet L and Miller JC (2003) ldquoGender and leadership Leadership and genderA journey through the landscape of theoriesrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 24 No 1 pp 43-51

Atwater LE and Yammarino FJ (1993) ldquoPersonal attributes as predictors of superiorsrsquo andsubordinatesrsquo perceptions of military academy leadershiprdquo Human Relations Vol 46 No 10pp 645-668

Avolio BJ Walumbwa FO andWeber TJ (2009) ldquoLeadership current theories research and futuredirectionsrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 60 No 1 pp 421-429

Barbuto JEJ Fritz SM Matkin GS and Marx DB (2007) ldquoEffects of gender education and ageupon leadersrsquo use of influence tactics and full range leadership behaviorsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 56Nos 12 pp 71-83

Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations Free Press New York NY

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) ldquoThe implications of transactional and transformational leadershipfor individual team and organizational developmentrdquo in Woodman RW and Pasmore WA(Eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development (Volume 4) JAI Press GreenwichCT pp 231-272

Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995)MLQMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research Permission SetMindgarden Redwood City CA

Bass BM Avolio BJ and Atwater L (1996) ldquoThe transformational and transactional leadership ofmen and womenrdquo Applied Psychology An International Journal Vol 45 No 1 pp 5-34

Bedeian AG and Wren DA (2001) ldquoMost influential management books of the 20th centuryrdquoOrganizational Dynamics Vol 29 No 3 pp 221-225

Bobic MP and Davis WE (2003) ldquoA kind word for Theory X or why so many newfangledmanagement techniques quickly failrdquo Journal of Public Administration Research and TheoryVol 13 No 3 pp 239-264

Bommer WH Rubin RS and Baldwin TT (2004) ldquoSetting the stage for effective leadershipantecedents of transformational leadership behaviorrdquo Leadership Quarterly Vol 15 No 2pp 195-210

Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) ldquoPersonality and transformational and transactional leadershipa meta-analysisrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 901-910

120

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Brenner OC Tomkiewicz J and Schein VE (1989) ldquoThe relationship between sex role stereotypesand requisite management characteristics revisitedrdquo Academy of Management Journal Vol 32No 3 pp 662-669

Brown FW and Reilly MD (2008) ldquoEmotional intelligence transformational leadership and gendercorrelation and interaction possibilitiesrdquo The Journal of International Management StudiesVol 3 No 2 pp 1-9

Brown SE and Ladawan T (1979) ldquoPerceived satisfaction with leadership as related to subordinateand superordinate managerial philosophiesrdquo Perceptual and Motor Skills Vol 48 No 2pp 355-359

Burns JM (1978) Leadership Harper amp Row New York NY

Calder BJ (1977) ldquoAn attribution theory of leadershiprdquo in Shaw BM and Salanick GR (Eds)New Directions in Organizational Behavior St Clair Chicago IL pp 179-204

Carless SA (1998) ldquoGender differences in transformational leadership an examination of superiorleader and subordinate perspectivesrdquo Sex Roles Vol 39 Nos 1112 pp 887-902

Carless SA Wearing AJ and Mann L (2000) ldquoA short measure of transformational leadershiprdquoJournal of Business and Psychology Vol 14 No 3 pp 389-405

Carli LL and Eagly AH (2011) ldquoGender and leadershiprdquo in Collinson D Zedeck S Bryman AGrint K Jackson B and Bien MU (Eds) Sage Handbook of Leadership Sage PublicationsLondon pp 103-117

Carpenter M Sanders G and Gregersen H (2001) ldquoBundling human capital with organizationalcontext the impact of international assignment experience on multinational firm performanceand CEO payrdquo Academy of Management Journal Vol 44 No 3 pp 493-511

Cogliser C and Schriesheim C (2000) ldquoExploring work unit context and leader-member exchangea multilevel perspectiverdquo Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 21 No 5 pp 487-511

Crant JM and Bateman TS (2000) ldquoCharismatic leadership viewed from above the impact ofproactive personalityrdquo Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 21 No 1 pp 63-75

Cuadrado I Navas M Molero F Ferrer E and Morales JF (2012) ldquoGender differences in leadershipstyles as a function of leader and subordinatesrsquo sex and type of organizationrdquo Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology Vol 42 No 12 pp 3083-3113

Day DV (2001) ldquoLeadership development a review in contextrdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 11No 4 pp 581-613

Deluga RJ (1997) ldquoRelationship among American presidential charismatic leadership narcissism andrated performancerdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 8 No 1 pp 49-65

Deluga RJ (2001) ldquoAmerican presidential Machiavellianism implications for charismatic leadershipand rated performancerdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 12 No 3 pp 339-363

Doherty A (1997) ldquoThe effect of leaders characteristics on the perceived transformationaltransactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic administratorsrdquo Journal of SportsMedicine Vol 11 No 3 pp 275-285

Druskat VU (1994) ldquoGender and leadership style transformational and transactional leadership inthe Roman Catholic Churchrdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 5 No 2 pp 99-109

Duehr EE and Bono JE (2006) ldquoMen women and managers are stereotypes finally changingrdquoPersonnel Psychology Vol 59 No 4 pp 815-846

Eagly AH (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behavior A Social-Role Interpretation ErlbaumHillsdale NJ

Eagly AH and Johannesen-Schmidt MC (2001) ldquoThe leadership styles of women and menrdquoThe Journal of Social Issues Vol 57 No 4 pp 781-797

Eagly AH and Johnson BT (1990) ldquoGender and leadership style a meta-analysisrdquo PsychologicalBulletin Vol 108 No 2 pp 233-256

121

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Eagly AH and Karau SJ (1991) ldquoGender and the emergence of leaders a meta-analysisrdquo Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology Vol 60 No 5 pp 685-710

Eagly AH and Karau SJ (2002) ldquoRole congruity theory of prejudice toward female leadersrdquoPsychological Review Vol 109 No 3 pp 573-598

Eagly AH Johannesen-Schmidt MC and van Engen ML (2003) ldquoTransformational transactionaland laissez-faire leadership styles a meta-analysis comparing women and menrdquo PsychologicalBulletin Vol 129 No 4 pp 569-591

Eagly AH Karau SJ and Makhijani MG (1995) ldquoGender and the effectiveness of leadersa meta-analysisrdquo Psychological Bulletin Vol 117 No 1 pp 125-145

Eagly AH Wood W and Diekman A (2000) ldquoSocial role theory of sex differences and similarities acurrent appraisalrdquo in Eckes T and Traunter HM (Eds) The Developmental Social Psychologyof Gender Erlbaum Mahwah NJ pp 123-174

Eden D (1990) Pygmalion in Management Lexington Books Lexington MA

Evans MG (1985) ldquoA Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderatedmultiple regression analysisrdquo Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol 36No 3 pp 305-323

Fiman BG (1973) ldquoAn investigation of the relationships among supervisory attitudes behaviors andoutputs an examination of McGregorrsquos Theory Yrdquo Personnel Psychology Vol 26 No 1pp 95-105

Gibson C (1995) ldquoAn investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countriesrdquo Journalof International Business Studies Vol 26 No 2 pp 225-279

Guumlrbuumlz S Şahin F and Koumlksal O (2014) ldquoRevisiting of Theory X and Y a multilevel analysis of theeffects of leadersrsquo managerial assumptions on followersrsquo attitudesrdquo Management DecisionVol 52 No 10 pp 1888-1906

Heilman ME and Okimoto TG (2007) ldquoWhy are women penalized for success at male tasks Theimplied communality deficitrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 92 No 1 pp 81-92

Heilman ME Block CJ and Martell RF (1995) ldquoSex stereotypes do they influence perceptions ofmanagersrdquo Journal of Social Behavior amp Personality Vol 10 No 6 pp 237-252

Heilman ME Block CJ Martell RF and Simon MC (1989) ldquoHas anything changed Currentcharacterizations of men women and managersrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 74 No 6pp 935-942

Holton EF and Lynham SA (2000) ldquoPerformance-driven leadership developmentrdquo Advances inDeveloping Human Resources Vol 2 No 2 pp 1-17

House RJ and Aditya RN (1997) ldquoThe social scientific study of leadership quo vadisrdquo Journal ofManagement Vol 23 No 3 pp 409-473

Howell JM and Avolio BJ (1993) ldquoTransformational leadership transactional leadership locus ofcontrol and support for innovation key predictors of consolidated business-unit performancerdquoJournal of Applied Psychology Vol 78 No 6 pp 891-902

James LR (1982) ldquoAggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreementrdquo The Journal of AppliedPsychology Vol 67 No 2 pp 219-229

James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G (1984) ldquoEstimating within-group interrater reliability with andwithout response biasrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 69 No 1 pp 85-98

Judge TA and Piccolo RF (2004) ldquoTransformational and transactional leadership a meta-analytictest of their relative validityrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 89 No 5 pp 755-768

Junker NM and van Dick R (2014) ldquoImplicit theories in organizational settings a systematic reviewand research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theoriesrdquoThe Leadership QuarterlyVol 25 No 6 pp 1154-1173

Kelloway EK and Barling J (2000) ldquoWhat we have learned about developing transformationalleadersrdquo Leadership amp Organizational Development Journal Vol 21 No 7 pp 355-362

122

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Koenig AM Eagly AH Mitchell AA and Ristikari T (2011) ldquoAre leader stereotypes masculineA meta-analysis of three research paradigmsrdquo Psychological Bulletin Vol 137 No 4 pp 616-642

Komives S (1991) ldquoThe relationship of same- and cross-gender work pairs to staff performance andsupervisor leadership in residence hall unitsrdquo Sex Roles Vol 24 No 5 pp 355-363

Kopelman RE Prottas DJ and Davis AL (2008) ldquoDouglas McGregorrsquos Theory X and Y toward aconstruct-valid measurerdquo Journal of Managerial Issues Vol 20 No 2 pp 255-271

Kopelman RE Prottas DJ and Falk DW (2010) ldquoConstruct validation of a Theory XY behaviorscalerdquo Leadership amp Organization Development Journal Vol 31 No 2 pp 120-135

Kopelman RE Prottas DJ and Falk DW (2012) ldquoFurther development of a measure of Theory Xand Y managerial assumptionsrdquo Journal of Managerial Issues Vol 24 No 4 pp 450-470

Larsson J Vinberg S and Wiklund H (2007) ldquoLeadership quality and health using McGregorrsquos Xand Y Theory for analyzing values in relation to methodologies and outcomesrdquo Total QualityManagement amp Business Excellence Vol 18 No 10 pp 1147-1168

LeBreton JM and Senter JL (2008) ldquoAnswers to 20 questions about interrater reliability andinterrater agreementrdquo Organizational Research Methods Vol 11 No 4 pp 815-852

Leithwood K and Jantzi D (1997) ldquoExplaining variation in teachersrsquo perceptions of principalsrsquoleadership a replicationrdquo Journal of Educational Administration Vol 35 No 4 pp 312-330

Lewis AE (1998) ldquoThe influence of gender and organization level of perceptions of leader behaviors aself and supervisor comparisonrdquo Sex Roles Vol 39 No 5 pp 479-502

Lowe KB Kroeck KG and Sivasubramaniam N (1996) ldquoEffectiveness correlates oftransformational and transactional leadership a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literaturerdquoThe Leadership Quarterly Vol 7 No 3 pp 385-425

McCutcheon AS Doran D Evans M Hall LM and Pringle D (2009) ldquoEffects of leadership andspan of control on nursesrsquo job satisfaction and patient satisfactionrdquo Nursing Leadership Vol 22No 3 pp 48-67

McGregor DM (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise McGraw-Hill New York NY

McGregor DM (1966) Leadership and Motivation MIT Press Cambridge MA

McGregor D and Cutcher-Gershenfeld J (2006) The Human Side of Enterprise (Annotated Edition)McGraw Hill New York NY

Maher KJ (1997) ldquoGender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadershiprdquoSex Roles Vol 37 No 3 pp 209-225

Mandell B and Pherwani S (2003) ldquoRelationship between emotional intelligence and transformationalleadership style a gender comparisonrdquo Journal of Business and Psychology Vol 17 No 3pp 387-404

Manning TT (2002) ldquoGender managerial level transformational leadership and work satisfactionrdquoWomen in Management Review Vol 17 No 5 pp 207-216

Miner JB (2003) ldquoThe rated importance scientific validity and practical usefulness of organizationalbehavior theories a quantitative reviewrdquo Academy of Management Learning and EducationVol 2 No 3 pp 250-268

Morse JJ and Lorsch JW (1970) ldquoBeyond Theory YrdquoHarvard Business Review Vol 48 No 3 pp 61-68

Neuliep JW (1987) ldquoThe influence of Theory X and Theory Y management styles on the selection ofcompliance-gaining strategiesrdquo Communication Research Reports Vol 4 No 1 pp 14-19

Neuliep JW (1996) ldquoThe influence of Theory X and Y management style on the perception of ethicalbehavior in organizationsrdquo Journal of Social Behavior and Personality Vol 11 No 2 pp 301-311

Oshagbemi T and Gill R (2003) ldquoGender differences and similarities in the leadership styles andbehaviour of UK managersrdquo Women in Management Review Vol 18 No 6 pp 288-298

Paris LD Howell JP Dorfman PW and Hanges PJ (2009) ldquoPreferred leadership prototypes ofmale and female leaders in 27 countriesrdquo Journal of International Business Studies Vol 40 No 8pp 1396-1405

123

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Pastor JC and Mayo M (2008) ldquoTransformational leadership among Spanish upper echelons the roleof managerial values and goal orientationrdquo Leadership amp Organization Development JournalVol 29 No 4 pp 340-358

Paustian-Underdahl SC Walker LS and Woehr DJ (2014) ldquoGender and perceptions of leadershipeffectiveness a meta-analysis of contextual moderatorsrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 99No 6 pp 1129-1145

Podsakoff PM MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff NP (2012) ldquoSources of method bias in social scienceresearch and recommendations on how to control itrdquo Annual Review of Psychology Vol 63 No 1pp 539-569

Podsakoff P MacKenzie S Moorman S and Fetter R (1990) ldquoTransformational leader behaviorsand their effects on followersrsquo trust in leader satisfaction and organizational citizenshipbehaviorsrdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 1 No 2 pp 107-142

Powell GN (Ed) (1999) Handbook of Gender and Work Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Powell GN and Butterfield DA (1979) ldquoThe lsquogood managerrsquo masculine or androgynousrdquo Academyof Management Journal Vol 22 No 2 pp 395-403

Powell GN and Butterfield DA (1984) ldquoIf lsquogood managersrsquo are masculine what are lsquobad managersrsquordquoSex Roles Vol 10 No 7 pp 477-484

Powell GN and Butterfield DA (1989) ldquoThe lsquogood managerrsquo did androgyny fare better in the1980srdquo Group and Organization Studies Vol 14 No 2 pp 216-233

PsycINFO (2015) ldquoTransformational leadershiprdquo available at httppsycnetapaorgfa=searchsearchResultsamptype=advancedampdb=pipbpqpapeptampterm=transformational20 leadership20ampfields=AnyField (accessed August 10 2015)

Raudenbush SW and Bryk TA (2002) Hierarchical Linear Model Applications and Data AnalysisMethods 2nd ed Sage Thousand Oaks CA

Reddin WJ (1969) ldquoWhatrsquos wrong with the style theoriesrdquo Training and Development Journal Vol 23No 2 pp 14-17

Rosener JB (1990) ldquoWays women leadrdquo Harvard Business Review November-December pp 119-125

Russ TL (2011) ldquoTheory XY assumptions as predictors of managersrsquo propensity for participativedecision makingrdquo Management Decision Vol 49 No 5 pp 823-836

Sabanci A (2008) ldquoSchool principalsrsquo assumptions about human nature implications for leadership inTurkeyrdquo Educational Management Administration amp Leadership Vol 36 No 4 pp 511-529

Sager KL (2008) ldquoAn exploratory study of the relationships between Theory XY assumptions andsuperior communicator stylerdquo Management Communication Quarterly Vol 22 No 2pp 288-312

Sager KL (2015) ldquoLooking down from above measuring downward maintenance communication andexploring Theory XY assumptions as determinants of its expressionrdquo Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology Vol 31 No 1 pp 41-50

Şahin F (2012a) ldquoThe mediating effect of the leader-member exchange on the relationship betweenTheory XY management styles and affective commitment a multilevel analysisrdquo Journal ofManagement amp Organization Vol 18 No 2 pp 159-174

Şahin F (2012b) ldquoThe effects of leadership and followership styles on individual performanceoutcomesrdquo unpublished manuscript Niğde University Niğde

Schein E (2011) ldquoDouglas McGregor theoretician moral philosopher or behaviorist an analysis ofthe interconnections between assumptions values and behaviorrdquo Journal of ManagementHistory Vol 17 No 2 pp 156-164

Schein VE (1973) ldquoThe relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite managementcharacteristicsrdquo Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 57 No 2 pp 95-100

Schein VE (2007) ldquoWomen in management reflections and projectionsrdquo Women in ManagementReview Vol 22 No 1 pp 6-18

124

LODJ381

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)

Schriesheim C and Yammarino F (2000) ldquoInvestigating contingencies an examination of the impactof span of supervision and upward controllingness on leader-member exchange usingtraditional and multivariate within- and between-entities analysisrdquo Journal of AppliedPsychology Vol 85 No 5 pp 659-677

Scott K and Brown DJ (2006) ldquoFemale first leader second Gender bias in the encoding of leadershipbehaviorrdquo Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol 101 No 2 pp 230-242

Sosik JJ (2005) ldquoThe role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers amodel and preliminary field studyrdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 16 No 2 pp 221-244

Sy T (2010) ldquoWhat do you think of followers Examining the content structure and consequences ofimplicit followership theoriesrdquo Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol 113No 2 pp 73-84

Thomas JM and Bennis WG (1972) The Management of Change and Conflict Selected ReadingsPenguin Harmondsworth

Trepanier S Fernet C and Austin S (2012) ldquoSocial and motivational antecedents of perceptions oftransformational leadership a self-determination theory perspectiverdquo Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science Vol 44 No 4 pp 272-277

Tucker S Turner N Barling J Reid E and Elving C (2006) ldquoApologies and transformationalleadershiprdquo Journal of Business Ethics Vol 63 No 3 pp 195-207

van Engen ML and Willemsen TK (2004) ldquoSex and leadership styles a meta-analysis of researchpublished in the 1990srdquo Psychological Reports Vol 94 No 1 pp 3-18

van Engen ML van der Leeden R and Willemsen TM (2001) ldquoGender context and leadershipstyles a field studyrdquo Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 74 No 5pp 581-598

Vecchio RP (2002) ldquoLeadership and gender advantagerdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 13 No 6pp 643-671

Walter F and Scheibe S (2013) ldquoA literature review and emotion-based model of age and leadershipnew directions for the trait approachrdquo The Leadership Quarterly Vol 24 No 6 pp 882-901

Wang A-C Chiang JT-J Tsai C-Y Lin T-T and Cheng B-S (2013) ldquoGender makes the differencethe moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles andsubordinate performancerdquo Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol 122No 2 pp 101-113

Corresponding authorSait Guumlrbuumlz can be contacted at sgurbuz_99yahoocom

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article please visit our websitewwwemeraldgrouppublishingcomlicensingreprintshtmOr contact us for further details permissionsemeraldinsightcom

125

Leadersrsquomanagerial

assumptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by P

rofe

ssor

Sai

t Gur

buz

At 0

936

14

Febr

uary

201

7 (P

T)