transformational leadership

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2401197

http://gom.sagepub.com/Management

Group & Organization

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/36/2/223The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1059601111401017

2011 36: 223Group & Organization ManagementGang Wang, In-Sue Oh, Stephen H. Courtright and Amy E. ColbertLevels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Research

Transformational Leadership and Performance Across Criteria and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group & Organization ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/36/2/223.refs.htmlCitations:

at The University of Iowa Libraries on March 18, 2011gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gom.sagepub.com/

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/36/2/223

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/36/2/223.refs.html


Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2401197

Group & Organization Management36(2) 223 –270

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1059601111401017http://gom.sagepub.com

Transformational Leadership and Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Research

Gang Wang1, In-Sue Oh2, Stephen H. Courtright1, and Amy E. Colbert1

Abstract

Although transformational leadership has been studied extensively, the magnitude of the relationship between transformational leadership and follower performance across criterion types and levels of analysis remains unclear. Based on 117 independent samples over 113 primary studies, the current meta-analytic study showed that transformational leadership was positively related to individual-level follower performance across criterion types, with a stronger relationship for contextual performance than for task performance across most study settings. In addition, transformational leadership was positively related to performance at the team and organization levels. Moreover, both meta-analytic regression and relative importance analyses consistently showed that transformational leadership had an augmentation effect over transactional leadership (contingent reward) in predicting individual-level contextual performance and team-level performance. Contrary to our expectation, however, no augmentation effect of transformational leadership over contingent reward was found in predicting individual-level task performance. Instead,

1University of Iowa, Iowa City2Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond

Corresponding Author:Gang Wang, Department of Management and Organizations, University of Iowa, John Pappajohn Business Building, W252, PBB, Iowa City, IA 52242-1994Email: [email protected]



224 Group & Organization Management 36(2)

contingent reward explained incremental variance in individual-level task performance beyond that explained by transformational leadership.

Keywords

transformational leadership, meta-analysis, performance

The title of Bass’s (1985) seminal book on transformational leadership, Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, has garnered much atten-tion over the past quarter century. In his book, Bass contrasts transactional or exchange-based forms of leadership, in which leaders clarify expectations and reward followers for fulfilling them, with transformational leadership, in which leaders motivate their followers to move beyond self-interest and work for the collective good (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Using examples like Mahatma Gandhi and John F. Kennedy, Bass pro-posed that transformational leaders increase followers’ confidence and the intrinsic value of performance, resulting in higher levels of motivation (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, in press). Thus, while transactional leadership may lead to expected performance, transformational leadership has the potential to result in performance beyond expectations. As our understanding of different types and levels of performance has become more precise (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Organ, 1988; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005), a growing body of research has investi-gated the range of potential performance implications of transformational leadership.

However, despite the abundance of primary studies linking transformational leadership and performance, the current transformational leadership literature does not provide a clear understanding of the generalizability of the “beyond expectation” role of transformational leadership in performance across crite-rion types and levels of analysis. Meta-analysis can be used to estimate the true magnitude of the role of transformational leadership in performance and its generalizability across studies in several ways. First, at the most basic level, meta-analysis allows us to estimate the more precise magnitude of the relationship between transformational leadership and follower individual performance than any of the primary studies included in the meta-analysis. While theory suggests that transformational leadership is associated with higher levels of performance from followers, prior meta-analyses have pro-vided limited information about the size of this relationship. Indeed, among the five meta-analyses conducted on transformational leadership (summarized in Table 1), only DeGroot, Kiker, and Cross (2000) attempted to estimate the



225

Tabl

e 1.

Sum

mar

y of

Pre

viou

s an

d Pr

esen

t M

eta-

Ana

lytic

Fin

ding

s on

Out

com

es o

f Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

Vari

able

kN

r_ρ−̂

Sour

ceC

ompa

riso

n be

twee

n pr

evio

us

met

a-an

alys

es a

nd t

he p

rese

nt s

tudy

Follo

wer

att

itudi

nal a

nd m

otiv

atio

nal o

utco

mes

Fol

low

er jo

b sa

tisfa

ctio

n14

3,83

2.7

0.7

7D

eGro

ot, K

iker

, and

Cro

ss

(200

0)N

A

62,

175

.27

.30

Dum

dum

, Low

, and

Avo

lio

(200

2)N

A

185,

279

—.5

8Ju

dge

and

Picc

olo

(200

4)N

A F

ollo

wer

sat

isfa

ctio

n w

ith

lea

der

92,

457

.49

.57

Dum

dum

et

al. (

2002

)N

A23

4,34

9—

.71

Judg

e an

d Pi

ccol

o (2

004)

NA

122,

680

.71

.80

Fulle

r, Pa

tter

son,

Hes

ter,

an

d St

ring

er (

1996

)N

A

Fol

low

er m

otiv

atio

n16

4,77

3—

.53

Judg

e an

d Pi

ccol

o (2

004)

NA

Fol

low

er o

rgan

izat

iona

l c

omm

itmen

t3

2,04

0.3

9.4

3D

eGro

ot e

t al

. (20

00)

NA

Fol

low

er e

ffort

123,

807

.65

.73

DeG

root

et

al. (

2000

)N

AFo

llow

er b

ehav

iora

l out

com

e F

ollo

wer

per

form

ance

471

5.1

9.2

1D

eGro

ot e

t al

. (20

00)

Thi

s es

timat

e w

as b

ased

on

a lim

ited

num

ber

of s

tudi

es. T

he a

utho

rs d

id

not

estim

ate

the

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

and

any

spec

ific

type

s of

sub

ordi

nate

indi

vidu

al

perf

orm

ance

. Fur

ther

mor

e, t

he s

ourc

es

of p

erfo

rman

ce m

easu

res

wer

e un

clea

r.

(con

tinue

d)



226

Tabl

e 1.

(co

ntin

ued)

Vari

able

kN

r_ρ−̂

Sour

ceC

ompa

riso

n be

twee

n pr

evio

us

met

a-an

alys

es a

nd t

he p

rese

nt s

tudy

Follo

wer

beh

avio

ral o

utco

me

Fol

low

er in

divi

dual

-leve

l p

erfo

rman

ce62

16,8

09.2

2.2

5Pr

esen

t st

udy

Pres

ent

estim

ate

of t

he m

eta-

anal

ytic

co

rrel

atio

n be

twee

n tr

ansf

orm

atio

nal

lead

ersh

ip a

nd fo

llow

er in

divi

dual

-leve

l pe

rfor

man

ce is

bas

ed o

n a

muc

h la

rger

nu

mbe

r of

pri

mar

y st

udie

s in

whi

ch

perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

s w

ere

non-

self-

repo

rted

. F

ollo

wer

tas

k pe

rfor

man

ce31

7,01

6.1

9.2

1Pr

esen

t st

udy

NA

Fol

low

er c

onte

xtua

l p

erfo

rman

ce28

7,97

0.2

6.3

0Pr

esen

t st

udy

NA

Fol

low

er c

reat

ive

p

erfo

rman

ce14

3,72

8.1

9.2

1Pr

esen

t st

udy

NA

Lead

er o

utco

mes

Lea

der

effe

ctiv

enes

s23

5,57

7.6

8.7

4D

eGro

ot e

t al

. (20

00)

NA

187,

262

.43

.50

Dum

dum

et

al. (

2002

)N

A27

5,41

5—

.64

Judg

e an

d Pi

ccol

o (2

004)

NA

101,

524

.68

.78

Fulle

r et

al.

(199

6)N

A47

6,48

5.6

2.7

1Lo

we,

Kro

eck,

and

Si

vasu

bram

ania

m (

1996

)N

A

Lea

der

job

perf

orm

ance

132,

126

—.2

7Ju

dge

and

Picc

olo

(200

4)N

ASu

prai

ndiv

idua

l-lev

el o

utco

mes

Ove

rall

perf

orm

ance

274,

611

0.39

0.45

Fulle

r et

al.

(199

6)N

o di

stin

ctio

n be

twee

n fo

llow

er, t

eam

, an

d or

gani

zatio

n pe

rfor

man

ce r

atin

gs;

No

dist

inct

ion

amon

g sp

ecifi

c jo

b pe

rfor

man

ce d

imen

sion

at

each

leve

l.

(con

tinue

d)



227

Tabl

e 1.

(co

ntin

ued)

Vari

able

kN

r_ρ−̂

Sour

ceC

ompa

riso

n be

twee

n pr

evio

us

met

a-an

alys

es a

nd t

he p

rese

nt s

tudy

Gro

up o

r or

gani

zatio

nal

per

form

ance

416,

197

—.2

6Ju

dge

and

Picc

olo

(200

4)G

roup

and

org

aniz

atio

n pe

rfor

man

ce

wer

e lu

mpe

d to

geth

er a

s th

e sa

me

crite

rion

. T

eam

per

form

ance

743

2.4

2.4

9D

eGro

ot e

t al

. (20

00)

Thi

s es

timat

e w

as b

ased

on

a lim

ited

num

ber

of p

rim

ary

stud

ies,

and

the

sour

ces

of p

erfo

rman

ce m

easu

re w

ere

uncl

ear.

Tea

m-le

vel p

erfo

rman

ce34

2,83

0.2

4.3

3Pr

esen

t st

udy

Pres

ent

stud

y di

stin

guis

hes

grou

p pe

rfor

man

ce fr

om o

rgan

izat

iona

l pe

rfor

man

ce a

nd is

bas

ed o

n su

ffici

ent

num

ber

of p

rim

ary

stud

ies

in w

hich

all

perf

orm

ance

mea

sure

s ar

e ei

ther

non

-se

lf-re

port

ed o

r ob

ject

ive.

Org

aniz

atio

nal-l

evel

p

erfo

rman

ce27

2,40

8.1

9.2

7Pr

esen

t st

udy

Not

e: k

= n

umbe

r of

cor

rela

tions

; N =

com

bine

d sa

mpl

e si

ze; r_ =

sam

ple-

size

wei

ghte

d m

ean

unco

rrec

ted

corr

elat

ion;

ρ−̂ =

estim

ated

cor

rect

ed m

ean

corr

elat

ion;

NA

= n

ot a

pplic

able

.




relationship of the charismatic component of transformational leadership with follower individual performance. However, the small number of stud-ies that were used to estimate this relationship (k = 4) suggests the poten-tial for second-order sampling error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Thus, the first purpose of our article is to provide a more precise estimate of the relationship between transformational leadership and follower individual performance and to examine the generalizability of this relationship across settings.

Second, when Bass (1985) initially suggested that transformational leader-ship motivates followers to perform “beyond expectations,” researchers were only beginning to differentiate between various types of performance criteria (Austin & Villanova, 1992). Thus, the exact meaning of “performance beyond expectations” was not clearly specified. On one hand, transforma-tional leadership may motivate followers to work harder, exerting more effort than would be expected from transactional leadership and resulting in higher levels of task performance. On the other hand, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) have proposed that transformational leadership moti-vates followers to go beyond the minimum requirements of their job descrip-tions, resulting in higher levels of contextual performance. Finally, the focus of transformational leaders on challenging the status quo suggests that per-formance beyond expectations may result in higher levels of creativity and innovation among followers. Despite the fact that primary studies have examined the relationship of transformational leadership with task, contex-tual, and creative performance, none of the prior meta-analyses on transfor-mational leadership have estimated the magnitude of these relationships. Thus, the second purpose of our meta-analysis is to investigate the relative impact of transformational leadership on follower task, contextual, and cre-ative performance.

Third, transformational leadership theory suggests that transformational leadership is related not only to individual follower performance but also to performance at the group and organization levels (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). However, no previous meta-analysis has provided a comparison of the relationship of transforma-tional leadership with performance at all three levels. DeGroot et al. (2000) provided initial evidence that transformational leadership is posi-tively related to team performance, but this analysis was based on a lim-ited number of primary studies on team performance (k = 7). Judge and Piccolo (2004) identified a larger number of primary studies examining the relationship between transformational leadership and performance at the group and organizational levels (k = 41), but they combined these studies in



Wang et al. 229

their meta-analysis, reporting the relationship between transformational leadership and group/organization performance. However, individual, group, and organization performance is likely influenced by different fac-tors and through different mechanisms (Dansereau, Cho, & Yammarino, 2006). As a result, the magnitude of the relationships of transformational leadership with performance at the three levels of analysis may differ (Yammarino et al., 2005). Thus, a third purpose of our study is to estimate and compare the relationship of transformational leadership with individual, group, and organization performance.

Finally, one of the most interesting theoretical claims of Bass (1997) is that transformational leadership has one-way augmentation effects over transactional leadership. That is, transformational leadership is hypothesized to predict follower performance beyond the effects of transactional leader-ship. Yet this proposition has not been systematically examined in predict-ing follower performance across performance criteria and levels of analysis. A small number of primary studies by Bass and his colleagues (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Howell & Avolio, 1993) examined and found sup-port for the augmentation effects at the group and organizational levels. Furthermore, Judge and Piccolo (2004) showed that transformational lead-ership had an augmentation effect on employee attitudes over contingent reward but no effect on leader job performance, suggesting the existence of possible boundary conditions of the augmentation hypothesis. Judge and Piccolo did not test the augmentation hypothesis for follower performance. Accordingly, the generalizability of the augmentation effect remains unclear across levels of analysis and across various performance criteria (task and contextual performance). Thus, the fourth purpose of our research, testing the generalizability of the augmentation effect, will allow us to not only test the overall validity of transformational leadership but also potentially make critical refinements to the theory.

In sum, after decades of research on transformational leadership, the num-ber of primary studies that link transformational leadership and performance is sufficient to allow us to better understand this relationship across crite-rion type and levels of analysis. This research has the potential to clarify the precise ways in which transformational leadership impacts performance and may increase the practical utility of transformational leadership theory (Corley & Gioia, 2011). Moreover, by comparing the relative effects of transformational and transactional leadership on different types and levels of performance, we can learn more about how these two types of leadership may work together to facilitate both effective performance across types and levels.




HypothesesTransformational Leadership and Follower Performance at the Individual LevelAccording to Bass (1985), transformational leaders exhibit four primary behaviors. First, through the behavior of inspirational motivation, transforma-tional leaders develop and articulate a shared vision and high expectations that are motivating, inspiring, and challenging. Second, transformational leaders exhibit the behavior of idealized influence, serving as a role model by acting in ways that are consistent with the articulated vision. Third, transformational leaders intellectually stimulate their followers to challenge existing assump-tions and solicit followers’ suggestions and ideas. Finally, through the behavior of individualized consideration, transformational leaders attend to the needs of their followers and treat each follower as a unique individual, thereby foster-ing feelings of trust in and satisfaction with the leader (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Taken together, these transformational leadership behaviors are expected to motivate followers to perform at higher levels. Although theory suggests that transformational leaders motivate individuals to achieve higher levels of performance (Bass, 1985), this relationship may differ across specific performance criteria. Transformational leadership has been theoretically and empirically linked with task performance (i.e., in-role performance, focal performance), contextual performance (i.e., extrarole per-formance, organizational citizenship behavior), and creative performance (e.g., Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2008; Shin & Zhou, 2007). Therefore, the pres-ent study investigates transformational leadership as it relates to these three performance criteria.

Task performance refers to work behaviors that are stipulated by a formal job description (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). Transformational leaders enable and motivate their followers to fulfill their assigned job duties in a number of ways. First, transformational leaders link followers’ work roles to a compelling vision of the future of the organiza-tion, causing followers of transformational leaders to view their work as more meaningful and significant and thus increasing its intrinsic motivating poten-tial (Bono & Judge, 2003; Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009). In addition, transformational leaders instill in their followers a belief that they can achieve the goals that are set for them (Shamir et al., 1993), and these increased levels of self-efficacy positively affect performance (Bandura, 1986). Finally, trans-formational leaders serve as effective coaches and mentors to their followers, providing them with the support and tools that they need to accomplish their jobs (e.g., Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999). For these reasons, research studies



Wang et al. 231

have consistently found positive relationships between transformational leader-ship and task performance (e.g., Liao & Chuang, 2007; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 2001).

Contextual performance, however, refers to voluntarily motivated work behaviors that go beyond prescribed job roles but contribute to the psycho-logical and social contexts around the job (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Harrison et al., 2006). As Bass (1985) noted, transformational leaders moti-vate followers to work for the good of the group by increasing social identifi-cation, thereby inspiring followers to engage in altruistic behaviors (e.g., helping coworkers in need of help) and to dedicate themselves to their jobs and organizations (e.g., working extra hours and promoting organizational public images; Bass & Avolio, 1993; Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Pillai, Schreisheim, & Williams, 1999; Sosik, 2005). As followers of transformational leaders inter-nalize the goals of the collective, they likely view actions that support the psychological and social context of their work as meaningful and consistent with their own self-concept. Furthermore, transformational leaders influence their followers to engage in contextual performance by serving as role models who are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the collective good and by bolstering a sense of group belongingness and cohesion (Podsakoff et al., 1990; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Thus, we expect that transfor-mational leadership is also positively related to contextual performance.

In addition, transformational leaders encourage and intellectually stimu-late followers to challenge the status quo, question assumptions, take risks, suggest innovative ideas, and engage in divergent thinking (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders empower their followers to be problem solvers, such that employees grow in their creativity by learning from their failures and experimenting with various options without fear of failure (e.g., Jung, 2001; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Thus, we expect that transformational leadership is positively related to creative performance. In sum, we posit the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively related to indi-vidual follower (a) task, (b) contextual, and (c) creative performance.

Although transformational leadership theory suggests a link between trans-formational leadership and multiple types of individual follower performance, we know little about the relative magnitude of these relationships. Drawing from research on the determinants of task and contextual performance, we expect that transformational leadership has a stronger relationship with contex-tual performance as compared to task performance. As noted above, the




exercise of contextual performance is voluntary and volitional in nature whereas the exercise of task performance is heavily constrained by the learning and mastery of task-related ability, knowledge, and skills. In other words, task performance is mainly determined by “can-do” factors (e.g., ability, knowledge, skills), whereas contextual performance is mainly determined by “will-do” factors (e.g., motivation; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). As such, we expect that followers’ responses to transformational leadership are more strongly reflected in their contextual performance than their task performance because transformational leaders affect their followers more by raising their levels of positive emotion and motivation than their levels of task-related skills and ability. In fact, Podsakoff et al. (1990; see also Pillai et al., 1999) argued that the true essence of transformational leadership is in enabling followers to engage in extrarole behaviors. Thus, it is expected that transformational lead-ership, operating through its motivational effects, has a stronger relationship with contextual performance than with task performance.

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership has a stronger positive rela-tionship with individual follower contextual performance than with individual follower task performance.

Transformational Leadership and Performance at the Team and Organizational LevelsTransformational leadership theory emphasizes the critical role of transfor-mational leaders in improving performance across all levels of organizations (House & Aditya, 1997; Yammarino et al., 2005). Although more empirical work has focused on testing the relationship between transformational leader-ship and follower performance at the individual level (Lim & Ployhart, 2004), transformational leadership theory suggests a number of ways in which trans-formational leaders may impact team and organizational performance as well. At the team level, transformational leaders communicate a vision for the group and motivate team members to work toward the collective vision (Bass, 1985). Motivation to achieve team-level goals is enhanced by the increased levels of social identification that are characteristic of followers of transformational leaders (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Transformational leaders also express their confidence that teams will achieve their goals, leading to higher levels of team potency (Bass et al., 2003; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007). Further-more, transformational leaders encourage higher levels of team cohesion (Bass et al., 2003), which facilitates coordination and cooperation among group members. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:



Wang et al. 233

Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership is positively related to team-level performance.

At the organizational level, transformational leaders once again positively influence performance through the communication of a vision that serves to motivate employees and align their efforts (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders may also positively affect organizational performance through their direct leadership of the top management team. By increasing team cohesion, motivation, and goal congruence within the top management team, transfor-mational leaders facilitate higher levels of organizational performance (Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, & Barrick, 2008; Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). Furthermore, transformational leaders at the top of organizations may serve as role models for leaders at lower levels, encouraging (cascading down) transformational leadership throughout the organization (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999). Finally, transformational leaders may influence organizational perfor-mance through their impact on organizational climates, systems, and strategies, resulting in work environments more conducive to transformational leader-ship (Jung et al., 2003; Liao & Chuang, 2007).

Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership is positively related to organizational-level performance.

The Augmentation Effect of Transformational and Transactional Leadership on PerformanceIn addition to proposing links between transformational leadership and per-formance across levels, transformational leadership theory also suggests that transformational leadership influences performance beyond the effect of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993). This augmenta-tion effect refers to the extent to which “transformational leadership styles build on the transactional base in contributing to the extra effort and performance of followers” (Bass, 1998, p. 5). According to Bass (1985), true transformational leaders display both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, and transformational leadership should explain variance in performance beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Results of early studies of the augmentation effect of transformational leadership over transactional leader-ship were generally supportive. For example, Hater and Bass (1988) and Waldman, Bass, and Yammarino (1990) found that transformational leader-ship was significantly related to individual follower performance, controlling for transactional leadership.




The augmentation hypothesis has been interpreted by some (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995) as suggesting not only that transformational leader-ship explains unique variance in outcomes beyond transactional leadership but also that the reverse is not true. If transactional leadership does not pre-dict performance beyond the effects of transformational leadership, this sug-gests that the predictive power of transactional leadership is solely due to its overlap with transformational leadership. However, two recent studies ques-tion this interpretation of the augmentation hypothesis. Both Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, and DeChurch (2006) and Vecchio, Justin, and Pearce (2008) found that contingent reward, the most important indicator of transactional leadership, was significantly related to individual follower performance after controlling for transformational leadership. Furthermore, when contingent reward and a transformational leadership dimension (e.g., vision, modeling, high expectations) were entered together as predictors of individual perfor-mance, the transformational leadership dimensions were not significantly related to performance. Thus, these studies question the augmentation effect of transformational leadership and instead provide support for an augmenta-tion effect of the most important dimension of transactional leadership: con-tingent reward. The conflicting results in the literature may be due to sampling error that cannot be corrected for in a single study. Hence, it is beneficial to examine the augmentation effect using meta-analytic methods.

Specifically, to account for these conflicting findings, we suggest that both the type and level of performance need to be considered to fully under-stand the augmentation effects of transformational and transactional leadership. For example, with regard to individual follower task performance, we pro-pose that transformational leadership augments transactional leadership and that transactional leadership augments transformational leadership primarily because these two types of leadership work through different motivational mechanisms. Transactional leaders (especially those using contingent reward behaviors) clearly specify performance expectations and provide rewards for the achievement of these expectations (Bass, 1985). Thus, the task perfor-mance of followers is expected to be higher when they work with transac-tional leaders because of the motivational effects of performance goals (Locke & Latham, 1990) and because of the clear link between performance and rewards (Vroom, 1964). Transformational leadership may further enhance individual task performance through such mechanisms as increased effort-accomplishment expectancies and enhanced meaningfulness of goal accom-plishment (Shamir et al., 1993). Thus, we expect that both transactional leadership and transformational leadership explain unique variance in individual follower task performance.



Wang et al. 235

However, in predicting individual follower contextual performance, we expect that the augmentation effect of transformational leadership over trans-actional leadership is stronger than the augmentation effect of transactional leadership over transformational leadership. As noted earlier, followers of transformational leaders are likely to exhibit higher levels of contextual per-formance due to their identification with the organization, their internaliza-tion of group goals, and the presence of transformational leaders as role models. In contrast, transactional leaders motivate employees by clarifying goals and rewarding goal achievement. Given that contextual performance is defined as voluntarily motivated behaviors that go beyond work roles, it is less likely to be a part of formal goal setting and reward systems. Thus, it is likely that the intrinsic motivation engendered by transformational leadership will predict contextual performance above and beyond the more extrinsic motivation of transactional leadership.

Hypothesis 5a: Transformational leadership explains unique variance in individual follower task performance beyond the effects of trans-actional leadership.

Hypothesis 5b: Transactional leadership explains unique variance in individual follower task performance beyond the effects of transfor-mational leadership.

Hypothesis 6: Transformational leadership explains unique variance in individual follower contextual performance beyond the effects of transactional leadership.

Although most research has examined the unique relationships of transformational and transactional leadership with individual-level outcomes, augmentation effects can be proposed for unit-level performance as well. However, the small number of studies that examine the relationship between transactional leadership and organizational performance prevented us from meta-analytically examining augmentation effects at the organizational level. Therefore, we focus our discussion on augmentation effects on team performance.

As discussed above, prior research has established a number of mecha-nisms by which transformational leadership may influence team perfor-mance. Transformational leaders provide direction for the team through their vision, enhance motivation to work toward team objectives, and encourage team potency and cohesion (Bass et al., 2003; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). At the same time, it has been argued that transactional leadership (in particular, contingent reward) may also be associated with higher levels of team performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993). For example, transactional




leaders may motivate higher levels of team performance by clarifying team goals and rewarding the team for the achievement of those goals. Thus, because the effects of transformational and transactional leader-ship on team performance occur through different mechanisms, it is possible that each type of leadership may explain unique variance in team performance.

However, while results of empirical research have generally supported the augmentation effect of transformational leadership over and above transactional leadership at the team level, they have not supported the aug-mentation effect of transactional leadership over and above transforma-tional leadership. For example, Bass and colleagues (2003) found that transformational leadership affected platoon unit performance beyond the effects of contingent reward behaviors (although only after some items were removed). In a study of business-unit performance in a financial institution, Howell and Avolio (1993) found that transformational leader-ship predicted business unit performance 1 year later, controlling for trans-actional leadership. Similarly, Rowold and Heinitz (2007) found that transformational leadership augmented the effects of transactional leader-ship on branch profit in a study of a large public transport company. Inter-estingly, in two of these studies (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007), transactional leadership was negatively related to unit performance after controlling for transformational leadership. In sum, these results seem to suggest that the relationship of transactional leader-ship and team performance is primarily due to the overlap between trans-actional and transformational leadership and that transactional leadership explains little unique variance in team performance. Thus, we hypothesize as follows:

Hypothesis 7: Transformational leadership explains unique variance in team performance beyond transactional leadership.

MethodLiterature Search

We conducted an extensive electronic and manual search for both published and unpublished transformational leadership studies to minimize publica-tion bias (Cooper, 2003). For the electronic search, we searched electronic databases such as EBSCO, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ABI/Inform, Dis-sertation Abstracts, and Google Scholar using combinations of the following



Wang et al. 237

keywords: transformational leadership, charismatic leadership,1 charisma, transactional leadership, contingent reward, management by exception, performance, citizenship behavior, productivity, profit, creativity, and inno-vation. For the manual search, we consulted the reference lists of existing narrative and meta-analytic reviews,2 all issues of major journals published as of August 2010 to account for articles that were not yet included in the electronic databases, and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology and the Academy of Management conference programs for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. Finally, we also searched for possible unpublished and in-press studies by sending email solicitations to members of the Acad-emy of Management listservs.

Inclusion CriteriaPrimary studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the meta-analysis. First, we focused on samples of adults working in organizational settings. Second, we only included studies in which study participants were direct leader–follower dyads and leadership was naturally occurring under field conditions (i.e., not experimentally manipulated). Third, we included studies measuring transformational or transactional leadership and one or more of the following non-self-report performance criteria: task, contextual, and creative performance at individual, team, or organizational levels. Stud-ies based on self-report performance measures were not included because of concerns about common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsa-koff, 2003) as well as potential self-enhancement biases in self-report performance measures. Finally, studies without the statistical information needed to calculate the correlations among the variables were excluded. It is noteworthy that we did not focus on transformational leadership that was measured by any particular scale, such as The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1995). We think it is methodologi-cally and theoretically important to include transformational leadership measured with different scales to triangulate the generalizability of findings in this study. We did not discriminate against either survey or experimental design. However, as few experimental studies were conducted using field samples (working adults), our second inclusion criterion may have unin-tendedly excluded studies based on experimental designs using undergrads. As a result, a total of 113 primary studies with 117 independent samples, including 78 published articles and 35 unpublished doctoral dissertations and working papers, met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.




Coding of Information

Information needed to test our hypotheses and potential moderators was coded from each study. Effect sizes (e.g., Pearson correlations), sample sizes, reliability coefficients, and moderator information (e.g., study setting, leader level) were coded. It should be noted that for individual-level out-comes, the sample size referred to the number of followers; for team or organizational level outcomes, the sample size referred to the number of teams or organizations.

For moderator analyses, study setting was coded as private if studies were conducted in for-profit organizations (e.g., Fortune 500 companies) or as public if studies were conducted in not-for-profit organizations (e.g., government agencies, colleges, military). Leader level (position) was coded as supervisory level (e.g., first-line managers) and mid- or upper level (e.g., CEOs, execu-tives) according to the information provided in the method section. Geographic regions or countries where studies were conducted were recorded. Studies were coded as cross-sectional if variables of interest were measured at the same period. Studies were coded as longitudinal when criteria were mea-sured after leadership variables. Published and in press studies were coded as published, whereas unpublished dissertations, conference papers, and working papers were coded as unpublished. Finally, survey instruments that were used to measure leadership variables were also coded into two catego-ries: Bass and his associates’ (e.g., MLQ-Form 5X short; Bass & Avolio, 1995) and all the others’ (e.g., Transformational Leadership Inventory [TLI]; Podsakoff et al., 1990).

The coding process was very straightforward and needed a few subjective judgments. Nevertheless, to maximize coding accuracy, the first two authors independently coded included studies and compared their coding results. The agreement rate was 93%. Most of the discrepancies revolved around sub-jective judgments and were resolved through discussion. The remaining dis-crepancies were clerical errors, which were corrected with reference to original studies.

Measurements of VariableIndependent variables. The majority of leadership variables (i.e., transfor-

mational leadership, charismatic leadership, contingent reward, management-by-exception [MBE]-active, MBE-passive) were measured with various forms of MLQ by Bass and his associates (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1995) across levels of analysis. Specifically, for individual-level relationships, 48 (or 77%)



Wang et al. 239

studies used Bass and his associates’ scales to measure transformational or charismatic leadership, 11 (or 18%) studies used the TLI (Podsakoff et al., 1990), and the remaining 3 studies (or 5%) used scales developed by Conger and Kanungo (1994), Pearce and Sims (2002), and Wang and Howell (2010), respectively. For team-level relationships, 29 (or 85%) studies used Bass and his associates’ scales to measure transformational or charismatic leadership, 3 (or 9%) used Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) TLI, and the remaining 2 studies (or 6%) used scales developed by Pearce and Sims (2002) and Wang and Howell (2010), respectively. For organizational-level relationships, 20 (or 74%) stud-ies used Bass and his associates’ scales to measure transformational or charis-matic leadership, 3 (or 11%) studies used Podsakoff and colleagues’ TLI, the remaining 4 studies (or 15%) used scales developed by other researchers (e.g., Cox, 1994; Pearce & Sims, 2002). At the individual level of analysis, all but one study asked direct reports to assess their supervisors’ transformational or charismatic leadership. At the team level of analysis, all but one study aggre-gated team members’ reports of team leaders’ transformational or charismatic leadership behavior. At the organizational level of analysis, the majority of studies (23 or 85%) aggregated top management team members’ or employ-ees’ reports of their organizational leaders’ (e.g., CEO) transformational or charismatic leadership. Most of these studies provided acceptable justifica-tions for aggregation. The remaining four studies asked either a HR manger or a senior executive to report the CEO’s transformational leadership or a CEO to assess his top management team’s transformational leadership.

Dependent variables. Reliable scales and objective measures were used to assess the performance criteria of interest in most studies. At the individual level of analysis, task performance includes role-based performance (Bor-man & Motowidlo, 1993), such as in-role performance, sales performance, and service performance. Among the 30 studies, objective measures (mainly sales performance) of follower task performance were used in 7 studies.3 Nonself (mainly supervisor) ratings were used in the remaining 23 studies. William and colleagues’ scales (e.g., William, 1989; Williams & Anderson, 1991) were most frequently used (nine studies), followed by scales measur-ing followers’ quality and quantity of work (six studies), and Liao and Chuang’s (2004) scale measuring service performance (two studies). Con-textual performance consists of explicit OCB and extrarole behavior. No studies used implicit measures of contextual performance such as prosocial behaviors. Followers’ contextual performance was assessed by their super-visors in all studies. Podsakoff and associates’ (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990) scales were most frequently used (nine studies), followed by Organ and colleagues’ (e.g., Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) scales (five




studies), Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale (four studies), and Lee and Allen’s (2002) scale (two studies). Supervisors assessed their direct reports’ creative behavior in all but one study. Scales by George and Zhou (2001) and Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (1998) were most frequently used (three studies each), followed by Oldham and Cummings’ (1996) scale (two stud-ies) and Tierney, Farmer, and Graen’s (1999) scale (two studies). Team performance was objectively measured in 15 out of the 34 studies.4 External leaders, team leaders, or external experts (Bass et al., 2003) assessed team performance in the remaining 19 studies. No any particular scale was used more than twice. Organizational performance was objectively evaluated in all studies. Performance indices such as productivity, return of asset, and outputs of patents were used as indicators of organizational performance.

Meta-Analytic TechniquesWe estimated the true-score correlations of transformational leadership and follower performance using Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) psychometric random-effects meta-analysis methods. We corrected each effect size (corre-lation) for measurement error in both variables using reliability coefficients reported in the original study to be comparable with prior meta-analyses. For meta-analytic calculations, we used the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis pack-age program (VG6 Module–individual correction methods for correlations; Schmidt & Le, 2004).

Psychometric corrections for measurement error are very important because this study attempt to estimate “true-score” (construct-level) relationships across levels of analysis. Internal consistency reliability (alpha) coefficients for both variables were used for individual-level relationships and in few cases where a selected score model was used for team- and organizational-level relationships (e.g., CEO perceptions of transformational leadership at the organizational level; Garcia-Morales, Matias-Reche, & Hurtado-Torres, 2008; Rogers, 2001). Since alpha coef-ficients do not capture transient error and scale-specific (rater-specific) error, they overestimate reliability and thus cause underestimates of true score relationships (Le, Schmidt, & Putka, 2009). Nonetheless, we used alpha coefficients to be directly comparable with previous meta-analyses (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004). ICC(2) as a reliability estimate for the aggre-gate group or organizational mean scores (when a direct-consensus compo-sition model [Chan, 1998] used for either transformational leadership or performance for team and organizational level relationships) were used. Relatedly, Whitman, Van Rooy, and Viswesvaran (2010) wrote that “ICC(2)



Wang et al. 241

indicates the reliability of the unit-level means . . . Therefore, correcting for ICC(2) should provide a meta-analytic estimate based on ‘true’ mean scores” (p. 56). The reliability of objective performance measures was not reported in all but one primary study. Reliability estimates of objective performance measures reported in previous meta-analyses were used. Spe-cifically, .92 (Barrick & Mount, 1991) was used to correct for measurement error in individual-level objective performance measures and .82 (Combs, Liu, Hall, & Ketchen, 2006) was used to correct for measurement error in team and organizational levels of performance measures; even when the reliability of objective performance measures was set to one to be conser-vative, we found that results changed by less than or equal to .02 in all cases. For those studies that did not report estimated reliabilities, we used an imputation procedure based on the average reliability estimated from the other original studies that examined the same relationship at the same level (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 758).

Subgroup comparison method was used for moderator analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). With reference to the moderator information coded, we grouped studies into two categories and performed separate meta-analysis for each of the subgroup. Prior research shows that this method has higher statis-tical power to detect the presence of moderator than other methods (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004, pp. 423-424; Schmidt, 2008).

To ensure that effect sizes included in our meta-analysis were statisti-cally independent, we computed a composite correlation when original studies reported multiple estimates of the correlations within a single sam-ple (e.g., correlations between several facets of transformational leadership and performance); otherwise, the average of the correlations was used to be compared with prior meta-analyses (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004). This ensured that a sample contributed only once in each meta-analytic estimate.

To test the augmentation hypotheses, usefulness analysis (Darlington, 1968) was conducted. This technique employs hierarchical regression analy-sis to examine the incremental validity of one predictor over the other predictor(s) with respect to a particular criterion. We also used general domi-nance analysis (Budescu, 1993) to show the relative importance (weight) of transformational and transactional leadership in the prediction of perfor-mance criteria. Dominance analysis is an alternative method to test relative importance of predictors when the predictors of interest are highly corre-lated; in the presence of multicollinearity, regression coefficients as an index of relative importance cause interpretation problems (see Budescu, 1993 for more details).




Results

As shown in Table 2, transformational leadership is positively related to indi-vidual follower performance across job performance criterion types (ρ−̂ = .25). The 95% confidence interval (CI) and 80% credibility interval (CV) do not include zero, which suggests that the overall validity estimate of transforma-tional leadership for follower individual-level performance is distinguishable from zero and is generalizable in most situations, respectively. More specifi-cally, it was found that transformational leadership has positive relationships with follower task (ρ−̂ = .21), contextual (ρ−̂ = .30), and creative performance (ρ−̂ = .21). Similarly, the 95% CIs and the 80% CVs for these performance criteria do not include zero. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 1. Apart from the three specific performance criteria tested as part of Hypothe-sis 1, some studies did not distinguish individual-level performance criteria from each other but focused on the relationship between transformational leadership and follower overall or general job performance. Not surprisingly, Table 2 shows that transformational leadership was also positively related to follower general job performance (ρ−̂ = .18), with the 95% CI and 80% CV excluding zero. Finally, as shown in Table 3, transformational leadership was positively related to individual follower job performance and its two major dimensions—that is, task and contextual performance—across moderators, including study setting, leader level, geographical region, research design, publication status, and leadership scale. None of the 95% CIs for these mod-erators includes zero. Furthermore, given that the 95% CIs of the mean effect sizes under each prescribed moderator overlap substantially with each other, the relationships of transformational leadership with individual follower performance were not moderated by these situational and methodological variables.

Findings in Table 2 also support Hypothesis 2, in which we posited that transformational leadership is more strongly related to follower contextual performance than to follower task performance. The corrected mean correla-tion for follower contextual performance (ρ−̂ = .30; 95% CI = .26, .34; 80% CV = .18, .42) is 34% greater than that for follower task performance (ρ−̂ = .21; 95% CI = .16, .26; 80% CV = .03, .38). We note that there is a very slight overlap between the 95% CIs for these two performance criteria, indicating that the two corrected mean correlations are considerably, though not fully, different. However, because the two corrected mean correlations for task and contextual performance were not based on completely independent samples, we conducted the Hotelling-Williams Test, which compares two dependent correlations (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, p. 759; Steiger, 1980). To use this test,



Wang et al. 243

Table 2. Relationships of Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership With Individual-Level Follower Performance

Criterion k N r_

ρ−̂ SDρ 80% CVρ 95% CIρ−̂

Individual-level performance Transformational leadership 62 16,809 .22 .25 .11 .10 .39 .21 .28 Contingent rewarda 50 9,108 .20 .22 .09 .10 .34 .19 .25 Management by

exception-active5 525 –.11 –.13 .29 –.50 .25 –.40 .14

Management by exception-passive

6 555 –.05 –.06 .13 –.23 .11 –.20 .07

Task performance Transformational leadership 31 7,016 .19 .21 .14 .03 .38 .16 .26 Contingent rewarda 17 6,180 .26 .28 .06 .20 .36 .25 .31 Management by

exception-active5 525 –.11 –.12 .30 –.51 .27 –.40 .16


6 555 –.07 –.08 .10 –.22 .05 –.20 .03

Contextual performance Transformational leadership 28 7,970 .26 .30 .09 .18 .42 .26 .34 Contingent rewardb 5,568 .23 Management by

exception-active2 356 –.22 –.29 .16 –.49 –.09 –.53 –.05


2 356 –.01 –.03 .19 –.27 .22 –.31 .26

Creative performance Transformational leadership 14 3,728 .19 .21 .10 .08 .34 .15 .27General performance Transformational leadership 13 4,017 .16 .18 .07 .09 .27 .13 .23

Note: k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r_

= sample-size weighted mean uncorrected correlation; ρ−̂ = estimated corrected mean correlation; SDρ = estimated standard deviation of true-score correlations; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval.a. Taken from Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006, table 4). b. True-score correlation of contingent reward with the composite of the five facets of citizenship behavior: altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue in Podsakoff et al. (2006, table 4).

we first calculated the corrected mean correlation between task and contex-tual performance among the dependent samples, which was found to be .69 ( r

_ = .60; k = 19). The results of the Hotelling-Williams Test revealed that the

corrected mean correlation of transformational leadership with contextual performance, when controlled for statistical dependence, would be higher than that of transformational leadership with task performance as hypothesized in a



244

Tabl

e 3.

Mod

erat

or A

naly

ses

for

the

Rel

atio

nshi

p of

Tra

nsfo

rmat

iona

l Lea

ders

hip

and

Indi

vidu

al-L

evel

Fol

low

er P

erfo

rman

ce

Stud

y m

oder

ator

k N

r_

ρ−̂ SD

ρ 80

% C

Vρ

95%

CI ρ−̂

Stud

y se

ttin

g P

riva

te

Tota

l 53

15

,133

.2

1 .2

4 .1

2 .0

9 .4

0 .2

1 .2

8

Ta

sk

28

6,44

4 .1

9 .2

1 .1

3 .0

4 .3

8 .1

5 .2

6

C

onte

xtua

l 21

6,

761

.26

.30

.09

.18

.42

.25

.34

Pub

lic

Tota

l 7

1,31

5 .2

5 .2

8 .0

0 .2

8 .2

8 .2

3 .3

3

Ta

sk

2 42

4 .2

8 .3

0 .0

5 .2

4 .3

6 .1

9 .4

1

C

onte

xtua

l 4

704

.26

.29

.00

.29

.29

.22

.35

Lead

er le

vel

Sup

ervi

sory

To

tal

45

10,4

70

.22

.26

.13

.10

.42

.22

.30

Task

23

4,

644

.17

.19

.16

–.01

.3

9 .1

2 .2

6

C

onte

xtua

l 19

4,

442

.28

.32

.12

.17

.47

.26

.38

M

id-

or u

pper

-leve

l To

tal

10

2,58

5 .1

7 .1

9 .0

7 .0

9 .2

8 .1

3 .2

5

Ta

sk

4 61

0 .2

1 .2

2 .1

0 .0

9 .3

5 .1

0 .3

5

C

onte

xtua

l 2

292

.25

.28

.02

.25

.31

.17

.39

Geo

grap

hic

regi

on N

orth

Am

eric

a To

tal

37

10,2

57

.22

.24

.12

.09

.40

.20

.29

Task

19

4,

730

.17

.19

.12

.03

.34

.13

.25

Con

text

ual

18

5,76

8 .2

5 .2

9 .0

6 .2

1 .3

7 .2

5 .3

3 E

ast A

sia

Tota

l 16

4,

605

.20

.23

.04

.18

.28

.19

.26

Task

6

1,31

2 .1

5 .1

6 .0

6 .0

8 .2

4 .0

9 .2

3

C

onte

xtua

l 5

921

.25

.29

.00

.29

.29

.23

.35

Res

earc

h de

sign

Cro

ss-s

ectio

nal

Tota

l 21

4,

327

.21

.24

.08

.14

.35

.20

.29

Task

10

1,

429

.19

.21

.14

.03

.39

.11

.31

Con

text

ual

6 99

3 .2

9 .3

4 .0

0 .3

4 .3

4 .2

9 .4

0

(con

tinue

d)



245

Tabl

e 3.

(co

ntin

ued)

Stud

y m

oder

ator

k N

r_

ρ−̂ SD

ρ 80

% C

Vρ

95%

CI ρ−̂

Lon

gitu

dina

l To

tal

37

11,4

34

.22

.25

.13

.08

.41

.20

.29

Task

21

5,

587

.19

.21

.13

.04

.38

.14

.27

Con

text

ual

21

6,78

6 .2

6 .3

0 .1

0 .1

7 .4

3 .2

5 .3

5Pu

blic

atio

n st

atus

Pub

lishe

d To

tal

41

10,7

64

.21

.24

.10

.12

.36

.20

.27

Task

24

5,

587

.19

.21

.11

.07

.34

.16

.26

Con

text

ual

18

5,89

3 .2

5 .2

8 .0

5 .2

1 .3

5 .2

5 .3

2 U

npub

lishe

d To

tal

21

6,04

5 .2

2 .2

6 .1

4 .0

8 .4

4 .2

0 .3

2

Ta

sk

7 1,

429

.19

.21

.21

–.06

.4

8 .0

4 .3

7

C

onte

xtua

l 10

2,

077

.31

.35

.14

.16

.53

.25

.44

Lead

ersh

ip s

cale

Bas

s an

d hi

s as

soci

ates

’ To

tal

48

11,5

09

.20

.23

.11

.09

.37

.19

.26

Task

24

4,

531

.18

.20

.13

.03

.36

.14

.26

Con

text

ual

18

3,71

2 .2

5 .2

8 .0

7 .1

9 .3

6 .2

3 .3

2 O

ther

s’

Tota

l 14

5,

300

.25

.29

.11

.15

.43

.22

.35

Task

7

2,48

5 .2

1 .2

4 .1

4 .0

6 .4

2 .1

3 .3

5

C

onte

xtua

l 10

4,

258

.33

.39

.14

.21

.58

.30

.49

Not

e: k

= n

umbe

r of

cor

rela

tions

; N =

com

bine

d sa

mpl

e si

ze; r_ =

sam

ple-

size

wei

ghte

d m

ean

unco

rrec

ted

corr

elat

ion;

ρ−̂ = e

stim

ated

cor

rect

ed m

ean

corr

elat

ion;

SD

ρ =

estim

ated

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ion

of t

rue-

scor

e co

rrel

atio

ns; C

V =

cre

dibi

lity

inte

rval

; CI =

con

fiden

ce in

terv

al.




“typical primary” study setting (t = 2.00, p < .05). Finally, as recommended by Hunter and Schmidt (2004), we tested this moderating effect of type of criterion across various conditions in a hierarchical manner to ensure that the observed difference between the relationship of transformational leadership with follower task and contextual performance was not confounded by situ-ational and methodological variables. Table 3 shows that transformational leadership was more strongly related to contextual than task performance in all conditions, except public sector (possibly due to second-order sampling error, as the number of studies ranges from 2 to 4). Taken together, these analyses provide support for Hypothesis 2.

The relationships of transformational leadership with team- and organizational-level performance are reported in Table 4. Transformational leadership was found to be positively related to overall team performance ( ρ−̂ = .33), with the 95% CI and 80% CV excluding zero. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Furthermore, while the overall relationship of transformational leadership with organizational-level performance was somewhat smaller (ρ−̂ = .27) than for team-level performance but greater than for individual-level performance, the 95% CI excluded zero, signifying that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with organizational performance. However, the 80% CV included zero, which indicates that there is a large variance in the cor-rected correlations included in the analysis at the organizational level. Never-theless, these results provide support for Hypothesis 4, which predicted that transformational leadership is significantly associated with organizational performance. We should note that we did not examine the effects of transfor-mational leadership on different types of team- or organizational-level per-formance because most studies focused on team task performance and organizational financial performance and only a very limited number of stud-ies examined team- and organizational-level contextual and creative perfor-mance (k = 3, 4 for team-level contextual and creative performance, respectively; k = 1, 4 for organizational contextual and creative performance, respectively). This may be due to the fact that theory and research on the multidimensionality of performance at the unit level is not as abundant or robust as it is at the individual-level of analysis (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008).

Interestingly, results in Tables 2 and 4 demonstrate that transformational leadership generally shows the highest relationship with team performance (ρ−̂ = .33 for team performance vs. ρ−̂ = .25 and .27 for individual and organizational performance, respectively). However, we were not able to directly compare the observed differences across levels of analysis, given that data points are not comparable across levels of analysis; specifically, for individual-, team-, and



Wang et al. 247

organizational-level studies, one data point is one person, one team (work-unit, group), and one organization, respectively.

Finally, to meta-analytically test the augmentation effect of transforma-tional leadership (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), the meta-analytic relation-ships of transactional leadership behaviors, including contingent reward, active management-by-exception, and passive management-by-exception, with individual, team and organizational performance were needed. Meta-analytic estimates of the relationships of leader contingent reward behavior with follower individual- and team-level performance criteria were taken from Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006). However, no previous meta-analyses have examined the relationships of active management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception leadership behaviors with follower individual-, team-, and organizational-level performance. In fact, as shown in Tables 2 and 4, only a small number of primary studies have exam-ined these relationships. Therefore, to avoid second-order sampling error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) and to be more conservative (as noted, the effects of management by exception on performance are negative), we excluded these active and passive management-by-exception from the subsequent anal-yses. Thus, we tested the augmentation effect of transformational leadership over contingent reward transactional leadership behavior.

Table 4. Relationships of Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership With Team- and Organizational-Level Performance

Criterion k N r_

ρ−̂ SDρ 80% CVρ 95% CIρ−̂

Team-level performance Transformational leadership 34 2,830 .24 .33 .07 .24 .42 .29 .37 Contingent rewarda 19 1,361 .21 .24 .24 –.07 .55 .15 .33 Management by

exception-active5 254 –.16 –.18 .15 –.37 .00 –.36 –.01


5 254 .10 .13 .17 –.09 .34 –.07 .32

Organizational-level performance Transformational leadership 27 2,408 .19 .27 .24 –.04 .59 .17 .37 Contingent rewarda 3 243 .13 .15 .05 .09 .21 .01 .28 Management by exception-

passive2 205 –.19 –.25 .00 –.25 –.25 –.38 –.12

Note: k = number of correlations; N = combined sample size; r_

= sample-size weighted mean uncorrected correlation; ρ−̂ = estimated corrected mean correlation; SDρ = estimated standard deviation of true-score correlations; CV = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval.a. Taken from Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006, table 4).




Table 5. Relative Importance of Transformational and Transactional Leadership in the Prediction of Follower Performance

Leadership dimension

Individual-level task performance

(ρ−̂/b/dominance)

Individual-level contextual

performance (ρ−̂/b/dominance)

Team-level performance

(ρ−̂/b/dominance)

Transformational leadership

.21/–.04/28% .30/.32/71% .33/.38/72%

Contingent reward .28a/.31/72% .23b/–.03/29% .24a/–.07/28%Overall R .28 .30 .33ΔR over

Contingent reward

.00 .07 .09

ΔR over Transformational leadership

.07 .00 .00

a. Taken from Podsakoff, Bommer, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006, table 4).b. True-score correlation of contingent reward with the composite of the five facets of citizenship behavior: altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue in Podsakoff et al. (2006, table 4).

Results of usefulness analysis in Table 5 showed that transformational leadership did not explain unique variance beyond contingent reward in pre-dicting follower individual-level task performance (ΔR = .00), whereas contin-gent reward explained unique variance beyond transformational leadership in predicting follower individual-level task performance (ΔR = .07). These results failed to support Hypothesis 5a but are consistent with Hypothesis 5b. In con-trast, consistent with Hypothesis 6, for individual-level contextual performance, transformational leadership augmented the effect of contingent reward (ΔR = .07), but contingent reward did not explain incremental variance beyond that explained by transformational leadership (ΔR = .00). The overall Rs for both analyses were similar: .28 for task performance and .30 for contextual performance.

For team- and organizational- level performance, we were only able to test the augmentation effect for team-level performance given the availability of primary studies. As shown in Table 5, transformational leadership augmented the effect of contingent reward in predicting team-level performance (ΔR = .09). However, when transformational leadership was entered first, contingent reward did not predict incremental variance in team-level performance (ΔR = .00). The overall R was .33. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was supported.

Given the high meta-analytic correlation between transformational leader-ship and contingent reward (.80; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), we also conducted



Wang et al. 249

dominance analyses to show the relative importance of transformational lead-ership and contingent reward in the prediction of performance outcomes (see Table 5). Consistent with the usefulness analysis, contingent reward accounted for more explained variance in individual-level task performance than did transformational leadership (72% vs. 28%), while transformational leadership accounted for more explained variance in individual-level contex-tual performance (71% vs. 29%) and team performance (72% vs. 28%) than did contingent reward.

DiscussionAs implied by the title of his seminal book on transformational leadership, Bass (1985) contended that transformational leaders motivate their followers to “perform beyond expectations.” However, until now this hypothesized link between transformational leadership and performance across individual-level criterion types and levels of analysis had not been fully examined from a meta-analytic perspective. Based on a large number of empirical studies from the past quarter century, we thus sought to critically review the transfor-mational leadership literature in relation to performance and meta-analytically estimate the magnitude of influence of transformational leadership on perfor-mance in organizations. In general, our results show that transformational leadership exhibits a positive relationship with performance across several individual performance criteria, including task, contextual, and creative per-formance; the influence of transformational leadership is stronger for contextual performance than for task performance across most study settings examined. The positive relationship between transformational leadership and individual performance holds across organizational type, leader level, and geographic region. Moreover, transformational leadership has posi-tive effects on performance across levels of analysis (i.e., individual, team, and organizational levels) with the relationship being higher at the team level and augments the effect of transactional leadership on individual-level contextual performance and team-level performance (but not individual-level task performance).

At this point, it seems informative to briefly compare the current findings with prior meta-analytic findings as shown in Table 1. The effect sizes on per-formance reported in this study are generally smaller than those on follower attitudinal and motivational outcomes reported in previous meta-analyses (e.g., DeGroot et al., 2000; Dumdum, Low, & Avolio, 2002; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). That is, transformational leadership has a stronger effect on employee attitudes and motivation than on employee performance; theoretically, this makes sense. The correlation




between transformational leadership and follower individual-level perfor-mance that we estimated in this article (ρ−̂ = .25, k = 62, N = 16, 809) was slightly higher than the correlation between charisma and follower individual-level performance (ρ−̂ = .21, k = 4, N = 715) reported by DeGroot et al. (2000). This was likely due to the stronger relationship between transformational leadership and contextual performance (ρ−̂ = .30). However, transformational leadership had a smaller relationship with team performance (ρ−̂ = .33, k = 34, N = 2,830) than its charismatic component in DeGroot et al. (2000; ρ−̂ = .49, k = 7, N = 432). Transformational leadership had a larger relationship with team and organizational performance (ρ−̂ = .27, k = 27, N = 2,408) than with Judge and Piccolo’s (2004) combined team and organizational performance (ρ−̂ = .26, k = 41, N = 6,197). These complex differences notwithstanding, we believe that our estimates are more accurate given that our results clearly distinguished team and organizational performance.

The results of our meta-analysis help clear the aforementioned ambiguities (represented as research hypotheses) in transformational leadership theory and thus contribute to the increased precision of trans-formational leadership theory and practice. First, our results indicate that transformational leadership is positively related to individual follower performance, but perhaps more interestingly, that transformational lead-ership is more strongly related to contextual performance than task per-formance across most conditions. Given the increasingly interdependent nature of contemporary work systems and processes, contextual perfor-mance is becoming more critical than ever before for achieving collective goals (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). As our results indicate, transformational leadership serves as a crucial component in encouraging contextual performance. However, our findings also suggest potential moderators of the outcomes of transformational leadership that should be addressed in future research given the nonnegligible true varia-tion across studies (SDρ) found. For example, given that transformational leadership has stronger effects on contextual performance than task performance, transformational leadership may be less effective in envi-ronments with low degrees of interdependence where interpersonal coop-eration among employees is less critical. Similarly, for contexts in which task performance is the predominant outcome of interest, transforma-tional leadership may be less effective than transactional leadership (Keller, 2006). These and other research questions stemming from our meta-analysis provide an interesting and useful guide for future research endeavors.



Wang et al. 251

Second, our results show that transformational leadership has positive relationships with performance not only at the individual level of analysis but also at team and organizational levels (Dansereau et al., 2006), supporting Klein and House’s (1995) argument that transformational leadership theory “is truly a meso theory, a theory that cuts across organizational levels” (p. 197). Interestingly, the strongest relationship between transformational lead-ership and performance occurred at the team level. Although the lack of com-parability of data units across levels of analysis prevents us from conducting direct comparisons of these relationships, the result that the relationship between transformational leadership and performance is strongest at the team level is consistent with several aspects of transformational leadership theory. To begin, transformational leaders motivate followers by emphasizing the followers’ ties to the collective group, fostering team identity and team potency and efficacy (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Kirk-man, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009; Shamir et al., 1993). Transforma-tional leaders also function as role models that their followers desire to emulate, thereby eliciting higher team commitment, cooperation, and perfor-mance. Furthermore, transformational leaders care about their followers and appeal to them on an emotional level. For example, when followers work together in a team led by a transformational leader, “they have many oppor-tunities to reinforce (vs. douse) each other’s commitment to their common cause” through a process of social influence and emotional contagion (Klein & House, 1995, p. 192; see also Barsade, 2002). Taken together, it seems possible that transformational leaders boost up team performance by generat-ing synergy among team members. Relatedly, Chun, Yammarino, Dionne, Sosik, and Moon (2009) found an empirical support for Kark and Shamir’s (2002) “dual effects of transformational leadership not only utilizing ideal-ized influence and inspirational motivation for collective purpose but also demonstrating intellectual stimulation and individually considerate behav-iors for individual team members” (Chun et al., 2009, p. 704). That is, the stronger effect of transformational leadership at the team level may piggy-back on its individual-level effect.

Our examination of performance across levels suggests two important directions for future research. The first is to further investigate the mediators of transformational leadership at all levels of analysis. We argue that trans-formational leadership may affect performance at different levels through dif-ferent mechanisms. For example, transformational leadership may increase individual-level performance through its effects on follower motivation and attitudes (Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). However, at the




team level, transformational leaders may affect team processes and emergent states (e.g., team cohesion and potency), leading to higher team performance (Bass et al., 2003). Finally, transformational leaders may influence organiza-tional performance not only through affecting individual-level and team-level processes and performance but also through affecting organizational cultures, systems, and strategies (Jung et al., 2003; Liao & Chuang, 2007). Second, we suggest that future research should examine the effect of transformational leadership on performance across levels of analysis using hierarchically nested data to examine trickle-down effects from the organizational level to team and individual levels. Although our meta-analysis provides a prelimi-nary step in this endeavor by reporting and discussing the differential effects of transformational leadership on performance across levels of analysis, mul-tilevel research incorporating nested data will truly enable researchers and organizations to understand the multilevel effects of transformational leader-ship in organizations. Third, the greater magnitudes of relationships (.33 and .27 for the team and organizational levels vs. .25 at the individual level) between transformational leadership and performance at supraindividual level are once again noteworthy. As noted by Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002), “unit-level research also provides opportunities to establish linkages to out-comes that are directly relevant to most businesses . . . item-level measurement error is less of a concern” and has direct implications for “issues on which managers can develop specific action plans” (pp. 268-269). That is, the supra-individual relationships better represent unit-level validity, which is a more direct and accurate estimate of business performance than individual-level validity; furthermore, they provide more direct implications for organiza-tional interventions.

Finally, our results suggest boundary conditions of the augmentation hypothesis that transformational leadership explains variance in performance outcomes beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Although Bass (1985, 1998) argued that transformational leadership augments the effect of transac-tional leadership, he and other theorists did not specify boundary conditions for the augmentation effect, such as the criteria on which the augmentation effect exists. The usefulness analyses (Table 5) suggest that the augmentation effect of transformational leadership may be contingent on the type of perfor-mance criteria and the level of analysis. Transformational leadership does add to the effects of contingent reward when predicting individual-level contex-tual performance and team-level performance. These results are consistent with the idea that transactional leadership is a foundation for transforma-tional leadership (Bass, 1998). However, transformational leadership did not



Wang et al. 253

incrementally predict follower task performance beyond the effects of con-tingent reward leadership. Instead, contingent reward predicted follower-individual-level task performance beyond transformational leadership. This unexpected reverse augmentation effect indicates that contingent reward leadership is needed to clarify goals and provide rewards to motivate followers to perform the tasks that are expected of them. Thus, while contingent reward alone is sufficient for motivating task performance, it is not enough to solicit extrarole behaviors and team-level performance. Transformational leader-ship, with its emphasis on achieving significant goals that challenge the status quo as a team, is needed for these purposes.

Managerial ImplicationsIn addition to providing guidance for future theory and research, our find-ings also have several implications for practitioners. First, the moderately positive meta-analytic relationships of transformational leadership with various performance criteria across follower individual-, team-, and organi-zational- levels and various situations (e.g., study setting, leader level, geographic region) indicate that transformational leadership tends to be a robust predictor of desirable performance outcomes across situations (Bass, 1997). Thus, organizations need to pay particular attention to intervention programs that enhance their managers’ leadership style. Fortunately, prior research shows that transformational leadership style is trainable, with the results of such training being quite substantial (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). However, even with the benefits of training, transformational leader-ship can also be predicted from some individual differences such as extraversion and emotional stability (Bono & Judge, 2004). Hence, we sug-gest that organizations should focus on selecting and promoting individuals on such traits for upper-level managerial positions as such individuals are more likely to become transformational leaders.

Furthermore, although it is important for organizations to promote transfor-mational leadership through selection practices and training interventions, organizations should also bear in mind that they are likely to derive the most value from transformational leadership in settings involving teamwork and collaboration among employees (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). Indeed, given that transactional leadership by itself is effective at raising task performance, there may be some settings in which transactional styles of lead-ership are most desired, particularly when jobs involve little interdependence or collaboration.




Contributions Beyond Previous Meta-Analyses

Compared with prior meta-analyses on transformational leadership, this meta-analysis makes several unique contributions to transformational leader-ship research. To begin, our meta-analysis is the first to estimate the relationships between transformational leadership and three individual-level follower performance criteria—task, contextual, and creative performance. As noted earlier, prior meta-analyses (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004) shed light on the motivational and attitudinal outcomes of transformational leadership, but they did not examine behavioral outcomes of transformational leadership in terms of follower performance. In addition, an early meta-analysis by Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) on the MLQ showed a moder-ate relationship between transformational leadership and self-reported extra effort. In contrast, we only included non-self-report performance measures in examining the relationship between transformational leadership and perfor-mance, thereby yielding a less biased (by removing common method bias) estimate of the magnitude of this relationship.

Second, our estimates of the overall transformational leadership–individual performance relationship are based on a larger number of primary studies than a previous meta-analytic study on charismatic leadership that examined this rela-tionship (DeGroot et al., 2000). Thus, our results are less subject to second-order sampling error and thus are more credible. Third, our study is the first to sepa-rately examine relationships of transformational leadership with team and organizational levels of performance. Prior meta-analyses investigating these relationships combined performance criteria that differed in level of analysis and content (Fuller et al., 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Finally, our study is the first to meta-analytically examine the augmentation effect of transformational-trans-actional leadership on various follower performance outcomes, including indi-vidual-level task and contextual performance, and team-level performance.

Limitations and Directions for Future ResearchThis study also has some limitations. First, although our meta-analysis includes both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, the relationships are correla-tional in nature. Thus, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the causal direction of the relationship between transformational leadership and perfor-mance. Second, although we examined the relationship between transformational leadership with three individual performance criteria, we were unable to inves-tigate the relationship of transformational leadership and counterproductive



Wang et al. 255

performance because of a limited number of primary studies (see Brown & Treviño, 2000, for an exception). Given the important role of counterproduc-tive work behaviors in influencing managers’ overall job performance ratings (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002) and the ethical/moral implications of transforma-tional leadership theory (e.g., Howell & Avolio, 1992), we suggest that more studies should examine the effect of transformational leadership on various follower counterproductive behaviors so that we can have a better understand-ing of the relationship between transformational leadership and the whole spectrum of individual performance.

Finally, the issue of differential effects of transformational leadership on performance across levels of analysis should ideally be examined using the same sample following multilevel analysis principles (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) to ensure that differences in effect sizes across levels of analysis are attributable to differences in levels of analysis alone.

ConclusionIn summary, the current study shows that transformational leadership is posi-tively related to performance across criterion types and levels of analysis. Moreover, transformational leadership has a stronger relationship with individual-level contextual performance than with individual-level task performance. Transformational leadership is also positively related to team- and organization-level performance. Finally, transformational leadership has an augmentation effect over contingent reward leadership in predicting follower individual-level contextual and team-level performance. Overall, our results support that trans-formational leaders lead not only their individual followers but also their teams and organizations to achieve higher levels of performance.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Greg L. Stewart and Terry L. Boles for constructive comments and advice on an earlier version of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.




Notes

1. Although transformational and charismatic leadership developed from distinct traditions, many scholars have noted the overlap among the behaviors included in these two constructs (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). In addition, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that the validities for studies of transformational and charismatic leadership were similar. In the current study, there are only four, five, and eight primary studies in which charismatic leadership was measured at the individual, team, and organizational levels of analysis, respectively. Given these small num-bers, we have reported the results of meta-analyses that combine transformational and charismatic leadership studies; results with and without primary studies us-ing charismatic leadership were found to be virtually the same at the individual and team levels. We also conducted separate meta-analyses for primary studies assessing transformational and charismatic leadership at the organizational level of analysis where there were relatively enough number of studies for charismatic leadership, and the 95% confidence intervals for the two results were found to substantially overlap; the difference between the two meta-analytic estimate does not statistically differ from zero (for transformational leadership,

ρ−̂ = .25, k = 19,

N = 1,785, 95% CI = .12, .37, 80% CV = –.09, .58; for charismatic leadership, ρ−̂ = .36, k = 8, N = 623, 95% CI = .24, .48, 80% CV = .19, .53).

2. We thank an anonymous reviewer who recommended two relevant review studies.3. Separate meta-analyses show that the relationship of transformational leadership

with follower task performance did not significantly differ regardless of whether follower task performance was objectively or subjectively measured.

4. Separate meta-analyses show that the relationship of transformational leadership with team performance did not significantly differ regardless of whether team performance was objectively or subjectively measured.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.*Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Srinivasan, D. (2006). Does CEO

charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance, environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 161-174.

*Arena, F. L., Ayman, R., & Daniels, A. L. (2008). Moderating effects of environ-mental uncertainty on charismatic leadership and corporate profitability. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917-1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 836-874.



Wang et al. 257

*Avolio, B. J., Howell, J. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1999). A funny thing happened on the way to the bottom line: Humor as a moderator of leadership style effects. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 219-227.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. (2002). Introduction to, and overview of, transforma-tional and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Trans-formational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2 of Monographs in Leadership and Management). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 4, 359-373.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leader-ship training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.

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

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educa-tional impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to cri-tiques. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

*Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit per-formance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.

*Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.

*Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 43-54.

*Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organi-zational performance: The impact of transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 15-26.




*Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understand-ing the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554-571.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Person-nel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

*Brossoit, K. B. (2001). Understanding employee empowerment in the workplace: Exploring the relationships between transformational leadership, employee per-ceptions of empowerment, and key work outcomes (Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion). The Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA.

*Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (1999). Rally the troops or make the trains run on time: The relative importance and interaction of contingent reward and transformational leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20, 291-299.

Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2000). Socialized charismatic leadership, values con-gruence, and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954-962.

Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of the Bass

(1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468-478.

*Casimir, G., Waldman, D. A., Bartram, T., & Yang, S. (2006). Trust and the rela-tionship between leadership and follower performance: Opening the black box in Australia and China. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12, 68-84.

*Cavazotte, F., & Bernardo, J. (2008). Transformational leadership and performance in Brazil: A replication and test of mediating processes. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.

*Chen, C. H. V., & Tang, Y. Y. (2009). A multilevel investigation on mechanisms link-ing transformational leadership and innovative behavior. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

*Chun, J. U., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Sosik, J. J., & Moon, H. K. (2009). Leadership across hierarchical levels: Multiple levels of management and multiple levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 689-707.

*Cho, J. W., & Dansereau, F. (2010). Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citi-zenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 409-421.



Wang et al. 259

*Cohen, A., Tura, E. B., & Vashdi, D. R. (2008). Group characteristics as moderators of the relationship between exchange variables and OCB. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

*Colbert, A. E. (2004). Understanding the effects of transformational leadership: the mediating role of leader-follower value congruence (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City.

*Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top man-agement teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 81-96.

Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high-performance work practices matter? A meta-analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501-528.

*Comer, L. B., Jolson, M. A., Dubinsky, A. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1995). When the sales manager is a woman: An exploration into the relationship between salespeople’s gender and their responses to leadership styles. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15, 17-32.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439-452.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9.Corley, K., & Gioia, D. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What con-

stitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36, 12-32.*Cowen, S. S. (1990). A study of relationships between perceived leadership behaviors

of presidents at public four-year institutions of higher education in the U. S. and the changes in FTE enrollment, perceptions of effectiveness, subordinate satis-faction, and other factors of the presidency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.

Cox, J. F. (1994). The effects of superleadership training on leader behavior, subordi-nate self-leadership behavior, and subordinate citizenship (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.

*Curphy, G. J. (1991). An empirical evaluation of Bass’ (1985) theory of transforma-tional and transactional leadership (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus.

Dansereau, F., Cho, J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Avoiding the “fallacy of the wrong level”: A within and between analysis (WABA) approach. Group and Organiza-tion Management, 31, 536-577.

Darlington, R. B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 79, 161-182.




*DeClerk, C. C. (2007). The relationship between retail store manager leadership styles and employee generational cohort, performance, and satisfaction (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ.

*de Hoogh, A. H. B., Hartog, D. N. D., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., van den Berg, P. T., van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2004). Charismatic leadership, envi-ronmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology, 13, 447-471.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organiza-tional outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Adminis-trative Sciences, 17, 356-371.

*Degula, R. J. (1995). The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1652-1671.

*Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transfor-mational leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Per-sonal Selling & Sales Management, 15, 17-31.

Dumdum, U. R., Low, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transforma-tional and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2 of Monographs in Leadership and Management; pp. 35-66). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

*Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, D. V., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leader-ship and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438-1446.

*Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217-231.

*Ensley, M. D., Pearce, C. L., & Hmieleski, K. M. (2006). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between entrepreneur leadership behavior and new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 243-263.

*Fu, P. P., Tsui, A., Liu, J., Song, J. W., Jiang, Y., Jia, L. D., . . . Wu, W. K. (n.d.). CEO personal values and middle manager responses: The mediating role of leadership behavior and organizational culture. Retrieved from http://www.baf.cuhk.edu.hk/asia-aom/PDW06/T4_Fuetal.pdf

Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271-287.

*Garcia-Morales, V. J., Matias-Reche, F., & Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008). Influence of transformational leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending on the level of organizational learning in the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21, 188-212.



Wang et al. 261

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientious-ness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513-524.

*Gerstner, C. R. (1998). Leadership relationships and work group effectiveness: A multi-level empirical examination (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

*Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 397-420.

*Gong, Y. P., Hung, C. J., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, trans-formational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765-778.

*Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. L. (2001). A theoretical and empir-ical extension to the transformational leadership construct. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 22, 759-774.

*Griffith, G. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42, 333-356.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.

*Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.

*Hacket, R., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. J., Wang, A., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Trans-formational leadership and OCB: A test of a moderated mediated model. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

*Han, J., Liao, H., Taylor, S. M., & Kim, S. (2010). The effects of HRM and organiza-tional context on transformational leadership and team performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job atti-tudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

*Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.

*Hoffman, D. V., & Johnes, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509-522.




House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 43-54.

*Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of con-solidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

*Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694.

*Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Chabowski, B. R. (2007). Leadership, the buy-ing center, and supply chain performance: A study of linked users, buyers, and suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 393-403.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185-195.

*Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544.

*Jung, D. I., Wu, A., & Chow, C. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indi-rect effects of CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 582-594.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leader-ship: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.

Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leader-ship: The road ahead (pp. 67 -91). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

*Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team Out-comes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77-89.

*Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202-210.

*Kim, J. (2000). A study of relationships among work motivation, problem-solving style, leadership style, and team climate on creative behavior in the South Korean workplace (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri, Columbia.



Wang et al. 263

*Kirkman, B., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764.

Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.

Klein, K. J., & House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 183-198.

*Koene, B. A. S., Vogelaar, A. L. W., & Soeters, J. L. (2002). Leadership effects on organizational climate and financial performance: Local leadership effect in chain organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 193-215.

*Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R.(1995). The effects of transformation leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and meth-ods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

*Larmore, A. M. (2000). The relationship between leader match, direct report team perceptions of transformational leadership, and CEO effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.

Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 41-58.

Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., & Putka, D. J. (2009). The multifaceted nature of measurement artifacts and its implications for estimating construct-level relationships. Organi-zational Research Methods, 12, 165-200.

*Liao, H., & Chuang, A. C. (2007). Transforming service employees and cli-mate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006-1019.

*Liaw, Y., Chi, N., & Chuang, A. (in press). Examining the mechanisms linking trans-formational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: The mediating roles of perceived supervisor and coworker support. Journal of Business Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9145-x




*Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. Leader-ship Quarterly, 19, 161-177.

*Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610-621.

*Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of transfor-mational CEOs on the performance of small- to medium-sized firms: Does organi-zational context matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 923-934.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

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, 385-425.

*MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115-134.

Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effective-ness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.

*McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545-559.

*Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the asso-ciation between leadership style and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes. Leadership, 3, 433-457.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

*Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predic-tors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aver-sive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172-197.

*Peters, T. J. (1997). Transactional and transformational leadership: Predictors of employee satisfaction, commitment, and productivity (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.

*Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-ups and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348-368.

*Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behav-iors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.



Wang et al. 265

*Pillai, R., Schreisheim, C. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational leadership and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25, 897-933.

Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizen-ship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 113-142.

*Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee sat-isfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recom-mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

*Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Trans-formational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individ-ual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behav-iors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.

*Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational lead-ership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19, 1-22.

*Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower Creativity: The mediating role of follower identification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

*Quigley, N. R. (2003). The relationship between leader core self-evaluations, team feedback, leader efficacy, transformational leadership, team efficacy, team goals, team action and transition processes, and team performance (Unpublished doc-toral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.

*Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Proactive customer service performance: Relationships with individual, task, and leadership variables. Human Performance, 20, 363-391.

*Rich, G. A. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership behavior on attitudes, role perceptions, and in-role/extro-role performance of salespeople (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.




*Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involve-ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561-589.

*Rode, J. C., & Wang, P. (2008). Transformational leadership and follower creativ-ity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational cli-mate. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

*Rogers, T. A. (2001). The role of transformational leadership in salespersons’ moti-vation and performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.

*Roi, R. C. (2006). Leadership, corporate culture and financial performance (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). The University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

*Ross, S. M., & Offerman, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work group performance. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.

*Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 121-133.

*Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.

*Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Knippenberg, D. V. (2007). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity (ERIM Report Series Research in Management, ERS-2007-080-ORG). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Erasmus University, Erasmus Research Institute of Management.

Schmidt, F. L. (2008). Meta-analysis: A constantly evolving research integration tool, Organizational Research Methods, 11, 96 - 113.

Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa city: University of Iowa, Department of Management and Organizations.

*Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. H., & DeChurch, L. A. (2006). An inves-tigation of path-goal and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 21-38.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (IN PRESS). Antecedents and conse-quences of psychological and team empowerment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charis-matic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 557-594.



Wang et al. 267

*Shin, S., Kim, T., Lee., J., & Bian., L. (2010). Cognitive diversity and creative self-efficacy: A cross-level interaction on creativity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativ-ity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703-714.

*Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). Team heterogeneity and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721.

*Shivers, S. L. (1999). A role theory approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership behaviors: The role of interpretations of organizational context (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 653-663.

*Sosik, J. J. (2005). The role of personal values in the charismatic leadership of corporate managers: A model and preliminary field study. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 221-244.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 87, 245-251.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591-620.

*Tosi, H. L., Misangy, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 405-420.

*Tremblay, M., Dupras, D., Doucet, O., & Lapalme, M. E. (2009). Supervisor’s lead-ership and extra-role behaviors: The role of support and distance. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

*Tse, H. H. (2008). Transformational leadership and performance: A social iden-tity perspective. Paper presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

*Tse, H. H. (2009). Transformational leadership: A person situation interactive per-spective. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25-37.

*Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 81, 71-82.

*Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance: An empirical examination of two competing models. Personnel Review, 36, 661-683.




Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent

reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 382-395.

*Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 355-383.

*Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leader-ship matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of per-ceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.

*Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Javidan, M. (2006). Components of CEO transfor-mational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1703-1725.

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: Levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266-285.

*Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. C. (2008). How transformational leader-ship weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 6, 793-825.

*Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. (2010). Are we there yet? Further understanding the transformational leadership–performance relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

*Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2009). Authentically lead-ing groups: The mediating role of positivity and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/job.653

*Wang, G., Colbert, A. E., Bingham, J. B., & Choi, D. J. (2009). Does leadership matter? The effects of transformational leadership on psychological contract ful-fillment and further effects on work-related outcomes. Paper presented at the 24th annual SIOP Conference, New Orleans, LA.

*Wang, A., Hackett, R. D., Cheng, B., Chen, Z., & Farh, J. (2010). The motivational under-pinnings of transformational leadership performance relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

*Wang, X.-H., & Howell, J. M. (2010, August 16). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0020754

*Wang, H., Law, K., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. (2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420-433.



Wang et al. 269

Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555.

Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41-81.

*Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational lead-ership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 593-608.

*Wilderom, C. P. M., & Berg, P. V. (2010). Socialized charismatic leadership and organization culture as predictors of firm performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Man-agement, 17, 601-617.

Williams, L. (1989). Affective and non-affective components of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as determinants as organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

*Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., & Whittington, J. L. (1998). A field study of a cog-nitive approach to understanding transformational and transactional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 55-84.

*Xenikou, A., & Simosi, M. (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psy-chology, 21, 566-579.

Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005). Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 879-919.

*Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of analysis to determine boundary conditions. Personnel Psychology, 47, 787-811.

*Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., Comer, L. B., & Jolson, M. A. (1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 205-222.

*Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27-54.

*Yang, J. X., Zhang, Z. X., & Tsui, A. (2008). Middle manager leadership and front-line employee performance: Bypass, cascading and contingent effects. Paper pre-sented at the 68th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.




*Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00974.x

*Zhang, Y. W., Rich, B. L., & LePine, J. (2009). Transformational leadership and job performance: The mediating role of job engagement. Paper presented at the 69th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34, 590-619.

*Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human–capital-enhancing human resource management. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 39-53.

*Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 75-92.

Bios

Gang Wang is a PhD candidate in the Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa. His research interests center on the roles of leadership behaviors (emotional and nonemotional) and individual differences in leadership effectiveness at the individual, team, and organizational levels of analysis.

In-Sue Oh (PhD, University of Iowa) is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at Virginia Commonwealth University. His current research interests include personnel selection procedures and methods, leadership development, inter-national HR, and meta-analysis methods.

Stephen H. Courtright is a doctoral candidate in the Tippie College of Business at the University of Iowa. His current research interests include team design and motiva-tion, leadership, workplace incivility, and personnel selection methods.

Amy E. Colbert (PhD, University of Iowa) is an associate professor in the Depart-ment of Management and Organizations at the University of Iowa. Her research interests include leadership, individual differences, and the connections that employ-ees form with their work, their coworkers, and their organizations.



transformational leadership

Documents

comtransformational

teamlevel performance

organization levels

university of iowa libraries

metaanalytic review

metaanalytic regression

current metaanalytic

levels of analysis