leading with meaning

7/21/2019 Leading With Meaning

1/19

LEADING WITH MEANING: BENEFICIARY CONTACT,PROSOCIAL IMPACT, AND THE PERFORMANCE EFFECTS OF

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

ADAM M. GRANT

University of Pennsylvania

Although transformational leadership is thought to increase followers performance bymotivating them to transcend self-interest, rhetoric alone may not be sufficient. Ipropose that transformational leadership is most effective in motivating followerswhen they interact with the beneficiaries of their work, which highlights how thevision has meaningful consequences for other people. In a quasi-experimental study,

beneficiary contact strengthened the effects of transformational leadership on callcenter employees sales and revenue. A survey study with government employeesextended these results, supporting a moderated mediation model with perceivedprosocial impact. Relational job design can enhance the motivational effects of trans-formational leadership.

A fundamental task for leaders is to motivatefollowers to accomplish great things (Vroom & Jago,2007). According to theories of transformationaland charismatic leadership, leaders achieve thistask by engaging in inspirational behaviors such asarticulating a compelling vision, emphasizing col-lective identities, expressing confidence and opti-mism, and referencing core values and ideals (Bass,1985; Burns, 1978; House, 1977; Shamir, House, &Arthur, 1993). Evidence suggests that when leadersengage in these visionary behaviors, followers set

more value-congruent goals (Bono & Judge, 2003)and experience their work as more meaningful (Pic-colo & Colquitt, 2006; Purvanova, Bono, & Dziewe-czynski, 2006). As a result, research has shown thaton average, transformational leadership correlatespositively with followers motivation and job per-formance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

However, evidence suggests that transforma-tional leadership does not always motivate higherperformance among followers. Inconsistent effectsof transformational leadership on followers perfor-mance have emerged in field experiments in Cana-

dian banks (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996) andthe Israeli military (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir,2002), as well as in laboratory experiments using

business simulation tasks (Bono & Judge, 2003;Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). One explanation forthis inconsistent evidence is that when transforma-tional leaders articulate meaningful visions, theyface challenges in making these visions a tangiblereality. Indeed, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996: 37)suggested that leaders need to take steps to ensurethat the vision is not simply rhetoric.

In particular, a central purpose of transforma-tional leadership is to articulate a vision that fo-cuses employees attention on their contributionsto others. At its core, transformational leadershipinvolves motivating followers to transcend theirown self-interests for the sake of the team, the or-ganization or the larger polity (Shamir et al., 1993:579). To do so, transformational leaders often striveto highlight the prosocial impact of the visionhow it has meaningful consequences for other peo-ple (Grant, 2007; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).However, the broad rhetoric that makes a vision

inspiring and connects it to core values may renderthe prosocial impact of the vision less tangible. AsShamir and colleagues (1993: 583) noted, transfor-mational leadership tends to emphasize vague anddistal goals, yet prosocial impact is most tangiblewhen employees have vivid, proximal exposure tothe human beings affected by their contributions(Grant, Campbell, Chen, Cottone, Lapedis, & Lee,2007; Turner, Hadas-Halperin, & Raveh, 2008).Thus, to establish the prosocial impact of a vision,transformational leaders may need more thanwords (see Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

For meaningful feedback and suggestions, I thank Ja-son Colquitt, three anonymous reviewers, Drew Carton,Christina Fong, Dave Hofmann, Sim Sitkin, and the fac-ulty members and doctoral students at Cornell Univer-sity, especially Lisa Dragoni. For assistance with datacollection, I am grateful to Stan Campbell, Jenny Deveau,Chad Friedlein, Howard Heevner, Ted Henifin, and Jon-athan Tugman.

Editors note: The manuscript for this article was ac-cepted for publication during the term ofAMJs previouseditor-in-chief, R. Duane Ireland.

Academy of Management Journal

2012, Vol. 55, No. 2, 458476.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0588

458Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holders express

written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.


2/19

Although transformational leadership researchhas focused on the inspirational, visionary mes-sages that leaders deliver to followers, scholarshave recognized that leaders can also influence per-formance by altering the structural features of fol-lowers jobs (Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, &Folger, 2010). Accordingly, I expect that job design

is likely to play an important role in moderating theperformance effects of transformational leadership.Rather than focusing on the traditional task charac-teristics of jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980), Ifocus on the social characteristics of jobsthe in-terpersonal interactions and relationships in whichwork is embedded (Grant & Parker, 2009; Morgeson& Humphrey, 2006). Recently, scholars studyingrelational job design have proposed that leaderscan enhance perceptions of prosocial impact notonly by engaging in transformational behaviors, butalso by modifying the connections between em-ployees and the beneficiaries of their work (Grant,2007; Grant et al., 2007). Most organizations haveprime beneficiariesclients, customers, patients,and other recipients or end users of their core prod-ucts and services (Blau & Scott, 1962; Katz & Kahn,1966). Evidence from field and laboratory studiesdemonstrates that even when employees are re-sponsible for a meaningful job or task, they gain astronger awareness of its prosocial impact whenthey have contact with the beneficiary; this benefi-ciary contact enables them to see the tangible,meaningful consequences of their actions for a liv-ing, breathing person (Grant et al., 2007). Neverthe-

less, research has yet to examine whether and howbeneficiary contact, as a key relational element ofjob design, influences followers responses to trans-formational leadership.

I propose that beneficiary contact strengthens theimpact of transformational leadership on followerperformance. Transformational leadership focuseson linking a vision to core values (Shamir et al.,1993), and research has shown that protecting andpromoting the well-being of other people is themost important value to the majority of people inthe majority of the worlds cultures (Schwartz &

Bardi, 2001). When transformational leaders artic-ulate an inspiring vision, providing beneficiarycontact can enhance the salience and vividness ofthe visions prosocial impact (Grant, 2007). In thisway, beneficiary contact creates a credible link be-tween leaders words and deeds (Simons, 2002),enabling employees to see how their organizationsmission comes to life in benefiting others, whichcan motivate employees to work harder and moreeffectively (Grant et al., 2007). I test these hypoth-eses in two field studiesa quasi-experiment and asurvey study. Conducting two studies makes it pos-

sible to replicate effects across both objective mea-sures and supervisor ratings of job performance, aswell as both temporary, experimentally induced,and enduring, naturally occurring, differences intransformational leadership and beneficiarycontact.

This research offers three central contributions to

theory and research on leadership and job design.First, I introduce beneficiary contact as a novel con-tingency for the effects of transformational leadershipon follower performance, suggesting that relationaljob design can enhancerather than substitute forthe effects of transformational leadership on followerperformance. Second, I offer a conceptual and em-pirical integration of research on leadership and jobdesign by identifying synergies between inspiringthrough words (articulating a compelling vision)and actions (designing a meaningful job). Third, Iidentify a new mechanism for explaining transfor-mational leadership effects. I show how followersperceptions of prosocial impact, rather than of psy-chological empowerment, play a key role in ac-counting for the interactive effects of transforma-tional leadership and beneficiary contact. Together,these advances extend classic and contemporarydiscussions of how leaders behaviors and struc-tural design choices operate as joint determinantsof motivation and performance (e.g., Howell, Dorf-man, & Kerr, 1986; Yukl, 2008).

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ANDBENEFICIARY CONTACT

My focus is on the effects of transformationalleadership and beneficiary contact on followersjob performance. Performance is the effectivenessof followers behaviors in advancing organizationalgoals (Campbell, 1990). Transformational leader-ship is typically conceptualized as a collection offour dimensions of leader behavior: inspirationalmotivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimu-lation, and individualized consideration (Bass,1985; Burns, 1978). Inspirational motivation in-

volves articulating a compelling vision of the fu-ture. Idealized influence involves engaging in char-ismatic actions that earn respect and cultivatepride, such as discussing important values and be-liefs, communicating a sense of purpose, and en-couraging a focus on collective interests. Intellec-tual stimulation involves challenging followers toquestion their assumptions and think differently.Individualized consideration involves personaliz-ing interactions with followers by providing rele-vant mentoring, coaching, and understanding. Byengaging in these transformational behaviors, lead-

2012 459Grant


3/19

ers seek to motivate employees to look beyond theirimmediate self-interest to contribute to a broadervision (e.g., Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper,1998; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).

To understand the factors that may strengthenthe capability of transformational leaders to accen-tuate prosocial impact, I draw on theories of mean-

ing making and job design. Scholars have longmaintained that leaders play a critical role in man-aging the meaning that followers make of theirwork (Podolny, Khurana, & Hill-Popper, 2005; Pratt& Ashforth, 2003; Shamir et al., 1993; Smircich &Morgan, 1982; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).Transformational leadership, in particular, enablesfollowers to view their work as more meaningful(Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Purvanova et al., 2006;Sparks & Schenk, 2001). Inspirational motivationhighlights an important vision; idealized influenceconnects this vision to important shared values;and individualized consideration personalizes thisconnection. As Shamir and colleagues (1993: 578)explained, Such leadership is seen as givingmeaningfulness to work by infusing work and or-ganizations with moral purpose.

Generally speaking, scholars have recognizedthat leaders can influence followers perceptions ofmeaningfulness through two broad sets of strate-gies: providing messages that frame and reframethe meaning of the followers work and restructur-ing responsibilities to change and alterthe mean-ing of the work (Griffin, 1983; Molinsky & Margolis,2005). Leadership researchers have focused primar-

ily on the former set of strategies, but job designresearch has accentuated the substantial impact ofthe latter. I seek to integrate the leadership and jobdesign literatures by examining how designing jobsto provide beneficiary contact can amplify the ef-fects of transformational leadership on followersperformance.

In recent years, job design research has witnesseda resurgence of attention to the social characteris-tics of work (Grant & Parker, 2009; Morgeson &Humphrey, 2006). Instead of viewing jobs merelyas collections of tasks, researchers have increas-

ingly recognized that interpersonal interactions arecritical building blocks of the work that employeesdo (Oldham & Hackman, 2010; for reviews anddiscussions, see Fried, Levi, and Laurence, 2008;Grant and Parker, 2009; Kanfer, 2009; Morgeson &Humphrey, 2008). Although a number of socialcharacteristics of jobs have been identified, the keysocial characteristic that affects meaningfulness is

beneficiary contactthe degree to which employ-ees have the opportunity to interact with clients,customers, or others affected by their work (Grant,2007). Beneficiary contact is a structural character-

istic of jobs that shapes the quality and quantity ofinteractions that employees have with recipients oftheir products and services (Grant & Parker, 2009;see also Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007).1

As Kanfer (2009: 122) summarized, The productsof work motivation and job performance have arelational component . . . what employees do at

work has import and meaning for others who usethe products produced or benefit in some way fromthe employees efforts. For example, beneficiarycontact can involve manufacturing teams interact-ing with external customers (Kirkman & Rosen,1999), suppliers interacting with internal custom-ers (Parker & Axtell, 2001), radiologists having ex-posure to patients (Turner et al., 2008), or productdevelopers meeting clients (Sethi & Nichol-son, 2001).

The Moderating Role of Beneficiary Contact

Research shows that when employees have ben-eficiary contact, they perceive greater prosocial im-pact, as they can see and understand the tangible,meaningful consequences of their contributions forother people (Grant, 2007). In turn, perceivedprosocial impact is associated with higher effort,persistence, and job performance (Grant, 2008a;Grant et al., 2007), as focusing on meaningful con-sequences for others can encourage employees tocontinue working even when they find it unpleas-ant (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009; Meglino & Korsgaard,2004). However, research has yet to examine the

interplay of beneficiary contact and leadership.I propose that beneficiary contact strengthens

the effects of transformational leadership on fol-lowers performance by enhancing followers per-ceptions of prosocial impact. More specifically,

1 Beneficiary contact is conceptually related to, butdistinct from, the two characteristics in the job charac-teristics model that focus on the outcomes of work: taskidentity and task significance (Hackman & Oldham,1976, 1980). Task identity involves the extent to whichemployees see their results; it does not capture the extent

to which employees interact and communicate with thepeople who are affected by these results. Research indi-cates that task identity is distinct from opportunities tointeract with customers, clients, and other recipients(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Task significance focuseson the consequences of employees work for other peo-ple; beneficiary contact focuses on the extent to whichemployees have the opportunity to interact with thesepeople (Grant, 2007). Studies have shown that benefi-ciary contact and task significance are empirically dis-tinct (Grant, 2008b) and operate independently and in-teractively to influence perceptions and behaviors (Grantet al., 2007).

460 AprilAcademy of Management Journal


4/19

when transformational leaders engage in inspira-tional motivation and lead by example, employeesare able to identify with an important vision (Pic-colo & Colquitt, 2006; Shamir et al., 1993), and

beneficiary contact highlights the impact of thisvision on other people. Beneficiary contact enablesemployees to see that their contributions to the

vision have meaningful consequences for otherpeoplethat if they work harder and perform moreeffectively, living, breathing human beings will beaffected positively (Grant, 2007; Grant et al., 2007).Two complementary theoretical perspectives illu-minate the moderating effects of beneficiary con-tact: the availability heuristic and credibility.

According to the theoretical principles set forthin formulations of the availability heuristic(Schwarz, 1998; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973), peo-ple tend to use vividness and ease of recall as cuesfor probability and value. Beneficiary contactmakes the customers or clients who are affected bya vision more cognitively accessible and emotion-ally vivid, which will enhance employees beliefsthat a transformational leaders vision is likely tohave a meaningful prosocial impact (see Heath,Larrick, & Klayman, 1998). This understanding ofprosocial impact is likely to appeal to followerscore values, as research has shown that benefitingothers and making a social contribution is an im-portant value across cultures, both at work (Colby,Sippola, & Phelps, 2001; Ruiz-Quintanilla & Eng-land, 1996) and in life (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001).Beneficiary contact can thereby provide employees

with a meaningful face and story to attach to atransformational leaders vision, creating vivid im-agery that makes the vision more tangible (Emrich,Bower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001).

In the absence of beneficiary contact, employeesmay question the credibility of a transformationalleaders vision, wondering whether it is merelyrhetoric. As Simons (2002: 23) suggested, Leadersexhortations of a new mission or a new focus areprocessed by employees as simply a new dogma orcorporate presentation, and are not translated intoaction. To overcome this gap, Kirkpatrick and

Locke (1996: 37) observed, A leader must go be-yond simply communicating a vision in order for itto affect followers. To achieve influence, it is crit-ical for leaders to establish credibility (Lam &Schaubroeck). Employees are most likely to per-ceive a transformational leaders vision as crediblewhen it conveys behavioral integritya connection

between words and deeds (Simons, 1999, 2002).Such integrity can be established by beneficiarycontact, which has the potential to forge a vivid,credible link between the rhetoric of prosocial im-pact and the reality of meaningful consequences for

clients, customers, or patients. Beneficiaries canstrengthen the credibility of the leaders vision byproviding firsthand testimonials from a relativelyneutral, knowledgeable third-party source (Grant &Hofmann, 2011). Because they are the recipients ofan organizations products and services, beneficia-ries are in a unique position to articulate the proso-

cial impact of the organizations vision (Grant &Hofmann, 2011).

Thus, I predict that beneficiary contact enhancesthe effect of transformational leadership on follow-ers performance by fostering a stronger perceptionof prosocial impact. In the language of social infor-mation processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer,1978), transformational leadership involves pro-viding social cues about the importance of a vision,and beneficiary contact reinforces these cues byallowing employees to see the potential prosocialimpact of this vision on clients, customers, or pa-

tients. Beneficiary contact aligns the design of em-ployees jobs with the social cues that they arereceiving from leaders, and such alignment mayreduce uncertainty and ambiguity about the proso-cial impact of their work (e.g., Griffin, 1983). Whentransformational leaders articulate a vision, benefi-ciary contact brings this vision to life, enablingfollowers to perceive integrity in the vision andrecognize the potential for their contributions tohave a meaningful prosocial impact. The resultingperceptions of prosocial impact, in turn, lead fol-lowers to work harder and longer, as they perceive

effort as more worthwhile and are able to justify iteven when it is unpleasant (De Dreu & Nauta, 2009;Grant et al., 2007; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004).Beneficiary contact can thus create what Weick(1984) described as small wins, providing followerswith emotionally resonant glimpses of how smallincreases in their performance can realize a leadersvision and have a meaningful impact on others. Insummary, I propose a moderated mediation modelin which beneficiary contact strengthens the effectof transformational leadership on followers per-ceptions of prosocial impact, which in turn contrib-ute directly to higher performance.

Hypothesis 1. Beneficiary contact strengthensthe relationship between transformationalleadership and followers performance.

Hypothesis 2. Followers perceptions of proso-cial impact mediate the moderating effect ofbeneficiary contact on the relationship be-tween transformational leadership and follow-ers performance.

2012 461Grant


5/19

Psychological Empowerment as an AlternativeExplanation

An alternative explanation for the moderatingeffects of beneficiary contact lies in theories of psy-chological empowerment. Psychological empower-ment is thought to involve four psychologicalstates: meaning (purpose), self-determination(choice), competence (self-efficacy), and (strategic)impact (influence on strategic, administrative, oroperating outcomes) (Spreitzer 1995; Thomas andVelthouse, 1990). Psychological empowermentprovides a parsimonious framework for capturingthe central themes of the psychological states thatare viewed as mediators of the effects of transfor-mational leadership on follower performance.Transformational leadership is thought to increasefollower performance by (1) fostering meaning (Pic-colo & Colquitt, 2006; Purvanova et al., 2006;Shamir et al., 1993); (2) building competence or

self-efficacy (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Kirkpat-rick & Locke, 1996; Liao & Chuang, 2007; Walum-

bwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008); (3) encouraging thepursuit of self-concordant, value-congruent goals,which are by definition self-determined and auton-omously chosen (Bono & Judge, 2003); and (4)strengthening social identification with a group,department, or organization, which leads employ-ees to perceive themselves as important, influen-tial, effective, and worthwhile in their organiza-tional units (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003: 248; seealso Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).

Although these dimensions of empowermentmay mediate any direct relationship that occurs

between transformational leadership and followerperformance, I do not expect that they will be crit-ical to explaining the moderating effects of benefi-ciary contact on this relationship. First, meaningcan arise directly through the efforts of transforma-tional leaders to connect work to personal values(Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Pur-vanova et al., 2006), independent of any beneficiarycontact that occurs (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski,2010). As Grant (2008a: 119) explains, The expe-

rience of meaningfulness is a judgment of the gen-eral value and purpose of the job, with no referenceto the people who it affects. Thus, beneficiarycontact may be particularly relevant to strengthen-ing the effect of transformational leadership on em-ployees specific perceptions of prosocial impact,whereas their more general, abstract perceptions ofmeaning may be enhanced by transformationalleadership directly.

Second, with respect to competence, beneficiarycontact provides information about the impact offollowers work, not the extent to which they have

completed it effectively (Grant & Gino, 2010).Third, leaders efforts to delegate opportunities andprovide choices influence self-determination(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Spreitzer, 1996);since beneficiary contact is independent of auton-omy (Grandey & Diamond, 2010), it has little rele-vance to influencing or reinforcing the opportuni-

ties for choice that transformational leadersprovide. Fourth, although beneficiary contact pro-vides employees with information about outcomes,this information focuses on outcomes for the well-

being of clients, customers, and other recipients,and is thus unlikely to affect the degree to whichtransformational leadership enhances perceptionsof impact on strategic, administrative, or operatingoutcomes. In summary, although psychological em-powerment may directly mediate the relationship

between transformational leadership and followerperformance, it is less relevant as a mechanism forexplaining the moderating effect of beneficiary con-tact on this relationship, which is likely to beunique to perceived prosocial impact.

Overview of the Present Research

I tested these hypotheses in two studies. Study 1,a field quasi-experiment with call center employ-ees, examined whether establishing beneficiarycontact enhanced the effects of a transformationalleadership intervention on performance. Study 2, afield study in a governmental organization, exam-ined beneficiary contact as a moderator of the rela-tionship between employee ratings of transforma-tional leadership and supervisor ratings of their jobperformance. Study 2 also compared perceivedprosocial impact and psychological empowermentas explanatory mechanisms. In tandem, these stud-ies facilitate the investigation of the core hypothe-ses with respect to both temporary, experimentallyinduced variations and more enduring, naturallyoccurring variations in transformational leadershipand beneficiary contact.

STUDY 1: METHODSParticipants and Design

I conducted this study with new employees at aprivately held company headquartered in the U.S.Midwest. All 71 new hires participated (response rate 100%), and 76.1 percent of them were female. Thecompany focused on selling educational and market-ing software to university and nonprofit customers,and the employees worked at an outbound call cen-ter. The revenue that employees generated funded jobcreation and salaries in another department, but they



6/19

had no contact with the beneficiaries of these jobsand salaries. The experiment used a 2 (transforma-tional leadership: yes, no) 2 (beneficiary contact:yes, no) between-subjects factorial design. The em-ployees were thus arbitrarily divided among four con-ditions: control, transformational leadership, benefi-ciary contact, and combined.

Procedures

To start their jobs, all employees were required toattend a training session and were given the oppor-tunity to sign up for one of four dates. I learned thatthe manager in charge of training was planning toinvite the senior director of the organization tospeak about the companys mission during onetraining session, and he was planning to invite aninternal customera beneficiary from another

department supported by the employees worktospeak about the importance of their efforts at adifferent training session. Otherwise, the employ-ees had no interaction with the senior director orthe other department. I saw this as an opportunityfor a quasi-experiment and asked the manager if hecould invite both the director and the beneficiary tothe third session. The manager agreed. Employeesin the fourth session, to which no speaker wasinvited, served as the control group. Other than thevisits from the director and the beneficiary, thetraining sessions were identical. Employees

were not able to self-select into conditions, as theywere not informed in advance that the trainingsessions would have different speakers.

For the control group (n 26), the manager ledtraining without a visit from the director or the

beneficiary. For the transformational leadershipgroup (n 15), the director visited the trainingsession and spoke for 15 minutes. Exemplifyingtransformational behaviors (e.g., Bono & Judge,2003; Locke & Kirkpatrick, 1996; Shamir et al.,1993), he articulated the companys vision, ex-plained why it was meaningful, and communicated

enthusiasm and confidence about employees capa-bilities to achieve it. For the beneficiary contactgroup (n 12), the beneficiary from a differentdepartment visited the training session for 10 min-utes. He described how the revenue generated bythe employees had made it possible to create jobsand fund salaries, including his own. Finally, forthe combined group (n 18), both the director andthe beneficiary visited at different points in thetraining session and delivered their messages. Bothvisitors were blind to the hypotheses.

Measures

Because researcher intervention can compromisethe internal and external validity of experiments(Argyris, 1975; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Rosenthal,1994), I did not have contact with the participantsduring the study. The manager was already track-ing data on the employees performance, and I was

able to obtain these data for the seven-week periodfollowing the intervention during training. Perfor-mance was measured on two metrics: number ofsales made and total revenue generated. The em-ployees were not paid on commission, but theywere eligible for semiannual salary raises based ontheir performance on these two metrics. Across theseven weekly measurement intervals, the measuresof both sales ( .82) and revenue ( .72) werereliable. I also obtained the number of shiftsworked by each employee as a control variable.

After the seven-week performance measurement

period was complete, I gained approval to collectmanipulation check data via an online survey usinga scale anchored at 1, disagree strongly, and 7,agree strongly. Of the 71 employees, 38 partici-pated, for a response rate of 53.5 percent. To assessthe impact of the directors visit, the survey fea-tured four items from the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Em-ployees evaluated the director on four transforma-tional leadership items selected to capture the ex-tent to which inspirational motivation andidealized influence were reflected in his speech:

articulates a compelling vision of the future,talks enthusiastically about what needs to be ac-complished, instills pride in me for being asso-ciated with them, and acts in ways that builds myrespect ( .79). To assess the impact of the

beneficiarys visit, the survey featured two itemsadapted from Grants (2008) beneficiary contactscale: My job gives me the opportunity to meet thepeople who benefit from my work and My jobprovides me with contact with the people who

benefit from my work ( .75).

STUDY 1: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To evaluate the validity of the interventions, Iconducted 22 analyses of variance (ANOVAs) onthe manipulation checks. Employees who heardthe directors speech during training rated him assignificantly more transformational (mean 5.01,s.d. 0.95) than those who did not hear his speech(mean 4.17, s.d. 1.38),F(1, 37) 5.25,p .05;no other effects were significant. In addition, em-ployees who attended the beneficiarys visit per-ceived greater beneficiary contact (mean 3.82,

2012 463Grant


7/19

s.d. 1.39) than those who did not (mean 2.94,s.d. 1.22, F[1, 36] 3.99, p .05); no othereffects were significant. These results indicate sup-port for the validity of the interventions.

Table 1 displays means and standard deviationsfor the key variables by condition. To examine theeffects of the interventions on performance, I began

by conducting 22 ANOVAs on sales and revenue,with shifts as a covariate. The results showed asignificant interaction of the transformational lead-ership and beneficiary contact interventions onsales (F[1, 66] 7.73, p .01). There were nosignificant main effects of transformational leader-ship (F[1, 66] .01,p .93) or beneficiary contact(F[1, 66] .26,p .69). The results also showed asignificant interaction of the transformational lead-ership and beneficiary contact interventions onrevenue (F[1, 66] 4.67, p .03). There were nosignificant main effects of transformational leader-ship (F[1, 66] .00,p .99 or beneficiary contact(F[1, 66] .13, p .77).

To interpret the significant interactions, whichare graphed in Figures 1 and 2, I conducted simpleeffects tests within each level of beneficiary con-tact. When beneficiary contact was present, thetransformational leadership intervention had a sig-nificant, positive effect on sales (F[1, 67] 4.25,p .04 [pone-tailed .02]) and a marginal effect onrevenue (F[1, 67] 2.91,p .09 [pone-tailed .05]).When beneficiary contact was absent, on the otherhand, the transformational leadership interventionhad no effect on sales (F[1, 67] .01, p .90) or

revenue (F[1, 67] .43, p .51). These resultsprovide initial evidence in support of the hypoth-esis that beneficiary contact strengthens the effectsof transformational leadership on followersperformance.

At the same time, these findings are subject toseveral important limitations. First, the fact that thedata were collected within a single job raises ques-tions about the generalizability of the findings to

other jobs and occupations. Second, the transfor-mational leadership and beneficiary contact inter-ventions consisted of short, one-time visits andspeeches. However, among working employees, asingle speech alone may be insufficient to increaseperformance. In practice, transformational leader-ship is often an everyday, repeated behavioral act

(e.g., Purvanova & Bono, 2009), and beneficiarycontact is often a relatively enduring aspect of a jobdesign (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Stone &Gueutal, 1985). This may help to explain why therewere no main effects of transformational leadershipor beneficiary contact.

Third, the quasi-experimental design is vulnera-ble to validity and implementation threats (Cook &Campbell, 1979). Although the arbitrary assign-ment procedure prevented participants from self-selecting into conditions, it is not possible to ruleout history threats to validity: other events mayhave occurred along with the experimental treat-ment and driven the results. Furthermore, multipletreatment interference is a possibility: it may be thecase that simply hearing about the importance ofthe work from two different sources, rather than thespecific transformational behavior by the leaderand the interaction with the beneficiary, enhancedthe credibility of the message. In terms of imple-mentation threats, it is possible that employeesshared information about their experiences duringtraining, and those who did not receive both theleader and beneficiary speeches experienced re-sentful demoralization. Fourth, I was not able to

obtain survey data on mediating mechanisms fromparticipating employees. This made it difficult tounderstand the underlying processes responsiblefor the findings.

STUDY 2: METHODS

This study was designed to constructively repli-cate and extend the findings of Study 1 by address-

TABLE 1Study 1: Means and Standard Deviations by Conditiona

ConditionNumberof Sales

TotalRevenue

Salesper Shift

Revenueper Shift

Control (n 26) 46.23 $3,738.73 1.65 $138.61(39.30) (3,407.49) (0.84) (75.71)

Transformational leadership(n 15)

151.80 $12,129.04 1.55 $119.49(102.34) (10,284.34) (0.56) (58.86)

Beneficiary contact (n 12) 77.67 $5,952.83 1.67 $131.94)(50.68) (4,081.64) (0.74) (77.67)

Combined transformational leadershipand beneficiary contact (n 18)

271.22 $21,376.58 2.11) $166.97(92.15) (6,806.03) (0.44) (35.73)

a Standard deviations are in parentheses.



8/19

ing the aforementioned limitations. First, to in-

crease generalizability, I collected data fromemployees in a wide range of jobs working fordifferent leaders. Second, to directly examine moreenduring leadership and job experiences, I col-lected data on naturally occurring differences be-tween employees in perceptions of transforma-tional leadership and beneficiary contact. Third, toovercome the vulnerability of quasi-experimentaldesigns to the aforementioned validity and imple-mentation threats, I collected multisource surveydata. Fourth, to examine mediating mechanisms, Icollected data from employees on perceived proso-

cial impact and psychological empowerment.

Participants and Procedures

I collected data from 329 employees and theirdirect supervisors in a large U.S. government or-

ganization. The human resources director identi-

fied 1,197 employees who had unique supervisors,and I sent them invitations to participate in a studyof work attitudes. I received completed online sur-veys from 418 employees, for a response rate of34.9 percent. I sent requests to their direct supervi-sors to complete a short online performance evalu-ation and received completed surveys from 344supervisors, for a response rate of 82.3 percent. Iwas able to match 329 of the employee and super-visor surveys; these matched surveys constitutedthe final sample. Female employees comprised63.5% of the sample; average job tenure was6.3 years (s.d. 7.4), and average age was37.2 years (s.d. 13.0). These respondents workedin more than 20 different jobs, including engineer-ing and manufacturing, customer service, financialanalysis, information technology, quality assur-

FIGURE 1Study 1 Results for Sales per Shift

FIGURE 2Study 1 Results for Revenue per Shift

2012 465Grant


9/19

ance, and legal and contracting services. Their su-pervisors were 60.8 percent female, with an averagejob tenure of 9.0 years (s.d. 8.3) and an averageage of 45.3 years (s.d. 9.7).

Measures

Unless otherwise indicated, all items used ascale anchored at 1, disagree strongly, and 7,agree strongly. Supervisors provided ratings ofemployees job performance, and employees pro-vided ratings of transformational leadership, aswell as self-reports of perceived prosocial im-pact, psychological empowerment, and severalcontrol variables.

Performance. To rate employees job perfor-mance, the supervisors completed the five-itemscale developed by Ashford and Black (1996). Theywere asked to evaluate employees performance ona nine-point scale in percentiles, ranging from the

bottom 10 percent to the top 10 percent. The itemsincluded overall performance, achievement ofwork goals, and quality of performance( .96).

Transformational leadership. Employees com-pleted the 20-item Multifactor Leadership Ques-tionnaire (Avolio et al., 1999) with reference totheir direct supervisor ( .82). Sample items in-clude articulates a compelling vision of the fu-ture (inspirational motivation), specifies the im-portance of having a strong sense of purpose(idealized influence), seeks differing perspectives

when solving problems (intellectual stimulation),and spends time teaching and coaching (individ-ualized consideration).

Beneficiary contact. Since the intervention inStudy 1 consisted of a very specific interactionwith a single beneficiary, it was important to rep-licate the results by using a measure of more en-during and naturalistic beneficiary contact. Em-ployees completed four items adapted frommeasures developed by Morgeson and Humphrey(2006): My job involves a great deal of interactionwith the people who benefit from my work, On

the job, I frequently communicate with the peopleaffected by my work, The job requires spending agreat deal of time with the people who benefit frommy work, and The job involves interaction withthe people affected by my work ( .92). Theseitems were based on Morgeson and Humphreys(2006) measure of interaction outside a respon-dents organization, but the referent was beneficia-riesas specified by Grant (2008b)rather thanany people outside the organization. In pilot data,the most commonly listed beneficiaries were cus-tomers, citizens, and the community.

Perceived prosocial impact. Employees com-pleted the three-item scale developed by Grant(2008a), which includes items such as I feel thatmy work makes a positive difference in other peo-ples lives ( .81).

Psychological empowerment. Employees com-pleted Spreitzers (1995) 12-item scale ( .90),

which includes 3 items each for meaning (e.g.,The work I do is meaningful to me; .81),competence (e.g., I have mastered the skills nec-essary for my job; .89), self-determination(e.g., I have considerable opportunity for indepen-dence and freedom in how I do my job; .86),and (strategic) impact (e.g., My impact on whathappens in my department is large; .93).

Control variables. Since the quality of the rela-tionship between employees and supervisors af-fects the ratings that supervisors give (e.g., Judge &Ferris, 1993), I controlled for relationship quality tominimize reporting biases. Employees evaluatedtheir relationships with their supervisors on threeitems adapted from Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, andDuttons (1998) relationship quality scale, includ-ing trusting and close ( .86). In addition, toestablish the incremental validity of the moderat-ing role of beneficiary contact, I controlled for sev-eral related job characteristics, using Morgeson andHumphreys (2006) scales to measure task identity(e.g., The job is arranged so that I can do an entirepiece of work from beginning to end; .84), tasksignificance (e.g., The results of my work arelikely to significantly affect the lives of other peo-

ple; .87), interpersonal feedback (e.g., I re-ceive feedback on my performance from other peo-ple in my organization; .91), and friendshipopportunities (e.g., I have the opportunity to de-velop close friendships in my job; .89). Iselected task identity and task significance becausethese two characteristics relate to the outcomes ofan individuals job, as discussed earlier, and inter-personal feedback and friendship opportunities be-cause these are two other social job characteristicsthat capture key aspects of employees work-relatedinteractions (Grant & Parker, 2009; Morgeson &

Humphrey, 2006).

STUDY 2: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Means, standard deviations, and correlations forthe focal variables appear in Table 2. To assess thefactor structures of the performance, leadership, jobdesign, and perceptual variables, I conducted aconfirmatory factor analysis using EQS softwareversion 6.1 with maximum-likelihood estimationprocedures (e.g., Bentler & Dudgeon, 1996; Kline,1998). In keeping with past research (e.g., Piccolo &



10/19

Colquitt, 2006), I constructed one parcel for each ofthe four dimensions of transformational leadership.I specified a 13-factor solution, with distinct, freelycorrelated factors for supervisor performance ratings,transformational leadership, beneficiary contact,relationship quality, task identity, task signifi-cance, interpersonal feedback, friendship opportu-nities, perceived prosocial impact, and the mean-ing, competence, self-determination, and strategicimpact dimensions of psychological empower-ment. This 13-factor solution achieved good fitwith the data (2[824] 1,679.75, CFI .94,SRMR .05). All factor loadings were statistically

significant and ranged from .73 to .97 for supervisorperformance ratings, .91 to .96 for transformationalleadership, .77 to .93 for beneficiary contact, .77 to.86 for relationship quality, .66 to .91 for task iden-tity, .80 to .83 for task significance, .81 to .91 forinterpersonal feedback, .76 to .95 for friendshipopportunities, .62 to .88 for perceived prosocialimpact, .88 to .97 for meaning, .80 to .94 for com-petence, .72 to .86 for self-determination, and .88 to.97 for strategic impact. Chi-square difference testsshowed that all alternative nested models achievedsignificantly poorer fit, and constraining correla-

tions between each pair of factors to 1.0 also re-duced model fit significantly. These analyses sup-ported the expected factor structure of the variables.

I began testing the hypotheses using hierarchicalordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses,following the moderated regression procedures rec-ommended by Aiken and West (1991). I standard-ized the focal variables, multiplied them to createinteraction terms, and predicted supervisor perfor-mance ratings. I entered the control variables,transformational leadership, and beneficiary con-tact in step 1, the interactions of transformational

leadership with the control variables in step 2, andthe interaction of transformational leadership and

beneficiary contact in step 3. The results, which aredisplayed in Table 3, indicated a statistically sig-nificant interaction between transformational lead-ership and beneficiary contact in predicting super-visor performance ratings.

To interpret the form of this interaction, I plottedthe simple slopes at one standard deviation aboveand below the mean of beneficiary contact (Aiken &West, 1991). As displayed in Figure 3, transforma-tional leadership appeared to be positively relatedto supervisor performance ratings when beneficiary

contact was high but not when it was low. To testthis interpretation statistically, I compared each ofthe simple slopes to zero. When beneficiary contactwas high, the relationship between transforma-tional leadership and performance was positiveand statistically significant (b .48, s.e. .12, .31, p .001). In contrast, when beneficiarycontact was low, the relationship between transfor-mational leadership and performance did not differsignificantly from zero (b .10, s.e. .12, .06,p .40). These results show that beneficiary con-tact strengthened the relationship between trans-

formational leadership and performance. In sup-plementary analyses, none of the other jobcharacteristics interacted significantly with trans-formational leadership, supporting the uniquenessof the moderating role of beneficiary contact.

To examine the role of perceived prosocial im-pact, I followed the moderated mediation proce-dures specified by Edwards and Lambert (2007).The hypotheses focused on first-stage moderation:

beneficiary contact strengthens the relationship be-tween transformational leadership and perceivedprosocial impact, and perceived prosocial impact

TABLE 2Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlationsa

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Supervisor performance ratings 7.64 1.55 (.96)2. Transformational leadership 4.54 1.28 .18 (.82)3. Beneficiary contact 4.56 1.57 .04 .23 (.92)4. Perceived prosocial impact 5.18 1.27 .22 .53 .30 (.81)

5. Psychological empowerment 5.54 0.91 .26 .54 .22 .62 (.90)6. Empowerment: Meaning 5.44 1.23 .14 .44 .18 .61 .78 (.81)7. Empowerment: Competence 6.04 0.88 .28 .20 .11 .37 .64 .34 (.89)8. Empowerment: Self-determination 5.38 1.14 .18 .26 .21 .27 .71 .33 .39 (.82)9. Empowerment: Strategic impact 5.23 1.46 .20 .64 .18 .56 .84 .56 .38 .45 (.95)

10. Relationship quality 5.38 1.23 .10 .51 .22 .42 .48 .43 .21 .35 .45 (.86)11. Task identity 5.26 1.31 .09 .35 .22 .36 .48 .37 .32 .47 .40 .47 (.84)12. Task significance 4.74 1.25 .07 .36 .36 .62 .44 .45 .22 .32 .33 .32 .32 (.87)13. Interpersonal feedback 4.55 1.47 .11 .33 .30 .29 .36 .32 .14 .30 .28 .44 .36 .35 (.91)14. Friendship opportunities 5.61 1.07 .16 .29 .30 .26 .36 .22 .29 .40 .28 .50 .33 .29 .38 (.89)

a Coefficient alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses. Allr .10 are significant at p .05; allr .14,p .01; allr .18,p .001.

2012 467Grant


11/19

then contributes directly to performance. I began byconducting moderated regression analyses predict-ing perceived prosocial impact (see Table 4, leftcolumn). There was a statistically significant inter-action between transformational leadership and

beneficiary contact in predicting perceived proso-cial impact. The simple slopes (Figure 4) suggestthat the relationship between transformationalleadership and perceived prosocial impact was

more strongly positive under high than low bene-ficiary contact. Comparing the slopes to zero sup-ported this interpretation: the relationship betweentransformational leadership and performance waspositive and statistically significant when benefi-

ciary contact was high (b .72, s.e. .08, .57,p .001) and less positive but still statisticallysignificant when beneficiary contact was low(b .52, s.e. .08, .41,p .001).

TABLE 3Study 2: Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting Supervisor Performance Ratingsa

Variables

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

b s.e. t b s.e. t b s.e. t

Transformational leadership .27 .10 .18 2.67** .28 .10 .18 2.66** .28 .10 .18 2.74**Beneficiary contact .07 .09 .04 0.71 .07 .10 .05 0.74 .02 .10 .01 0.20

Relationship quality .12 .12 .08 1.08 .07 .13 .04 0.50 .08 .13 .05 0.64Task identity .02 .10 .01 0.19 .00 .11 .00 0.03 .04 .11 .02 0.33Task significance .02 .10 .01 .17 .02 .10 .01 0.15 .02 .10 .01 0.19Interpersonal feedback .06 .10 .04 0.59 .04 .10 .03 0.39 .02 .10 .01 0.19Friendship opportunities .23 .10 .15 2.30* .25 .11 .16 2.14* .23 .11 .15 2.01*Transformational leadership relationship quality .16 .11 .12 1.45 .16 .11 .12 1.46Transformational leadership task identity .06 .10 .04 0.59 .09 .10 .06 0.85Transformational leadership task significance .03 .09 .02 0.33 .02 .09 .01 0.17Transformational leadership interpersonal feedback .13 .11 .09 1.22 .17 .11 .12 1.61Transformational leadership friendship opportunities .01 .10 .01 0.09 .07 .10 .05 0.65Transformational leadership beneficiary contact .27 .09 .19 3.07**

R2 .05* .06 .09**F( df) 2.51 (7, 321) 0.61 (5, 316) 9.40 (1, 315)R2 .02 .03**

a Theoretically, beneficiary contact should be most likely to moderate the effects of inspirational motivation and the leading by exampleaspects of idealized influence. However, the results were consistent across each facet of transformational leadership, likely because of theirhigh correlations (rmean .86,rminimum .83,rmaximum .89).

b Values shown in bold reflect hypothesized results.*p .05

**p .01

FIGURE 3Study 2 Simple Slopes for Supervisor Performance Ratings



12/19

TABLE4

Study2:

ModeratedMediationAnalysesa

Variables

DV:PerceivedProsocialImpact

DV:PsychologicalEmpo

werment

DV:SupervisorP

erformanceRatings

Step1

Step2

Step1

Step2

Step1

Step2

b

s.e.

t

b

s.e.

t

b

s.e.

t

b

s.e.

t

b

s.e.

t

b

s.e.

t

Transformationalleadership

.38.0

6

.30

6.3

4***

.37.0

6

.29

6.24***

.28.0

5

.31

6.1

3***

.28.0

5

.30

6.0

4***

.26

.10

.17

2.57*

.10.1

1

.07

0.9

5

Beneficiarycontact

.07.0

6

.06

1.2

7

.10.0

6

.08

1.86

.0

3.0

4.0

30.5

9

.0

1.0

4.0

10.2

5

.0

1

.10

.0

10.13

.0

4.0

9

.0

20.3

7

Relationshipquality

.14.0

7

.11

2.0

5*

.15.0

7

.12

2.24*

.09.0

5

.10

1.7

2

.09.0

5

.10

1.8

2

.1

0

.12

.0

60.83

.1

6.1

1

.1

01.4

0

Taskidentity

.11.0

6

.09

1.8

5

.13.0

6

.11

2.31*

.21.0

4

.23

4.7

7***

.22.0

5

.25

4.9

9***

.06

.10

.04

0.61

.0

4.1

0

.0

20.3

7

Tasksignificance

.58.0

6

.46

1.0

6

.59.0

6

.47

1.39

.17.0

4

.19

3.9

7***

.18.0

4

.20

4.0

5***.0

2

.10

.0

20.25

.1

9.1

1

.1

21.7

1

Interpersonalfeedback

.0

7.0

6.0

6-1.2

0

.0

8.0

6.0

61.32

.04.0

5

.04

0.8

1

.03.0

5

.04

0.7

2

.02

.10

.01

0.22

.04.1

0

.03

0.3

9

Friendshipopportunities

.0

6.0

6.0

4-0.9

0

.0

6.0

6.0

51.00

.08.0

5

.09

1.7

0

.08.0

5

.09

1.7

0

.26

.10

.16

2.52*

.24.1

0

.15

2.3

1*

Transformationalleadership

beneficiarycontact

.16.0

5

.14

3.48**

.06.0

4

.08

1.8

3

.19

.08

.13

2.39*

.14.0

8

.10

1.7

9

Psychologicalempowerment

.30.1

3

.18

2.2

5*

Perceivedprosocialimpact

.20

.10

.17

2.0

0

R2

.5

1***

.53***

.44***

.45***

.07**

.11***

F(df)

47.6

6(7,

320)

12.1

1(1,

319)

37.0

7(7,

321)

3.3

5(1,

320)

3.1

5(8,

319)

7.0

2(1,

319)

R2

.02**

.01

.04**

a

Theresultsdidnotchangesubstantivelywithinclusionoftheinteractionsbetweentransformationalleadershipan

dthecontrolvariables.Inaddition,

inan

alysisofthedimensions

ofpsychologicalempowermentseparatelyratherthanasacomposite,

themoderatedmediationmodelwassupported

forperceivedprosocialimpact,butnotforanyofthedimensions

ofpsychologicalempowerment.Thisisnotsurprisinginlightofevidencetha

tthedimensionstendtobehighlycorrelatedandsharesimilarantecedentsando

utcomes(Seibert,

Wang,

&Courtright,2011).

b

Valuesshowninboldreflecthy

pothesizedresults.

*p

.05,

**p

.01

***p

.001


13/19

Next, I tested whether perceived prosocial im-pact predicted supervisor performance ratingswhen transformational leadership, beneficiary con-tact, and their interaction were controlled. I con-ducted these analyses while controlling for psycho-logical empowerment (Table 4, right column). In

both analyses, perceived prosocial impact was asignificant predictor even after I had controlled forthese variables, and the coefficient on the interac-tion term decreased below statistical significance.To examine whether this was a significant de-crease, I used bootstrap procedures to construct

95% bias-corrected confidence intervals aroundthe indirect effects at both levels of beneficiarycontact (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The confidenceinterval for the indirect effect of transformationalleadership on supervisor performance ratingsthrough perceived prosocial impact excluded zerofor both high beneficiary contact (.05, .29) and low

beneficiary contact (.01, .15), indicating that per-ceived prosocial impact mediated the relationship

between transformational leadership and followerperformance at both levels of beneficiary contact.2

In addition, the confidence interval for the differ-

ence between these two indirect effects excludedzero (.02, .22), indicating that the indirect effectwas significantly stronger under high rather thanlow beneficiary contact. These results support themoderated mediation model, showing that per-

ceived prosocial impact is an explanatory mecha-nism even after one controls for psychologicalempowerment.

Psychological empowerment independently pre-dicted supervisor performance ratings (Table 4,right column), but beneficiary contact did not mod-erate the relationship of transformational leader-ship with psychological empowerment (Table 4,middle column). These findings support the pre-diction that perceived prosocial impact, rather thanpsychological empowerment, is a key mechanismthrough which beneficiary contact strengthens the

relationship between transformational leadershipand follower performance.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

These studies provide convergent evidence thatthe relationship between transformational leader-ship and follower performance is stronger under

beneficiary contact. In the first study, a transforma-tional leadership intervention enhanced sales andrevenue, but only when employees had contactwith a beneficiary. In the second study, the positive

association between transformational leadershipand supervisor ratings of follower performance wasstronger under beneficiary contact, and followersperceptions of prosocial impact mediated this in-teractive relationship.

Theoretical Contributions

This research advances knowledge about leader-ship, job design, and meaning. The primary contri-

bution lies in introducing beneficiary contact as animportant moderator of the impact of transforma-

2 Under high beneficiary contact, the confidence inter-vals excluded zero for both the direct effects (.03, .58)and the total effects (.20, .73). Under low beneficiarycontact, on the other hand, the confidence intervals in-cluded zero for both the direct effects (.26, .37) and thetotal effects (.21, .42).

FIGURE 4Study 2 Simple Slopes for Perceived Prosocial Impact



14/19

tional leadership on follower performance. Al-though evidence has accumulated that both trans-formational leadership and beneficiary contact canmotivate employees to perform more effectively,little theory and research have examined the inter-play between these two approaches to imbuingwork with meaning. In identifying beneficiary con-

tact as an enhancer of the effects of transforma-tional leadership, my theoretical perspective andempirical findings represent a departure from tra-ditional approaches to understanding the interac-tions of leadership and job design. In classic re-search, the assumption has been that job design is asubstitute for leadership: well-designed tasks com-pensate for the absence of leadership behaviors byproviding employees with the intrinsic motivationand direction necessary to complete their work ef-fectively regardless of vision and inspiration fromleaders (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Some studies havesupported this perspective (Dionne, Yammarino,Atwater, & James, 2002; Keller, 2006; cf. Podsakoff,MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), but this research hasfocused on task characteristics, giving little theoret-ical and empirical attention to the social character-istics of jobs. From a leadership substitutes per-spective, one might expect beneficiary contact toserve a compensatory function, fostering percep-tions of prosocial impact when transformationalleadership is lacking. However, my research sup-ports the opposite functional form of the interac-tion. These studies thereby open up a new direc-tion for leadership research, suggesting that

although task characteristics may be substitutes forleadership, social characteristics of jobs may bemore likely to operate as enhancers.

The studies also highlight the potential for re-thinking and broadening existing knowledge aboutthe behaviors of transformational leaders. As it istraditionally studied, the inspirational motivationdimension of transformational leadership focuseson the use of language and rhetoric to instill enthu-siasm, optimism, confidence, and purpose in fol-lowers (e.g., Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1985; Emrichet al., 2001; Shamir et al., 1993, 1998). My research

suggests that transformational leadership may alsoinvolve modifying the structural designs of follow-ers jobs. This evidence points to a novel interpre-tation of recent studies linking transformationalleadership to perceptions of job enrichment andmeaningfulness (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Pur-vanova et al., 2006). Whereas these researchershave assumed that transformational leaders influ-ence employees job perceptions and performancethrough the rhetoric that they use, my researchindicates that transformational leaders can alsoachieve such influence through objectively altering

the design of employees jobs to create greater in-teraction with beneficiaries. My studies suggestthat rhetoric and design in combination, ratherthan one or the other alone, may maximize theextent to which followers perceive their work ashaving a prosocial impact and perform effectivelyas a result. As such, my research takes a step toward

answering recent calls to better understand the inter-play of job design and leadership (Piccolo et al., 2010)and draws attention to relational job design as amoderator of transformational leadership effects,complementing previously studied contingenciessuch as environmental uncertainty, cultural values,social and physical distance, and follower charac-teristics (for reviews, see Bass & Riggio, 2006; Avo-lio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009).

Accordingly, my findings invite scholars to con-sider the possibility that transformational leaderscan inspire employees not only through the wordsthat they articulate to link work to an importantpurpose, but also through the actions that theyundertake to redesign this work to strengthen con-nections to this purpose. Recent research showsthat it is difficult for leaders to create perceptions ofprosocial impact through their own words; mes-sages highlighting prosocial impact are more com-pelling when delivered directly by beneficiaries(Grant & Hofmann, 2011). Should connecting em-ployees with beneficiaries outside their workgroups be viewed as a transformational leadership

behavior? If so, it may be fruitful to conceive oftransformational leadership as a form of boundary

management in which leaders close the gap be-tween employees and beneficiaries, serving as link-ing pins (Katz & Kahn, 1966) to bridge structuralholes between employees and beneficiaries (Burt,1997; Obstfeld, 2005).

My research also identifies perceived prosocialimpact as a new mechanism for explaining trans-formational leadership effects. As discussed previ-ously, existing research has focused on how trans-formational leadership operates through meaning,self-concordance, competence or self-efficacy, andsocial identification. These mechanisms focus on

employees perceptions of their work, their owncapabilities, and their relationships with leadersand work group members. Perceived prosocial im-pact differs from these mechanisms in that it pri-marily emphasizes employees perceptions of theirrelationships with beneficiaries outside their workgroups. My research thus introduces a fresh under-standing of how transformational leadership canshape performance by influencing how employeesjudge their relationships with the recipients of theirproducts and services, not only their relationshipswith leaders and employees inside their work

2012 471Grant


15/19

groups. This theoretical perspective and empiricalevidence widen the relational scope of transforma-tional leadership effects.

Finally, my research extends current knowledgeabout the psychological and performance effects ofrelational job design, which scholars have identi-fied as a productive direction for future research

(Grant & Parker, 2009; Kanfer, 2009; Morgeson &Humphrey, 2008; Oldham & Hackman, 2010). Pre-vious studies have shown how beneficiary contact,independently and in conjunction with supportingtask characteristics, can enhance attitudes and per-formance (Grant, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2007). Lit-tle research, however, has addressed how factorsother than job design interact with beneficiary con-tact to affect employees psychological and behav-ioral reactions. My studies provide what may be thefirst evidence that beneficiary contact interactswith leadership to influence perceptions of proso-cial impact and performance. These findings sug-gest that to develop a comprehensive understand-ing of the impact of relational job design onemployees, it is important to examine leadership

behaviors in tandem with job characteristics.

Limitations, Future Directions, and PracticalImplications

These studies are subject to a number of limita-tions that point toward avenues for future research.One inconsistency between the two studies con-cerned the effect of transformational leadership on

performance under low beneficiary contact; thiseffect was insignificant in both studies but showeda negative trend (Study 1) versus a positive trend(Study 2). Future research is necessary to comparea number of possible explanations for this diver-gence, including differences in the focus on em-ployees in for-profit versus governmental organiza-tions, objective versus supervisor ratings ofperformance, and temporary versus enduring lead-ership behaviors and job characteristics. It may bethe case that small doses of transformational lead-ership depend heavily on beneficiary contact to

make the consequences of a leaders vision forother people tangible, whereas when transforma-tional leadership is a salient component of every-day work life, beneficiary contact has incrementalvalue but is not strictly necessary. Alternatively,the employees in the Study 2 sample who reportedlow beneficiary contact may still have had suffi-cient interaction with customers and clients thatthey were able to vividly understand and envisionthe impact of their organizations work. As ananonymous reviewer for this article noted, thesetwo studies do not rule out the possibility that job

design and organizational culture can be a substi-tute for transformational leadership. For some jobs,organizations, and occupations, the work may be sodeeply imbued with ideological significance thatits prosocial impact is vivid and chronically salientto employees. In these situations, it may not benecessary or beneficial for leaders to provide addi-

tional inspiration or to redesign jobs.On a related note, in both studies, beneficiarycontact was not independently associated withhigher performance. This raises important ques-tions about whether the effects of beneficiary con-tact vary as a function of its structure and content(Grandey & Diamond, 2010; Grant & Parker, 2009).For example, a beneficiarys need, similarity, emo-tional expressions, responsibility, charisma, au-thenticity, and attractiveness may be importantcontingencies that affect employees reactions (e.g.,Batson & Shaw, 1991; Grant et al., 2007; Small &Verrochi, 2009), and I did not measure or manipu-late these potential contingencies in the presentstudies. The match or fit between a beneficiary anda leaders vision is also likely to be important. Moregenerally, beneficiary contact is only one of multi-ple social characteristics of work, and it will bevaluable to gain a deeper understanding of the po-tential moderating effects of other social character-istics, such as task interdependence, social supportand undermining, requirements for harm doing,and accountability (Grant & Parker, 2009; Hum-phrey et al., 2007).

In Study 1, the results may have been partially

influenced by the fact that two different speakersreinforced the message. Although Study 2 offsetthis limitation by using employees ratings of on-going levels of transformational leadership and

beneficiary contact, future experimental studiesshould independently vary the number of messagesand their source. Another limitation is that thestudies provide little insight into the duration ofthe interactive performance effects of transforma-tional leadership and beneficiary contact. The firststudy was limited to seven weeks of performancemeasurement, and the second study included only

cross-sectional data. Since the effects of motiva-tional interventions often fade over time (e.g., Mc-Natt & Judge, 2004), it will be critical to build, test,and refine theory about how beneficiary contactinfluences the sustainability of performancechanges over time, as well as to test the underlyingavailability and credibility mechanisms implied inthe theory development.

I was unable to track differences among the di-mensions of transformational leadership (cf.Shamir et al., 1998) and in the types of social cuesprovided (Zalesny & Ford, 1990). These shortcom-



16/19

ings raise unanswered questions about the specificbehaviors of transformational leaders that are en-hanced by beneficiary contact. In addition, futureresearch should manipulate and measure otherleadership constructssuch as leader-member ex-change, empowering leadership, and authenticleadership (for a review, see Avolio et al.

[2009])to address the extent to which the moder-ating role of beneficiary contact is unique to trans-formational leadership. Evaluating Study 2 in iso-lation, it is difficult to ascertain whether the effectsare driven by the leaders behavior, the followersperception of the leader, or a combination of thetwo. This limitation is partially offset by Study 1,which shows that objective leadership behaviorsinteract with beneficiary contact to influence per-formance, but future research should include mul-tiple followers per leader to demonstrate consensusin follower ratings. This may yield greater discrim-inant validity between facets of transformationalleadership and inform whether the moderating ef-fects of beneficiary contact apply primarily to in-spirational motivation and idealized influence.

These limitations notwithstanding, the presentresearch shows how beneficiary contact can en-hance the performance effects of transformationalleadership. Transformational leaders may bringprosocial visions to life by establishing contact be-tween employees and beneficiaries (see Grant,2011). As Medtronics former CEO Bill George (in a2010 personal communication) reflected:

Medtronics mission is not fulfilled until the personis restored to full life and health, even with chronicand intractable diseases. They need to rememberthat when they get frustrated, theyre here to restorepeople to full life and health. If Im making semi-conductors, how do I get to see the impact on pa-tients? If Im doing software development, if therewas a glitch in a defibrillator, people could beharmed or killed. . . . Medtronic covers two out ofevery three surgeries with someone in the roomsalespeople, technicians, clinical specialists. . . . Itsvery important that they get out there and see pro-cedures. . . . You get to see the patients firsthand . . .its a way of communicating what were all about.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Argyris, C. 1975. Dangers in applying results from exper-imental social psychology. American Psychologist,30: 469485.

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. 1996. Proactivity duringorganizational entry: Antecedents, tactics, and out-

comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 199214.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton,J. E. 1998. Out on a limb: The role of context andimpression management in spelling gender equityissues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 2357.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. 1999. Re-examiningthe components of transformational and transac-tional leadership using the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Or-

ganizational Psychology, 72: 441462.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009.Leadership: Current theories, research, and futuredirections. InAnnual review of psychology,vol. 60:421449. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. 1996. Effects oftransformational leadership training on attitudinaland financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 81: 827832.

Bass, B. M. 1985.Leadership and performance beyondexpectations.New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. 2006. Transformational lead-ership(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. 1991. Evidence for altruism:Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives.Psycholog-

ical Inquiry,2: 107122.

Bentler, P. M., & Dudgeon, P. 1996. Covariance structureanalysis: Statistical practice, theory, and directions.In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J. Foss (Eds.),

Annual review of psychology,vol. 47: 563592.

Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. 1962. Formal organizations.San Francisco: Chandler.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance atwork: Toward understanding the motivational ef-fects of transformational leaders.Academy of Man-agement Journal, 46: 554571.

Burns, J. M. 1978.Leadership.New York: Harper & Row.

Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital.Administrative Science Quarterly,42: 339365.

Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the performance predic-tion problem in industrial and organizational psy-chology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psy-chology(2nd ed.): 687732. Palo Alto, CA: Consult-ing Psychologists Press.

Colby, A., Sippola, L., & Phelps, E. 2001. Social respon-sibility and paid work in contemporary Americanlife. In A. Rossi (Ed.), Caring and doing for others:Social responsibility in the domains of family,work, and community: 463501. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

2012 473Grant


17/19


18/19

impact.Industrial and Organizational Psychology,2: 118127.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces oftransformational leadership: Empowerment and de-pendency.Journal of Applied Psychology,88: 246 255.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The social psychology of

organizations.New York: Wiley.

Keller, R. T. 2006. Transformational leadership, initiat-ing structure, and substitutes for leadership: A lon-gitudinal study of research and development projectteam performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,91: 202210.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. 1978. Substitutes for leadership:Their meaning and measurement. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance,22: 375403.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-manage-ment: Antecedents and consequences of team em-powerment.Academy of Management Journal, 42:5874.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. 1996. Direct and indi-rect effects of three core charismatic leadership com-ponents on performance and attitudes. Journal of

Applied Psychology,81: 3651

Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and practice of structuralequation modeling.New York: Guilford.

Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. 2000. A field experimenttesting frontline opinion leaders as change agents.

Journal of Applied Psychology,85: 987995.

Liao, H., & Chuang, A. 2007. Transforming service em-

ployees and climate: A multilevel, multisource ex-amination of transformational leadership in buildinglong-term service relationships. Journal of Applied

Psychology,92: 10061019.

McNatt, D. B., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Boundary conditionsof the Galatea effect: A field experiment and con-structive replication. Academy of Management

Journal,47: 550565.

Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. 2004. Consideringrational self-interest as a disposition: Organizationalimplications of other orientation. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology,89: 946959.

Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. 2005. Necessary evils andinterpersonal sensitivity in organizations.Academyof Management Review, 30: 245268.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The WorkDesign Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and vali-dating a comprehensive measure for assessing jobdesign and the nature of work. Journal of Applied

Psychology,91: 13211339.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2008. Job and teamdesign: Toward a more integrative conceptualizationof work design. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in

personnel and human resources management,vol.27: 3992. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group.

Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungensorientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly,50: 100130.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. 2010. Not what it wasand not what it will be: The future of job design

research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31:463479.

Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. 2001. Seeing another view-point: Antecedents and outcomes of employee per-spective taking.Academy of Management Journal,44: 10851100.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformationalleadership and job behaviors: The mediating role ofcore job characteristics. Academy of Management

Journal,49: 327340.

Piccolo, R., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D., & Folger, R.

2010. The relationship between ethical leadershipand core job characteristics. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 31: 259278.

Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. 2005.Revisiting the meaning of leadership. In B. Staw &R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior,vol. 26: 136. New York: Elsevier Science.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H.1996. Meta-analysis of the relationships betweenKerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership and em-ployee job attitudes, role perceptions, and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 380399.

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. 2003. Fostering meaning-fulness in working and at work. In K. Cameron, J. E.Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza-tional scholarship: Foundations of a new disci-

pline:308 327. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. 2009. Transformationalleadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams.

Leadership Quarterly,20: 343357.

Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. 2006.Transformational leadership, job characteristics, andorganizational citizenship performance. Human

Performance,19: 122.

Rosenthal, R. 1994. Interpersonal expectancy effects: A30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psycho-

logical Science,3: 176179.

Rosso, B., Dekas, K., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. On themeaning of work: A theoretical integration and re-view. InResearch in organizational behavior, vol.30: 91127. .

Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & England, G. W. 1996. Howworking is defined: Structure and stability.Journalof Organizational Behavior, 17: 515540.

2012 475Grant


19/19

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social informationprocessing approach to job attitudes and task design.

Administrative Science Quarterly,23: 224253.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. 2001. Value hierarchiesacross cultures: Taking a similarities perspective.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,32: 268290.

Schwarz, N. 1998. Accessible content and accessibility

experiences: The interplay of declarative and expe-riential information in judgment. Personality andSocial Psychology Review, 2: 8799.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. 2011. Ante-cedents and consequences of psychological andteam empowerment in organizations: A meta-ana-lytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96:9811003.

Sethi, R., & Nicholson, C. Y. 2001. Structural and con-textual correlates of charged behavior in productdevelopment teams. Journal of Product Innovation

Management,18(3): 154168.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The mo-tivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4:577594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998.Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in militaryunits: Subordinates attitudes, unit characteristics,and superiors appraisals of leader performance.

Academy of Management Journal,41: 387409.

Simons, T. L. 1999. Behavioral integrity as a criticalingredient for transformational leadership. Journalof Organizational Change Management, 12: 89

104.

Simons, T. 2002. Behavioral integrity: The perceivedalignment between managers words and deeds as aresearch focus. Organization Science,13: 1835.

Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. 2009. The face of need:Facial emotion expression on charity advertise-ments. Journal of Marketing Research, 46: 777787.

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. 1982. Leadership: The man-agement of meaning.Journal of Applied BehavioralScience,18: 257273.

Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. 2001. Explaining the effectsof transformational leadership: An investigation ofthe effects of higher-order motives in multilevel mar-keting organizations.Journal of Organizational Be-

havior,22: 849869.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment inthe workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and vali-

dation. Academy of Management Journal, 38:14421465.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics ofpsychological empowerment.Academy of Manage-

ment Journal,39: 483504.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive ele-ments of empowerment: An interpretive model of

intrinsic task motivation.Academy of ManagementReview,15: 666681.

Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. 2003. Violations ofprinciple: Ideological currency in the psychologicalcontract. Academy of Management Review, 28:571586.

Turner, Y. N., Hadas-Halperin, I., & Raveh, D. 2008. Pa-tient photos spur radiologist empathy and eye fordetail.Paper presented at the annual meeting of theRadiological Society of North America, Chicago.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1973. Availability: A heu-ristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogni-tive Psychology,5: 207232.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. 2007. The role of the situationin leadership. American Psychologist, 62: 1724.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. 2008. Howtransformational leadership weaves its influence onindividual job performance: The role of identifica-tion and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61:793825.

Weick, K. E. 1984. Small wins: Redefining the scale ofsocial problems.American Psychologist, 39: 4049.

Yukl, G. 2008. How leaders influence organizational ef-

fectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 19: 708722.

Zalesny, M. D., & Ford, J. K. 1990. Extending the socialinformation processing perspective: New links to at-titudes, behaviors, and perceptions.Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes,47: 205246.

Adam M. Grant ([email protected]) is an as-sociate professor of management at the Wharton School

at the University of Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D.in organizational psychology from the University ofMichigan. His research focuses on work motivation, jobdesign, prosocial helping and giving behaviors, and pro-active behaviors.


leading with meaning

Documents