reﬁning individualized consideration: distinguishing ... classes/fall 07/org psy/cases... ·...

Copyright © The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Refining individualized consideration:Distinguishing developmental leadershipand supportive leadership

Alannah E. Rafferty* and Mark A. GriffinSchool of Management, Queensland University of Technology, Australia

This study explores the theoretical and empirical distinction between developmentalleadership and supportive leadership, which are currently encompassed in a single subdimension of transformational leadership, individualized consideration. Items wereselected to assess these constructs, and hypotheses regarding the differential effects ofdevelopmental and supportive leadership were proposed. Confirmatory factor analysesprovided support for the proposed distinction between developmental and supportiveleadership, although these leadership factors were very strongly associated. Structuralequation modelling and multi-level modelling results indicated that both developmentalleadership and supportive leadership displayed unique relationships with theoreticallyselected outcome measures. Developmental leadership displayed significantly strongerrelationships with job satisfaction, career certainty, affective commitment to theorganization and role breadth self-efficacy than did supportive leadership. Resultsprovide initial evidence in support of the discriminant validity of these two types ofleadership. Discussion focuses on the need to further examine the construct ofdevelopmental leadership.

The changing nature of employment conditions and psychological contracts means that,

increasingly, employees are being asked to continually develop their skills and manage

their own careers (e.g. Cappelli, 1999; Iles, 1997; Waterman, Waterman, & Collard,2000). In this environment, organizations must give employees opportunities to

develop their employability in exchange for enhanced productivity and commitment as

long as an employee works in the firm (Waterman et al., 2000). As a result,

organizational leaders are being confronted with demands to equip employees with the

skills to succeed in this new environment. One sub dimension of the Bass (1985) model

of transformational leadership, individualized consideration, has been defined as

encompassing a developmental orientation towards followers and may be an important

way that leaders can help followers succeed in today’s business environment.Unfortunately, there has been relatively little theoretical or empirical interest in

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Alannah Rafferty, School of Management, Queensland University of Technology,2 George St, Brisbane 4001, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]).

TheBritishPsychologicalSociety

37

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2006), 79, 37–61

q 2006 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/096317905X36731


the developmental behaviours encompassed by individualized consideration. This lack

of interest may be associated with a theoretically significant shift in the definition of

individualized consideration away from developing subordinates to something more

akin to supportive leadership (e.g. Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1999).

We argue that developmental leadership is likely to be a core transformational

behaviour because it enhances followers’ skills and self-efficacy and, therefore, has‘transformational effects’. In contrast, empirical research indicates that supportive

leadership is strongly associated with satisfaction, but is not associated with motivation

or performance (e.g. Yukl, 1999). These results suggest that supportive leadership might

not have transformational effects and that the current mixture of supportive and

developmental themes within the individualized consideration construct may be

inappropriate. In this paper, we theoretically delineate the nature of developmental

leadership by drawing on the mentoring literature and contrast this leadership construct

with supportive leadership. We then propose hypotheses regarding the differentialimpact of developmental leadership and supportive leadership on a number of

outcomes, including job satisfaction, affective commitment, career certainty and role

breadth self-efficacy.

Transformational leadershipTransactional leadership involves an exchange relationship between leaders and

followers such that followers receive wages or prestige for complying with a leader’s

wishes (Burns, 1978). In contrast, transformational leaders motivate followers to

achieve high levels of performance by transforming followers’ attitudes, beliefs and

values as opposed to simply gaining compliance (Bass, 1985). Bass identified a numberof sub dimensions of transformational leadership including charisma, which is now

referred to as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and

individualized consideration.

Empirical tests of the extraordinary effects of transformational leaders on followers

have become known as tests of the ‘augmentation hypothesis’ (Bass, 1985; Hater & Bass,

1989). This hypothesis proposes that transformational leadership should predict

performance and satisfaction beyond what can be accounted for by transactional

leadership, but not vice versa. Empirical research has found support for this hypothesis(e.g. Hater & Bass, 1989) and theoretical explanations for the augmentation effect have

focused on the motivational effects of charismatic and inspirational leadership.

However, it may be that a large part of the effect can be attributed to the developmental

impact of individualized consideration on followers. Employees may achieve beyond

expectations not only because they are more inspired and motivated, but because they

have developed and enhanced their skills. Below, we review discussions of

individualized consideration and explore the shifting meanings attached to this

construct over time.

Individualized considerationRecent empirical evidence indicates that individualized consideration is an importantleadership behaviour in the workplace (Sarros, Gray, & Densten, 2002). Bass (1985)

identified a developmental orientation and individualized attention to followers as

important aspects of individualized consideration. He stated that developmental

leadership is evident when leaders advise staff on their careers, carefully observe

Alannah E. Rafferty and Mark A. Griffin38


and record followers’ progress and encourage staff to attend technical courses.

The delegation of work activities in order to provide challenges was also identified as an

important developmental behaviour. In contrast, Bass discussed individualized attention

as occurring when a leader pays attention to the differences among followers and

discovers what motivates each individual. This author proposed that individualized

attention allows leaders to become familiar with followers, enhances communicationand improves information exchange.

Recently, theorists have begun to shift the focus of individualized attention from

ameans topromote familiaritywith followers to ameans toprovide support. For example,

Avolio and Bass (1995, p. 202) stated that a ‘leader displays more frequent individualized

consideration by showing general support for the efforts of followers’. Themove towards

defining individualized consideration as encompassing supportive leadership as well as

developmental leadership is problematic as research suggests that supportive leadership

is unlikely to have transformational effects (e.g. Yukl, 1999). We propose that the two

aspects of individualized consideration are distinct, and we draw on the mentoring

literature in order to inform our discussion of developmental leadership and to

distinguish supportive and developmental leadership.

Defining supportive and developmental leadershipSupportive leadership has received extensive attention in a variety of different research

areas, including the leadership (e.g. House, 1971), occupational stress (e.g. Kahn &

Byosiere, 1992) and mentoring fields (e.g. Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004).House (1981) defined a supportive leader as one who provides emotional,

informational, instrumental and appraisal support to followers. However, this author

stated that the most intuitive meaning of social support is emotional support, which

involves the provision of sympathy, evidence of liking, caring and listening. We adopt

this relatively narrow definition of supportive leadership, and focus on what House

(1981) referred to as emotional support; that is, supportive leadership is defined as

occurring when leaders express concern for, and take account of, followers’ needs and

preferences when making decisions.Supportive leadership has been of particular interest in the occupational stress field

(e.g. Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992), where researchers have identified

two models through which social support influences well-being. The ‘buffering

hypothesis’ suggests that social support is related to well-being primarily for persons

experiencing stress. That is, support ‘buffers’ or protects people from the potentially

negative influence of stressful events. The ‘main effects’ model proposes that social

resources have a beneficial effect irrespective of whether people are under stress.

Cohen and Wills (1985) conducted an influential review of the occupational stress

literature, and concluded that supervisor social support has a pure buffering effect; that

is, social support is only effective in the presence of an elevated stress level.

Developmental leadership has received less theoretical attention than supportive

leadership, and a coherent picture of developmental leadership has yet to emerge.

However, Bass (1985) identified a number of specific developmental behaviours when

defining individualized consideration, including career counselling, careful observation

of staff, recording followers’ progress and encouraging followers to attend technical

courses. These behaviours overlap with a number of behaviours identified in the

mentoring literature.

Developmental and supportive leadership 39


Two major categories of behaviours that are similar in content to supportive and

developmental leadership have been identified by authors interested in mentoring.

Mentoring has been defined as ‘a relationship between a younger adult, and an older,

more experienced adult [who] helps the younger individual navigate the adult world

and the world of work’ (Kram, 1985, p. 2). Within the mentoring literature, theorists

have distinguished a career-oriented function of mentoring and a psychosocial function(Kram, 1983, 1985). The psychosocial function of mentoring involves acting as a role

model, providing acceptance and confirming the protege’s behaviour. We focus on the

career-oriented function of mentors, which encompasses the behaviours of sponsor-

ship, exposure and visibility, coaching, protection and providing challenging

assignments (Kram, 1983).

As discussed by Kram (1983, 1985), sponsorship involves actively nominating an

individual for desirable lateral moves and promotions. Exposure and visibility involves a

mentor providing a protege with opportunities to demonstrate competence and highlevels of performance to senior staff. Coaching involves efforts to enhance a protege’s

knowledge and understanding and suggesting specific strategies for accomplishing

work objectives and for achieving recognition and career aspirations. Protection refers

to efforts to shield a protege from untimely or potentially damaging contact with senior

staff. The provision of challenging assignments in conjunction with technical training

and ongoing performance feedback enables the protege to develop specific

competencies and to experience a sense of accomplishment in a professional role.

Examination of the career-oriented function of mentors suggests that this functioncaptures an extensive range of behaviours that go beyond leadership or management as

they are traditionally conceptualized. In addition, researchers have also argued that

leadership is a more formal, overt, and indirect influence process than mentoring, and

that not all leaders become effective mentors (Godshalk & Sosik, 2000; Raabe & Beehr,

2003). Nevertheless, we expect that transformational leaders will exhibit a number of

developmentally-oriented behaviours, including coaching followers, identifying appro-

priate training courses for followers to undertake and encouraging followers to develop

their job-related skills and abilities.

Differential effects of developmental and supportive leadershipThe above review suggests that developmental leadership and supportive leadership

encompass two distinct sets of leader behaviours. However, the empirical relationship

between supportive and developmental leadership has not been addressed. We proposethat there will be a positive relationship between these constructs as both supportive

and developmental leadership are based on an interest in the welfare of followers. As

such, leaders that are attentive to followers’ needs and preferences are also likely to

recognize individuals’ developmental needs. Importantly, however, it is proposed that

developmental leadership and supportive leadership are distinct constructs that will

display discriminate validity with each other.

Hypothesis 1. Developmental leadership and supportive leadership will be differentiated asdistinct but related constructs.

In addition, it is proposed that developmental leadership and supportive leadership will

display differential relationships with a number of outcomes. Job satisfaction, affective

commitment and self-efficacy are key outcomes of transformational leadership (Lowe,

Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), and so we examine



these variables in this paper. In addition, we examine career certainty, which refers to the

extent to which individuals feel that they are provided with opportunities for career

advancement and that their job and career are secure.

Job satisfactionJob satisfaction refers to an individual’s global feeling about their job (Spector, 1997),

and authors have argued that the primary effects of supportive leadership are on

affective reactions such as job satisfaction (Yukl, 1999). Empirical research has

supported this assertion (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Wofford & Liska, 1993). Theorists

have suggested that supportive leadership is associated with affective outcomes because

socio-emotional support increases positive affect and enjoyment in the workplace, and

communicates to followers that they are accepted and liked (Wofford & Liska, 1993).As a result, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 2. Supportive leadership will display a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

In the mentoring literature, researchers have tended to focus on objective career

outcomes such as promotion and pay rates rather than on subjective outcomes such asjob satisfaction (Allen et al., 2004). However, Higgins and Thomas (2001) examined

both the subjective and objective impact of mentors on proteges. These authors found

in a sample of lawyers that career-oriented assistance and psychosocial support were

positively related to job satisfaction. We propose that when leaders coach followers by

encouraging them to develop their job-related skills and abilities, followers will feel

more interested and engaged in their job, which will enhance job satisfaction. Thus, it is

proposed that:

Hypothesis 3. Developmental leadership will display a positive relationship with job satisfaction.

Theoretical arguments suggest that supportive leadership is likely to display a stronger

positive relationship with job satisfaction than developmental leadership. Job

satisfaction consists of two components: an affective and cognitive component (Fisher,2000). The affective component of job satisfaction captures the feelings that are

engendered by one’s job and represents the emotional experience associated with a job.

The cognitive component of job satisfaction refers to beliefs about one’s job, and the

location of one’s job on various dimensions of judgment (Breckler & Wiggins, 1989).

We suggest that both developmental leadership and supportive leadership will influence

the cognitive side of job satisfaction by enhancing the standing of the current work

environment in comparison to other possible workplaces. However, it is likely that the

socio-emotional nature of supportive leadership will also display a strong relationshipwith the affective component of job satisfaction. As a result, we propose that supportive

leadership will display a stronger overall relationship with job satisfaction than

developmental leadership:

Hypothesis 4. Supportive leadership will display a stronger unique positive relationship withjob satisfaction than will developmental leadership.



Affective commitment to the organizationAffective commitment refers to the extent to which followers identify with, are involved

in and are emotionally attached to an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Meyer, Stanley,

Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) conducted a meta-analytic review of research on

commitment and concluded that work experiences are a critical driver of attachment to

an organization. Supportive leadership is an important aspect of individuals’ experiencein the workplace (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades,

2002), and empirical studies indicate that supportive leadership is strongly positively

associated with affective commitment to the organization (e.g. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &

Bommer, 1996). When leaders express concern for followers’ needs and preferences,

these individuals are likely to feel a sense of approval and increased affiliation with their

leader. Enhanced attraction to the leader will lead to incorporation of the organizational

membership into the employee’s identity (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001).

As such, it is purposed that:

Hypothesis 5. Supportive leadership will display a positive relationship with affectivecommitment to the organization.

Developmental leadership is also likely to be positively associated with affective

commitment to the organization. Raabe and Beehr (2003) argued that the career-

oriented function provided by a mentor gives a protege a special advantage in the

organization and, therefore, enhances affective attachment to that organization.Donaldson, Ensher, and Grant-Vallone (2000) suggested that mentors have a positive

influence on proteges’ affective commitment as these individuals provide feedback and

help socialize individuals to an organization’s norms. These authors conducted a study

of non-professional employees in the USA, administering two surveys separated by a

period of 6 months. Donaldson et al. reported that proteges with high quality mentoring

relationships had higher levels of commitment to the organization at Time 1 and at Time

2 than individuals in low or moderate quality mentoring relationships. On the basis of

this research, we propose that when an employees’ leader displays developmentalleadership, affective commitment to the organization will be enhanced. Thus, it is

proposed that:

Hypothesis 6. Developmental leadership will display a positive relationship with affectivecommitment to the organization.

However, we propose that developmental leadership will display a stronger positive

relationship with affective commitment than will supportive leadership. Mathieu andZajac’s (1990) meta-analytic review of research on commitment indicated that perceived

personal competence was a very strong influence on organizational commitment. These

authors concluded that individuals are committed to an organization to the extent that

their company provides opportunities for growth and development. In a labour market

where individuals are increasingly under pressure to develop their skills and manage

their own careers (Waterman et al., 2000), we propose that developmental leadership

will have a particularly strong impact on affective attachment to an organization.

As such, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 7. Developmental leadership will display a stronger unique positive relationshipwith affective commitment than will supportive leadership.



Career certaintyResearchers in the field of mentoring have examined subjective career success, which

has been defined as the satisfaction that individuals derive from intrinsic and extrinsic

aspects of their careers, including pay, advancement and developmental opportunities

(Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990; Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995).

We focus on one aspect of subjective career success, career certainty, or the extent towhich individuals feel that they are provided with opportunities for career

advancement, and the extent to which they feel that their job and career are secure

(Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980). When leaders coach followers

by recommending training or by engaging in other actions to increase their skills, those

followers will feel more positive about their employability and more certain about their

career. Thus, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 8. Developmental leadership will display a positive relationship withcareer certainty.

In addition, it is proposed that supportive leadership will be significantly positively

associated with career certainty. That is, when leaders are sensitive to followers’ needs

and preferences, it is likely that followers will also feel that their leader will besupportive of them more generally in terms of their broader career aspirations. As such,

it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 9. Supportive leadership will display a significant positive relationship withcareer certainty.

However, it is likely that developmental leadership will be more strongly associated with

career certainty than will supportive leadership. Allen et al. (2004) conducted a meta-

analytic review of mentoring research and reported that the career-oriented and

psychosocial functions of mentoring were similarly related to career satisfaction.

However, one issue with research in the mentoring field is that authors have not

typically distinguished between mentors who also supervise their proteges, and

mentors who do not have this kind of day-to-day contact (Raabe & Beehr, 2003).

We suggest that, when one’s immediate leader engages in developmental leadership,there will be a strong positive relationship between developmental leader behaviours

and career certainty. As a result, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 10. Developmental leadership will display a stronger unique positive relationshipwith career certainty than will supportive leadership.

Role breadth self-efficacySelf-efficacy is an important motivational construct that influences individuals’ choices,

goals, emotional reactions and their effort, coping and persistence (Bandura, 1997).

We examine one specific type of efficacy, role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE), which refers

to the extent to which people feel they are capable of carrying out a range of proactive

integrative tasks beyond prescribed technical requirements. Examples of proactive tasksinclude solving long-term problems, designing improved procedures, setting goals and

resolving conflicts (Parker, 1998, 2000).

Self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four major sources of information,

including enactive mastery experiences that serve as indicators of capability; vicarious



experiences that alter efficacy beliefs through transmission of competencies and

comparison with the attainments of others; verbal persuasion; and physiological and

affective states from which people judge their capabilities, strength and vulnerability to

dysfunction (Bandura, 1986, 1997). We propose that developmental leadership will

have a strong positive impact on RBSE. In particular, when leaders coach staff by

recommending training, and encouraging followers to develop their job-related skills, itis likely that individuals will experience enactive mastery experiences in the workplace,

which will increase RBSE. Thus, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 11. Developmental leadership will display a significant positive relationshipwith RBSE.

In addition, when leaders take account of followers’ needs and preferences, employees

are likely to feel more positively about themselves as support conveys that they are

valuable members of the organization. This will enhance employees’ positive affect.

When judging their capabilities, people partly rely on somatic information conveyed by

physiological and emotional states (Bandura, 1997). Research indicates that even mildpositive affective states can have significant effects on behaviour and cognitive

processes and on efficacy beliefs (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Isen & Baron, 1991). Thus, it is

proposed that:

Hypothesis 12. Supportive leadership will display a significant positive relationship with RBSE.

Finally, it is proposed that supportive leadership is not likely to have as strong an

influence on RBSE as developmental leadership. The latter form of leadership is focused

on enhancing individuals’ task-related skills, and is likely to increase mastery

experiences in the workplace. In contrast, supportive leadership is directed at

followers’ needs and preferences and is more likely to influence individuals’ emotions

and positive mood rather than RBSE. Bandura (1997) stated that enactive masteryexperiences are the most influential source of efficacy information because these

experiences provide people with authentic evidence of what it takes to succeed. As a

result, it is likely that developmental leadership will have a strong impact on RBSE. Thus,

it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 13. Developmental leadership will display a stronger unique positive relationshipwith RBSE than will supportive leadership.

Method

Procedure and participantsAn employee attitude survey was administered in a large Australian public sector

organization employing over 4,000 employees. The primary task of the organization is

strategically planning and developing road infrastructure and managing an extensive

road network. The survey was designed to assess a wide range of factors contributing toemployee satisfaction and well-being in the workplace, and employees responded to the

survey on the understanding that their individual responses would not be reported back

to the organization. Rather, survey results were provided for each work groupwithin the

organization. The survey was administered on an organizational-wide basis to 4,200

individuals and 2,864 surveys were returned from 197 work groups (response rate 63%).



The survey was responded to by 1,999 males (69.8%) and 816 females (28.5%), while 49

respondents (1.7%) failed to indicate their gender. The average organizational tenure of

respondents was 147.6 months (SD ¼ 132).

MeasuresThe items assessed in this study are shown in Table 1, including ameasure of bureaucracy,

which acted as the ‘marker variable’. We used this marker variable to assess the effects of

common method variance (CMV) in the data set (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).

DemographicsA number of demographic measures were collected in the survey including gender

(1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female), age (years) and organizational tenure (months). In addition,

information on group size was also collected from organizational records.

Table 1. Items used in the study

Item Scale

1. Considers my personal feelings when implementingactions that will affect me

Supportive leadership

2. Takes into account my personal needs Supportive leadership3. Ensures the interests of employees are considered

when making decisionsSupportive leadership

4. Encourages staff to improve their job-related skills Developmental leadership5. Suggests training to improve my ability to carry

out my jobDevelopmental leadership

6. Coaches staff to help them improve their on-the-jobperformance

Developmental leadership

7. Overall, I am satisfied with the kind of work I do Job satisfaction8. Overall, I am satisfied with the organization in which

I workJob satisfaction

9. Overall, I am satisfied with my job Job satisfaction10. There is a job for me in this organization in the future

if I want oneCareer certainty

11. There will be opportunities for careeradvancement in the next few years

Career certainty

12. I am clear what my responsibilitieswill be 6 months from now

Career certainty

13. I am clear about what my future career looks like Career certainty14. Helping to set targets in your area RBSE15. Designing new procedures for your work area RBSE16. Representing your work area in meetings with

senior managementRBSE

17. This organization has a great deal of personalmeaning for me

Affective commitment

18. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own Affective commitment19. I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization Affective commitment



LeadershipAll leadership items were assessed via 5-point Likert scales where 1 represented strongly

disagree and 5 represented strongly agree. Employees were asked to respond to the

leadership items, keeping in mind the leader or manager of their local work unit.

Supportive leadershipThree items used by Rafferty and Griffin (2004) assessed supportive leadership.

An example of an item was ‘my work unit leader ensures that the interests of

subordinates are consideredwhenmaking decisions’. This scale had a Cronbach a of .92.

Developmental leadershipThree items were adapted from House’s (1998) developmental orientation measure to

assess this construct. An example of an item was ‘my work unit leader coaches staff to

help them improve their on-the-job performance’. This scale had a Cronbach a of .88.

Outcome measuresFive-point Likert scales were used for the affective commitment and career certainty

scales, where 1 referred to strongly disagree and 5 referred to strongly agree. A 7-pointscale was used for job satisfaction where 1 referred to strongly disagree and 7 referred

to strongly agree. A 7-point scale was used for RBSE where 1 referred to not at all

confident and 7 referred to very confident.

Job satisfactionThis variable measures the extent to which employees feel satisfied with their jobs, the

nature of the work that they do and the organization that they work for (Hart, Griffin,Wearing, & Cooper, 1996). Three items assessed job satisfaction, and an example of an

item is ‘overall I am satisfied with my job’. This scale had a Cronbach a of .90.

Affective commitment to the organizationThree items from Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) scale assessed this construct.

An example of an item was ‘this work unit has a great deal of personal meaning for me’.

This scale had a Cronbach a of .85.

Career certaintyFour items assessed this construct (Caplan et al., 1980). An example of an item was

‘there will be opportunities for career advancement in the next few years’. This scale

had a Cronbach a of .78.

Role breadth self-efficacyThree items developed by Parker (1998) assessed this construct. An example of an item

in this scale was ‘I feel confident representing my work area in meetings with senior

management’. This scale had a Cronbach a of .87.

BureaucracyThis construct assesses the relative emphasis on rules and ‘red tape’ within an

organization. Three items assessed bureaucracy (Hage & Aiken, 1967), and this scale had

a Cronbach a of .82. An example of an item in this scale was ‘our work involves a great

deal of paperwork and administration’.



Overview of analysesWe assessed the influence of commonmethod variance (CMV) using the marker variable

approach adopted by Williams and Anderson (1994). A marker variable is the best

estimate of CMV in a data set (Lindell & Whitney, 2001), and is selected on the basis that

it is theoretically unrelated to the substantive constructs of interest and has a correlation

with at least one of those variables that is close to zero (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).A 3-item measure of bureaucracy was used as the marker variable.

Prior to examining hypotheses, a series of nested measurement models was

estimated based on data from the 2,664 staff members who provided complete

responses to the survey. All model tests were based on the covariance matrix and used

maximum likelihood estimation as implemented in LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog & Sorbom,

1996). After assessing the measurement model using CFA, we developed a structural

model to test our hypotheses.

We also tested the hypotheses using multi-level modelling. The multi-level modelallowed us to investigate relationships between leadership, outcomes and control

measures, taking account of the group structure of the data (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin,

2000). We used MLWin 2.0 to estimate the multi-level model (Goldstein et al., 1998). For

each of the four dependent variables, we estimated a multi-level model in which residual

variance was partitioned into within-group and between-group variance. The predictors

were measured at the individual level and were able to explain both individual and

group level variance. Our interest focused on the size of the fixed parameters for each of

the predictor measures.Finally, we examined the discriminant validity of the leadership factors from each

other, and the discriminant validity of the leadership factors with each of the outcome

measures. Using structural equation modelling, we estimated a series of constrained

models that we contrasted using a x2 difference test. In the multi-level model, a deviance

statistic is computed based on a comparison between a constrained and unconstrained

model. The deviance statistic has a x2 distribution that was used to test the significance

of the difference between the paths (Goldstein et al., 1998).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlationsMeans, standard deviations and zero-order correlations among the variables are shown

in Table 2. This table indicates that group size, age, gender and organizational tenurewere consistently associated with the variables assessed in this study. As a result, the

demographic measures and group size were included in the following analyses as

control variables.

The aggregate properties of the substantive measures are displayed in Table 3, which

shows that there was a statistically significant variance between groups on all measures.

However, the actual amount of variance at the group level was relatively low, comprising

less than 10% of variance for all measures. Because the group level variance was

relatively low, we include the individual level measure of leadership in the multi-levelmodel, rather than aggregating the measures to the group level of analysis.

Measurement modelWe first estimated an 11-factor measurement model that distinguished between all of

the constructs in the study, including the marker variable. In this model, Model 1, the



Table

2.

Des

crip

tive

stat

istics

and

zero

-ord

erco

rrel

atio

ns

among

study

scal

es

Var

iable

sM

ean

(SD

)1

23

45

67

89

10

11

1.G

roup

size

39.0

6(3

0.9

7)

1.0

02.A

ge40.1

4(1

1.0

1)

.08**

*1.0

03.G

ender

1.2

9(0

.45)

2.1

0**

*2

.27**

*1.0

04.O

rgan

izat

ional

tenure

147.5

9(1

32)

.02

.59**

*2

.27**

*1.0

05.D

evel

opm

enta

lle

ader

ship

3.2

6(0

.96)

2.1

4**

*2

.04

.02

2.0

5*

(.88)

6.Su

pport

ive

lead

ersh

ip3.2

7(1

.03)

2.1

6**

*2

.02

.04*

2.0

3.6

9**

*(.92)

7.Sa

tisf

action

4.7

8(1

.36)

2.1

4**

*.0

8**

*.0

1.0

5*

.50**

*.4

7**

*(.90)

8.A

ffec

tive

com

mitm

ent

3.0

8(0

.95)

2.1

0**

*.1

9**

*2

.14**

*.2

7**

*.3

1**

*.2

7**

*.5

0**

*(.85)

9.R

ole

bre

adth

self-

effica

cy3.7

2(0

.89)

2.1

6**

*.0

8**

*2

.08**

*.0

4.1

2**

*.1

1**

*.2

3**

*.2

6**

*(.87)

10.C

aree

rce

rtai

nty

3.1

0(1

.00)

2.1

5**

*2

.02

2.0

4*

.04

.45**

*.4

0**

*.5

3**

*.4

1**

*.2

7**

*(.78)

11.B

ure

aucr

acy

3.8

4(0

.82)

.03

2.0

2.0

0.0

12

.05**

2.0

7**

*2

.05*

2.0

4*

.08**

2.0

4*

(.82)

Note.N

range

sfr

om

1,7

77

to2,8

45.

*p,

:05,**p,

:01,**

*p,

:001.



loadings from the marker variable to the 22 items assessing the substantive variables

and the three demographic measures were free to vary. This model provided a good fit to

the data, x2(236) ¼ 2,629.10, p , :001; GFI ¼ :93, CFI ¼ :94, NNFI ¼ :92, RMSEA ¼:06 (see Table 4).

In Model 2, we constrained the 22 paths from the marker variable to the indicators of

the substantive constructs and to the demographic measures to zero. Therefore, the

comparison ofModels 1 and 2 testedwhether therewere significantmethod effects in the

dataset. Model 1 was a significantly better fit to the data thanModel 2,Dx2ð22Þ ¼ 129:19,p , :001, indicating that significant method effects were present. Next, Model 3 tested

whether the method factor had an equally strong influence on all the indicators of the

substantive constructs and the demographic measures by constraining these loadings to

be equal. Model 1 was a significantly better fit than Model 3, Dx2(21) ¼ 1,020.31,

Table 3. Group level properties of measures

VariablesBetween-group

varianceWithin-group

variance

Percentage ofbetween-group

variance (%)F value for group

effect (1,195)

Developmental leadership 0.07 0.86 7.70 2.84***Supportive leadership 0.08 1.00 7.47 2.54***Satisfaction 0.06 1.78 3.31 2.03***Affective commitment 0.03 0.89 3.60 1.72***Role breadth self-efficacy 0.03 0.85 3.54 1.94***Career certainty 0.08 0.94 7.49 2.68***

Note. *p , :05, **p , :01, ***p , :001.

Table 4. Model comparisons for the measurement and structural models

Models df x2 NNFI RMSEA CFI GFI

Model 1a 236 2,629.10 .92 .06 .94 .93Model 2b 258 2,758.29 .92 .06 .94 .93Model 3c 257 3,649.46 .88 .07 .91 .91Model 4d 236 2,629.10 .92 .06 .94 .93Model 5e 258 2,758.29 .92 .06 .94 .93Model 6f 260 3,134.83 .91 .06 .93 .92Model 7g 244 3,559.79 .89 .07 .92 .91

Note. N ¼ 2,534.a Model 1 – Measurement model with unequal loadings from method factor.b Model 2 – Measurement model with no loadings from the method factor.c Model 3 – Measurement model with loadings from the method factor to substantive indicatorsconstrained to be equal.d Model 4 – Saturated structural model with unequal loadings from the method factor to substantiveindicators.e Model 5 – Saturated structural model with loadings from the method factor to substantive indicatorsconstrained to be zero.f Model 6 – Model 4 with relationships between the demographic factors and leadership and outcomes,and the leadership factors and outcomes set to the unstandardized values obtained from Model 5.g Model 7 – Model 6 with no relationships between the leadership factors and outcomes.



p , :001, indicating that method effects were not equal for indicators within substantive

constructs.

On the basis of the above model comparisons, the measurement model examined in

this study included a common method factor that loaded on all items in the study with

the exception of the group size measure, with these loadings free to vary. This

measurement model, Model 1, became the basis for all subsequent comparisons. Table 5displays the standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model (Model 1).

All of themodel parameters loaded significantly on their hypothesized factor at p , :001,and the latent factors explained substantial amounts of item variance (R2 ranged from

.38 to .92). Table 5 also displays the factor loadings of the substantive variables on the

method factor. With the exception of organizational tenure, gender, age, one satisfaction

item and one career certainty item, all of the study items loaded significantly on the

method factor (p , :05).Factor intercorrelations in Model 1 indicated that developmental leadership and

supportive leadership were very strongly positively correlated with each other (r ¼ :77,p , :001). Although this level of correlation was high, the value is lower than what is

typically found between different aspects of transformational leadership (e.g. Lowe et al.,

1996).

Structural modelTo develop an appropriate structural model for testing hypotheses, we first tested

a saturated structural model in which all the leadership factors were related to all

the outcome measures (Model 4; see Table 4). Loadings from the method factor to the

indicators of the substantive constructs and the three demographic measures were

free to vary. Because this model was saturated, the fit was exactly the same as

the measurement model (Model 1), which was a good fit to the data. This model allowed

us to estimate the value of structural paths between leadership and outcomes when

methods effects were included.Next, we estimated a model in which the loadings from the method factor to the

indicators of the substantive constructs and the demographic measures were set to zero

(Model 5; see Table 4). This model allowed us to estimate the value of structural paths

between leadership and outcomes when CMV was not included. To test whether the

method factor was having a significant effect on the structural paths, we estimated

a sixth model (Model 6). In this model, the method factor was included, but the

structural paths were constrained to be equal to the estimates from Model 5, in which

no method factor was included.A significant difference in fit between Models 4 and 6 would indicate that the

structural paths were influenced by CMV. Model 4 was a significantly better fit than

Model 6, Dx2ð24Þ ¼ 505:73, p , :001, suggesting that method effects did significantly

change the estimated values of the structural paths. Therefore, Model 4, which included

the effects of CMV, was used as the final structural model with which to test the

hypotheses.

Finally, to test the contribution of the structural parameters to the overall fit of the

model, we estimated a null model that included common method effects only (Model 7;see Table 4). In this model, relationships between the leadership factors and the

outcome variables were set to zero. Comparison of this null model with Model 4

provides a test of whether the relationships between the leadership factors and the

outcomes are equal to zero. Model 4 was a significantly better fit to the data than Model



Table

5.

Stan

dar

diz

edpar

amet

eres

tim

ates

inM

odel

1

Gro

up

size

Tenure

Gen

der

Age

Support

lead

Dev

elop

lead

Satisf

action

Car

eer

cert

ainty

RB

SEC

om

mitm

ent

Mar

ker

vari

able

1.G

roup

size

1.0

02.Te

nure

1.0

0.0

13.G

ender

1.0

0.0

34.A

ge1.0

0.0

15.Su

pport

1.8

9**

*2

.10**

*6.Su

pport

2.8

9**

*2

.10**

*7.Su

pport

3.8

7**

*2

.10**

*8.D

evel

opm

ent

1.8

6**

*2

.09**

*9.D

evel

opm

ent

2.8

4**

*2

.05**

10.D

evel

opm

ent

3.8

2**

*2

.09**

*11.Sa

tisf

action

1.8

7**

*2

.03

12.Sa

tisf

action

2.7

7**

*2

.12**

*13.Sa

tisf

action

3.9

6**

*2

.05**

*14.C

aree

r1

.69**

*.0

115.C

aree

r2

.61**

*2

.06**

16.C

aree

r3

.72**

*2

.07**

*17.C

aree

r4

.74**

*2

.07**

*18.R

BSE

1.8

7**

*.0

6**

19.R

BSE

2.8

6**

*.0

7**

*20.R

BSE

3.7

8**

*.0

6**

21.C

om

mitm

ent

1.8

7**

*2

.04*

22.C

om

mitm

ent

2.6

8**

*2

.05*

23.C

om

mitm

ent

3.8

6**

*2

.05**

24.B

ure

aucr

acy

1.6

5**

*25.B

ure

aucr

acy

2.8

5**

*26.B

ure

aucr

acy

3.8

2**

*

Note.

*p,

:05,**p,

:01,**

*p,

:001.



7, Dx2ð8Þ ¼ 930:69, p , :001, indicating that the structural paths were necessary for

the overall fit of the model. In summary, Model 4, which controlled for method effects,

was a significantly better fit than a range of other nested models. Therefore, this model

was used to test the specific hypotheses.

Hypothesis testingTo test whether developmental and supportive leadership were distinct from each

other, we compared the 11-factor measurement model (Model 1) with a constrained

model in which the relationship between the leadership factors was set to 1.00. A x2

difference test was performed on the values obtained for the unconstrained and the

constrained measurement models obtained using structural equation modelling. A

significantly lower x2 value for the unconstrained model indicates that the leadershipfactors that have been constrained to be equal are not perfectly correlated, and that

discriminant validity exists (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The x2 difference test was

significant, Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 34:88, p , :001, indicating that developmental and supportive

leadership were distinct from each other providing support for Hypothesis 1. We tested

the remaining hypotheses using the saturated structural model and a series of multi-level

models. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 6.

After controlling for the effects of group size and the demographic measures,

supportive leadership displayed a significant unique positive relationship withsatisfaction in both the structural model (b ¼ 0:19, p , :001) and the multi-level

model (b ¼ 0:24, p , :001), providing support for Hypothesis 2. Developmental

leadership also displayed a significant unique positive relationship with satisfaction in

both the structural model (b ¼ 0:36, p , :001) and the multi-level model (b ¼ 0:48,p , :001), providing support for Hypothesis 3. When the paths from both types of

leadership to satisfaction were constrained to be equal, there was a significant decrease

in fit for both the structural model, Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 8:92, p , :01 and the multi-level model,

Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 8:03, p , :001. This result indicated that developmental leadership had asignificantly stronger unique positive relationship with satisfaction than supportive

leadership. This result is opposite to that predicted by Hypothesis 4, which was

therefore not supported.

Supportive leadership was significantly related to affective commitment to the

organization in the structural model (b ¼ 0:08, p , :05), but not in the multi-level

model (b ¼ 0:06, ns), which provides partial support for Hypothesis 5. In contrast,

developmental leadership was significantly positively related to affective commitment

in both the structural model (b ¼ 0:31, p , :001), and in the multi-level model(b ¼ 0:23, p , :001), providing support for Hypothesis 6. When comparing the

magnitude of these two effects, the constrained structural model showed a significant

decrease in fit, Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 30:85, p , :001, as did the constrained multi-level model,

Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 6:45, p , :05. This result indicated that developmental leadership had

a significantly stronger unique positive relationship with affective commitment

compared with supportive leadership, providing support for Hypothesis 7.

Developmental leadership was significantly and positively related to career certainty

in both the structural model (b ¼ 0:43, p , :001) and the multi-level model (b ¼ 0:32,p , :001), supporting Hypothesis 8. In addition, Hypothesis 9 was supported as

supportive leadership was significantly positively associated with career certainty in

both the structural model (b ¼ 0:11, p , :01) and the multi-level model (b ¼ 0:11,p , :001). Supporting Hypothesis 10, the constrained model resulted in a decrease in fit



Table

6.

Pat

hs

from

stru

ctura

lm

odel

(Model

4)

and

multi-le

velm

odel

Stru

ctura

lm

odel

Multi-le

velm

odel

Pat

hs

from

lead

ersh

ipfa

ctors

tooutc

om

esSt

andar

diz

edpat

hU

nst

andar

diz

edpat

hSt

andar

der

ror

tva

lue

Supportiveleadershipto

outcom

es1.Su

pport

!Sa

tisf

action

.19**

*.2

39

.045

5.3

1**

*2.Su

pport

!C

aree

rce

rtai

nty

.11**

.115

.034

3.3

8**

*3.Su

pport

!R

BSE

.02

2.0

04

.034

20.1

24.Su

pport

!A

ffec

tive

com

mitm

ent

.08*

.065

.035

1.8

6Developmentalleadershipto

outcom

es5.D

evel

opm

ent!

Satisf

action

.36**

*.4

82

.049

9.8

4**

*6.D

evel

opm

ent!

Car

eer

cert

ainty

.43**

*.3

20

.037

8.6

5**

*7.D

evel

opm

ent!

RB

SE.1

4**

*.0

75

.037

2.0

3*

8.D

evel

opm

ent!

Affec

tive

com

mitm

ent

.31**

*.2

35

.038

6.1

8**

*Group

size

toleadershipandoutcom

es9.G

roup

size

!Su

pport

ive

lead

ersh

ip2

.16**

*–

––

10.G

roup

size

!D

evel

opm

enta

lle

ader

ship

2.1

6**

*–

––

11.G

roup

size

!Sa

tisf

action

2.0

5**

2.0

01

.001

21.0

012.G

roup

size

!C

aree

rce

rtai

nty

2.0

9**

*2

.002

.001

22.0

0*

13.G

roup

size

!R

BSE

2.1

4**

*2

.003

.001

23.0

0**

14.G

roup

size

!A

ffec

tive

com

mitm

ent

2.0

6**

2.0

02

.001

22.0

0*

Organizationaltenureto

leadershipandoutcom

es15.Te

nure

!Su

pport

ive

lead

ersh

ip2

.03

––

–16.Te

nure

!D

evel

opm

enta

lle

ader

ship

2.0

4–

––

17.Te

nure

!Sa

tisf

action

.03

2.0

02

.001

22.0

0*

18.Te

nure

!C

aree

rce

rtai

nty

.06**

2.0

01

.001

21.0

019.Te

nure

!R

BSE

.04

2.0

03

.001

23.0

0**

20.Te

nure

!A

ffec

tive

com

mitm

ent

.11**

*2

.001

.001

21.0

0Genderto

leadershipandoutcom

es21.G

ender

!Su

pport

ive

lead

ersh

ip.0

3–

––

22.G

ender

!D

evel

opm

enta

lle

ader

ship

2.0

2–

––

23.G

ender

!Sa

tisf

action

2.0

1.1

25

.079

1.5

8



Table

6.

(Continued)

Stru

ctura

lm

odel

Multi-le

velm

odel

Pat

hs

from

lead

ersh

ipfa

ctors

tooutc

om

esSt

andar

diz

edpat

hU

nst

andar

diz

edpat

hSt

andar

der

ror

tva

lue

24.G

ender

!C

aree

rce

rtai

nty

2.0

6**

2.0

90

.061

21.4

825.G

ender

!R

BSE

2.0

5*

2.2

60

.06

24.3

3**

*26.G

ender

!A

ffec

tive

com

mitm

ent

2.0

8**

*2

.203

.061

23.3

3**

*Age

toleadershipandoutcom

es27.A

ge!

Support

ive

lead

ersh

ip.0

0–

––

28.A

ge!

Dev

elopm

enta

lle

ader

ship

2.0

3–

––

29.A

ge!

Satisf

action

.11**

*.0

20

.003

6.6

7**

*30.A

ge!

Car

eer

cert

ainty

.00

.004

.003

1.3

331.A

ge!

RB

SE.0

8**

*.0

14

.002

7.0

0**

*32.A

ge!

Affec

tive

com

mitm

ent

.17**

*.0

18

.003

6.0

0**

*

Note.

*p,

:05,**p,

:01,**

*p,

:001.



for both the structural model, Dx2ð2Þ ¼ 30:39, p , :001, and the multi-level model,

Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 9:8, p , :01, indicating that developmental leadership was more strongly

associated with career certainty than was supportive leadership.

Hypothesis 11 was supported as developmental leadership was significantly

positively related to RBSE in both the structural model (b ¼ 0:14, p , :001) and the

multi-level model (b ¼ 0:07, p , :05). In contrast, Hypothesis 12 was not supported assupportive leadership was not significantly associated with RBSE in either the structural

model (b ¼ 0:02, ns) or the multi-level model (b ¼ 20:00, ns). The constrained model

was a significantly poorer fit for the comparison of the structural paths, Dx2ð2Þ ¼ 4:09,p , :05, but not for the comparison of paths in the multi-level model, Dx2ð1Þ ¼ 1:49,p . :05. Therefore, Hypothesis 13 was only partially supported.

Table 6 also reports the paths from the control variables to the outcomes and to the

two leadership constructs in the structural model. Group size was significantly

negatively associated with all of the outcome variables with the exception of satisfactionin the multi-level model (b ¼ 20:00, ns). The structural model indicated that group size

was particularly strongly related to supportive leadership (b ¼ 20:16, p , :001),developmental leadership (b ¼ 20:16, p , :001), and RBSE (b ¼ 20:14, p , :001).In addition, the structural model indicated that age was significantly and positively

related to satisfaction (b ¼ 0:11, p , :001), RBSE (b ¼ 0:08, p , :001), and

commitment (b ¼ 0:17, p , :001), but was not related to career certainty (b ¼ 0:00,ns). Finally, males displayed higher levels of RBSE and commitment in both analyses, and

higher levels of career certainty in the structural model.

Discussion

Definitions of individualized consideration have shifted subtly over time so that,

increasingly, authors are discussing this leadership sub dimension as encompassing both

developmental leadership and supportive leadership, with an emphasis on the latter.However, Yukl (1999) argued that it is not appropriate to consider developmental and

supportive leadership behaviours in a single sub dimension of transformational

leadership. Despite this, theorists have not systematically explored whether supportive

leadership and developmental leadership are distinct constructs with differential

relationships with outcomes. We undertook this task in this study.

Findings indicated that developmental leadership and supportive leadership are

empirically distinct constructs that have different effects on followers. Whilst analysis

revealed that developmental and supportive leadership displayed discriminant validity,these constructs were very strongly positively correlated. The strong positive

relationship between developmental leadership and supportive leadership is not

surprising as followers may perceive both types of leadership as indications of a leader’s

overall level of concern for their welfare in the workplace.

These findings provide evidence that supportive leadership contributed to the

outcomes examined in this study. However, developmental leadership had a substantially

greater impact on affective commitment, career certainty, RBSE and job satisfaction than

did supportive leadership; that is, developmental leadership accounted for additionalvariance in outcomes above that accounted for by supportive leadership. These results

provide some preliminary evidence to suggest that it is appropriate to consider

developmental leadership as an important sub dimension of transformational

leadership. In contrast, supportive leadership had a weaker relationship with outcomes



and these findings raise the question as to whether supportive leadership as defined in

this study truly has ‘transformational’ effects on followers.

Another finding of note was that supportive leadership was not significantly

associated with RBSE in either the structural or the multi-level model. This result

supports previous work that indicates that mastery experiences have a stronger impact

on efficacy beliefs than other factors such as vicarious experiences, cognitivesimulations, verbal persuasion or physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1997).

There was clear support in this study for the idea that in order to influence followers’

confidence in their capacity to carry out a wide range of proactive tasks, leaders must

actively attempt to provide active mastery experiences through coaching and training to

improve followers’ skills and abilities.

Unexpectedly, developmental leadership had a stronger relationship with job

satisfaction than did supportive leadership, although satisfaction has been identified as a

key outcome of supportive leadership. One possible explanation for this finding is thatthe measure of job satisfaction used in this study was strongly cognitively based and did

not tap into the affective component of job satisfaction. The job satisfaction measure

that was used in this study asked people to evaluate their job and, as such, the results of

this study only provide evidence to suggest that developmental leadership is more

strongly positively associated with individuals’ cognitive evaluations of their job than is

supportive leadership. The findings of this study cannot inform us about whether

supportive leadership or developmental leadership are more strongly positively

associated with individuals’ emotional response to their job.

Theoretical and practical implicationsA key theoretical contribution of this paper is that we systematically considered the

nature of individualized consideration and integrated material in the mentoring and

transformational leadership areas to inform our understanding of developmental

leadership. Using this analysis, we developed a series of hypotheses concerning thedifferential effects of developmental and supportive leadership. This is an important

step because little attention has been directed towards determining how formal leaders

influence followers’ perceptions of their career progress. The results of this study

suggest that developmental leadership is an important leadership construct.

In addition, results demonstrated that supportive and developmental leadership are

distinctly different leadership constructs that display differential relationships with

outcomes. This is an important finding as researchers currently include both

developmental and supportive leader behaviours in one of the sub dimensions oftransformational leadership, individualized consideration. Therefore, researchers are

obscuring important relationships by assessing a single transformational sub dimension.

Previous researchers have argued that the transformational literature lacks theoretical

clarity regarding the nature of the sub dimensions of the model (e.g. Barbuto, 1997), and

that a number of the sub dimensions of the transformational model encompass an overly

diverse array of behaviours (Bryman, 1992; Yukl, 1999). Our study further refines the

nature of transformational leadership.

A key practical implication of this study was that we identified the behaviours offormal organizational leaders that can be used to enhance employee development in the

workplace. This is critical as employees are increasingly being asked to manage their

own careers and to continually develop their skills. Effective developmental leadership

is likely to be an important mechanism to help individuals become more competent at



managing their own career and at assessing their own strengths and weaknesses.

We identified a number of specific behaviours that are associated with developmental

leadership that organizations can train their managers in and which can also become

a part of selection packages when identifying new managerial talent.

Future researchThis study represents a first step in the process of exploring relationships between

developmental leadership and supportive leadership and outcomes. A number ofimportant avenues for future research are evident based on the results of this study. First,

this study indicates that it is particularly important that further attention is directed

towards theoretical explication of the construct of developmental leadership. Specific

issues that require further attention include exploration of the antecedents of

developmental leadership and the relationship of developmental leadership to the other

sub dimensions of transformational leadership. Recent research by Bommer, Rubin, and

Baldwin (2004) examined the antecedents of transformational leadership. These

authors reported that managers who were highly cynical about organizational changewere less likely to engage in transformational leader behaviours while the level of

transformational leadership displayed by managerial peers was positively related to the

degree to which managers displayed transformational leadership behaviours. While

these authors focused on a global transformational leadership factor, it is important to

determine whether these findings apply to the sub dimensions of transformational

leadership including developmental leadership.

Previous research in the occupational stress and coping field suggests that stress

moderates the relationship between supportive leadership and well-being, such thatsocial support is only effective in the presence of an elevated stress level. These findings

suggest that it is important for future studies to examine the influence of developmental

leadership and supportive leadership in an environment where employees are

experiencing a great deal of stress, such as when the firm is experiencing organizational

change. In this type of environment, it may be that supportive leadership will display

stronger relationships with outcomes than developmental leadership. In addition, it is

important that authors also explore the mechanisms that underpin the relationships

between developmental leadership and supportive leadership and outcomes.In particular, while we made various hypotheses about the mechanisms by which

developmental or supportive leadership would be related to outcomes, we did not test

these mediated relationships. Future research should address this issue.

Another avenue for research involves examining relationships between develop-

mental and supportive leadership and affectively and cognitively focused job satisfaction

measures. As discussed previously, the results of this study suggest that developmental

leadership is strongly associated with a cognitively focused measure of job satisfaction.

However, we do not yet know whether this relationship will hold when an affectivelyladen job satisfaction measure is used. Finally, further attention should be directed

towards further developing and validating the measure of developmental leadership.

Strengths and limitationsA strength of this study was the use of both structural equation modelling and multi-level

modelling when testing hypotheses. The use of these analytic techniques allowed

us to take advantage of the benefits of both approaches. The structural model allowed us



to examine the influence of developmental and supportive leadership on a number

of outcomes measures and also allows incorporation of measurement error and testing

for common method effects. The multi-level model has the advantage of taking account

of the non-independence of measures obtained from individuals within the same group.

A limitation of the current study was the cross-sectional nature of the research and

the self-report nature of the data that we collected. This self-report nature of the data

leaves open the possibility that results are due to the influence of common method

variance. Podsakoff and Organ (1986) state that, when measures are collected from

a single source, any defect in that source will contaminate both measures, presumably

in the same fashion and in the same direction. However, we controlled for the effects

of common method variance using procedures discussed by Williams and Anderson

(1994). The cross-sectional nature of the study means that we cannot rule out the

possibility that the path of causation is the reverse of that hypothesized. That is, we

operated under the assumption that leaders influence employees’ attitudes. However, it

is possible that followers’ attitudes influenced their ratings of their work group leaders.

In order to address this concern, there is a need to conduct longitudinal research where

leadership ratings are collected prior to attitude measures.

Concluding comments

This study provides evidence that it is not appropriate to consider developmental

leadership and supportive leadership in a single sub dimension of transformationalleadership. Findings indicate that developmental leadership and supportive leadership

are distinct, but related forms of leadership. Both types of leadership displayed unique

relationships with theoretically selected outcome measures. However, developmental

leadership displayed significantly stronger relationships with job satisfaction, career

certainty, affective commitment to the organization and RBSE than did supportive

leadership. These findings provide initial support for the discriminant validity of these

two types of leadership, and indicate that developmental leadership is an important, but

neglected form of leadership.

References

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with

mentoring for proteges: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:

A multi-level framework for examining the influence of transformational leadership.

Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199–218.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership. Journal of Social

Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 689–697.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32.



Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage for effective leadership:

Antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195–210.

Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1989). Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 253–271.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1980). Job

demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan.

Cappelli, P. (1999). Career jobs are dead. California Management Review, 42(1), 146–167.

Cohen, S., &Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological

Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.

Donaldson, S. I., Ensher, E. A., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2000). Longitudinal examination of

mentoring relationships on organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Journal of

Career Development, 26(4), 233–249.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573.

Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185–202.

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2000). Does mentor-protege agreement on mentor leadership

behavior influence the quality of a mentoring relationship? Group and Organization

Management, 25(3), 291–317.

Goldstein, H., Rasbash, J., Plewis, I., Draper, I., Draper, D., Browne, W., Yang, M., Woodhouse, G.,

& Healy, M. (1998). A user’s guide to MLwiN. London: Institute of Education.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational

experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management

Journal, 33(1), 64–86.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72–92.

Hart, P. M., Griffin, M. A., Wearing, A. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1996). QPASS: Manual for the

Queensland public agency staff survey. Brisbane: Public Sector Management Commission.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1989). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695–702.

Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the

effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,

223–247.

Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. (2000). The application of hierarchical linear modeling

to management research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and

methods in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,

16, 321–339.

House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach:

Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, and interclass correlations. In F. Dansereau

& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches contemporary and

alternative (Vol. 24, Part B, pp. 23–30). London: JAI Press.

Iles, P. (1997). Sustainable high-potential career development: A resource-based view. Career

Development International, 2(7), 347–353.

Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 13, 1–53.



Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific

Software International.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1995). An empirical investigation of

the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and

initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51.

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),

Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571–650). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4),

608–625.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Lindell, M. K., &Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for commonmethod variance in cross-sectional

research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and

consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and

application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:

Extension and test of a three component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,

78, 538–551.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835–852.

Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role

orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review,

49(3), 447–469.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leadership behaviors

and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust,

and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259–298.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. M. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and

prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships:

Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 271–293.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and

empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329–354.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:

The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5),

825–836.

Sarros, J. C., Gray, J., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Leadership and its impact on organizational culture.

International Journal of Business Studies, 10(2), 1–26.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. A. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:

A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Waterman, R. H., Waterman, J. A., & Collard, B. A. (2000). Toward a career-resilient workforce.

Harvard Business Review, July–August, 87–95.



Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-

variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79(3), 323–331.

Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Management, 19(4), 857–876.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.

Received 2 March 2004; revised version received 16 December 2004


reﬁning individualized consideration: distinguishing ... classes/fall 07/org psy/cases... ·...

Documents