رهبری تحول گرا و کاریزماتیک : بررسی همگرایی واگرایی و اعتبار معیار پرسشنامه رهبری چند عاملی و مقیاس کانگر کنانگو
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3341||2007||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6540 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 18, Issue 2, April 2007, Pages 121–133
This study aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational, transactional, and charismatic leadership. More specifically, the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of two instruments, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS), was explored. It was found that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. Moreover, these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. With regard to criterion validity, subjective (e.g. satisfaction) as well as objective (profit) performance indicators were assessed. Firstly, results indicated that transformational as well as charismatic leadership augmented the impact of transactional leadership on subjective performance. In addition, transformational and charismatic leadership both contribute unique variance to subjective performance, over and above the respective other leadership style. Secondly, transformational leadership had an impact on profit, over and above transactional leadership. This augmentation effect could not be confirmed for charismatic leadership. Furthermore, transformational leadership augmented the impact of both transactional and charismatic leadership on profit. Implications for leadership theory and practice are discussed.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Although they are often compared and used interchangeably, charismatic (CKS) and transformational (MLQ) leadership have a differential focus on the leadership phenomenon and its outcomes on top of the many components they share. This study provides evidence for convergent validity between transformational (MLQ) and charismatic (CKS) leadership. From the results reported in Table 3, we estimate the shared variance between these constructs to be 78%. While this supports the idea that charismatic and transformational leadership are to a larger degree overlapping, the still remaining 22% variance gives us an idea about the uniqueness of these constructs. Furthermore, analyses show that transformational and charismatic leadership are differential to transactional leadership, which provides, on the side of transformational leadership, further support for the divergent validity, showing that transformational leadership is not redundant to transactional leadership. According to our analyses, the same counts for charismatic leadership as measured with the CKS (cf. Note 2). However, the correlations between transactional and transformational leadership are high and significant. While these results limit divergent validity of the MLQ to some extent, they replicate findings from earlier research. Drawing on large samples from diverse organizational settings, independent analyses showed that transformational and transactional leadership are highly correlated (Antonakis et al., 2003 and Bass and Avolio, 2000). With regard to criterion validity of transformational and charismatic leadership, the conducted hierarchical regressions provide more insight into the convergence (or overlapping) of these two concepts. First of all, the augmentation hypothesis was confirmed in this study. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership for subjective as well as objective criteria. With respect to the objective criterion, our results confirm earlier results from Geyer & Steyrer (1998). Their results showed that transformational leadership uniquely accounts for 6% of the variance of long-term objective performance ratings (profit). In comparison, in our study 14% of variance in profit is explained by transformational leadership, over and above transactional leadership. Furthermore, charismatic leadership (as measured with the CKS) explains additional variance in the subjective performance measures. However, charisma does not augment transactional leadership with regard to the objective performance measure. The key finding in this study is that although transformational (MLQ) and charismatic (CKS) leadership share a considerable portion of variance (78%), they have a differentiated impact on profit. When comparing transformational and charismatic leadership within the hierarchical regressions, it becomes obvious that these two concepts explain approximately the same amount of extra variance in subjective performance measures above the respective other concept. Therefore, with regard to subjective performance criteria, the augmentation effect can be confirmed for charismatic leadership as measured with the CKS scale as well. In order to learn more about which subscales of the CKS augment both transactional and transformational leadership, we conducted additional hierarchical regression analyses. It was found that all subscales of the CKS have a significant impact on subjective performance indicators such as Extra Effort. In sum, the additional regression analyses put further emphasis on the importance of analyzing a wide range of different leadership styles, as assessed by different leadership instruments. 10.1. Implications for theory The two terms of charismatic and transformational leadership are often used interchangeably. Although our empirical results suggest that they are highly convergent, both the MLQ and the CKS capture their own piece of charisma (cf. Table 1). While both approaches to leadership explain unique variance in subjective performance criteria, only the MLQ assesses parts of the leader–follower-relationship that are more directly related to profit. Several reasons might account for this phenomenon. First, in addition to behaviors, the MLQ includes followers' attributions which have been hypothesized to play an important role for the leadership process and related outcomes (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). Second, whereas the MLQ focuses on the effect of focal leaders' perceived behavior on subordinates, Conger and Kanungo provide a more leader-centered theory. Thus, it might be speculated that in the CKS theory, follower processes (e.g. their attribution, motivation) that are related to profit are missing. Third, as the CKS implies three stages of the charismatic leadership process, future theoretical modifications should explicate effects of the stage model. Therein, it should be specified how the three stages are to be combined (e.g. sum or product of stages' subscales) to predict outcome criteria. Also, the effect of the CKS subscales of UB and PR should be specified for different contexts. From our results it might be speculated that within transaction-based organizations, these extraordinary and/or risky behaviors might be irrelevant to objective outcomes. 10.2. Implications for practice Our results have implications for managerial selection and training. Both charismatic and transformational leadership behavior are important to subjective performance. Hence, both approaches to leadership are valuable and should be the focus of leadership development interventions. It can be proposed that, depending on the organizational relevant performance indicator, certain distinct leadership styles will show a unique impact on subjective indicators. Given the context sensitivity of leadership phenomena (Antonakis et al., 2003; cf. Pawar & Eastman, 1997), the implementation of different leadership approaches within a single organization seems warranted. In sum, both theories are valuable and complement each other concerning the clarification of the influence of leadership on subjective indicators of organizational behavior. With regard to objective criteria such as profit, transformational leadership augments the impact of other (e.g. transactional and charismatic) leadership styles. In turn, evaluation and development of managers' transformational leadership abilities will help organizations to accomplish business goals (Avolio, 1999). 10.3. Limitations Several limitations should be noted. First of all, our sample is limited to a single organization. The obtained results may therefore be context-specific. This is even more of importance as the organization is German and Germany and charisma have a difficult relation. Research with transformational leadership in the German culture, however, has shown that there are barely any differences in the correlational structure of transformational leadership and several outcomes to American studies (Felfe et al., 2004, Geyer and Steyrer, 1998 and Kuchinke, 1999). We therefore expect that the here obtained results are to a certain degree transferable to other cultures as well. Furthermore, on the side of the subjective criteria, the data might underlie a common source and monomethod bias (Avolio, Yammarino, & Bass, 1991). Thus, the correlations reported here may be inflated. For example, Brown & Keeping (2005) demonstrated that the relationship between transformational leadership and subjective outcomes are “highly influenced by the interpersonal affect raters feel towards the targets being rated” (p. 245). However, with respect to transformational leadership behaviors, their influence on performance is supported by the results of the objective criteria as well. Thus, one of the most important findings of this study is not due to common source bias. Thirdly, for the analysis of the impact of leadership styles on objective performance criteria, the effect of early performance data should be controlled for. As an example, Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino (2004) found no significant effect of CEO charismatic leadership style on organizational performance, when the effect of early performance data was accounted for. Fourthly, as already mentioned, several measurements and theories of transformational and charismatic leadership exist. Most of them agree on core facets of transformational/charismatic leadership. However, it can not be excluded that other measures would lead to different results. Fifthly, we use a limited set of variables for predicting performance. Additional variables, such as value congruence (Jung & Avolio, 2000) or self-efficacy (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), may impact performance. Finally, we assessed constructs at a single point in time. Thus, we cannot be sure if leadership affects performance or the other way around. 10.4. Perspectives for future research Future research should try to further clarify the similarities and differences between – as well as the augmentation effect of – transformational and charismatic leadership in order to add further understanding to the variety of effective leadership. Therein, other measurements should also play a role in order to narrow down the effective leadership behaviors contained in one or the other concept. Analyses of convergent and divergent validity could draw on multitrait multirater matrices (cf. Conway, 1996) and should implement divergent measures such as personality. The present study was conducted in a German, transaction-based context (cf. Howell et al. 2005). Thus, empirical studies extending this research onto other cultures, countries, and organizational contexts such as nonprofit or research and development organizations (cf. Keller, 1992) are needed. Also, the impact of rivaling leadership styles on additional subjective performance measures such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; cf. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996) and commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) should be explored. Longitudinal and experimental designs should also be part of research that focuses on the relationship between transformational and charismatic leadership styles with and the direction of influence of these leadership styles on performance and other criteria.