dual-level effects of transformational leadership: … · “the leadership style and performance:...
TRANSCRIPT
DUAL-LEVEL EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF EFFICACY BELIEFS
Ka Yee (Katie) LAU
Research School of Management College of Business and Economics The Australian National University
A Thesis Submitted to the Australian National University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master of Philosophy in the Research School of Management,
College of Business and Economics
April 2014, Perth Australia
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, original and my
own work, except where otherwise acknowledged. This thesis has not been
previously submitted to other university either in whole or in part.
This study was cleared and approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the Australian
National University (Protocol: 2008/329). The research was supported in part by the
ANU Vice Chancellor Travel grant in 2007 and 2008, an ANU-Peking University
Exchange Travel Grant in 2009 and 2010 and Research Higher Degree Student Funds
from the ANU Research School of Management.
Ka Yee LAU (Katie)
MPhil Candidate
Date IO NOV&mßZTL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis is a product of a very long and lonely journey. As a part time research
student, I have juggled my full time work and family commitments while completing
the research and writing the thesis. I would like to express my gratitude to the
following people who have advised or assisted me in my research and writing:
• Professor George Chen, my supervisor, Professor Des Nicholls, who directed
the coursework phase of my graduate study, and Dr Herman Tse who offered
valuable advice in the conduct of my research;
• Professor Shujun Zhang for his assistance with data collection, which was one
of the most challenging and difficult tasks of the entire project. This thesis
would not have been possible without the valued assistance of Professor
Zhang.
3
LIST OF COURSEWORK COMPLETED
The following postgraduate courses were completed as part of the MPhil program
Corporate Governance Distinction
Quantitative Research Methods High Distinction
Econometric Methods High Distinction
Business Research Methods Distinction
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Awards
Second Prize Winner of the International Association for Chinese Management
Research (IACMR) Li-Ning Dissertation Proposal Grant, The Fourth IACMR
Conference, Shanghai, China 2010
Conference Papers and Presentations
“Dual-level effects o f transformational leadership: the mediating role o f efficacy
beliefs ”, paper presented at the Australia and New Zealand Association of
Management (ANZAM) Conference, Perth, December 2012.
“Transformational Leadership and work outcomes: a multi-level analysis with self
esteem mediation”, Dissertation proposal presented at the Peking University, Beijing,
August 2009.
“ Transformational Leadership and work outcomes: a multi-level analysis with self-
esteem mediation”, Dissertation proposal presented at the Dissertation Proposal
Development Workshop organized by the International Association for Chinese
Management Research (IACMR), Chengdu, July 2009.
“The leadership style and performance: The mediating role o f intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation and work engagement”, Dissertation proposal presented at the Doctoral
Dissertation Proposal Workshop, The Third International Association for Chinese
Management Research (IACMR) Conference, Guangzhou, China on 22 June 2008.
5
Grants
ANU Higher Degree Research Travel Grant 2007
ANU Higher Degree Research Travel Grant 2008
ANU-Peking University China Exchange Travel Grant 2009
ANU-Peking University China Exchange Travel Grant 2010
6
ABSTRACT
There is accumulating evidence that transformational leadership influences employee
motivation and performance both individually and collectively (Dansereau et al 1995,
Avolio and Bass 1995, Yammarino et al 1998). Previous studies have mainly treated
transformational leadership as an overarching construct focusing on the individual and
group levels of analysis separately. Understanding the underlying process of different
behavioural components of transformational leadership at both the individual and
group levels is theoretically and practically important (Yukl 1998, Kark and Shamir
2002, van Knippenberg et al 2004). Theoretically, examining behavioural
components provides clarity as to how transformational leadership affects individuals
and groups (Wu et al 2010). Practically, it provides important managerial
implications for adapting appropriate sets of transformational leadership behaviours to
manage teams and individuals effectively (Chen et al 2007). Recognizing the
important implications of this line of research and extending the results of current
research, this study focuses on the effects of the behavioural components of
transformational leadership and examines the influence process of each
transformational leadership behavioural component at its designated level.
The aim of this thesis is to examine the underlying mechanism that enables
transformational leadership to affect individual and collective levels of behaviours.
The behavioural dimensions of individual-focused and group-focused
transformational leadership are first defined and described. Drawing on social
cognitive theory, self-concept theory and a target similarity framework, this study
then proposes a model of the underlying process via which behavioural components
of transformational leadership influence individual and group outcomes. Self and
collective efficacies, which reflect the characteristics of personal and collective
7
efficacy beliefs, are proposed as mechanisms that underpin the dual-level effects of
transformational leadership on the outcomes. Specifically, I theorize that individual-
focused and group-focused transformational leadership behaviours are positively
related to personal efficacy and collective efficacy respectively. I further hypothesize
that individual-focused transformational leadership behaviours positively influence
individual level work outcomes through the mediating effect of personal efficacy. At
the group level, 1 hypothesize that group-focused transformational leadership
behaviours positively influence group level work outcomes through the mediating
effect of collective self-efficacy.
A pilot study is conducted to confirm that individual- and group-focused
transformational leadership behaviours are distinct. The transformational leadership
scale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) form 5x is adopted with
wording revised to represent group-focused and individual-focused referents. The
items are validated via a sample of 77 postgraduate students enrolled in Business
Management programs in China and Australia. The model is then tested with data
from a sample of 297 subordinates and 100 supervisors, which represent 100 work
teams, in a major hotel in Southern China. Results provide support for the model,
showing that self-efficacy mediates the effect of individual-focused transformational
leadership behaviours on individual performance and career expectation at the
individual level. Collective self-efficacy also mediates the effect of group-focused
transformational leadership behaviours on group performance and organizational
citizenship behaviours at the group level. Implications for theory and practice are
discussed and the limitations of the current study for future research directions are
outlined.
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY........................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ 3
LIST OF COURSEWORK COMPLETED.............................................................. 4
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS........................................................................................ 5
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................. 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................ 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................... 13
GROSSARY OF TERMS......................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW...............................................................16
1.1 Introduction................................................................................................16
1.2 Research Background................................................................................ 17
1.3 Theoretical Framework and Research Questions........................................18
1.4 Research Design and Scope......................................................................... 19
1.5 Contributions of the Study......................................................................... 21
1.6 Thesis Overview........................................................................................22
1.7 Conclusion................................................................................................. 23
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................ 24
2.1. Transformational Leadership...................................................................... 24
2.1.1 Theories of transformational and charismatic leadership................. 24
2.1.2 Work outcomes of Transformational Leadership at the individual and
group levels..................................................................................... 29
2.2 The Constructs of Individual-focused and Group-focused Transformational
Leadership................................................................................................... 31
9
2.3 Underlying Theories................................................................................... 34
2.3.1 Self-concept theory......................................................................... 34
2.3.2 Social cognitive theory.................................................................... 35
2.4 Related constructs....................................................................................... 39
2.4.1 Self-Esteem........................................................................................ 39
2.4.2 Organizational-bases self-esteem..................................................... 40
2.4.3 Collective self-esteem...................................................................... 40
2.4.4 Group Potency................................................................................. 41
2.5 Target Similarity Framework..................................................................... 42
2.6 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 44
CHAPTER 3: MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT....................... 45
3.1 Model Overview......................................................................................... 45
3.2 Hypothesis Development............................................................................ 45
3.2.1 Individual-focused and Group-focused Transformational Leadership
Behaviours and Efficacy Belief...................................................... 45
3.2.2 The Mediating Role of Personal Efficacy at the Individual Level...47
3.2.3 The Mediating Role of Collective Self-Efficacy at the Group Level50
3.3 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 4: STUDY 1 - FOCUS GROUP TO VALIDATE THE MEASURING
SCALE OF INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED AND GROUP-FOCUSED
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP............................................................ 52
4.1 Objectives of Study..................................................................................... 52
4.2 Method........................................................................................................ 53
4.2.1 Item Generation........................................................................... 53
4.2.2 Procedure..................................................................................... 53
4.3 Results......................................................................................................... 55
4.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 55
1 0
CHAPTER 5: STUDY 2 (MAIN STUDY) - DUAL-LEVEL EFFECTS OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF
EFFICACY BELIEF................................................................................................ 56
5.1 Objectives of Study.................................................................................... 56
5.2 Method....................................................................................................... 57
5.2.1 Sample.............................................................................................. 57
5.2.2 Procedure.......................................................................................... 57
5.2.3 Measures........................................................................................... 58
5.3 Level of Analysis........................................................................................ 61
5.4 Hypothesis Testing Results........................................................................ 62
5.5 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 63
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION.................................................................................... 65
6.1 Summary of Results................................................................................... 65
6.2 Implications for Theory and Practice......................................................65
6.3 Limitations and Future Research Direction................................................ 66
6.4 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 68
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION................................................................................ 69
7.1 Summary of Objectives and Main Findings................................................69
7.2 Thesis Conclusion....................................................................................... 69
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 71
FIGURES................................................................................................................... 86
TABLES.................................................................................................................... 89
APPENDICES 92
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Hypothesized model in this dissertation......................................................86
Figure 2: Comparison of transformational-charismatic leadership dimensions..........87
Figure 3: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Rater Form (Form 5X-Short) - Scale
of Transformational Leadership................................................................ 88
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations.......................................................... 89
Table 2: Regression results - mediation of the relationship of individual-focused
transformational behaviours with career expectation and individual
performance by personal self-efficacy......................................................... 90
Table 3: Regression results - mediation of the relationship of group-focused
transformational behaviours with group organizational citizenship behaviour
and group performance by collective self-efficacy.......................................91
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Summary of Hypotheses........................................................................92
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Study 1 (Focus Group Study, in English).................. 93
Appendix 3: Questionnaire for Study 1 (Focus Group Study, in Chinese)................. 97
Appendix 4: Supervisor Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study, in English)...........102
Appendix 5: Supervisor Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study, in Chinese)..........106
Appendix 6: Subordinate Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study, in English)....... 110
Appendix 7: Subordinate Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study, in Chinese).......115
12
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S C T S o c ia l C o g n i t i v e T h e o r y
O C B O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C i t i z e n s h i p B e h a v i o u r
T F L T r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p
O B S E O r g a n i z a t i o n a l - b a s e d S e l f E s t e e m
M L Q M u l t i f a c t o r L e a d e r s h ip Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
I C C I n t r a - c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n
13
GROSSARY OF TERMS
I n d i v i d u a l - f o c u s e d
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
l e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o u r s
I n d i v i d u a l - f o c u s e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o u r s
r e f e r to l e a d e r s ’ b e h a v i o u r s t h a t a i m t o e m p o w e r
i n d i v i d u a l f o l l o w e r s t o d e v e l o p t h e i r f u l l p o t e n t i a l ,
e n h a n c e t h e i r a b i l i t i e s a n d s k i l l s , a n d i m p r o v e s e l f -
e f f i c a c y a n d s e l f - e s t e e m .
G r o u p - f o c u s e d
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l
l e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o u r s
G r o u p - f o c u s e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o u r s
r e f e r t o l e a d e r s ’ b e h a v i o u r s t h a t t a r g e t a t t h e g r o u p a s a
w h o l e . T h e s e b e h a v i o u r s c o m m u n i c a t e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
g r o u p g o a l s , d e v e l o p s h a r e d v a l u e s a n d b e l i e f s a n d i n s p i r e
u n i f i e d e f f o r t s t o a c h i e v e g r o u p s .
P e r s o n a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y P e r s o n a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y is d e f i n e d a s ‘ i n d i v i d u a l s ’ b e l i e f in
t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s to p r o d u c e d e s i g n a t e d l e v e l s o f
p e r f o r m a n c e ’ ( B a n d u r a 1 9 9 4 ) .
C o l l e c t i v e s e l f - e f f i c a c y C o l l e c t i v e s e l f - e f f i c a c y is d e f i n e d a s ‘a g r o u p ’s s h a r e d
b e l i e f in i t s c o n j o i n t c a p a b i l i t i e s t o o r g a n i z e a n d e x e c u t e
t h e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n r e q u i r e d t o p r o d u c e g i v e n l e v e l s o f
a t t a i n m e n t s ’ ( B a n d u r a 1 9 9 7 )
C a r e e r E x p e c t a t i o n T h i s is d e f i n e d a s t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a n
i n d i v i d u a l ’s a d v a n c e m e n t in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n in w h i c h
t h e y a r e e m p l o y e d ( S c a r v d u r a a n d S c h r i e s h e i m 1 9 9 1 ) .
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
C i t i z e n s h i p B e h a v i o u r
T h i s is d e f i n e d a s ‘ i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o u r t h a t is
d i s c r e t i o n a r y , n o t d i r e c t l y o r e x p l i c i t l y r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e
f o r m a l r e w a r d s y s t e m a n d t h a t in t h e a g g r e g a t e p r o m o t e s
t h e e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ ( O r g a n
1 9 8 8 ) .
L e v e l o f a n a l y s i s T h i s r e f e r s t o t h e u n i t t o w h i c h t h e d a t a a r e a s s i g n e d f o r
h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g a n d a n a l y s i s ( R o u s s e a u 1 9 8 5 ) .
G r o u p - l e v e l v a r i a b l e “ G r o u p - l e v e l v a r i a b l e s ” v a r i a b l e s c h a r a c t e r i s e g r o u p s ( f o r
e x a m p l e , g r o u p - f o c u s e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p
b e h a v i o u r s , c o l l e c t i v e s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) . ( D u n c a n e t a l 1 9 9 2 ) .
I n d i v i d u a l - l e v e l v a r i a b l e “ I n d i v i d u a l - l e v e l ” v a r i a b l e s c h a r a c t e r i s e i n d i v i d u a l s a n d
r e f e r to i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l c o n s t r u c t s ( f o r e x a m p l e ,
i n d i v i d u a l - f o c u s e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p
b e h a v i o u r s , p e r s o n a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) . ( D u n c a n e t a l 1 9 9 2 ) .
14
fw gT h e r wg m e a s u r e is u s e d in a s s e s s i n g t h e l e v e l o f i n t e r - r a t e r
a g r e e m e n t o f g r o u p - l e v e l c o n s t r u c t s w i t h i n w o r k g r o u p s .
T h i s a g r e e m e n t m e a n s t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e c o n s t r u c t s
t a k e s i n t o a c c o u n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n w o r k g r o u p s r e l a t i v e
t o d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n w o r k g r o u p s ( J a m e s e t a l 1 9 8 4 ) .
I n t r a - c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n I n t r a - c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n ( I C C ) r e f e r s t o c o r r e l a t i o n v a l u e s
t h a t r e f l e c t t h e w i t h i n - g r o u p a g r e e m e n t o f t h e c o n s t r u c t s
( B l i e s e , 2 0 0 0 ) .
T h e r e a r e t w o f o r m s o f I C C v a l u e s . I C C ( 1 ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e
p r o p o r t i o n o f v a r i a n c e d u e t o t e a m v a r i a b i l i t y . I C C ( 2 )
r e f l e c t s t h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t e a m s c a n b e u s e d t o r e l i a b l y
d i f f e r e n t i a t e in t e r m s o f i n d i v i d u a l s ’ r a t i n g s .
K a p p a c o e f f i c i e n t T h e K a p p a c o e f f i c i e n t m e a s u r e s t h e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n
t w o r a t e r s w h o e a c h c l a s s i f y N i t e m s i n t o C m u t u a l l y
e x c l u s i v e c a t e g o r i e s .
15
CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
Evidence has been accumulating that transformational leadership (TFL) influences the
motivation and performance of individual followers and subordinate groups as a
whole (Dansereau et al 1995, Avolio and Bass 1995, Yammarino et al 1998).
Previous studies have mainly treated TFL as an overarching construct focusing on the
individual and group levels of analysis separately (Ellemers et al 2004, Burke et al
2006, Kearney and Gebert 2009). Recently, researchers have begun to focus on the
behavioural components of TFL in an attempt to understand their different effects on
individual and group outcomes (Kark and Shamir 2002, Wu et al 2010, Wang and
Howell 2010, van Knippenberg et al 2004, van Knippenberg et al 2013).
Understanding the underlying process of different behavioural components of TFL at
both the individual and group levels is theoretically and practically important. As
Yukl (1998) suggests, different TFL behaviours may involve different influence
processes and so achieve different outcomes. Kark and Shamir (2002) and van
Knippenberg et al (2004, 2013) call for more research to examine which components
of leadership behaviours affect individual and group-level attitudes and behaviours
respectively. Van Knippenberg et al (2013) state that there is lack of theory to specify
the causal model capturing how each dimension of transformational leadership has a
distinct influence on mediating processes and outcome. Examining behavioural
components of TFL is theoretically important not only because it provides clarity as to
how TFL affects individuals and groups (Wu et al 2010), but it also has important
managerial implications for leveraging resources to manage teams and individuals
effectively (Chen et al 2007).
16
1.2 Research Background
Recognizing the important implications of this line of research, Kark and Shamir
(2002) propose a dual-level TFL framework to examine the behavioural dimensions
of TFL. This framework suggests different leadership behaviours can account for the
different levels of effects of TFL. According to Kark and Sharmir (2002), TFL
behaviours can be distinguished as individual-focused and group-focused. Individual-
focused TFL behaviours refer to behaviours aiming to empower individual followers
to develop their full potential, enhance their abilities and skills, and improve self-
efficacy and self-esteem. Group-focused TFL behaviours refer to behaviours aiming
to communicate the importance of group goals, develop shared values and beliefs and
inspire unified efforts to achieve those goals. Based on the Bass (1985) model of
transformational leadership, two behavioural components of TFL - idealized
influence and inspirational motivation - aim to influence the group as a whole. They
are referred as group-focused TFL behaviours. The other two components of TFL -
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation - focus on the uniqueness of
each follower. They are referred as individual-focused TFL behaviours.
In terms of group-level analysis, Wu et al (2010) adopt Kark and Shamir’s (2002)
dual-level TFL framework and reveal that varying levels of individual-focused TFL
behaviours within groups diminishes group effectiveness. Wang and Howell (2010)
expand the Kark and Shamir (2002) framework and define individual-focused TFL
behaviours to consist of four dimensions of individualized consideration, intellectual
stimulation, high expectations and personal recognition; while group-focused TFL
behaviours consist of three dimensions of idealized influence, inspirational motivation
and team building. Their results reveal that individual-focused TFL behaviours are
positively related to individual task performance and personal initiative, while group-
17
focused TFL behaviours are positively associated with group performance and
helping behaviour. These studies represent important steps toward understanding how
the behavioural components of TFL influence individual and group work outcomes.
1.3 Theoretical Framework and Research Questions
This study aims to further the results of previous research on the dual level effects of
TFL behaviours. To understand the dual-level effects of TFL, it is helpful to delve
into the mechanism through which behavioural components of TFL are related to
individual and group outcomes. By contrasting different levels conceptually and
testing them relative to one another in the same study, we aim to draw clearer
conclusions about associations and the levels at which behavioural components of
TFL operate, as suggested by Yammarino et al (1998).
Drawing on social cognitive theory, self-concept theory and the target similarity
framework, this study develops and tests a mediated model to examine the underlying
process through which individual-focused and group- focused behavioural
components of TFL are related to individual and group outcomes. The model of the
relationships proposed in the present research is summarized in Figure 1. Specifically,
it is proposed that individual-focused TFL behaviours influence individual
performance and career expectation through the mediation of personal self-efficacy at
the individual level. Group-focused TFL behaviours influence group performance
and group organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) through the mediation of
collective self-efficacy at the group level.
The research presented addresses two questions that are important to advance our
understanding of the dual-level effects of TFL behaviours. First, which behavioural
18
dimensions of TFL are individual-focused making people in leadership positions
effective in motivating and inspiring followers and which are group-focused,
motivating followers’ behaviour in pursuit of collective objectives? Second, what are
the distinctive processes that enable TFL behavioural components to influence work
outcomes at the individual level and the group level?
1.4 Research Design and Scope
This thesis consists of two studies which focus on understanding the effects of TFL
behaviours at the individual and the group levels.
Study 1 is a focus group study conducted to confirm the distinction between
individual- and group-focused TFL behaviours. Following Wu et al (2010), the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x) is adopted. The TFL items are
validated via a sample of 77 postgraduate students enrolled in Business Management
programs, confirming that TFL behaviours can be distinguished as individual-focused
and group-focused.
Study 2 is to test the mediating process of TFL behaviours at the individual and group
levels. It is conducted using a cross-sectional design in a major hotel in Southern
China which has more than 1,000 employees. Data is from 100 supervisors and 297
employees, representing 100 work teams. The model is then tested with data from a
valid sample of 97 supervisor-subordinate dyads. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
with statistical software LISREL 8.8 (Joreskog and Sorbom 2001) is performed to test
the fit of the model.
The following table (Table 1.1) presents a summary of the two studies.
19
Table 1.1: Summary o f Studies 1 and 2
Stu d ies R esearch M eth od s and Scope
S tudy 1 F o cu s g ro u p s tu d y w ith a s a m p le o f 77 p o s tg ra d u a te s tu d e n ts
(C h a p ter 4) e n ro l le d in B u s in e s s M a n a g e m e n t p ro g ra m s in A u s t ra l ia an d
C h ina .
S u rv ey w a s d e v e lo p e d to c o l lec t da ta a n d re sp o n se s .
A n a ly s is fo c u s se d on p e rc e p t io n s o f in d iv id u a l - fo c u s e d an d
g ro u p - fo c u s e d T F L b eh a v io u rs .
Study 2 T h is is b a se d on a la rg e r sca le q u a n t i ta t iv e su rv e y , w ith a
(C h a p ter 5) sa m p le o f 3 9 7 e m p lo y e e s re p re s e n t in g 100 w o rk te a m s , in a
large f iv e - s ta r ho tel in S o u th e rn C h in a . T h e su rv e y w a s
c o n d u c te d u s in g a c ro s s - se c t io n a l des ig n .
M a n a g e r - r e p o r te d a n d se l f - re p o r te d m e a s u re s w e re u sed to
co l lec t the data . T h e s e w e re a n a ly s e d to tes t h y p o th e s e s
re g a rd in g the in d iv id u a l- lev e l re la t io n s h ip s b e tw e e n
in d iv id u a l - fo c u s e d T F L b e h a v io u r s , p e r so n a l se lf -e f f ic acy ,
in d iv id u a l p e r fo rm a n c e a n d in d iv id u a l c a re e r e x p e c ta t io n .
D a ta w e re a g g re g a te d to tes t h y p o th e s e s c o n c e rn in g g ro u p -
level re la t io n s h ip s b e tw e e n g ro u p - fo c u s e d T F L b e h a v io u rs ,
co l le c t iv e s e l f -e f f ic acy , g ro u p o rg a n iz a t io n a l c i t iz e n sh ip
b e h a v io u r a n d g ro u p p e r fo rm a n c e .
20
1.5 Contributions of the Study
The study makes several theoretical and practical contributions.
First, while the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x) has been used in TFL
research at the individual and group levels, and Wu et al (2010) adopt MLQ to
measure group-focused and individual-focused TFL behaviours, the validity of the
items to be distinguished as individual-focused and group-focused behaviours has not
been tested. Here a focus group is used to assess study to assess this validity.
Second, our study sheds some light on the mechanisms through which the effects of
individual- and group-focused TFL behavioural components are manifested. Wu et
al’s (2010) study only conceptualized and tested their hypothesized relationships
using group-level analysis. Although Wang and Howell (2010) tested both
individual- and group-level effects of TFL behaviours, they did not go further to
examine the mechanism that underpins the relationships. Hence, examining
intervening mechanisms is a promising way to advance this line of research. This
responds to the call to examine behavioural components of TFL to provide clarity as
to how TFL behavours affect individuals and groups (Kark and Shamir 2002, van
Knippenberg et al 2004, van Knippenberg et al 2013).
Third, the work contributes to multifocal research by identifying and separating
intended beneficiaries of TFL and measuring the effects specific to each target. This
responds to the call for research with ‘source specifications among antecedents,
mediators and outcomes’ (Lavelle et al 2007).
Finally, by understanding the direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership
behaviours, leaders are able to adopt different strategies for individual and group work
results.
21
1.6 Thesis Overview
This thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the research background,
theoretical framework, research questions and research design. In Chapter 2, a review
of the literature on transformational leadership, individual-focused TFL and group-
focused TFL is provided. The underlying theory of social cognitive theory, self-
concept theory and target similarity framework, which guide and underpin the model
and hypothesis development, is discussed in Chapter 3. The related constructs of self
esteem, organizational-based self-esteem, collective self-esteem and group potency
are also covered. Finally, Chapter 3 provides an explanation of the theoretical model
and hypothesis development in this thesis. By integrating the social cognitive theory,
self-concept theory and target similarity framework, the interrelationship between the
study variables are established so as to constitute the model.
Six hypotheses are formulated to address the second research question of this thesis.
Hypotheses \ and 2 concern the direct relationships between individual-focused and
group-focused TFL behaviours and efficacy beliefs at both the individual and
collective level respectively. Hypotheses 3 to 6 focus on the mediating role of
efficacy beliefs between the individual-focused and group-focused TFL behaviours
and work outcomes at the individual and group level. Chapter 4 is a focus group
study to address the first research question of this thesis. The Chapter reports the
results of a survey which aimed to validate a distinction between individual-focused
and group-focused TFL behaviours via a measuring scale. Survey data was collected
and analysed to contribute to the conceptual development of individual-focused and
group-focused TFL behaviours.
Chapter 5 presents the main quantitative study, to examine the relationship between
individual-focused TFL behaviours, personal efficacy and work outcomes at the
22
individual level, and the relationship between group-focused TFL behaviours,
collective self-efficacy and work outcomes at the group level. Hypotheses 1 to 6 were
tested in this study and their results reported correspondingly. Chapter 6 presents a
summary of results and a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of the
study. Limitations and directions for future research are also discussed. An overall
thesis conclusion is included in Chapter 7.
1.7 Conclusion
This chapter serves as the introduction to this thesis. It clarifies the origins of the
research topic, and identifies the associated issues arising in the literature. The
theoretical model used is outlined along with the research to which it is applied. In
addition, the research design and scope of each of the two studies for this thesis is
summarised. Finally, the contributions of this research and the thesis overview are
presented.
23
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides an overview of the literature regarding the main constructs in
the study - individual-focused TFL behaviours and group-focused TFL behaviours.
The focus is on presenting the existing body of relevant research associated with the
constructs. Also incorporated are definitions and a research review of similar and
related constructs of self-esteem, organizational-based self-esteem, collective self
esteem and group potency. In addition, there is a description of the underlying
theories of social cognitive theory, self-concept theory and the target similarity
framework that underpin the research model developed in this thesis.
2.1. Transformational Leadership
Since the late 1970s, multiple theories of transformational and charismatic leadership
have been proposed in the leadership literature (Bass 1985, Burns 1978, House 1977,
Conger and Kanungo 1987, 1998, Shamir et al 1993). Burns’ (1978) book entitled
Leadership has influenced much of the research and writing. In it, transformational
leadership is defined as appealing to the moral values of followers in an attempt to
raise their consciousness about ethical issues and to mobilize their energy and
resources to reform institutions. These leaders shift the beliefs, the needs and the
values of followers and share ‘higher’ collective goals, values and interests.
2.1.1 Theories of Transformational and Charismatic Leadership
Different theories of transformational and charismatic leadership have emerged since
Burns (1978). Some of the dominant ones are described below.
24
Bass' (1985) Model of Transformational Leadership
Bass (1985) extended Burn’s (1978) theory of transformational leadership. According
to Bass (1985), transformational leaders’ attempt to, and succeed in, raising
colleagues, subordinates, followers, clients, or constituencies to a greater awareness
about issues of consequence. Transformational leaders influence subordinates by
broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to
perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit exchange
agreement. Transformational leaders recognize individual differences in terms of
needs and desires. They pay attention to each individual’s need for achievement and
growth by acting as a coach or mentor. They offer a purpose that transcends short
term goals and focuses on higher order intrinsic needs. Followers are given new
learning opportunities in a supportive environment to develop higher levels of
potential (Bass 1985and also Dvir et al 2002).
Bass (1985) distinguish four dimensions of transformational leadership behaviours.
These dimensions are charismatic leadership, inspirational leadership, individual
consideration and intellectual stimulation. Charisma or idealized influence refers to
leaders’ behaviours that are admired, respected and trusted. Followers identify with,
and want to imitate, their leaders. Leaders earn respect from followers by considering
their needs over his or her own. Leaders share risks with followers and are consistent
in conduct with principles and values. Inspirational motivation refers to leaders who
motivate followers by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work.
Followers display enthusiasm and optimism. Individual and team spirit is aroused. A
leader who motivates by inspiration encourages followers to visualise attractive future
states, which they can ultimately envision for themselves.
25
Intellectual stimulation refers to leaders who question assumptions, reframe problems
and approach old situations in new ways in order to stimulate followers to be
innovative and creative. Leaders do not criticize individual members’ mistakes in
public. Followers are included in the process of addressing problems and finding
solutions. They are encouraged to present new ideas and creative solutions to
problems. Individualized consideration refers to leaders who act as coaches or
mentors to followers and pay individual attention to their need for achievement and
growth. Such leaders create a supportive climate for new learning opportunities and
for developing higher levels of potential. They understand and recognize individual
differences in terms of needs and desires.
Conger and Kanungo’s (1987) Model of Charismatic Leadership
Conger and Kanungo (1987) propose a model of charismatic leadership that is
attribution based. Charismatic leadership is an attribution phenomenon based on
followers’ perceptions of their leader’s behaviours as expressions of charisma.
Leaders’ behaviours that are perceived by followers as charismatic are not oriented to
maintain the status quo, instead they constantly reformulate vision. They are sensitive
to environment and followers’ needs, willing to take personal risk and they tend to
deploy unconventional behaviours.
Charismatic leadership process has three stages. First, the environmental assessment
stage has charismatic leaders seeking to change the status quo in a manner that is
sensitive to environmental opportunities, constraints and followers’ needs. Second,
the vision formulation stage sees leaders formulate a shared and idealized future
vision and articulate this vision to followers in an inspirational manner. Leaders are
26
perceived as charismatic as the vision formulated is seen as shared and satisfying
followers’ needs. Third is the implementation stage, where leaders are seen as taking
personal risk and self-sacrificing to achieve the shared vision. Thus, they are
perceived to be adopting innovative and unconventional means to achieve the shared
vision. Through the perception as being charismatic, leaders are able to empower
followers and build trust.
Although the Conger-Kanungo model (1987) focuses on charisma, which is just one
of the four components of the Bass (1985) model of transformational leadership, the
two models appear to overlap in several aspects. The behavioural component of
sensitivity to follower needs in the Conger-Kanungo model (1987) requires followers
to perceive leaders’ attention to their needs. This is similar to the individualized
consideration dimension of the Bass (1985) model by which the leader pays attention
to followers’ needs for achievement and growth.
That followers perceive the leader to formulate a shared vision in an inspirational
manner is a key behavioural component in the Conger-Kanungo model (1987). This
is similar to the charisma dimension in Bass (1985) model by which followers identify
with and want to follow their leaders.. The dimension of charisma in Bass (1985)
model refers also to leaders’ risk-sharing behaviour. This is similar to the behavioural
dimensions of taking personal risks and making personal sacrifice in the Conger-
Kanungo (1987) model. The dimension of intellectual stimulation in Bass (1985)
model refers to behaviours that stimulate followers’ effort to be innovative and
creative. This dimension overlaps with the behavioural component of unconventional
behaviour in the Conger-Kanungo (1987) model, by which leaders are seen to be
deploying innovative and unconventional means to achieve their visions.
27
The Shamir-House-Arthur (1993) Model of Charismatic Leadership
This is based on self-concept theory and it seeks to explain the transformational
effects of charismatic leadership. The authors suggest that charismatic leaders
achieve transformational effects through engaging the self-concept of followers in the
interest of the mission articulated by the leader. According to the theory, charismatic
behaviours ‘raise the salience of certain values and identities in followers’ self-
concepts and frame a group’s mission and followers’ roles in terms of those values
and identities’ (Shamir et al 1998). The effects on followers’ self-concepts of self-
expression, self-esteem, self-worth and self-consistency change followers’ behaviours
and activate other motivational mechanisms.
In this model there are four components of charismatic behaviours. They emphasize
ideology and collective identity, along with the displaying of exemplary and
supportive behaviours. Charismatic leaders emphasize collective values and
ideologies. They link a mission, its outcomes and expected behaviours to these values
and ideologies. By lowering power distance and emphasizing openness towards
followers, charismatic leaders show sensitivity to followers’ needs and feelings. By
articulating an ideological vision and displaying personal commitment to these values
and goals, charismatic leaders provide followers with a sense of collective identity
and create a sense of efficacy from collective membership. Through these behaviours,
leaders activate followers’ motivational mechanisms of self-expression, self-
consistency and self-enhancement and link followers to the leader and the work team.
The behavioural component of supportive behaviours in the Shamir et al model (1993)
refers to leaders’ behaviours that minimizing their social and power distance from
followers, enabling them to showing sensitivity to the needs of followers and
providing followers with support and autonomy. This is similar to the individualized
28
consideration dimension in Bass’s model, by which leaders pay attention to
individual’s needs and provide a supportive environment for individuals to grow.
In the Shamir et al. model, ideological emphasis and exemplary behaviours refer to
leaders’ attempts to connect group missions and tasks to broader values and goals. By
this means they seek distinct collective identities at the group level. These behaviours
are similar to the idealized influence dimension in Bass model, where leaders promote
consistent vision and values amongst their followers. Leaders who exhibit idealized
influence behaviour provide followers with a sense of meaning and challenge so
followers also work to foster a sense of collectivity.
2.1.2 Work outcomes of Transformational Leadership at the Individual and
Group Levels
The role of transformational leaders in enhancing individual and organizational
performance is well documented (Bass 1990, Podsaff et al 1990). At the individual
level, Judge and Piccolo (2004) conduct a meta-analysis of the relationship between
transformational leader behaviour and effectiveness. They confirm the positive
relationship between transformational leadership and follower job satisfaction,
follower leader satisfaction and follower motivation. Previous research and meta
analyses have indicated a positive relationship between transformational leadership
and followers’ performance (Howell and Avolio 1993, Lowe et al 1996). This
research also shows that transformational leaders are more likely to exert their
influence on followers by affecting their feelings of identification (Epitropaki and
Martin 2005, Shamir et al 1993, Kark et al 2003, Conger et al 2000) and catering to
followers’ needs and competencies (Bycio et al 1995; Howell and Avolio 1993). It is
29
also found that transformational leadership behaviours positively enhance followers’
job perception (Shamir et al 1993, Bono and Judge 2004). Further, Piccolo and
Colquitt (2006) find that transformational leadership affects task performance and
organizational citizenship behaviour through the mediation of job characteristics,
intrinsic motivation and goal commitment.
At the group level, Bass et al (2003) find that transformational leadership ratings of
platoon leaders and sergeants in the U.S. army predicted unit performance in combat
simulations. And Lim and Ployhart (2004) find that transformational leadership
mediates the relationship between leadership personality and team performance.
Similarly, Schaubroeck et al (2007) find that transformational leadership influences
team performance through the mediating effect of team potency. Kearney and Gebert
(2009) examine the moderating role of transformational leadership to understand its
effects on the performance of diverse teams. They find that transformational
leadership moderates the relationship of age, nationality and educational diversity
with team performance. Kark et al (2003) also find a positive relationship between a
general measure of transformational leadership and organization-based self-esteem,
which is self-esteem specific to the organizational setting. They achieve this partially
through social identification. Thus, the evidence from research to date supports the
conclusion that transformational leadership positively relates to work outcomes at
both individual and team levels.
30
2.2 The Constructs of Individual-focused and Group-focused
Transformational Leadership
The self-concept based motivational theory of charismatic leadership (Shamir et al
1993) and the self-concept based theory of leadership (Lord et al 1999) both suggest
that leaders achieve transformational effects by engaging the motivations for self-
expression, self-esteem, self-worth and self-consistency. Activation of self-concept
affects further motivational mechanisms, which have strong impact on the behaviours
of followers. Kark and Shamir (2002) propose a TFL conceptual framework to
explain the mechanisms underlying the dual-level effects of TFL. They suggest that
TFL can prime the relational and collective levels of self-identity and ultimately affect
followers’ motivation and behaviours. The relational level of self-identity is based on
interpersonal connections with specific others, such as the leader. The collective self
is derived from membership in a work team or organization.
According to Kark and Shamir (2002), the key transformational behavioural
components that prime followers’ relational-self are individualized consideration and
intellectual stimulation. These two behaviours aim at influencing individual
employees by focusing on individuals’ needs, capabilities and affective states. Such
leaders are highly aware of each person’s unique skills and provide customized
learning opportunities. They vary their behaviour depending on each follower’s
individual idiosyncrasies, thereby allowing the assignment of well-suited tasks. These
transformational behaviours are thus individual-focused. Idealized influence and
inspirational motivation are the key transformational behavioural components that are
group-focused to prime the collective-self. Such leaders focus on the bond within the
group as a whole and communicate high levels of confidence in the team’s ability to
achieve collective goals (Antonakis and House 2002). By emphasizing common
31
ground, stressing shared values and ideology, connecting followers’ personal goals
and aims with the groups’ interests and interpreting present and past experiences of
followers in terms of group values and identity (Shamir et al 1994), these behaviours
prime the collective level of followers’ self-identity and foster individuals’ perception
of belonging to the organization (Shamir et al 1993).
The Kark-Shamir (2002) concept of individual- and group-focused TFL behaviours is
subsequently used by Wu et al (2010), who conduct a group-level study to examine
the effectiveness of both group-focused and individual-focused leadership behaviours.
Based on survey data from 70 work groups in eight companies, they find that group-
focused TFL behaviours (idealized influence and inspirational stimulation) enhance
group identification and collective efficacy, both of which also contribute positively
to group effectiveness. They also find that varying levels of individual-focused TFL
behaviours (individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation) among group
members cause divergence between leader identification and self-efficacy beliefs,
diminishing group effectiveness.
Similar to Kark and Shamir (2002) and Wu et al (2010), Wang and Howell (2010)
define individual-focused TFL behaviours as behaviours aiming to empower
individual followers to develop their full potential, enhance their abilities and skills,
and improve self-efficacy and self-esteem. They define group-focused TFL
behaviours as behaviours aiming to communicate the importance of group goals,
develop shared values and beliefs and inspire unified efforts toward group
achievement.
Different from Kark and Shamir (2002) and Wu et al (2010), however, Wang and
Howell (2010) define individual- and group-focused TFL behaviours to consist of
four and three dimensions respectively. In addition to individualized consideration
32
and intellectual stimulation, Wang and Howell (2010) include two additional
dimensions of individual-focused TFL behaviours, namely high expectations and
personal recognition. Thus, leaders convey to followers expectations of excellence
and they praise and acknowledge followers for achieving specified goals or
discovering new approaches.
For group-focused TFL behaviours, in addition to idealized influence and
inspirational motivation, Wang and Howell (2010) include also team building as an
additional dimension. Team building behaviours are defined as aiming at promoting
cooperation, resolving frictions, and facilitating mutual trust among followers. Based
on a survey sample of 203 members from 60 work groups in a Canadian company,
their results reveal that individual-focused TFL behaviours are positively related to
individual task performance and personal initiative, while group-focused TFL
behaviours are positively associated with team performance and helping behaviour.
Consistent with Kark and Shamir (2002), Wu et ai (2010) and Wang and Howell
(2010), the focus in this thesis is on the behavioural components of TFL. It
conceptualises individual-focused TFL as encompassing behaviours that concentrate
on individual followers, empowering them to develop their full potential, enhance
their abilities and skills and improve self-efficacy and self-esteem. Group-focused
TFL encompasses behaviours that target the group as a whole and which
communicate the importance of group goals, develop shared values and beliefs and
inspire unified efforts to collective achievement. Consistent with previous research,
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation are seen as individual-
focused TFL behaviours and idealized influence and inspirational motivation as
group-focused TFL behaviours. The influence target for individual-focused TFL
33
behaviours is individual and that for group-focused TFL behaviours is the work team
or organisation.
2.3. Underlying Theories
2.3.1 Self-Concept Theory
Central to the self-concept and identity approach to leadership effectiveness is an
understanding that the way we perceive ourselves strongly informs our feelings,
beliefs, attitudes, goals and behaviours (Leary and Tangney 2003). Leadership that is
able to influence follower self-conception may influence follower attitudes and
behaviour (Lord et al 1999, Shamir et al 1993). Hence, follower self-conception may
mediate the relationship between leadership and follower behaviour. Self-conception
may differ in the level of inclusiveness at which the self is construed.
According to self-concept based theory (Shamir et al 1993), the charismatic leader is
effective by strongly engaging followers’ self-concepts in the interest of the mission
articulated by the leader. Specifically, according to the theory, charismatic leaders
raise the salience of certain values and collective identities in followers’ self-concepts
and articulate the goals and the required efforts in terms of those values and identities.
Charismatic leaders achieve transformational effects by influencing the self-concepts
of followers. These leaders increase the intrinsic value of efforts and goals by linking
followers to valued aspects of the follower’s self-concept, thus harnessing the
motivational forces of self-expression, self-consistency, self-esteem and self-worth
(Shamir et al 1993). Thus, people are motivated to maintain and enhance their self
esteem and self-worth, where self-esteem embodies the senses of competence, power,
achievement or ability to cope with and control one’s environment. Such leadership
34
behaviours change the salience of values and identities in followers’ self-concepts and
are likely to shift followers’ behaviours from concern with individual gains to concern
with contributions to a collective.
Lord et al (1999) adopt Brewer and Gardner’s (1996) theory and suggest that there are
three levels of self: individual, interpersonal and collective. They further suggest that
the effectiveness of specific leadership behaviours will depend on which of the
follower’s self-concept levels is activated. Leaders will be most effective when their
leadership processes are matched to predominant identity levels of followers. The
individual level of self is based on self-worth that is derived from perceived
similarities with and differences from others. At this level, leader’s behaviours that
are specific to each follower have greatest effects. The interpersonal level of self is
defined in terms of one’s relation to others, such as subordinate-leader. At this level,
followers are motivated by congruent leadership behaviours and attitudes. The
collective level of self is based on identification with a particular group such as work
team or organization. At this level, leadership behaviours that provide group
members with a common vision and framework from which to make decisions and set
future goals tend to have the greatest effects on followers.
2.3.2 Social Cognitive Theory
Self-Efficacy
Social cognitive theory highlights self-efficacy as the key cognitive mechanism
driving employees' behaviours in a variety of circumstances (Bandura 1997). Self-
efficacy is defined as ‘individuals’ belief in their capabilities to produce designated
levels of performance’ (Bandura 1994). It has a positive impact on performance
35
because high levels of self-efficacy enable the effective regulation of human
behaviour through a range of cognitive, motivational, and affective decisional
processes (Bandura 1997). According to Gist and Mitchell (1992), self-efficacy has
three key characteristics. First, self-efficacy is a judgment of perceived capability to
complete a specific task. Second, this judgment of perceived efficacy changes over
time when skills and experience are acquired. Third, people who have the same skills
may perform differently depending on how the skills are utilized. Higher levels of
self-efficacy imply greater likelihood that individuals will engage and persist in
constructive tasks.
There are four primary sources of information on which individuals base their beliefs
about self-efficacy (Bandura 1982). These four primary sources are social persuasion,
their psychological state, their vicarious experience and their mastery experience.
Social persuasion refers to verbal persuasion by others that confirms the individual’s
ability to accomplish tasks. Psychological state refers to individuals’ aversive somatic
and emotional arousal related to performing tasks. Vicarious experience refers to the
experiences that individuals gain by observing and learning from social models,
especially those who are similar to them. Mastery experience refers to individuals’
past successful task accomplishment.
Collective Efficacy
Bandura (1986) originally defined efficacy at the individual level but later (Bandura
1997) introduced collective efficacy to extend social cognitive theory to the group
level of analysis. At the group level of analysis, collective efficacy is defined as ‘a
group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
36
action required to produce given levels of attainment (Bandura 1997). It has been
conceptualized as being similar to self-efficacy. Zaccaro et al (1995) define collective
efficacy as ‘a sense of collective competence shared among individuals when
allocating, coordinating and integrating their resources in a successful concerted
response to specific situational demands. Collective efficacy is a shared belief that is
task- and context-specific and that influences a group to initiate action, determine how
much effort the group will exert and decide how long the group’s effort will be
sustained.
Relating Self Efficacy to Transformational Leadership
Previous research has suggested that transformational leader behaviours may derive
their effectiveness from links to follower self-efficacy at both the personal and
collective levels of inclusiveness (Stajkovic et al 2009, Chen and Bliese 2002,
Stajkovic and Luthans 1998, Conger and Kanungo 1998, Walumbwa et al 2004).
At the individual level, transformational leadership is found to be positively related to
employees’ perceptions of general self-efficacy (Pillai and Williams 2004).
Walumbwa et al (2008) also find that self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship
between transformational leadership and performance. Transformational leaders’
visions affect employee performance to the extent that they inspire or lead to the
setting of specific goals, thereby raising self-efficacy (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996).
Such leaders alter followers’ beliefs in their capacity to perform and raise followers’
self-efficacy (Eden 1992, Conger and Kanungo 1998). Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996)
find that leaders’ visions affect employee performance to the extent that they inspire
or lead to the setting of specific goals while at the same time raising self-efficacy.
37
Shea and Howell (1999) find that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
charismatic leadership and performance. Rafferty and Griffin (2006) find that
individualized consideration is positively related to employee’s perceptions of role-
breadth self-efficacy.
At the group level, efficacy beliefs also play an important role in team motivation,
simply because people have to rely on others to accomplish their tasks. Previous
research and meta-analyses have shown collective self-efficacy to be positively
related to group motivation and performance (Gully et al 2002, Prussia and Kinicki
1996, Stajkovic et al 2009). Chen et al (2002) find that leadership climate is an
immediate predictor of collective efficacy. Walumbwa et al (2004) find that
collective efficacy mediates transformational leadership and work withdrawal, and
partially mediates transformational leadership, organizational commitment and job
satisfaction.
Although theoretical models of self-efficacy and collective efficacy (Lindsley et al
1995) have suggested that the two constructs have similar antecedents and outcomes,
empirical research has revealed both similarities and dissimilarities between
individual-level and team-level antecedents and consequences of efficacy beliefs.
Chen et al (2002) find that efficacy is involved via mechanisms that differ as between
the individual and group levels. They find that work experience, role clarity and
psychological strain are important direct predictors of self-efficacy. Chen et al (2002)
test a multilevel model of efficacy beliefs. They find that, at the individual level,
experience and achievement motivation are significant predictors of self-efficacy
which positively predict individual performance. At the team level, however, team
drive predicts collective efficacy but team expertise does not. This efficacy-
performance result seems inconsistent, suggesting that predictors of self-efficacy do
38
not necessary predict collective efficacy, and vice versa (Chen et al 2002). The
research resulst of Chen et al (2002) therefore indicate that self-efficacy and collective
efficacy could be related to the different behavioural components of transformational
leadership, which then lead to different work outcomes.
2.4. Related Constructs
Self-efficacy, as discussed in the previous section, is part of the Social Cognitive
Theory (Bandura 1986) which reflects one’s judgment about one’s own perceived
ability to accomplish a specific task (Bandura 1977). Though it is related, self-
efficacy has different constructs to self-esteem, organizational-based self-esteem and
collective self-esteem. The following sections discuss the definitions of these related
constructs.
2.4.1 Self-esteem
Self esteem refers to an individual’s overall self-evaluation of his/her competencies
(Rosenberg 1965). It refers to the ‘self-evaluation that individuals make with regard
to themselves’ (Pierce et al 1989). For Korman (1970), self-esteem reflects the degree
to which the individual ‘sees him- (her-) self as a competent, need-satisfying
individual’. In other words, self-esteem reflects individuals’ personal judgements and
beliefs about their own worthiness (Greenberg et al 1999). Since self-esteem is
formed around work and organizational experiences, Korman (1970) suggests that
individual’s self-esteem therefore plays a significant role in determining employee
motivation, work-related attitudes and behaviours. Self-esteem has been found to be
39
associated with enhanced initiative, higher satisfaction and job performance at
individual level (Judge and Bono 2001).
2.4.2 Organizational-based Self-Esteem
Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) is defined as ‘the degree to which
organizational members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating in
roles within the context of the organization’ (Pierce et al 1989). In other words,
OBSE reflects employees’ evaluation of their personal adequacy and worthiness as
organizational members so that individuals with high OBSE perceive themselves as
important, meaningful, and worthwhile within their employing organization (Pierce et
al 1989). Consistent with Korman’s (1976) view of self-esteem, Pierce et al (1989)
suggest that individual with high OBSE has a sense of having satisfied their needs
through their organizational roles.
Previous research has shown that OBSE is positively related to work-related
behaviours. Pierce et al (1989) and Van Dyne and Pierce (2003) find a positive
relationship between OBSE and job performance. Pierce et al (1993) and Gardner et
al (2000) also find such a positive relationship in their longitudinal studies on OBSE.
2.4.3 Collective Self-esteem
Consistent with the social identity theory of Tajfel and Turner (1986), Crocker and
Luhtanen (1990) suggest that an individual’s self-concept may be divided into two
aspects: personal identity and social identity. Personal identity refers to beliefs about
an individual’s personal worth. Social identity refers to the aspect of the individual’s
self-concept that derives from memberships in a group and the value and emotional
40
significance attached to the membership (Tajfel 1981). Crocker and Luhanen (1990)
introduce the concept of collective self-esteem, which is defined as the extent to
which individuals associate their self-worth with their group membership. It refers to
an evaluation of collective self o f ‘us’ rather than of "me’ (Crocker and Luhtanen
1990).
Collective self-esteem has mainly been studied in intergroup relations research (Rubin
and Hewstone 1998). It is found to be related to psychological adjustment, life
satisfaction and general well-being (Blaine and Crocker 1995, Bettencourt and Dorr
1997 and Liang and Fassinger 2008).
2.4.4 Group Potency
Group potency is defined as ‘the collective belief of a group that it can be effective’
(Shea and Guzzo 1987, Guzzo 1986). It refers to a shared belief by group members
about the group’s overall effectiveness at work. Group potency and collective
efficacy are different in that potency refers to a more generalized belief regarding a
group’s enduring ability to perform a wide range of tasks across different activities
(Stajkovic et al 2009) while efficacy refers to a specific task.
Group potency and collective self-esteem are different in that group potency concerns
the group’s performance or overall effectiveness whereas collective self-esteem does
not is not associated directly with group performance effectiveness. Guzzo et al
(1993) point out the difference in the two constructs via and illustration. While a
group may have a weak belief that it can be effective (that is, have low potency), it
may protect its collective self-esteem by devaluing other out-groups and inflating its
41
own significance. Thus the group may have high collective self-esteem even though
group potency is low.
2.5. Target Similarity Framework
The importance of aligning the foci of both independent and dependent variables is
central to the “target similarity” framework proposed by Lavelle et al (2007). The
target similarity framework stems from the multi-focal approach in the commitment
literature, which later on also emerges in the literature on organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviour. The multi-focal perspective of the three
constructs of commitment, organizational justice and OCB suggests that employees
meaningfully distinguish between targets. According to this framework, an
antecedent is more likely to predict an outcome when the two constructs refer to the
same target. Previous research adopted a multi-focal approach has provided evidence
of a ‘target similarity effect’ - the relationship between constructs tends to be stronger
when the constructs refer to the same or similar targets than when they refer to
different targets.
The multi-focal perspective of commitment suggests that employees may maintain
distinct levels of affective commitment towards different entities in the workplace,
such as the organization, their supervisors or their work teams (Bishop and Scott 2000,
Coyle-Shapiro and Morrow 2006, Linden et al 2003). For example, Becker and
Kernan (2003) find that affective commitment to supervisors relates to in-role
performance but effective commitment to organization does not. Effective
commitment to organization, however, relates to loyalty to the organization but
effective commitment to supervisor does not. Their results validate the multi-focal
42
perspective of commitments by demonstrating that employees distinguish among
effective and continuance commitments to supervisors and organizations. This
framework on organizational justice suggests that employees may hold meaningfully
distinct beliefs about the fairness towards decisions made by different decision
making agents such as the organization, the supervisor or the work team (Blader and
Tyler 2003, Rupp and Cropanzano 2002, Aryee et al 2002).
The findings of Aryee et al (2002) suggest that employees can develop trust in
specific individuals, such as their supervisors, and distinctly, to generalized entities
such as the organization (Whitener 1997). Their results support this suggestion,
indicating that trust in supervisor and trust in organization are two distinctive
constructs that have different antecedents and outcomes. They find that trust in
organization mediates the relationship between organizational justice and
organization-related work outcomes and trust in supervisor mediates the relationship
between interactional justice and supervisor-related work outcomes. The multi-focal
perspective of organizational citizenship behaviour also suggests that it may be
directed towards specific individuals, such as supervisors or members of workgroups
within the organization.
Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) study the link between multi-focal justice and multi
focal outcomes of performance and OCB with the mediation of multi-focal social
exchange relationships. Their results support the existence of target similarity effects,
namely that the relationships are highly correlated within the two foci and less highly
correlated across foci. The multi-focal model of organizational justice therefore
suggests that it is necessary to specify the source of justice, which can focus on the
organization, the supervisor, co-workers or customers.
43
2.6. Conclusion
In this chapter, the constructs that are central to this research are introduced. It also
offers definitions of major constructs and theoretical discussion that underpins the
model and hypothesis-development. In the next chapter the model and the hypotheses
to be tested are presented in detail.
44
CHAPTER 3: MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
This chapter presents the model proposed in this thesis and provides theoretical
justifications supporting each of the hypothesized relationships embodied in it, as
indicated in Figure 1. These relationships are founded on the theories and research
discussed in Chapter 2. The model overview highlights the role of each variable in
the model. The hypotheses are summarized subsequently.
3.1 Model Overview
As the interdependencies detailed in Figure 1 indicate, at the individual level of
analysis it is proposed that individual-focused TFL behaviours influence individual
performance and career expectation through the mediation of personal self-efficacy.
At the group level, group-focused TFL behaviours influence group performance and
group organizational citizenship behaviour through the mediation of collective self-
efficacy.
3.2 Hypothesis Development
3.2.1 Individual- and Group-focused Transformational Leadership Behaviours
and Efficacy Belief
Underpinned by social cognitive theory, self-efficacy and collective efficacy are key
cognitive mechanisms to motivate employees’ attitudes and behaviours (Bandura
1997). As detailed in Chapter 2, self-efficacy is defined as ‘individuals' belief in their
capabilities to produce designated levels of performance’ (Bandura 1994). Collective
efficacy is defined as ‘a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize
and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments
45
(Bandura 1997). Self-efficacy and collective efficacy have different referents. That
of self-efficacy is the individual while that of collective efficacy is the group.
Previous research has shown that transformational leadership, when treated as an
individual or group level construct, is a predictor of efficacy belief at its respective
level (Gong et al 2009, Chen and Bliese (2002).
According to SCT, two main predictors of self-efficacy are social persuasion and
vicarious experience. Social persuasion refers to direct persuasion by others that
confirms the individual’s ability to accomplish tasks. Vicarious experience refers to
observation and learning from social models. Individual-focused TFL behaviours
focus on individuals’ needs, capabilities and affective states. Such behaviours
stimulate followers to think and improve the quality of solutions they generate (Bass
and Avolio 1990). Followers see themselves as capable of independent action and
thereby develop a sense of self-worth (Pierce and Gardner 2004). The effects are seen
in increases in followers’ abilities to conceptualize, comprehend, and analyze
problems and in the improved quality of solutions that they generate (Bass and Avolio
1990). Individual-focused TFL behaviours may form a source of social persuasion
because these behaviours strengthen the individual’s belief in his or her capabilities
and promote a sense of personal self-efficacy.
Group-focused TFL leaders view group members as a whole and liaise with them as a
group rather than as individuals. They aim at influencing the group by emphasizing
common ground, shared values and ideology. Group-focused TFL behaviours are
inspirational and focus on collective vision. Followers are likely to attend to and learn
from such leaders (Bass and Avolio 1990). Such behaviours communicate confidence
that followers can achieve ambitious goals and promote cooperation among team
members (Antonakis and House 2002). Thus, group-focused TFL behaviours provide
46
followers with a source of vicarious experience on which individuals base their beliefs
about self-efficacy. By focusing on group interests and the overall bond with the
group, group focused TFL triggers followers’ self-categorization with the group (Kark
and Shamir 2002), which is found to be associated with collective efficacy (Kark et al
2003, Wu et al 2010).
According to the target similarity framework, the relationship between constructs is
stronger when the constructs refer to the same or similar targets. Applying the target
similarity framework to this study, it is contended that the effects of TFL behaviours
are specific to its target. Thus,
Hypothesis 1. Individual-focused TFL behaviours are positively related to personal
self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 2. Group-focused TFL behaviours are positively related to collective self-
efficacy.
3.2.2 The Mediating Role of Personal Efficacy at the Individual Level
In addition to individual performance, it is hypothesized that individual-focused TFL
behaviours are related to career expectation. Career expectation is defined as
perceptions of the likelihood to advance in the employing organization (Scandura and
Schriesheim 1991). Research has found that mentoring is related to important career
outcomes such as salary level, promotion rate and job satisfaction (Allen et al 2004,
Scandura 1992, Whitely et al 1991), managerial mobility (Scandura and Williams
2004) and work role effectiveness (Kram 1985). Kram (1985). The method used has
been the conduct of in-depth qualitative examinations of mentor-protege dyads,
identifying two types of mentor functions. The first is career-related support,
47
including coaching, protection and the presentation of challenging assignments that
enhance proteges’ advancement in the organization. The second type of mentor
function is psychosocial, addressing the interpersonal aspects of the relationship; in
particular, “those aspects of a relationship that enhance an individual’s sense of
competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role” (Kram, 1985, p. 32).
Individual-focused transformational behaviours are consistent with the mentor’s
career support function, which includes coaching and the assignment of challenging
tasks that enhance individuals’ advancement in the organization (Allen 2003). Indeed,
Scandura and Williams (2004) note that the concepts of transformational leadership
and supervisory career mentoring are interrelated. They find a positive relationship
between supervisory career mentoring and protege career expectation. Individual-
focused transformational behaviours focus on individuals’ needs, capabilities and
affective state, allowing the assignment of tasks that fit followers’ capabilities and
providing individual follower customized learning opportunities.
Bass (1985) notes that individualized consideration is strongly related to mentoring.
This is because both involve high degrees of personalized attention. Transformational
leaders who focus on individualized consideration may be more capable of delivering
the coaching function (Hunt and Michael 1983). Vardi (1992) also conceptualizes
this mentor role of individualized consideration as transforming because the linked
followers develop into more competent and satisfied individuals. Based on the above,
individual-focused transformational leadership behaviours may provide the career
mentoring function, which is found to be positively related to followers’ career
expectations (Scandura and Williams 2004).
It is therefore hypothesized that self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the relationship
between individual-focused TFL behaviours and work outcomes of individual
48
performance and career expectation. The mechanism is that individual-focused TFL
behaviours increase followers’ self-efficacy, which is an important motivational
construct that influences individuals’ effort, coping and persistence (Bandura 1997,
Gist and Mitchell 1992). When people experience higher levels of self-expression
and personal control, there is an increased likelihood that individuals attribute positive
events to themselves, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy (Pierce and Gardner 2004).
The self-confidence and competencies developed through raising self-efficacy are
likely to reinforce better work performance and positive views towards career
mobility. This notion is consistent with the self-oriented, identity approach to
leadership effectiveness which states that our self-concept strongly informs our
feelings, beliefs, attitudes, goals, and behaviours (Leary and Tangney 2003).
Leadership that is able to influence follower self-conception also influences follower
attitudes and behaviour (Lord et al 1999, Shamir et al 1993). The notion is also
consistent with Kark and Shamir’s (2002) TFL framework that self-concept at the
individual level is the mechanism underlying the individual effect of TFL. As implied
by the target similarity framework, follower self-conception thus mediates the
leadership behaviour and follower relationship specific to its target. The above
discussion suggests the following further hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3. Personal self-efficacy is positively related to individual performance
and mediates the relationship o f individual-focused TFL behaviours and individual
performance.
Hypothesis 4. Personal self-efficacy is positively related to individual career
expectation and mediates the relationship o f individual-focused TFL behaviours and
individual career expectation.
49
3.2.3 The Mediating Role of Collective Efficacy at the Group Level
In addition to group performance, we hypothesize that group-focused TFL behaviours
are related to group OCB. Organ (1988) defines OCB as ‘individual behaviour that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and
that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’.
According to Podsakoff et al (1990), the most important effect of TFL is that such
leaders induce followers to do more than they originally expected to do. They find
that in aggregate, TFL has an indirect effect on OCB. Group-focused TFL behaviours
enhance a social work environment where group members have a shared vision.
Members of the group who are intrinsically motivated to fulfil a collective vision
without expecting immediate personal and tangible gains may be inclined to
contribute toward achieving the shared workplace goals in ways that their roles do not
prescribe (Wang et al 2005). Group-focused TFL behaviours therefore are more
likely to lead followers to participate in behaviours that are outside the core of their
duties.
The hypothesized mediating influence of collective-efficacy on the relationship
between group-focused TFL behaviours and the work outcomes of group performance,
as well as OCB, is on the basis that a strong belief in a group’s efficacy is found to
have a positive effect on the group effectiveness (Gibson 1999, Gully et al 2002,
Stajkovic et al 2009). As indicated in Chapter 2, Bandura (1997) suggests that
collective efficacy influences what people choose to do as a team and how much
effort they put into it. Having a strong belief in a group’s efficacy should therefore
also increase motivation to expend extra effort to achieve the goals articulated by the
group-focused leader. When group members believe they will be able to achieve their
joint objectives if they persevere, they will be more united and more willing to go
50
above and beyond prescribed roles to do whatever it takes to reach their goals (Organ
et al 2006).
When team members connect their objectives and their collective tasks, they try to
direct their efforts to help the collective effectiveness of the team by engaging in
OCBs, such as by helping new co-workers and making suggestions to improve
performance (Hu and Liden 2011). These OCBs, in turn, become a standard mode of
team behaviour (Ehrhart and Naumann 2004). As implied by the target similarity
framework, group-focused TFL behaviour therefore is likely to achieve its effects on
group performance and OCB through the motivational implication of collective
efficacy. Thus, the final hypotheses follow:
Hypothesis 5. Collective self-efficacy is positively related to group performance and
mediates the relationship o f group-focused TFL behaviours and group performance.
Hypothesis 6. Collective self-efficacy is positively related to group OCB and mediates
the relationship o f group-focused TFL behaviours and group OCB.
3.3 Conclusion
In this section, the hypotheses and their positions within the research are discussed.
Theoretical arguments and empirical evidence supporting each of the hypotheses is
detailed, at both the individual and group levels in the model. The model builds on
the target similarity framework and draws on the notion of social cognitive theory.
The theoretical argument is consistent with the self-concept theory of leadership. The
model includes two levels of analysis. The hypotheses are tested in the main study to
confirm whether the relationships are supported, and these results are reported in
Chapter 5.
51
CHAPTER 4: STUDY 1
FOCUS GROUP TO VALIDATE THE MEASURING SCALE OF
INDIVIDUAL-FOCUSED AND GROUP-FOCUSED TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
This chapter describes Study 1, which is a focus group analysis designed to validate
the distinction between individual-focused and group-focused TFL behaviours in the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire MLQ form 5X (Bass and Avolio 1995). This
chapter comprises four sections. The first section explains the purpose of the study.
Details of data collection and procedures are presented in the second section. The
third section presents the results of this study, follow by Section four which includes
the discussion of results and finally the conclusion of this Chapter.
4.1 Objectives of Study
Considering the absence of prior research confirming the distinction between
individual-focused and group-focused TFL behaviours, as represented in the MLQ
form 5X (Bass and Avolio 1995), the first step is to test this in a focus group study.
The idea is to provide support for the distinction of group-focused and individual-
focused TFL behaviours. This is required by the main study, which is to test the
hypothesized relationships between the individual level variables including
individual-focused TFL behaviours, personal self-efficacy, individual performance
and individual career expectation, and group level variables including group-focused
TFL behaviours, collective self-efficacy, group OCB and group performance.
52
4.2 Method
4.2.1 Item Generation
Following Wu et al (2010), the wording of the twelve items in the three subscales of
behavioural idealized influence, attributive idealized influence and inspirational
motivation of MLQ5x (Bass and Avolio 1995) is revised to represent a work group
referent to match the conceptualization of group-focused TFL behaviours. For
example: “Our group leader makes clear the importance of having a strong sense of
purpose in working with the group as a whole” and “Our group leader emphasizes the
importance of having a collective sense of mission when working in the group as a
whole’. For individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation the original
MLQ wording of the eight items is retained, with individual as referent to match the
conceptualization of individual-focused TFL behaviours. Examples of items are ‘My
group leader suggests to me new ways of looking at how to complete assignments’
and "My group leader challenges me to re-examines critical assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate’.
4.2.2 Procedure
The data were collected from postgraduate students enrolled in Business coursework
programs - 35 from Australia and 42 from Beijing China. Participants were asked to
categorize the 20-items into individual-focused or group-focused based on their
definitions.
Individual-focused leadership behaviours refer to leaders who vary their behaviour
based on a follower’s individual differences. These behaviours aim at influencing
individual employees by focusing on individuals’ needs, capabilities and affective
53
States. These leaders are highly aware of each person’s unique skills, thereby
allowing leaders to assign tasks that fit followers’ capabilities and to provide
customized learning opportunities. Examples of individual-focused leadership
behaviours include:
• customized coaching of each individual;
• encouragement of followers to seek innovative and creative solutions to problems;
• appeals to followers’ intellect so they question their assumptions.
Group-focused leadership behaviours refer to leaders viewing group members as a
whole and liaising with them as a group rather than as individuals. These behaviours
aim at influencing the group by emphasizing common ground, shared values and
ideology. Leaders focus on an overall bond with the group rather than with individual
followers and encourage commitment to the group by its members. Examples of
group-focused leadership behaviours include:
• delivering speeches to the group to reflect leaders’ values, beliefs and ideology;
• using non-verbal cues to propose and collectively articulate attractive and aspiring
visions to groups of followers;
• being a role model for followers;
• displaying commitment to the group by exhibiting and encouraging solidarity and
fairness across its members.
Questionnaires distributed to the Chinese sample were written in Chinese. To assure
equivalence of the Chinese and the English versions of the items, the standard
translation and back-translation procedure of Brislin (1980) was used.
54
4.3 Results
The kappa coefficient was used to measure inter-rater agreement in sorting the 20
items into the individual-focused and group-focused TFL behaviours categories. The
kappa value for the Chinese and the Australian sample was 0.70 and 0.73 respectively.
The results represent substantial agreement in both the Eastern and Western cultural
samples that all 12 items measuring behavioural idealized influence, attributive
idealized influence and inspirational motivation should be classified as group-focused
TFL behaviours and that the eight items measuring inspirational motivation and
idealized attributes should be classified as individual-focused TFL behaviours.
4.4 Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to confirm the distinction between individual- and group-
focused TFL behaviours, as represented in the MLQ form 5X (Bass and Avolio 1995).
The findings of this study provide evidence that transformational leadership
behaviours can be distinguished as group-focused and individual-focused. The six
associated hypotheses were then tested and the analysis and results are presented in
the next chapter.
55
CHAPTER 5: STUDY 2 (MAIN STUDY)
DUAL-LEVEL EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP:
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF EFFICACY BELIEF
This chapter describes Study 2, which is the main study of the thesis. Study 2 was
designed to test, firstly, the hypothesized relationships between the individual level
variables, reflecting individual-focused TFL behaviours, including personal self-
efficacy, individual performance and individual career expectation. Secondly, it tests
the hypothesized relationships amongst the group level study variables, reflecting
group-focused TFL behaviours, and including collective self-efficacy, group OCB and
group performance. Section one is an outline of the purpose of the study. The details
associated with sampling and data collection procedures are presented in Section two.
Data analysis issues pertaining to the level of analysis are presented in Section three.
In Section four, the results are reported regarding the measurement models, data
aggregations and hypothesis testing. Finally the discussion of the results and the
conclusion are outlined in Sections four and five.
5.1 Objectives of Study
Given that the results of the pilot study provide support for the distinction between
group-focused and individual-focused TFL behaviours, it is appropriate that the study
examine the relationships between the independent variables, two mediating variables,
and the outcomes at both the individual and group levels. Hypotheses 1 and 2
concern the direct effects and hypotheses 2 to 6 concern the mediating effects. These
hypotheses are tested as described here.
56
5.2 Method
5.2.1 Sample
Data was obtained from the employees of a five-star business hotel in a major city in
the People’s Republic of China. The survey was carried out with the approval and
assistance of the Hotel’s management. The sample comprised 297 subordinates and
100 supervisors, representing 100 work teams. The survey included departments in
divisions responsible for Rooms, the Concierge, Sales and Marketing, Accounting,
Security and Human Resources, along with the Food and Beverage Department. The
diverse task contexts of this sample enhance the generalizability of the findings. The
average team member (subordinate) age was 37 years and 49% were female. The
average organization tenure of team members was 13.9 years, and they had worked
with their leader for 6.8 years on average. The average leader age was 43 years and
59% were female. The average organization tenure of leaders was 17.3 years.
5.2.2 Procedure
Two sets of questionnaires were used: one for subordinates and one for their
immediate supervisors. The separate questionnaires were coded to facilitate the
matching of supervisors and subordinates. No personal or sensitive information was
sought or obtained. Time was assigned by the organization to supervisors and
subordinates separately for filling out the questionnaires, which ensured a very high
return rate. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were instructed to seal the
completed questionnaires in the envelopes and return them directly to the researchers
onsite. Matching questionnaires from 100 dyads with 297 subordinates and 100
supervisors were received, representing 100 percent of the respondents surveyed.
57
Upon subsequent analysis, three of these were eliminated due to incompleteness or
inconsistency of responses, leaving a final sample of 97 dyads with 97 supervisors
and 277 employees.
5.2.3 Measures
The data collected from subordinates excludes the ratings of employee performance,
group performance and group OCB. All questionnaires were in Chinese. The
standard translation and back-translation procedure of Brislin (1980) was performed
to ensure equivalence of the Chinese and the English versions. Items were first
translated into Chinese from English and then back translated into Chinese to ensure
the transmission of meaning. The measures used are as follows.
Group-focused TFL Behaviours. For these the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
MLQ5x (Bass and Avolio 1995) is used, with subscales of behavioural idealized
influence, attributive idealized influence and inspirational motivation, which were
validated in the pilot study, included to measure group-focused TFL behaviours. The
wording of the items in these three subscales is revised to represent a work group
referent to match the conceptualization of group-focused TFL. Examples are: ‘Our
group leader makes clear the importance of having a strong sense of purpose in
working with the group as a whole’ and ‘Our group leader emphasizes the importance
of having a collective sense of mission when working in the group as a whole’.
Responses are on a scale ranging from 0 (‘not at all’) to 7 (‘frequently, if not always’).
A composite group-focused TFL score is then created by averaging the scores of the
subordinates in the same team. For this measure, Cronbach's alpha is 0.92.
58
Individual-focused TFL Behaviours. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
MLQ5x (Bass and Avolio 1995) is used; and in particular the subscales of
individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation, which were validated in the
pilot study. These are employed in the measurement of individual-focused TFL
behaviour. Examples of this measure are: ‘My group leader spends time with me
teaching and coaching’ and ‘My group leader considers me as having different needs,
abilities and aspirations from others’. Responses were obtained on a scale ranging
from 0 (‘not at all’) to 7 (‘frequently, if not always’). For this measure, Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.86.
Collective Self-efficacy. Collective self-efficacy is assessed using the seven-item
Collective Self-efficacy Scale of Riggs and Knight (1994). Individuals were asked to
rate on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 =
(‘strongly agree’) their own perceptions of the team’s efficacy. Examples are; ‘My
work team has above average ability’ and ‘Members of my work team have excellent
job skills’. A composite collective self-efficacy score is then created by averaging the
scores of the subordinates in the same team. Cronbach’s alpha for collective self-
efficacy was 0.80.
Personal Self-efficacy. Personal self-efficacy is also assessed using the 10-item
Personal Self-efficacy Scale of Riggs and Knight (1994). Respondents were offered a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 = (‘strongly
agree’). Examples are: ‘I have confidence in my ability to do my job’ and T am very
proud of my job skills and abilities’. Cronbach’s alpha for personal self-efficacy was
0 . 86 .
Group Performance. Each supervisor was asked to rate the performance of their work
group. Group performance is derived from an individual competence measure
59
(Heilman et al 1992) that is modified based on previous studies (Lam et al 2004, Man
and Lam 2003) to measure performance at the team level. The three items used in this
study are: ‘This team gets its work done very effectively’, ‘This team is very
competent’ and ‘This team has performed its job well’. Each item is measured on a 7-
point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 7 = ‘strongly agree’). For this measure,
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91.
Group Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Supervisors rated the performance of
the work groups’ OCB according to a Group OCB scale developed by Euwema et al
(2007). An example is: “People in my team are always willing to provide help in
getting the work done’. Each item is measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =
‘strongly disagree’, 7 = ‘strongly agree’). Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.90.
Individual Performance. Supervisors rated the performance of subordinates using a
four-item scale developed by Farh and Cheng (1999). This scale had previously been
used in a Chinese context (Chen et al 2002, Chen and Aryee 2007). Sample items are:
‘The performance of this subordinate always meets his/her supervisor’s requirements’
and ‘This subordinate makes an important contribution to the overall performance of
our work team’. Each item was measured on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = (‘strongly disagree’) to 7 = (‘strongly agree’). Cronbach’s alpha for Individual
Performance was 0.82.
Career Expectation. Career expectation was assessed using a scale by Scandura and
Schriesheim (1991). An example is: T expect to be promoted in my organization’.
Respondents were asked to indicate on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =
(‘strongly disagree’) to 7 = (‘strongly agree’). For this measure, Cronbach’s alpha
was 0.74.
60
5.3 Level of Analysis
Previous research has tended to treat transformational leadership as an overarching
construct and it has failed to address to the level of analysis issue (Wang and Howell
2010). Here, the level of analysis refers to the unit to which the data are assigned for
hypothesis testing and analysis (Rousseau 1985). The level of theory should dictate
the level at which a construct is measured and analysed (Gully et al 2002). In order to
address the level-of-analysis issue, individual-focused TFL behaviours are here
conceptualised as an individual-level construct and the level of analysis is individual.
Group-focused TFL behaviours are conceptualized as a collective construct and so the
level of analysis is the team. Individual-focused TFL behaviours, personal self-
efficacy, individual performance and career expectation are measured at individual
level. Group-focused TFL behaviours, collective self-efficacy, group performance
and group OCB are treated as group-level variables. Group-focused TFL behaviours
and collective self-efficacy are measured at the individual-level and are then
aggregated to the group level. Group performance and group OCB are rated by team
supervisors at the group level.
Before examining the hypothesis tests the aggregation of group-focused TFL
behaviours and collective efficacy measures require justification. Intra-class
correlation (ICCs) and intra-class inter-rater agreement (rwg) tests are used to check
the statistical validity of the aggregation. The values for ICC( 1) and ICC(2) are 0.17
and 0.38, respectively, for group-focused TFL behaviours, and 0.17 and 0.37 for
collective efficacy. The mean values of rwg for group-focused TFL behaviours and
collective efficacy are 0.89 and .78, respectively. The relatively low ICC(2) values
suggest that it may be difficult to detect emergent relationships using group means
(Bliese 2000). The low ICC(2) value should not prevent aggregation, however, if
61
aggregation is justified by theory and supported by both high rwg values and
significant between-groups variance (Chen and Bliese 2002, Kozlowski and Hattrup
1992). The analysis therefore follows Liao and Chuang (2007) and proceeds with the
aggregation, though it is acknowledged that the relationship between the aggregated
measures with low ICC(2) and the other study variables might be underestimated.
5.4 Results
Complete data were obtained from 97 supervisors (97% response rate) and 278
subordinates (94% response rate). Each supervisor has 2 to 3 subordinates, averaging
2.87. The average age of team members (subordinate) is 37 years and 49% were
female. The average organizational tenure of team members was 13.9 years, and they
had worked with their leaders for 6.8 years on average. The average leader age was
43 years and 59% were female. The average organizational tenure of leaders was
17.3 years.
5.4.1 Hypothesis Testing
Reliability measures and correlations for all study variables are provided in Table 1.
Structural equation modelling (SEM) with latent constructs is used to test the six
hypotheses, via LISREL 8.80. The analysis draws on the principles set forth by Baron
and Kenny (1986) for testing mediation via applied regression analysis. Tables 2 and
3 summarise the regression results.
As shown in Table 2, individual-focused TFL behaviours is positively related to
personal self-efficacy, /?= 0.14, p < 0.05 (see Stepl). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported.
The results also showed that individual-focused TFL behaviours is related to
62
individual performance, ß= 0.32, p < 0.01; and career expectation, ß= 0.20, p < 0.05
(see Step 2). As per steps 3 and 4 in Table 2, personal self-efficacy is significantly
related to individual performance, ß - 0.38, p < 0.01; and career expectation, ß = 0.17,
p < 0.01 when individual-focused TFL behaviours is controlled for. The results also
reveal that the previously significant relationships between individual-focused TFL
behaviours and work outcomes continue to be significant. The third condition for
mediation is only partially supported. Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 receive only partial
support.
As shown in Table 3, group-focused TFL behaviours is positively related to collective
efficacy, ß= .24, p < .01 (see Stepl). Hypothesis 2 is therefore supported. The
results also showed that group-focused TFL behaviours is related to group
performance, ß= .36, p < .01; and group OCB, ß= .27, p < .01 (see Step 2). As per
steps 3 and 4 in Table 3, collective self-efficacy is significantly related to group
performance, ß= .27, p < .01; and group OCB, ß= .25, p < .01, when group-focused
TFL behaviours is controlled for (see Steps 3 and 4). The results also reveal that the
previously significant relationships between group-focused TFL behaviours and work
outcomes continue to be significant. The third condition for mediation was only
partially supported, however. Specifically, Hypotheses 5 and 6 receive only partial
support.
5.5 Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to examine the team level and individual processes
through which transformational leadership affects both team and individual outcomes.
The behavioural links between transformational leadership, the predictors of efficacy
63
beliefs and work outcomes at the individual and group levels are identified. Based on
social cognitive theory, self-concept theory and the target similarity framework, a
dual-level transformational leadership model with individual- and group-level
mediators is developed and the mediating process at both levels is tested. The
findings of this study support the direct relationships between individual TFL
behaviours and personal efficacy and between group TFL behaviours and collective
efficacy. Furthermore, the findings partially support the mediation effects of efficacy
beliefs at both the individual and group levels.
In the next chapter, implications for theory and management practices derived from
the findings are presented. Limitations and future research directions related to this
thesis will also be discussed.
64
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a summary of the results from the two empirical studies and
their implications. It also highlights the implications for theory and research, as well
as the limitations of this research. The limitations, together with future research
directions, are outlined in Section four.
6.1 Summary of Results
The results of the study support the key hypotheses. Specifically, at the individual
level, personal self-efficacy partially mediates the links between individual-focused
transformational leadership behaviours and individual performance, as well as
individual career expectation. At the same time, collective efficacy, at the group level,
partially mediates group-focused transformational leadership behaviours and group
performance, as well as group organizational citizenship behaviours. Moreover, the
results provide several extensions to research on transformational leadership and
multilevel processes, with important implications for managerial practices.
6.2 Implications for Theory and Practice
The results suggest three theoretical implications. First, the pilot study indicates that
behavioural components of TFL can be distinguished as between individual- and
group-focused. It suggests that the use of TFL as a general construct at individual and
group levels should be revisited. Second, the examination of the mediation process
through which the effects of individual- and group- focused TFL behaviours are
manifested extends Wang and Howell’s (2010) results. Specifically, significant
support is found for the hypothesis that the effects of individual- and group-focused
65
TFL behaviours on work outcomes are indirect and partially mediated by personal and
collective efficacy beliefs, respectively. Third, the current study extends research on
TFL by examining its behavioural components from a multifocal perspective (Settoon
et all 996). It answers the call for the need to specify foci of psychological processes
by specifying the sources among antecedents, mediators and outcomes (Lavelle et al
2007).
This study also has several practical implications. First, the direct effects of dual
level TFL indicate that managers should use somewhat different strategies to lead
individual team members and teams as a whole (Wang and Howell 2010). To
motivate individual team members in support of individual performance and career
expectation, leaders should focus on their employees’ needs, capabilities and affective
states. To lead teams as a whole in order to enhance team performance and team
OCB, team leaders should focus on an overall bond within the group and
communicate a compelling vision to team members. Second, the finding that efficacy
beliefs at both individual and group levels play an important mediating role suggests
that organizations should sensitize supervisors to the effects of their leadership
practices on efficacy beliefs of subordinates and groups. Accordingly, strategies that
enhance subordinate and team efficacy beliefs should be incorporated into leadership
training programs.
6.3 Limitations and Future Research Directions
This work adds to a growing body of research on the behavioural components of TFL.
Specifically, the study confirms that it is valid to distinguish between TFL that is
either group-focused or individual-focused. It sheds some light on the mechanisms
66
via which the effects of individual- and group-focused behavioural components of
TFL are manifested. It also contributes to multi-focal research by identifying and
separating intended beneficiaries of TFL and measuring the effects specific to the
target. This research, however, has several limitations. These include the use of a
cross-section research design, with its associated weak generalizability, issues
associated with possible biases when outcomes are self-reported and a low ICC(2)
that should be addressed in future research.
First, the use of a cross-sectional design limits exploration of the dynamic nature of
the relationships between individual-focused and group-focused TFL behaviours and
their work outcomes. Cross-sectional designs only show general relationships
amongst the variables and do not allow them to determine the direction of causality.
This could be important as between individual-focused TFL behaviours, personal self-
efficacy, individual performance and career expectation at the individual level, and
group-focused TFL behaviours, collective self-efficacy, group OCB and group
performance at the group level. Thus, cause-effect relationships should not be
inferred from the research findings.
Second, the main survey was conducted in a five-star hotel in Guangzhou, People’s
Republic of China. Though different departments in the hotel participated in the
survey, the single organizational context may affect the generalizability of the
findings. Future studies should ideally include teams from multiple organizations to
understand more fully the relationships between dual-level focused TFL behaviours
and their effects on work outcomes. Third, the outcome variable of Career
Expectation is based on employees’ self-reports. Employees might be suspicious of
the anonymity commitment and so could respond to the questionnaire items in such a
manner as to enhance their standing.
67
Finally, The values for ICC(2) are 0.38 and 0.37, respectively, for group-focused TFL
behaviours, and collective efficacy. The relatively low ICC(2) values suggest that it
may be difficult to detect emergent relationships using group means (Bliese 2000).
The precedent set by Liao and Chuang (2007) is followed, however, and the
aggregation is carried out while acknowledging that the relationship between the
aggregated measures with low ICC(2) and the other study variables might be
underestimated.
6.4 Conclusion
This chapter has provided a summary of results and has highlighted the research
implications for theory and management practice. It has also included a discussion of
the limitations of the studies represented in the thesis, including the use of cross-
section research design and the associated lack of generalizability, the issues
associated with self-reported outcome variables and the low ICC(2). The next chapter
offers final conclusions.
68
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
This chapter presents a brief recap of the main findings of this research and concludes
the thesis.
7.1 Summary of Objectives and Main Findings
The two studies reported in the thesis shed light on the dual level effects of
transformational leadership. The original objectives were: first, to examine which
behavioural components of transformational leadership exert influence on groups and
individuals and which on individuals, and second, to discover the underlying
mechanisms that enable transformational leaders to be able to affect individual and
collective behaviours.
The results of the studies support the formulated hypotheses. Specifically at the
individual level, personal self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between
individual-focused TFL behaviours and individual performance, as well as individual
career expectation. At the same time, collective efficacy, at the group level, partially
mediates group-focused TFL behaviours and group performance, as well as group
organizational citizenship behaviours.
7.2 Thesis Conclusion
Social cognitive theory provides overarching principles based on which a dual-level
transformational leadership model is developed. Efficacy at the individual- and the
group-levels are used as mediators and their roles in the mediating process are tested
at both individual and group levels. By contrasting different levels conceptually and
testing them relative to one another in the same study, the objective has been to draw
69
clearer conclusions about associations and the levels at which they operate, as
suggested by Yammarino et al (1998). To do this, both a pilot study and a major
survey of workers and leaders in a major hotel in China’s great Southern city of
Guangzhou are carried out. The results support the conjectures that efficacy
mediation is important at both group and individual levels, bearing out Yammarino’s
suggestion. The results suggest several extensions to research on transformational
leadership and multilevel processes, with important implications for managerial
practices.
70
REFERENCES
Antonakis J and House RJ (2002) An analysis of the full-range leadership theory: The
way forward, in Avolio BJ and Yammarino FJ (Eds.) Transformational and
charismatic Leadership: The road ahead, 3-33, Amsterdam, Elsevier
Science/JAI.
Allen TD (2003) Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach.
Journal o f Vocational Behaviour, 62:134-154.
Allen TD, Eby LT, Poteet ML, Lentz E and Lima L (2004) Outcomes associated with
mentoring proteges: A meta-analysis. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 89:127-
136.
Avolio BJ and Bass BM (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of
analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of
transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 199-218.
Aryee S, Budhwar PS and Chen ZX (2002) Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange
model, Journal o f Organizational Behaviour, 23: 267-286.
Bandura A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological Review, 84: 191-215.
Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37: 122-147.
Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations o f Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise o f control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy, in V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia o f human
behaviour, 4:71-81.
71
Bass BM (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press
Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1995) Full Range leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, USA: Mind Garden Inc.
Bass BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share
the vision, Organizational dynamics, 19: 19-32.
Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development, in Woodman
RW and Pasmore WA (Eds.) Research in organizational change and
development, 4: 231-272, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bass BM, Avolio BJ; Jung DI and Bcrson Y (2003) Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 88: 207-218.
Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations, Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51:1173-1182.
Becker TE and Kernan MC (2003) Matching commitment to supervisors and
organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16:
327-348.
Bettencourt BA and Door N (1997) Collective self-esteem as a mediator of the
relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 955-964.
Bishop JW and Scott KD (2000) An examination of organizational and team
commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 85: 439-450.
72
Blader SL and Tyler TR (2003) A four component model procedural justice: Defining
the meaning of a ‘fair’ process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29:
747-758.
Blaine B and Crocker J (1995) Religiousness, race and psychological well-being:
exploring social psychological mediators. Personality and Social Psychology>
Bulletin, 2\: 1031-1041
Bliese P (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In K.
Klein and S. Kozlowski (Eds.) Multi-level theory, research, and methods in
organizations. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass (pp.349-381).
Bono JE and Judge TA (2004) Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analysis, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 89: 901-916.
Brewer MB and Gardner W (1996) Who is this ‘we’? Levels of collective identity and
self representations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology;, 71: 83-93.
Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material, in
Triandis HC and Berry JW (Eds) Handbook o f cross-cultural psychology, 2:
349-444, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Burns JM (1978) Leadership. NY: Harper and Row.
Burke CS, Stagl KC, Klein C, Goodwin GF, Salas E and Halpin SM (2006). What
type of leadership behaviours are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17: 288-307.
Bycio P, Hackett RD and Allen JS (1995) Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80: 468-478.
73
Chen ZX and Aryee S (2007). Delegation and employee work outcomes: an
examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of
Management Journal, 50: 226-238.
Chen G and Bliese PD (2002) The role of different levels of leadership in predicting
self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity, Jo*//??«:// of Applied
Psychology, 87: 549-556.
Chen G, Webber SS, Bliese PD, Mathieu JE, Payne SC, Born DH and Zaccaro SJ
(2002). Simultaneous examination of the antecedents and consequences of
efficacy beliefs at multiple levels of analysis. Human Performance, 15: 381 -
409.
Chen G, Kirkman BL, Kanfer Pv, Allen D and Rosen B (2007) A multilevel study of
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams, Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 92: 331-345.
Conger J A and Kanungo RN (1988) Charismatic leadership. The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conger JA, Kanungo RN and Menon ST (2000) Charismatic Leadership and Follower
Effects, Journal o f Organizational Behaviour, 21: 747-767.
Conger JA and Kanungo RN (1987) Toward a behavioural theory o f charismatic
leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12:
637-647.
Conger JA and Kanungo RN (1998) Charismatic leadership in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Coyle-Shapiro JAM and Morrow PC (2006) Organizational and client commitment
among contracted employees, Journal o f Vocational Behaviour, 68: 416-431.
74
Crocker J and Luhtanen R (1990) Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology, 58: 60-67.
Dansereau F, Yammarino FJ and Markham SE (1995) Leadership: the multiple-level
approaches, Leadership Quarterly, 6: 97-109.
Duncan C, Jones K and Moon G (1992) Context, composition, and heterogeneity:
using multilevel models in health research. Social Science and Medicine, 46:
97-117.
Dvir T, Eden D, Avolio BJ and Shamir B (2002) Impact of transformational
leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735-744.
Eden D (1992) Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-
fulfilling prophecies in organizations, Leadership Quarterly, 3: 271-305
Ehrhart MG and Naumann SE (2004) Organizational citizenship behaviour in work
groups: a group norms approach, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 89: 960-974
Ellemers N, Gilder DE and Haslam SA (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at
work: a social identity perspective on leadership and group performance.
Academy of Management Review, 29: 459-478.
Epitropaki O and Martin R (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in
the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and
organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 569-589.
Euwema MC, Wendt H and van Emmerik H (2007) Leadership styles and group
organizational citizenship behaviour across cultures. Journal o f Organizational
Behaviour, 28: 1035-1057.
75
Farh JL and Cheng BS (1999) An investigation of modesty bias in self-ratings of
work performance among Taiwan workers, Chinese Journal of Psychology, 39:
103-118 [in Chinese].
Gardner DG, Pierce JL, Van Dyne L and Cummings LL (2000) Relationships
between pay level, employee stock ownership, self-esteem and performance.
Australia and New Zealand Academy o f Management Proceedings, Sydney,
Australia.
Gibson CB (1999) Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group
effectiveness across tasks and cultures, Academy of Management Journal, 42:
138-152.
Gist M and Mitchell TR (1992) Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants
and malleability, Academy of Management Review, 17: 183-211.
Gong Y, Huang JC and Farh JL (2009) Employee learning orientation,
transformational leadership and employee creativity: the mediating role of
employee creative self-efficacy, Academy o f Management Journal, 52: 765-778.
Greenberg J, Solomon S, Pyszczynski T, Rosenblatt A, Burling J, Lyon D, Simon L,
and Pinel E (1999) Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence
that self-esteem serves an anxiety-buffering function. In R.F. Baumeister
(ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 24-49). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology
Press.
Gully SM, Beaubien JM, Incalaterra K.A and Joshi A (2002) A meta-analytic
investigation of team efficacy, potency and performance. Interdependence and
levels of analysis as moderators of observed relationships, Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 87: 819-832.
76
Guzzo RA (1986) Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations.
In P.S. Goodman (Eds.), Designing Effective Work Groups, pp. 34-71. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guzzo RA, Yost PR, Campbell RJ and Shea GP (1993) Potency in groups:
articulating a construct. British Journal o f Social Psychology, 32: 87-106.
Heilman ME, Block CJ and Lucas JA (1992) Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization
and affirmative action efforts, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 77: 536-544.
House RJ (1977) A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J.G. Hunt and L.L.
Larson (Eds.). Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Howell JM and Avolio BJ (1993) Transformational leadership, transactional
leadership, locus of control and support for innovation: key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit performance, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 78:
891-901.
Hu J and Liden RC (2011) Antecedent of team potency and team effectiveness: an
examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96: 851-862.
Hunt DM and Michael C (1983) Mentoring: a career training and development tool,
Academy o f Management Review, 8: 475-485.
James LR, Demaree RG and Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 69:
86-98.
Joreskog K and Sorbom D (2001) LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide, Scientific
Software International, Lincolnwood, IL.
77
Judge TA and Bono JE (2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self
esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—
with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 86: 80-92.
Judge TA and Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analytic test of their relative validity, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 89:
755-768.
Kark R and Shamir B (2002) The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers, in Avolio BJ
and Yammarino FJ (Eds.) Transformational and charismatic leadership: The
road ahead, 2: 67-91. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: JAI Press.
Kark R, Shamir B and Chen G (2003) The two faces of transformational leadership:
empowerment and dependency, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.
Kearney E and Geber, D (2009) Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
the promise of transformational leadership. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 94:
77-89.
Kirkpatrick SA and Locke EA (1996) Direct and indirect effects of three core
charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81: 36-51.
Korman AK (1970) Toward an hypothesis of work behaviour. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 54: 31-41.
Korman AK (1976) Hypothesis of work behaviour revisited and an extension.
Academy o f Management Review, 1: 50-63.
78
Kozolowski SWJ and Hattrup K (1992) A disagreement about within-group
agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus, Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77: 161-167.
Kram KE (1985) Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational
life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Lam SSK, Schaubroeck J, and Brown AD (2004). Esteem maintenance among groups.
Laboratory and field studies of group performance cognitions. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 94: 86-101.
Lavelle JJ, Rupp DE and Brockner J (2007) Taking a multifoci approach to the study
of justice, social exchange, and citizenship behaviour: the target similarity
model? Journal o f Management, 33: 841-866.
Leary MR and Tangney JP (2003) The self as an organising construct in the
behavioural and social sciences, in Leary M and Tangney J (Eds.) Handbook of
self and identity. 3-14, New York: Guildford Publications.
Liang CTH and Fassinger RE (2008) The role of collective self-esteem for Asian
Americans experiencing racism-related stress: a test of moderator and
mediator hypotheses. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14:
19-28
Liao H and Chuang A (2007) Transforming service employees and climate: a
multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building
long-term service relationships, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 92: 1006-1019.
Lim BC and Ployhart RE (2004) Transformational leadership: relations to the five-
factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89: 610-621.
79
Linden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML and Sparrowe RT (2003) The dual commitments
of contingent workers: an examination of contingents’ commitment to the
agency and the organization. Journal o f Organizational Behaviour, 24: 609-625.
Lindsley DH, Brass DJ and Thomas JB (1995). Efficacy-performance spiral: A
multilevel perspective. Academy o f Management Review, 20: 645-678.
Lord RG, Brown DJ and Freiberg SJ (1999) Understanding the dynamics of
leadership: the role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 78: 167-203.
Lowe KB, Kroeck KG and Sivasubramaniam N (1996) Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the
MLQ literature, Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.
Man DC and Lam SSK (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on
cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: a cross-cultural
analysis. Journal o f Organizational Behaviour, 24: 979-1001.
Organ DW (1988) Organizational Citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome,
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ DW, Podsakoff PM and MacKenzie SB (2006) Organizational citizenship
behaviour: its nature, antecedents and consequences, Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications.
Pillai R and Williams EA (2004) Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal o f Organizational
Change Management, 17:144-159.
Piccolo RF and Colquitt JA (2006) Transformational leadership and job behaviours:
the mediating role of core job characteristics, Academy o f Management Journal,
49: 327-340.
80
Pierce JL, Gardener DG, Dunham RB and Cummings LL (1993) Moderation by
organization-based self-esteem of role condition - employee response
relationships, Academy o f Management Journal, 2: 271-288.
Pierce JL, Gardner DG, Cummings LL and Dunham RB (1989) Organization-based
self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 32: 622-648.
Pierce JL and Gardner DG (2004) Self esteem within the work and organizational
context: a review of the organization based self esteem literature, Journal of
Management, 30: 591-622.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH and Fetter R (1990) Transformational
leaders behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction ,
organizational citizenship behaviours, The Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.
Prussia G, and Kinicki A (1996) A Motivational Investigation of Group Effectiveness
Using Social Cognitive Theory, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 81: 187-198.
Rafferty AE and Griffin MA (2006) Refining individualized consideration:
Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology?, 79: 37-61.
Riggs ML and Knight PA (1994) The impact of perceived group success-failure on
motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model, Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 79: 755-766.
Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rousseau D (1985) Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross
level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings 8c B. M. Staw (Eds.), Beseaich in
organizational behaviour, vol. 7: 1-37. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
81
Rubin M and Hewstone M (1998) Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: a
review and some suggestions for clarifications. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 2: 40-62.
Rupp DE and Cropanzano R (2002) The mediating effects of social exchange
relationships in predicting workplace outcome from multifoci organizational
justice. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 89: 925-946.
Saks AM (1995) Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating
effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer
adjustment. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 80: 211-225.
Scandura TA and Schriesheim CA (1991) Effects of structural characteristics of
mentoring dyads on protege outcomes, in Proceedings o f the southern
management association meeting, Atlanta, GA pp 206-208.
Scandura TA (1992) Mentorship and career mobility: An empirical investigation.
Journal o f Organizational Behaviour, 13: 169-174.
Scandura TA and Williams EA (2004) Mentoring and transformational leadership: the
role of supervisory career mentoring, Journal o f Vocational Behaviour, 65: 448-
468.
Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK and Cha SE (2007) Embracing transformational leadership:
team values and the impact of leader behaviour on team performance, Journal
o f Applied Psychology, 82: 1020-1030.
Settoon RP, Bennett N and Liden RC (1996) Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee
reciprocity, Journal o f Applied Psychology/, 81: 219-22.
Shamir B, House R and Arthur MB (1993) The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory, Organization Science, 4: 577-594.
82
Shamir B, Arthur MB and House RJ (1994) The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: a
theoretical extension, a case study, and implications of research, Leadership
Quarterly, 5: 25-42.
Shamir B, Zakay E, Breinin E and Popper M. (1998) Correlates of charismatic leader
behavior in military units: Subordinate attitudes, unit characteristics, and
superiors’ assessment of leaders’ performance, Academy o f Management
Journal, 41: 387-409.
Shea GP and Guzzo RA (1987) Groups as human resources. In K.. Rowland and G.
Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, Vol 5,
pp. 323-356. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Shea CM and Howell JM (1999) Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A
laboratory study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance.
Leadership Quarterly, 10: 375-396.
Spreitzer GM (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy o f Management Journal, 38: 1442- 1465
Stajkovic AD and Luthans F (1998) Self-efficacy and work related preformances: A
meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 124: 240-261.
Stajkovic AD, Lee D and Nyberg AJ (2009) Collective efficacy, group potency, and
group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation
model, Journal o f Applied Psychology, 94: 814-828.
Tajfel H and Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour. In
S. Worchel and L.W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology o f Intergroup Relations.
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tajfel H (1981) Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
83
Van Dyne L and Pierce JL (2004) Psychological ownership and feelings of possession:
three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship
behaviour. Journal o f Organizational Behaviour, 25: 439-459.
Van Knippenberg D, Van Kmippenberg B, Cremer DD and Hogg MA (2004)
Leadership, self and identity: a review and research agenda, The Leadership
Quarterly, 15: 825-856.
Van Knippenberg D and Sitkin SB (2013) A critical assessment of charismatic -
transformational leadership research: back to the drawing board? The Academy
o f Management Annals, 7:1 -60.
Vardi D (1992) Transformational mentorship: Parallel processes in teacher
development. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cleveland State University.
Walumbwa FO, Wang P, Lawler JJ and Shi K (2004) The Role of Collective Efficacy
in the Relations between Transformational Leadership and Work Outcomes.
Journal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 515-530.
Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ and Zhu W (2008) How transformational leadership
weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification
and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61: 793-825.
Wang XH and Howell JM (2010) Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers, Jo urnal o f Applied Psychology, 95: 1134-1144.
Wang H, Law KS, Hackett RD, Wang D and Chen ZX (2005) Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership
and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behaviour, Academy
o f Management Journal, 48: 420-432.
84
Whitely W, Dougherty TW, and Dreher GF (1991) Relationship of career mentoring
and socioeconomic origin to managers and professionals early career progress.
Academy o f Management Journal, 34: 331-351.
Whitener EM (1997) The impact of human resource activities on employee trust.
Human Resource Management Review, 7: 389-404.
Wu JB, Tsui AS and Kinicki AJ (2010) Consequences of differentiated leadership in
groups, Academy of Management Journal, 53: 90-106.
Yammarino FJ, Spangler WD and Dubinsky AJ (1998) Transformational and
contingent reward leadership: individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis,
Leadership Quarterly, 9: 27-54.
Yukl G (1998) Leadership in Organizations, Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro SJ, Blair V, Peterson C and Zazanis M (1995) Collective efficacy. In: J.
Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment. New York: Plenum pp.
305-328.
85
FIGURES
Figure 1
Hypothesized Model of the Processes Linking Individual- and Group-Focused Transformational Leadership Behaviours to Work Outcomes
Antecedent Mediators Work Outcomes
GroupPerformance
Group Focused Transformational
Leadership Behaviours
Collective Self Efficacy
GroupOrganizational
CitizenshipBehaviour
Team Level
Individual Level
Individual Focused Transformational
Leadership Behaviours
86
Figure 2
Comparison of Transformational-Charismatic Leadership Dimensions
Bass and Avolio Conger and Kanungo Shamir et al
(1995) (1994) (1998)
Idealised influence Vision and articulation Ideological emphasis
Inspirational motivation Personal risk Displaying exemplary
behaviour
Intellectual stimulation Does not maintain status Emphasizing collective
quo identity
Unconventional behaviour Supportive behaviours
Individualized Sensitivity to member
consideration needs
Environmental sensitivity
Notes: This figure was extracted from van Knippenberg (2013).
87
Figure 3
Avolio and Bass (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
Rater Form (Form 5X-Short) Scale of Transformational Leadership
THE PERSON I AM RA TING...
Idealised Influence (Attributed)1. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her2. Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group3. Acts in ways that builds my respect4. Displays a sense of power and confidence
Idealised Influence (Behaviour)1. Talks about their most important values and beliefs2. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose3. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions4. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission
Inspirational Motivation1. Talks optimistically about the future2. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished3. Articulates a compelling vision of the future4. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved
Intellectual Stimulation1. Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate2. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems3. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles4. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
Individualized Consideration1. Spends time teaching and coaching2. Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group3. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others4. Helps me to develop my strengths
88
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4Group-level
1. Group Focused TFL behaviours 4.80 1.04 (0.92)2. Collective Self Efficacy 4.98 1.01 .31** (0.80)3. Group Performance 5.68 0.99 .32** .20** (0.91)4. Group Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
5.62 1.17 .27 .18** .65** (0.90)
Individual-level1. Individual focused TFL 4.69 1.64 (0.86)behaviours2. Personal Self Efficacy 5.76 0.92 0.13* (0.86)3. Career Expectation 5.55 1.25 0.17** 0.31** (0.74)4. Individual Performance 5.43 1.11 0.27** 0.15* 0.20** (0.82)
Note. N = 97 supervisors; N= 278 subordinates. Internal consistency reliabilities appear in parentheses diagonal.TFL = transformational leadership * p < .05.** p < .0\
89
Table 2:
Mediation of the Relationship of Individual-focused Transformational Leadership Behaviours with Career Expectation and Individual Performance by Personal Self-Efficacy a
PersonalSelf-
Efficacy
CareerExpectation
IndividualPerformance
Step 1:Individual-focused TFL behaviour 0.14*
Step 2:Individual-focused TFL behaviour 0.20* 0.32**
Steps 3 and 4:Individual-focused TFL behaviour Personal Self-Efficacy
0.18*0.38**
0.30**0.17**
a N - 97 supervisors; N = 278 subordinates with list-wise deletion. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. The asterisks indicate significance at the five and one per cent levels: * p < .05, ** p < .01.
90
Table 3:
Mediation of the Relationship of Group-focused Transformational Leadership Behaviours with Group OCB and Group Performance by Collective Self-Efficacy a
Collective Self- Efficacy
Group OCB GroupPerformance
Step 1:Group-focused TFL behaviour 0.24**
Step 2:Group-focused TFL behaviour 0.27** 0.36**
Steps 3 and 4Group-focused TFL behaviour Collective Self-Efficacy
0.22**0.25**
0.21**0.27**
a N = 97 supervisors; N = 278 subordinates with list-wise deletion. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. The asterisks indicate significance at the five and one per cent levels: * p < .05, ** p < .01.
91
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF RESULTS
H y p o t h e s i s 1:
I n d i v i d u a l - f o c u s e d T F L b e h a v i o u r s a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to p e r s o n a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y .
F u l ly s u p p o r t e d
H y p o t h e s i s 2:
G r o u p - f o c u s e d T F L b e h a v i o u r s a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to
c o l l e c t i v e s e l f - e f f i c a c y .
F u l ly s u p p o r t e d
H y p o t h e s i s 3:
P e r s o n a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to i n d iv id u a l p e r f o r m a n c e a n d m e d i a t e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n d i v i d u a l - f o c u s e d T F L b e h a v i o u r s a n d in d iv id u a l p e r f o r m a n c e .
P a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d
H y p o t h e s i s 4:
P e r s o n a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to in d iv id u a l c a r e e r e x p e c t a t i o n a n d m e d i a t e s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n d i v i d u a l - f o c u s e d T F L b e h a v i o u r s a n d in d iv id u a l c a r e e r e x p e c t a t i o n .
P a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d
H y p o t h e s i s 5:
C o l l e c t i v e s e l f - e f f i c a c y is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e a n d m e d i a t e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f g r o u p - f o c u s e d T F L b e h a v i o u r s a n d g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e .
P a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d
H y p o t h e s i s 6:
C o l l e c t i v e s e l f - e f f i c a c y is p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to g r o u p O C B a n d m e d i a t e s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f g r o u p - f o c u s e d T F L b e h a v i o u r s a n d g r o u p O C B .
P a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d
92
APPENDIX 2
The Questionnaire for Study 1 (Focus Group Study)
(In English)
93
Individual and Group Focused Leadership Behaviours
A Very Short Survey
Purpose:
This short survey is part of a larger research project to investigate leadership
behaviours that influence individuals and groups, and their relationships with
employees’ work outcomes. Your assistance is much appreciated, since it will assist
with the project by shedding light on effective leadership behaviours in organizations.
Thank you.
Background Information
Individual-focused leadership behaviours suggest that leaders vary their behaviour
based on follower’s individual differences. These behaviours aim at influencing
individual employees by focusing on individuals’ needs, capabilities and affective
states. These leaders are highly aware of each person’s unique skills, thereby
allowing leaders to assign tasks that fit followers’ capabilities and to provide
customized learning opportunities. Examples of individual-focused leadership
behaviours include:
• customized coaching to each individual;
• gets followers to seek innovative and creative solutions to problems;
• appealing to followers’ intellect so they question their assumptions.
Group-focused leadership behaviours suggest that leaders view group members as a
whole and liaise with them as a group rather than as individuals. These behaviours
aim at influencing the group by emphasizing common ground, shared values and
ideology. Leaders focus on an overall bond with the group rather than with individual
followers and encourage commitment to the group by its members. Examples of
group-focused leadership behaviours include:
• delivering speeches to the group to reflect leaders’ values, beliefs and ideology;
• using non-verbal cues to propose and collectively articulate attractive and
aspiring visions to groups of followers;
• being a role model for followers;
94
• displaying commitment to the group by exhibiting and encouraging solidarity
and fairness across its members.
Based on the above definitions, please indicate whether you perceive the following
statements to be individual-focused or group-focused.
There are no right or wrong answers. It all depends on your perception.
GroupF ocused
IndividualF ocused
1. My group leader challenges me to re-examines critical
assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.
2. Our group leader talks about the most important values and
beliefs when working in a group as a whole.
3. My group leader gets me to seek differing perspectives when
solving problems.
4. Our group leader talks to us optimistically about the future of the
group.
5. Our group leader instils pride in us for being associated with
him/her in the group.
6. Our group leader talks to us enthusiastically about what needs to
be accomplished in the group.
7. Our group leader specifies the importance of having a strong
sense of purpose in working with the group as a whole.
8. My group leader spends time with me teaching and coaching.
9. Our group leader goes beyond self-interest for the good of the
group.
10. My group leader treats me as an individual rather than just as a
member of a group.
11. Our group leader acts in ways that build respect in our group.
12. Our group leader considers the moral and ethical consequences of
decisions when working in the group.
13. Our group leader displays to our group a sense of power and
confidence.
95
14. O u r g ro u p lead e r a r t ic u la te s to o u r g ro u p a c o m p e l l in g v is io n o f
th e fu ture .
15. M y g ro u p lead e r c o n s id e r s m e as h a v in g d i f fe re n t n e e d s , ab il i t ie s
a n d a sp i ra t io n s from o thers .
16. M y g ro u p lead e r g e ts m e to look at p ro b le m s f ro m m a n y d i f fe ren t
an g les .
17. M y g ro u p lead e r h e lp s m e to d e v e lo p m y s tren g th .
18. M y g ro u p lea d e r s u g g e s ts to m e n e w w a y s o f lo o k in g at h o w to
c o m p le te a s s ig n m e n ts .
19. O u r g ro u p lead e r e m p h a s iz e s the im p o r ta n c e o f h a v in g a
c o l le c t iv e sen se o f m is s io n w h e n w o rk in g in th e g ro u p as a
w h o le .
20 . O u r g ro u p lead e r e x p re s s e s c o n f id e n c e tha t o u r g ro u p g o a ls w ill
be ac h ie v ed .
96
APPENDIX 3
The Questionnaire for Study 1 (Focus Group Study)
(In Chinese)
97
M i f f ! 4-': f - IAJE4till:tr “ 44'"/'-A #1 % . Üf/j'f§J 41-f l \ l ['>'I # teS 44
f f l Ä i + Ä J » Eini&iäJiifr&lo
mmmmmfäumtiim, mwm^m “M” m “&n
98
^AAzfcMmfAm t im m .
. M # W. S)T M Jt £Ü 6'J St fft U ft A M & fä gg;• ® #iaT Sxtfä]^W W iSJ10SÄ S#o
Ü f g « W ± W £ A,A. j f f l - f v .
99
f t A A A WA if t f rA j
H f t A A W $ ä # f r A
1. Ä W ± t « Ä ä Ä S % M S flf S W H H , # Ä Ä S 'o
2. Ä ff] i£ W M i* f H R A f t S « ü ß f f H I Ü Ä f s^ 0
3. f t IW ± f f Ä ®J M. 4 ; 14 Ä ft i 1? H 7§ o
4. Ä ff] W ± W * » « t ö ffl RA. w * * o
5. Ä f f l l f t A t IrI ffl R A / t « ! - # A f i f f / Ä Ä * W A * « .
6. Ä f n W i ' t i v S S M i f e f f l R A ^ ^ W X ^ o
7. ä in w ± t @ i i ä f n m -w as « t w u i # @ # .
8. Ä W i f f T t P A m .
9. Ä f f ] f i ß ± * ä m H # Ä f f i Ä S t A # i J & o
10. Ä W ± W iE Ä A f t Ä 4b A W t f r . m A R Ä *E Ä a fAÄ H t t + w - a .
11. Ä f f l W A i l T A Ä i l ^ I f t f f l ß A & ^ a # « : »
12. Ä f f ] W ± » £ B PA & « ± * ■# & ÜJ ü H A ffc ä W i sS o
13. Ä f f l W A t f f t l f t l S R A f t ^ i l f t Ä A i i Ä g f a i i o
14. ä ff ] w ± t * t 1 f t b i RA f t $ a & pa a w a * .
15. Ä W ± « = # Ä J i J Ä W * I A m A W i f t £ o I t S A f f iÄ o
16. Ä W A » f t Ä AA £ f t A IA W f t J t * M Hl'm l g .
17. Ä W A I f f f i f lA Ä Ä J I Ä W Ä A b .
18. Ä W A l% s M n { A 5 tJ $ I f t£ & Ä jf Ä § T W Ä iA .
19. Ä ff ] f if f± ‘i ^ I ^ H R A ® i M # Ä # f f i ^ ] S W a 5 t t o
100
20. üöcfflP A @ S S l l t i g g .
101
APPENDIX 4
The Supervisor Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study)
(In English)
Notes:
1. Two sets of questionnaires were used: one for subordinates and one for their immediate supervisors.
2. In the Supervisor Questionnaire, Section 1 is a individual performance scale, Section 2 consists of group organization citizenship behaviour scale (item 1 - 5) and team performance scale (item 6 - 8).
102
SUPERVISOR QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Sir/Madam
The purpose of the study is to identify the relationship between management
leadership styles, workers’ motivation and work outcomes. It will take around 10
minutes to complete this questionnaire.
Your participation is voluntary. All information will be confidential. Your
responses will be coded and you will not be personally identified. It is not necessary
to put your name on the survey.
Your assistance in this study is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time
and your participation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments
about this study.
Yours sincerely
Ka Yee LAU
MPhil candidate
College of Business and Economics
Australian National University
103
Supervisor code:
Before you begin, please choose three of your subordinates (subordinate A, subordinate B and subordinate C) and complete their details below. If you have less than three subordinates, please complete the following details of all the subordinates. For confidentiality, please do not write down their names.
Subordinate A code:__________ Gender: M/F Age:________________Job title/duties:
Subordinate B code:___________Gender: M/F Age:________________Job title/duties:
Subordinate C code:__________ Gender: M/F Age:________________Job title/duties:
SECTION ONEPlease indicate the extent you agree with the following statements describing your subordinate. Use the following rating scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strongly disagree moderately agree Strongly agree
Subo
rdin
ate
1
Subo
rdin
ate
2
Subo
rdin
ate
31. This subordinate makes an important contribution to the overall
performance of our work unit2. This subordinate is one of the excellent employees in our work unit3. This subordinate always completes job assignments on time4. The performance of this subordinate always meets my
requirements/expectations
104
SECTION TWOPlease indicate the extent you agree with the following statements describing your work team. Use the following rating scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strongly disagree moderately agree Strongly agree
1. The people in my work team are always willing to provide help in getting the work done
2. The people in my work team are willing to put in extra time on the job3. The people in my work team will usually go out of their way to make the work
group successful4. The people in my work team are willing to make sacrifices to get the job done5. The people in my work team will gladly take on other’s responsibilities in an
emergency6. This team gets its work done very effectively7. This team performs very competently8. This team performs very well
SECTION THREEPlease complete the following information about yourself.
1. Gender: Male Female
2. Year of birth:_________
3. Number of years of formal education:_______ years(e.g. primary school = 6 years; elementary school = 9 years; ...)
4. Your position: generalstaff junior manager middle manager senior manager
5. How long have you worked for this company:_______ years______months
6. Your job title:__________________
7. Your department:_________________
8. Your mother language: cantonese □ shanghaiese mandarin other_____
105
APPENDIX 5
The Supervisor Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study)
(In Chinese)
106
if S N # ( i t r N #)
k±-.
„ &wies^fsasfnsff .
ra##-SM»irHas*rm tfframamweflwi&m jss&wflri* “*f” m “I f” ®R®««g^l^1»^*SBPBr. 5fc)H, iit«HN
SENAA'iSiSsli.
fifBJA (M SAA
« « » , ®ltt±wK TSfiiN*) #*&#iiJ®:0ri*A'j£*,M S ä l ? . l6xf^^«RÄM -ft«W RA#
1ft,
I S I I S 6 S « !
107
± ‘ l i e f :
t i t . (T S ¥ . TSZTUJIS) , &4>-&-fv:Um . — ikMIlflfiTRJlMW+TM,
tf-m M m m Tm 'PT^iä., we0rW fciTJi#*±. * » 7 m ü g T J I W Ä ^ 7 = i t i B f f i ü J i T M f . T S I f P T
JSS. TtgMSL
T H ¥H H i V: : D S □ ic I R #
T B Z i fBJ# ä l ’% ■ ■ : D f j □ i t I R #
T Ä S M ^ : : □ §! □ * I R #
( - ) ü « - * m f ö T S , £ ffll f t S I M f T S S : ,
1 2 3 4 5 6
lE'STHit W £TI^S Ifg& S W^IbJI: S S S t :
TM¥ TJSI T I S1. ® T « ) f 'tÄ in a in /^ f ö ö ^ s i* ik ^ W Ä (
i s s t .) ( ) ( )
2.I o —
) ( ) ( )
3. S T J l& tg i tB t^ J ^ I S iE i f r K j I f l ^ ( ) ( ) ( )4. ^ T S W l f ^ ^ Ü - m ^ I R o - ( ) ( ) ( )
7
« S S :
108
( - ) w H M tT a * +®£j. ü ^ l H l ^ ^ « - i l j S i |ä | j S S Ä .
m ffl * ffis jä & 2? 3 %
* * r- & 1*] Ir] fs]n [H] |h] aE , ® . M
l. ..........................M1
-iV>M2
M3 4 5 6 7
2. jH:HPA/lfPnimRW*¥. ................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. itm tk /n in xm m 'im * .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 75. i t tH P A /^ n S S M I^ o ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 76. it®pa/® n ä f t jg r i t f ^ Ä , / ® m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
f'Pftiijo7. jtbfflPA/SPnEÄffitÜftttW^fiKI^. ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 78. WSSSW. jfcffl»y»n)Rit>iciB«*h)H£. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
fiis , iffSW MfttÄTf-ÖtAW ÄMI-. V.W'&WftViZm.
1. E i ü f i
2.
3. < l 5 § a J E iA » W W ^ S c :
t;j4 5^ 4 k = 9 ^ ; j i j4 lT^4k=l2 &ß; * ^ 4 ^ = 1 6 ^ )
4. tSWIRfö: D S M i t ü + H i f D i W I i W
5. £ A: ^ kl
6.
7. f g f i m w s p n :
8. mmm-. □ « ü i s □ r ^ i S Dgffe ( i f ä ® )
109
APPENDIX 6
The Subordinate Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study)
(In English)
Note: In the Subordinate Questionnaire, Section 1 is group-focused and individual-focused TFL scales, Section 2 consists of a collective self-efficacy scale (item 1 - 7), a personal self-efficacy scale (item 8- 17) and a career expectation scale (items 18 - 21).
110
SUBORDINATE QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Sir/Madam
The purpose of the study is to identify the relationship between management
leadership styles, workers’ motivation and work outcomes. It will take around 30
minutes to complete this questionnaire.
Your participation is voluntary. All information will be confidential. Your
responses will be coded and you will not be personally identified. It is not necessary
to put your name on the survey.
Your assistance in this study is greatly appreciated. Thank your for your time
and your participation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments
about this study.
Yours sincerely
Ka Yee LAU
MPhil candidate
College of Business and Economics
Australian National University
1 1 1
SECTION ONE
Judge the frequently of each statement by using the following rating scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7not at all sometimes always
1 2 3 4 5 6 71. My group leader challenges me to re-examines critical
assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.2. Our group leader talks about the most important values and
beliefs when working in a group as a whole.3. My group leader gets me to seek differing perspectives when
solving problems.4. Our group leader talks to us optimistically about the future of
the group.5. Our group leader instils pride in us for being associated with
him/her in the group.6. Our group leader talks to us enthusiastically about what
needs to be accomplished in the group.7. Our group leader specifies the importance of having a strong
sense of purpose in working with the group as a whole.8. My group leader spends time with me teaching and coaching.9. Our group leader goes beyond self-interest for the good of
the group.10. My group leader treats me as an individual rather than just as
a member of a group.11. Our group leader acts in ways that build respect in our group.12. Our group leader considers the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions when working in the group.13. Our group leader displays to our group a sense of power and
confidence.14. Our group leader articulates to our group a compelling vision
of the future.15. My group leader considers me as having different needs,
abilities and aspirations from others.16. My group leader gets me to look at problems from many
different angles.17. My group leader helps me to develop my strength.18. My group leader suggests to me new ways of looking at how
to complete assignments.19. Our group leader emphasizes the importance of having a
collective sense of mission when working in the group as a whole.
20. Our group leader expresses confidence that our group goals will be achieved.
1 1 2
SECTION TWO
Please indicate the extent you agree with the following statements by using the following rating scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7Strongly disagree moderately agree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 71. The team I work with has above average ability.2. The members of my team have excellent job skills.3. The team I work is poor compared to other team doing similar work.4. The team I work is not able to perform as well as it should.5. Some members of the team I work should be fired due to lack of ability.6. The team I work in is not very effective.7. Some members in this team cannot do their jobs well.8. Iam an expert at my job.9. I am very proud of my job skills and abilities.10. I have confidence in my ability to do my job.11.1 have all the skills needed to perform my job very well.12. There are some tasks required by my job that I cannot do well.13. When my performance is poor, t is due to my lack of ability.14. I doubt my ability to do my job,15. Most people in my line of work can do this job better than I can.16. My future in this job is limited because of my lack of skills17. I feel threatened when others watch me work.18. I expect to be promoted in my organization19. To get ahead, I will have to change jobs20. I expect that I will attain a higher level in my organization21. Currently , my career is at a stalling point
SECTION THREEPlease complete the following information about yourself.
1. Gender: Male Female
2. Year of birth:_________
3. Number of years of formal education:________years(e.g. primary school = 6 years; elementary school = 9 years; ...)
4. Your position: generalstaff junior manager middle manager senior manager
5. How long have you worked for this company:_______ years______months
6. How long have you worked with your direct supervisor:_______ years
_____ months
7. Your job title:__________________
8. Your department:__________________
9. Your mother language: cantonese shanghaiese mandarin other______
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
114
APPENDIX 7
The Subordinate Questionnaire for Study 2 (Main Study)
(In Chinese)
1 1 5
M Ü-'iWl 'j :
i|n] f t |n]
/ k ± :
itttMssaswffiii “5tf” WL “f t ” fljRSSRS^Wf^il^BPBJo
m%, mm&w&mx < ^m a *
Sm»> ®W±wK ~FÄfn|ä|*) I- t a t i x i
fib
-MÄs]fi(Ji^^Äit!l|aJ*tiliEitlSli-jit^aföi1äI#> ,im iS7Lf#gij0
116
hSi—i^HSlohk m fp3 'i f &* & /K H& f t£P £p £p & £n £n £Plit i t t lit aE lit itb lit
1. stmmmMksn.mnmikSffmH ,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. mmimmikmttmvxm&mmmMWslk.*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 74. Ä ff] 6{J ±W * Mik ik it 01 PA 61l A i . 1 2 3 4 5 6 75.
3t*iio1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6./ / r :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7.1 F- o
s.fn sT '] ' o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 79. 1 2 3 4 5 6 710. SlttitffiÄäftÄSiäiK i't'-tt. M ^FPx
Ä JE S ä ftÄ a ^ + K i-s .
i$o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Ä f n M ± f = f t f f l | 3 A ? A * ± £ % t J y i I f S Afö J lM jS J i lo
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12.
g f s i i o1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13.g .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14.o
i[k A A F S S i .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Ä W i W i t Ä A A ^ t |b ] I f t NS o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Ä W i ^ S b f f i S S f f i W - f e i f c o 1 2 3 4 5 6 717.
t A o
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18.
W S S t t .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. Ä f f ] f f l X t ¥ Afü / A , 0 1 P A @ iU k tM tk i ä f g . 1 2 3 4 5 6 720. -imi.mMmzs.nm i mwsmm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
117
ü .
( “ ) imWM*f® SPIÜ sK X Iä]SW IM S. i i t H l i g g Blft * * « & . *'&&%#! AMMDL, te& M üm i 7 A;4§®, j lü if t - i 'fB ä ä «Jt1* , » - I ' l l Ho
2. m m v A f& v im M m x im t i3. f f i^ Ä 'S x jf ia p A , m)x{mvkmm%tm<>4. ÄWXfAIälßAuTlAffi&AÖfo .......................5. Ä W— JSZi ^MA Äoe. Ä W i ^ a p A ^ x ^ o ...................................7. ..................8. I f t L t , ...............................9. Ä # Ä W lf ti£ i£ W t£ A i!§ f iJ g * o .................
10. « i p m w i ^ f t g A i ^ w f g ^ o .......................11. ffifflW ßZ W fölft& fö. JEXI'Mtäifo .............12. W - * I # ' t t # S 7 F f g » $ f . ...........................13. .............14. Ä f F ü g B M X f t f g * . .....................................15. £ Ä |S |-X ft& f> Ä te A a i t tf fL tf f i f f . .........16. a - i s w x ^ f e t g . W ö ,f t a m x ^ Ä f j i iw i iß o17. t i s m * . ..............18. ffi,« M ita t:X ilk W f|-o19.20. mmf&%i&M£M'-}!§m.fg21. 0 i im iM ch lk £ iIB J iW & .
# f f i W * *0 JjJ.
irr
£ V \ > >d5 7t
* * f t [r1 I«]mV r . -yV .M
IWJXÖX,a
aE M x f r xM XsV.
1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7
118
m i s , z m .
1. s w i m a ^ t t n i c t t2. gfi<jip§|; _______3. t-SälEÄütW Ötl^ft: _______ ip
(fijfrh J' -fe?Silk= 6 tJ4 I¥ * = 9 ¥ ; i® +¥*=12 ip;= 16 ip)
4. □ —S S S I D S J l ^ t 1 □ rP I I ± f ;5. ®#JJPR&ä|£X: _____ip_____M6. _____ip_____PI7. @5WIR#: ________________8 . MflRMSPH; ___________________________
9. DlfifiiS a r * i S DÄ tt. (iWiPPP) _______
*ioj#mittB£siii§>K, i
119