leader motives, charismatic leadership, and subordinates ... · leader motives 3 leader motives,...
TRANSCRIPT
Leader Motives
1
Running head: LEADER MOTIVES AND CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP
Leader Motives, Charismatic Leadership, and Subordinates’ Work Attitude in the Profit and
Voluntary Sector
Annebel H.B. De Hoogh
Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Deanne N. Den Hartog
Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Paul L. Koopman
Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Henk Thierry and Peter T. Van den Berg
Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Joost G. Van der Weide and Celeste P.M. Wilderom
Twente University, The Netherlands
We thank management consultancy firm SvM in helping us to collect part of the data.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Annebel H.B. de Hoogh, Department of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Free University Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081
BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Leader Motives
2
Abstract
This multi-method study examined leaders’ motives, charismatic leader behavior, and
subordinates’ work attitude for CEOs (N = 73) of small and medium-sized organizations in
two sectors, namely the profit and voluntary sector. Interviews with CEOs were coded for
motive imagery. Direct reports rated CEO charismatic leader behavior (n = 125) and their
own work attitudes (n = 262) using questionnaires. As expected, charismatic leadership was
positively related to subordinates’ positive work attitude. Perceived charismatic leadership
was also positively related to coded power motivation. The tendency to use power in a
morally responsible way was differentially related to charismatic leadership for CEOs of
profit and voluntary organizations.
Keywords: Leader motives, Charismatic leadership, Profit and voluntary sector
Leader Motives
3
Leader Motives, Charismatic Leadership, and Subordinates’ Work Attitude in the Profit and
Voluntary Sector
Over the past 20 years, a considerable amount of theory and research has focused on
charismatic or transformational leadership. Such leaders articulate an attractive vision for the
organization and behave in ways that reinforce the values inherent in that vision. Followers
become highly committed to the goal of the collective and perform beyond expectation (Bass,
1985; Burns, 1978; House, 1977). Many empirical studies and a number of meta-analyses
demonstrate positive relationships between charismatic leadership and a wide range of
outcome measures, ranging from financial measures of business unit performance to
subordinates’ attitudes, such as affective organizational commitment (e.g., Bycio, Hackett, &
Allen, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Lowe,
Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001).
Many researchers concerned with charismatic leadership hold that personal
characteristics or traits play an important role in the emergence of charismatic leadership
(e.g., Bryman, 1992; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Jacobsen & House, 2001; Judge &
Bono, 2000). House and Howell (1992) discussed personality traits that seem likely to
differentiate charismatic leaders from non-charismatic leaders, including self-confidence,
need for social influence, social responsibility, cognitive achievement orientation, energy,
enthusiasm and creativity. They concluded that research in this area was limited and
fragmented. In response, various personality characteristics have recently been investigated in
relation to charismatic leadership. This research shows that pro-activity, locus of control, self-
confidence, dominance, extraversion, agreeableness and openness to experience are related to
charismatic leadership (e.g., Crant & Bateman, 2000; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Judge & Bono,
2000; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001; Ross & Offermann, 1997).
A set of personal dispositions that, to date, has attracted less attention in charismatic
Leader Motives
4
leadership research is leaders’ motives, such as the power motive and the tendency to use
power in a morally responsible way, the affiliation and the achievement motive. In research,
these motives have received considerable support as predictors of general leader effectiveness
(e.g., Kirkpatrick, Wofford, & Baum, 2002; McClelland & Burnham, 1976; 2003; Spangler &
House, 1991).
House integrated these motives into his theory of charismatic leadership, by proposing
that they may act as antecedents of charismatic leadership (e.g., House & Aditya, 1997;
House & Howell, 1992; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). However, empirical evidence on
this proposition is scarce. The available evidence comes from a study focusing on U.S.
presidents (House et al., 1991) and suggests that leader motives are indeed linked to perceived
charisma. Whether such motives are also related to perceived charismatic leadership in
different types of organizations is not yet clear. Also, the methodology to assess motive
structures (especially the tendency to use power in a morally responsible way) improved in
recent years. Therefore, the present study adds to the literature by examining whether and
how motives are related to perceived charismatic leader behavior and subordinates’ positive
work attitude in two types of organizations, namely organizations in the profit and voluntary
sector. In addition, rather than solely relying on survey measures, the study combines survey
data with data derived from interviews.
Implicit Motives
Over several decades, McClelland, Atkinson, and other researchers have investigated
three basic motives; the power, the affiliation and the achievement motive (e.g., Atkinson,
1958; McClelland, 1975, 1985a, 1985b). These motives are drawn from Murray’s (1938)
human motivation taxonomy and are suggested to represent the most important dimensions of
human motivated behavior (Atkinson, 1958). The power motive is defined as the desire to
have impact on other people, to affect their behavior or emotions (Winter, 1992a). The
Leader Motives
5
affiliation motive is defined as a concern for establishing, maintaining, or restoring positive
affective relationships with others (Heyns, Veroff, & Atkinson, 1958). The achievement
motive is defined as a concern for competition against some standard of excellence and unique
accomplishment (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958).
These motives were originally assessed via thematic content analysis of Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT) stories. Scoring categories were developed by observing how
experimental arousal of the implicit motive in question affected the contents of TAT stories
(see e.g., Winter, 1973). Winter further developed and refined the original method, so that any
form of imaginative running text or speech could be used as the basis for content analyses
(Winter, 1991a). His methodology permits unobtrusive measurement of implicit motives in
diverse texts, such as presidential speeches (e.g., Spangler & House, 1991; Winter, 1987),
interview responses of political leaders (e.g., Winter, 1980), and written vision statements of
CEOs (e.g., Kirkpatrick et al., 2002). Such thematic coding examines implicit motives, which
tend to predict long-term spontaneous behavioral trends. They are generally unrelated to self-
attributed motives as measured by questionnaires, which tend to predict immediate responses
to specific situations (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Spangler, 1992).
The Leader Motive Profile
McClelland and Burnham (1976) examined several hundred managers’ TAT scores on
the motives. They found that managers whose work units reported higher work morale tended
to write stories that reflected high power motivation, low affiliation motivation and a high
concern for the moral exercise of power. They labeled this combination of motives the
Leadership Motive Profile. McClelland and Burnham (1976, 2003) argued that leaders with
such a Leadership Motive Profile (LMP) create an inspirational work climate and a sense of
team spirit by engaging in social influence behavior in a responsible way, while applying
rules universally and fairly.
Leader Motives
6
In separate analyses of one set of longitudinal data gathered at the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, both McClelland and Boyatzis (1982) and Winter
(1991b) demonstrated the predictive validity of the LMP for managerial success. Also, Winter
(1978) showed that the LMP of high-level U.S. naval officers was associated with superior
performance ratings by supervisors. Spangler and House (1991) found that elements of the
LMP predicted perceived greatness and social performance among U.S. presidents. Thus, the
LMP research supports the idea that motives may be related to general leader effectiveness.
However, it does not yet clearly explain how motives affect leader effectiveness.
Leader Motives and Charismatic Leadership
In their work on charismatic leadership, House and colleagues describe the elements
of the Leadership Motive Profile as potential antecedents of charismatic leadership (e.g.,
House, 1977; House & Aditya, 1997; House et al., 1991). Specifically, they expect that
leaders who are perceived as charismatic will have a high power motivation and a low
affiliation motivation, and a high concern for the moral exercise of power. According to
House and colleagues, to realize envisioned changes, charismatic leaders must engage in
proactive social influence behavior mobilizing a critical mass of followers in the interest of
the leader’s vision.
House and colleagues argue that charismatic leaders need to seek influence and power
and thus have a high power motivation. Since such leaders are also likely to be resisted and
criticized by opposing forces within their environment who prefer the status quo or have a
different vision, they may benefit from being relatively insensitive to such criticism, and thus,
according to House and colleagues, from having a low affiliation motivation. This enables
leaders to take forceful actions and make tough decisions without worrying about being
disliked (McClelland, 1985b). A low affiliation motivation has also been linked to the
universal application of rules. Leaders low on this motive may be less easily induced to make
Leader Motives
7
exceptions for the needs of individuals, which may be regarded as unfair by subordinates and
create low morale (McClelland & Burnham, 1976; 2003). In contrast, leaders high on
affiliation motivation may be more reluctant to discipline subordinates or to strictly monitor
their behavior and convey negative feedback (McClelland, 1985b).
To be effective and maintain their position, charismatic leaders need to understand and
build on the needs, values, and hopes of their followers. They need to advocate a better future
for their organization and for followers, emphasizing shared ideological values (e.g., Shamir,
House, & Arthur, 1993). Leaders with a high concern for the moral exercise of power will use
power in an altruistic and collectively oriented manner, behave ethically, and be concerned
about the consequences of their own actions on others (Winter & Barenbaum, 1985). This
concern will result in leadership which induces trust and respect for the leader and
commitment to the leader’s vision. In contrast, leaders with a high power motivation who tend
to use power for personal rather than social needs may be seen as using their position to
aggrandize themselves at the expense of others or of the organization. Therefore, House and
colleagues argue that charismatic leaders need to have a high rather than a low concern for the
moral exercise of power (House, 1977; House & Aditya, 1997; House et al., 1991).
To investigate their theory, House et al. (1991) used Winter’s (1987) motive scores of
elected U.S. presidents derived from coding motive imagery of presidential inaugural
addresses. Presidential charisma was measured through content analyses of biographical
extracts and editorials appearing in the New York Times after the president’s inauguration.
House and colleagues found that need for power was significantly positively and the
affiliation motive was negatively, but not significantly related to presidential charismatic
leadership.
Following McClelland (McClelland, Davis, Kalin & Wanner, 1972; McClelland,
1985b), House et al. measured the tendency to use power in a morally responsible way by
Leader Motives
8
counting the frequency of the word “not” in material written by or about these presidents.
“McClelland (1985b) believed that the historical use of the word “not” in proscriptive
statements in the Judeo-Christian tradition, such as “Thou shall not..,” reflects constraint on
the coercive, exploitative, and self-interested use of power” (House et al., 1991, p.375). House
and colleagues found that the frequency in which the word “not” was used in presidential
writings was significantly related to presidential charisma.
Research by Spangler and House (1991), however, demonstrated that counting the
number of “nots” in presidential writings was associated with the manner in which presidents
exercised power (conventional and institutional versus personal and radical) rather then
tendency to use power in a morally responsible way. Therefore, they claim that House et al.
(1991) found support for presidential power motive to be related to charismatic leadership,
but did not investigate the relationship between charismatic leadership and the tendency use
power in an altruistic and collectively oriented manner. Furthermore, the final sample size in
House et al’s study is rather small (31 presidents). Also, they focused on presidential
leadership rather than leadership in organizations. Whether leader motives are also related to
perceived charismatic leadership in organizations is not yet clear.
The present investigation was designed to test the propositions regarding the
relationship between leader motives and charismatic leadership put forward by House and
colleagues in an organizational context. We also attempt to overcome the aforementioned
methodological limitation of previous work by using a newly developed validated coding
methodology for the way in which the power motive is expressed (Winter, 1992b).
Winter and Barenbaum (1985) developed and validated a new measure of concern for
responsibility that moderates the expression of power motivation into either responsible or
profligate channels (for an overview of validation studies see Winter, 1991b, 1992b). This
measure focuses on an inner obligation to do what is right, taking responsibility for oneself
Leader Motives
9
and others, being dependable, instilling self-control and having awareness of the
consequences of action as represents of the responsibility disposition. In TAT stories and
running text, the responsibility disposition is indicated by images reflecting moral and legal
standards of conduct, internal obligation, concern for others, concern about consequences and
self-judgment (Winter, 1992b). Longitudinal research shows that a high power motive in
interaction with a high concern for responsibility is associated with effective managerial
performance and success (Winter, 1991b).
Following the theory presented by House and colleagues and based on research on the
validated coding methodology for the responsibility disposition we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: Charismatic leadership is positively related to the power motive and negatively
related to the affiliation motive.
Hypothesis 2: The power motive will be more strongly related to charismatic leadership when
it is combined with a high concern for responsibility than when it is combined with a low
concern for responsibility.
Achievement Motive
The achievement motive was initially included in the charismatic leadership theory
developed by House as a possible antecedent of such leadership (House, 1977; House et al.,
1991). However, in later work on the personality of the charismatic leader (e.g., House &
Aditya, 1997) the achievement motive is no longer presented as such, as the relationship
between this motive and charismatic leadership seems less clear-cut than for other motives.
Conceptually, the achievement motive could be seen as a characteristic of charismatic
leaders, as highly achievement motivated leaders may inspire followers to perform beyond
expectations (cf. Bass, 1985) through setting high standards and demanding excellence.
However, the personal success focus inherent in achievement motivation may also cause
leaders to try to retain strong control over all possible aspects of their position rather than
Leader Motives
10
delegate responsibility, and to aim for personal rather than collective success (McClelland &
Atkinson, 1976; Spangler & House, 1991). Research revealed a negative relationship between
the achievement motive and charismatic leadership for presidents (House et al., 1991) and no
relationship between the Big five construct of conscientiousness (of which achievement is a
major facet) and charismatic leadership for managers (Judge & Bono, 2000).
In sum, although achievement motivation might at first glance seem to be an asset for
charismatic leaders, helping them to set challenging goals, the available research suggests it
does not play such a positive role and may even form a liability. Highly achievement
motivated leaders may focus on personal success and control to such an extent that it goes at
the expense of their ability to enable and empower others to perform well (House et al., 1991;
Judge & Bono, 2000). Our study further explores this relationship and examines whether the
negative relationship House and colleagues found for presidents is also found for our sample
of leaders of organizations. We hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3: Charismatic leadership is negatively related to the achievement motive.
Charismatic Leadership and Work Attitude
Charismatic leaders are expected to infuse followers’ work with values by articulating
an attractive vision, and to behave in ways that reinforce the values inherent in that vision,
which will increase the perceived meaningfulness of their work to subordinates (Shamir et al.,
1993). Charismatic leaders emphasize the collective and communicate the shared purpose of
the collective to subordinates. This will increase their feelings involvement. Charismatic
leaders show confidence in their subordinates and project self-confidence. As a result,
followers’ beliefs about their ability to perform increase. This in turn will increase
subordinates’ willingness to invest effort and their enthusiasm for the task at hand (e.g.,
House, 1996; Shamir et., 1993). As stated, previous research shows positive relations of
charismatic leadership to subordinates’ effort, organizational commitment, and job
Leader Motives
11
satisfaction (e.g., Bycio, et al., 1995; De Groot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Therefore, we expect charismatic leader behavior to be significant
related to subordinates’ positive work attitude, operationalized as their enthusiasm for and
commitment to the organization and the work they do.
Hypothesis 4: Charismatic leader behavior is positively related to subordinates’ positive work
attitude.
As stated above, McClelland and Burnham (1976) found that managers whose work
units reported higher morale showed high power motivation, low affiliation motivation, and a
high concern for the moral exercise of power. We expect that the impact of leader motives on
subordinate attitudes is indirect rather than direct. Thus, we explore whether charismatic
leadership perceptions play a mediating role in the relationship between leader motives and
positive work attitude. As discussed in previous sections, we propose that leaders with a high
power motivation, a high concern to use their power in a responsible way, a low affiliation
motivation, and a low achievement motivation are more likely to be perceived as charismatic,
and expect that such perceived charisma in turn is positively related to subordinate attitudes
(such as morale). We expect leader motives to be indirectly related to subordinates’ positive
work attitude through their relationship with charismatic leader behavior.
Hypothesis 5: The power motive, the interaction between the power motive and the
responsibility disposition, the affiliation motive and the achievement motive are indirectly
related to subordinates’ positive work attitude through their direct relationship with
charismatic leadership.
The Orientation of the Organization
Many researchers argue that a leader’s appeal and success depends on the situation.
For example, Shamir and Howell (1999) hold that both the emergence and effectiveness of
charismatic leadership may be facilitated by some contexts and inhibited by others. In line
Leader Motives
12
with this, Winter and colleagues (e.g., Miner, 2000; Schmitt & Winter, 1998; Winter, 1987)
have argued that the specific leader motives required for successful and appealing leadership
may vary across situations. This may also hold for charismatic leadership. Specific motives
may be more strongly related to perceptions of charismatic leadership in some contexts than
in others. To date, however, there has been little attention in the leadership literature for
environmental characteristics that may interact with personality characteristics to affect
perceptions of charismatic leadership.
In their self-concept-based motivational theory of charismatic leadership, Shamir et al.
(1993) argue that in order to have their extraordinary effects, charismatic leaders need to
appeal to existing elements of followers' self-concepts, namely values and identities, and
connect them to an organizational mission. When followers perceive that the leader represents
existing and desirable values and identities they hold, this is likely to increase attributions of
charisma to the leader. In other words, followers may more easily identify with a leader and
perceive a leader as more charismatic when the motives, values and beliefs of the leader
reflect their own.
The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) framework predicts that individuals are likely
to be attracted to, selected for and maintained within organizations that fit their values and
identities (e.g., Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Smith, Taylor, & Fleenor, 1998; Turban & Keon,
1993). Thus, both leaders and followers may choose the context in which they work (in part)
because it appeals to their values and identity and followers may be more likely to perceive a
leader as charismatic when they share the leaders’ motives, values and beliefs. When the
organizational orientation and core business are closely related to such shared values and
beliefs, it is easier for the leader to formulate the mission in such a way that it reflects
followers' dominant values. Therefore, the relevancy of leader motives to the orientation
(mission) of the organization being lead may affect the perception of charismatic leadership
Leader Motives
13
(House, Delbecq, Taris, & & Sully de Luque, 2001).
To investigate this proposition, we conducted our research in two groups: CEOs of
small and medium-sized organizations in the profit and in the voluntary sector. Voluntary
organizations are altruistically driven and focus on morally responsible action (for example,
working for human rights, animal welfare, or environmental protection). In contrast, profit
organizations are driven to influence the behavior and emotions of their stakeholders and need
to outperform competitors. Although some profit organizations also engage in forms of
morally responsible action, it is usually not the dominant focus or “core business” as it tends
to be in voluntary organizations. The democratic ideology of voluntary organizations
emphasizes the decentralization of power, whereas top leadership positions in profit
organizations concentrate legitimate power over collective resources (Knoke & Prensky,
1984; Wilderom & Miner, 1991)
We expect the interaction between a high power motive and a high responsibility
disposition to be more strongly related to perceived charismatic leadership in voluntary
organizations than in profit organizations, due to the stronger focus on morally responsible
action characterizing voluntary organizations. When high power motivation is coupled with a
high concern for responsibility, leaders are likely to engage in morally responsible action
emphasizing ideological values. In voluntary organizations, such leaders are likely to behave
in ways that are perceived to reinforce the values inherent in the mission of the organization,
which seems likely to enhance the attribution of charisma to them.
We expect the interaction between a high power motive and a low responsibility
disposition to be more negatively related to perceived charismatic leadership in voluntary
organizations than in profit organizations. The emergence and exercise of personal power are
likely to be less acceptable in voluntary organizations. When leaders use their power for
purely personal goals in voluntary organizations, they may be perceived to act against the
Leader Motives
14
altruistic values inherent in the organization’s mission and the high value voluntary
organizations place on members’ control over collective affairs (Knoke & Prensky, 1984;
Wilderom & Miner, 1991). Therefore, they may be perceived as less charismatic.
The downward directed hierarchy in which authority is usually arranged in profit
organizations provides a somewhat more conducive context for the use of personal power. In
profit organizations, leaders may be able to articulate an attractive vision based on personal
values and beliefs as long as they are to some extent in congruence with the values inherent in
the mission of the organization. Thus, we expect the context to play a moderating role:
Hypothesis 6: A high power motivation in combination with a high responsibility disposition
will be more positively related, and a high power motivation in combination with a low
responsibility disposition will be more negatively related to charismatic leadership for CEOs
in the voluntary sector as compared to CEOs in the profit sector.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The total sample consists of two sub-samples. The sub-sample of small and medium-
sized organizations in the profit sector was collected as part of an ongoing international
research project on culture and leadership (the GLOBE project). A sample of 300 small and
medium-sized organizations was drawn in the Netherlands from the database of Elsevier’s
Company Information. Firm size was restricted to a minimum of 50 and a maximum of 250
employees. The sub-sample of small and medium-sized organizations in the voluntary sector
was obtained in cooperation with SvM, an organization specializing in consultancy for
voluntary organizations and one of the two organizations in the Netherlands appointed by the
government to support voluntary work in this manner. A random sample of 40 representative
organizations was drawn from the database of SvM to be contacted and asked to participate.
Given that we were interested in voluntary organizations with paid staff, the only restriction
Leader Motives
15
placed in drawing the sample was that they had at least 10 employees on the payroll
(irrespective of the number of active volunteers they had).
Invitation letters were sent to all 340 CEOs representing the organizations and one
week later they were approached by telephone. As an incentive, all CEOs were offered the
opportunity for feedback on their leadership styles at the close of the study.
In total, 73 CEOs (52 CEOs in the profit sector and 21 in the voluntary sector) agreed
to participate (22% response rate). CEOs of both types of organizations were paid
professionals. Most CEOs had been in their current jobs for 2 years or more (87%). Only 5
CEOs in the profit sector and 8 in the voluntary sector were female. Average firm size,
interpreted as total number of employees on the payroll, was 102 for organizations in the
profit sector and 52 for organizations in the voluntary sector.
About half of the CEOs were owners in the profit sector of their company, the other
half, were appointed managing directors. The CEOs in the profit sector represented a wide
range of industries, including manufacturing (11), construction (6), transportation (5), retail
trade (5), wholesale trade (1), information (7), professional, scientific and technical services
(4), administrative and support services (1), public administration (1), health care (3),
recreation industry (2), repair and maintenance (4), and rental and leasing services (2). The
organizations of our sample were evenly distributed in terms of industry as compared to those
in the database they were drawn from. We also checked how representative the profit sector
sample of participating organizations was in terms of number of employees. No significant
difference existed between the sample and the population of organizations in the database in
terms of the average number of employees of firms (t = 0.837, p = 0.41).
The CEOs in the voluntary sector represented a wide cross section of altruistically
driven organizations, for example, organizations defending animal rights, supporting patients
with asthma or kidney disease, campaigning for children’s rights, and so on. A minimum of
Leader Motives
16
40 and a maximum of 57000 volunteers were active in these organizations (with different
levels of involvement); however, we only included voluntary organizations that were run by
paid staff and focused only on the paid staff rather than the volunteers in our study. As stated,
the mean number of paid employees in our sample of voluntary organizations was 52. The
organizations in the sample as well as the population it is drawn from are very diverse in
terms of the content of their activities and ideological goals.
All CEOs were interviewed with regard to their role and functioning as a manager.
These interviews were semi-structured, consisting of 13 starting questions to be elaborated on
extensively in 45 to 60 minutes. The questions intended to elicit the executives' dominant
concerns, beliefs, values, opinions, and their philosophy of management. Examples of
questions are, “Would you briefly, taking about five to eight minutes, describe your career to
date, beginning with your education and then when you first entered a management position,”
“What are your major strengths with respect to your functioning as a CEO in your current
position,” “What are your major weaknesses,” “Please describe your philosophy of
management,” and “Please describe the most important organizational change that you plan to
implement in the near future.”
Parallel interview questions for owner versus appointed CEOs were used when
appropriate. For example, appointed CEOs were asked: “When you assumed your present
position was there a number of goals you expected or desired to achieve? CEO owners were
asked: “When you started your business, what goals did you expect or desire to achieve?” All
interviews were recorded with the CEO’s consent. The CEOs were not informed about the
fact that the transcribed interviews would be coded for motive imagery.
In addition, the CEOs were asked to distribute two different kinds of questionnaires to
six key figures in the organization, all direct reports with whom they worked closely (all paid
staff). Questionnaires were completed anonymously and returned directly to the researchers.
Leader Motives
17
Code numbers were included on surveys so that respondents could be correctly matched with
their CEOs for subsequent data analyses. We received 262 subordinate surveys, a mean of
almost 4 surveys per CEO (60% response rate). Per questionnaire we received a total number
of 125 (at least one survey for 90% (profit) and 86% (voluntary) of the CEOs; a mean of 1.94
(profit) and 1.89 (voluntary) per CEO) and 137 valid surveys (at least one survey for 98%
(profit) and 86% (voluntary) of the CEOs; a mean of 2 respectively 1.94 per CEO)
respectively. Given the sensitivity of the questionnaires and the high hierarchical level of the
participating managers, this response rate can be considered reasonable (see e.g., Finkelstein,
1992).
Measures
Motive and responsibility scores were obtained though coding the 73 CEO transcribed
interviews using Winter’s (1991a; 1992b) coding methodology for motive imagery and the
responsibility disposition. Following Winter’s instruction, only the meaning of the text was
scored. The power motive is measured through images reflecting strong, forceful actions that
impact others and reflecting control or regulation as well as images of attempting to influence
or persuade and of giving help or support that is not explicitly solicited (Winter, 1991a). Thus,
when in the interviews CEOs made statements such as: "I forced him to make a
decision" or "I demand everybody to work hard; they do not get paid to do nothing" (quotes
translated from the interviews), we coded this as power motivation. The responsibility
disposition is indicated by images reflecting moral and legal standards of conduct, internal
obligation, concern for others, concern about consequences and self-judgment (Winter,
1992b). Thus, when in the interviews a CEO stated for example: “One should always try and
do the right thing, you know,” we coded this as responsibility disposition.
The affiliation motive is measured via images such as expressing positive or friendly
feeling towards others and expressing sadness about separation or disruption of a relationship.
Leader Motives
18
It is also indicated by images of engaging in warm, companionate activities or nurturing acts
(Winter, 1991a). Hence, when a CEO stated for example: “I love to have a drink with my
people after work,” we coded this as affiliation motivation.
The achievement motive is indicated by images such as the positive evaluation of
performance or goals, expression of a standard of excellence in outcomes, and unique
accomplishments (Winter, 1991a). So, when the CEOs made statements such as: “My product
is the best there is and I am going to make it even better,” we coded this as achievement
motivation.
Two trained coders demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (category agreement over
.80) with expert scoring of practice materials (see Winter 1991a; 1992b). These coders then
independently scored the interviews in arbitrary order for the power motive, responsibility
disposition, affiliation motive and achievement motive. The motive and responsibility coding
agreements initially ranged from .66 to .92. In a reconciliation meeting, the coders went over
their coding decisions and reviewed Winter’s (1991a; 1992b) motive definitions, examples
and expert coding text to agree upon the correct coding for the motive in question. To ensure
that this procedure was correctly followed, samples of the reconciled coding data were
reviewed by two of the authors. The reconciled data (final agreement = 1) on the motive and
responsibility scores were used for subsequent data analysis.
Because longer interviews provide the opportunity to contain more motive images, we
corrected for the varying length of the interviews. In line with past motive studies (see e.g.,
Kirkpatrick et al., 2002; Schmitt and Winter, 1998) we divided the absolute motive and
responsibility scores by the number of words of the interviews and multiplied it by a
thousand. To construct the interaction term between the power motive and the responsibility
disposition, we standardized both variables by subtracting their mean and then multiplied
them.
Leader Motives
19
Survey data were collected to measure charismatic leadership and positive work
attitude using two scales adapted from the Multi-Culture Leader Behavior Questionnaire
(MCLQ; Hanges & Dickson, 2004; House et al., 2001). This questionnaire is designed to
elicit respondents’ reports of behavior of leaders with whom they are familiar and reports of
respondents’ own work attitude (House & Aditya, 1997). House and colleagues developed
this questionnaire based on several other questionnaires in the field, most notably the MLQ
(developed by Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; see also Antonakis, Avolio &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003).
The charismatic leadership scale has items measuring leader self-confidence, strong
ideological conviction, high expectations of followers, articulation of a vision and showing
confidence in subordinates (cf. House, 1977). The specific items are: “Has a vision and
imagination of the future,” “Emphasizes the importance of being committed to our values and
beliefs,” “Foregoes self-interests and makes personal sacrifices in the interest of a goal or
vision,” “Stimulates others to put forth efforts above and beyond the call of duty and make
personal sacrifices,” “Displays conviction in his/her ideals, beliefs, and values,” “Shows a
high degree of self-confidence,” “Sets high performance standards,” and “Has strong
convictions about the correctness of his or her actions.” The items have a seven-point
response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The perceived
charisma measure had an alpha coefficient of 0.79.
In addition to perceived charismatic leadership, survey data were collected on
subordinates’ positive work attitude, operationalized as their enthusiasm for and commitment
to the organization and the work they do. We used nine items from the aforementioned
MCLQ (Hanges & Dickson, 2004; House et al., 2001). Examples of work attitude items are,
“I am optimistic about my future with this organization,” “I contribute to this organization
100% of my ability,” and “I am willing to make serious personal sacrifices to contribute to the
Leader Motives
20
success of this organization.” Responses were given on a seven-point response scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The positive work attitude measure had an
alpha coefficient of .81.
As indicated, survey data were gathered using two questionnaires. Respondents who
filled out questionnaire 1 responded to both the leadership and work attitude items.
Respondents who filled out questionnaire 2 responded only to the positive work attitude
items. These two sub-samples were created to be able to test for potential effects of common
source variance (see e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Analyses
To examine the justification for aggregating individual responses to characterize CEOs
and their subordinates we calculated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC(2); Shrout &
Fleiss, 1979). These coefficients are indices of inter-rater agreement and reflect the reliability
of the average rating. ICC(2)’s for subordinate’s ratings of charismatic leadership and for
positive work attitude were .40 and .62, respectively. These ICC(2) indices are significant and
provide support for combining subordinates’ responses to provide averaged, aggregated
scores for charismatic leadership and positive work attitude. Thus, averaged scores are used in
further analyses.
To examine the relationships between variables we used correlation analysis and we
used regression analysis to investigate whether charismatic leadership explains variance in
positive work attitude. To assess mediation, the three-step procedure as suggested by Baron
and Kenny (1986) was employed. Moderated hierarchical regression analyses were used to
investigate whether leader motives explained variance in charismatic leadership and to test the
effects of the responsibility disposition and organizational type as moderator variables.
Variables were centered around zero by subtracting their mean, in order to bring
multicollinearity indexes within acceptable limits and aid interpretation (as suggested by
Leader Motives
21
Aiken & West, 1991). For regression analyses at the individual level more cases are normally
required (depending on the number of variables used). Otherwise, the regression coefficients
are too much dependent on accidental variations in the sample. However, aggregated scores
are more reliable (see ICC[2]s of these variables) reducing the chance of random variations.
Therefore, Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Sanders (1990) hold that multivariate analysis on
aggregated variables allows for a lower number of cases.
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations for each of the
variables used in the present study. As the table indicates, low inter-correlations were found
among the motives and the responsibility disposition. CEOs in the voluntary sector as
compared to CEOs in the profit sector scored higher on responsibility disposition and
affiliation motivation, and lower on achievement motivation. Overall, the CEO sores were
lowest for the affiliation motive (.83) and highest for the achievement (6.98) and the power
motive (8.5). Since CEOs were interviewed with regard to their role and functioning as a
manager, these findings are in line with the idea that in such an interview a concern for
establishing, maintaining, or restoring positive affective relationships with others will be less
expressed than a concern for competition or a concern to influence others. Other motive
studies in a managerial context find similarly differences in these mean scores (e.g.,
Kirkpatrick et al., 2002).
--------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------
To test the hypotheses on the relationships between leader motives and charismatic
leadership we conducted moderated multiple regression analyses. First, we regressed
charismatic leadership on type of organization and the leader motives variables. In the second
Leader Motives
22
step, the interaction predictor was added to the regression (see Table 2). In line with
hypothesis 1, we found that the power motive was significantly positively related to
charismatic leadership, ß = .30, p < .05, and the affiliation motive was marginally negatively
related to charismatic leadership, ß = -.22, p < .10. Contrary to hypothesis 2, the second step
of regression analysis showed no interaction effect for the power motive and the
responsibility disposition in explaining charismatic leadership, ß = .02, p = .86. Further, no
significant relationship was found between the achievement motive and charismatic
leadership, ß = -.13, p = .31. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported.
--------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
--------------------------------
To determine whether charismatic leadership is positively related to subordinates’
positive work attitude, we performed regression analysis in which we controlled for type of
organization. We found, consistent with hypothesis 4, that charismatic leadership was
significantly related to positive work attitude, ß = .42, p < .01.
Both charismatic leadership and subordinates’ work attitudes are assessed through
questionnaires. The use of common source data may inflate estimates of the relationship,
therefore we tested whether a difference existed between the correlation based on common
source data compared to the correlation based on multi-source data (one group of respondents
rated their CEO’s charismatic leader behavior and their own positive work attitude, a second
group of respondents only rated their own positive work attitude, see method). No such
difference was found for the relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinates’
work attitude, t = 1.12, p = .13, one-tailed.
Following the procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986), we examined the
mediating role of charismatic leadership in the relationship between leader motives and
Leader Motives
23
positive work attitude. This procedure entails, (1) examining the effect of the predictors (i.e.,
leader motives, controlling for type of organization) on the mediator (i.e., charismatic
leadership), (2) examining the effect of the predictors on the outcome (i.e., positive work
attitude), and (3) examining the effect of the predictors on the outcome in the presence of the
mediator.
The first stage of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure is identical to the first and
second step of regression analysis reported in Table 2. We found the power motive
significantly and the affiliation motive marginally related to charismatic leadership.
Performing the second stage (see Table 3), we found that the responsibility disposition was
marginally related to positive work attitude when the effects of the other variables were
controlled for, ß = .29, p < .10, and the model did not reach significance, R² = .08, F = 1.10, p
= .37. Finally, we performed the third stage by regressing work attitude on leader motives and
charismatic leadership (also reported in Table 3). We found that the power motive became a
marginal negative predictor of subordinate work attitude in a regression model containing
charismatic leadership, ß = -.24, p < .10.
Thus, results do not support a mediating role of charismatic leadership when following
the suggestions of Baron and Kenny (1986). The marginal findings with regard to the power
motive only point in the direction of suppression of a negative relationship between the power
motive and subordinates positive work attitude by charismatic leadership. In other words, if
charismatic leadership is held constant, the power motive may lead to a somewhat less
positive work attitude.
--------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
--------------------------------
To examine type of organization as a moderator of the relationship between
Leader Motives
24
charismatic leadership and the power motive in combination with the responsibility
disposition, we conducted moderated multiple regression analyses. First, we regressed
charismatic leadership on type of organization and the leader motives variables. In the second
and third step, two-way interactions were added to the regression. In the fourth and final step,
the proposed three-way interaction was added to the regression. Our sample size required that
we included a subset of possible lower-order interactions. Table 2 presents the results of this
analysis. Consistent with hypothesis 6, we found a significant three-way interaction for the
power motive, the responsibility disposition and type of organization in explaining
charismatic leadership, ß = .34, p < .05. The observed power to detect this interaction effect
was .53. The nature of this interaction per type of organization is depicted in Figure 1.
Leaders high on both power motivation and responsibility were rated more charismatic
in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations. The reverse was true for leaders high
on power and low on responsibility. These leaders were rated less charismatic in voluntary
organizations than in profit organizations. However, with regard to Figure 1, we should note
that the combination of a low power motivation and a low responsibility disposition rarely
occurred in our data set, particularly for CEOs of voluntary organizations. Thus, the
regression line for this latter combination of characteristics is based on few data points and
should be interpreted with caution.
--------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between leader
motives, charismatic leadership and subordinates’ positive work attitude in two types of
organizations (profit and voluntary). As expected, we found a positive relationship between
Leader Motives
25
the power motive and charismatic leader behavior. Previous research, focusing on U.S.
presidents, also found significantly positive relationships between the power motive and
charismatic leader behavior (House et al., 1991). The need for social influence has been
proposed to be one of the elements that differentiate charismatic leaders from non-charismatic
leaders (House & Howell, 1992). Our results provide additional evidence for the proposed
importance of the power motive in relation to charismatic leadership, and show this
relationship also holds in the organizational context.
As expected, we found that the affiliation motive was negatively related to charismatic
leader behavior, though this relationship was marginal. Previous research also found a
negative but non-significant relationship between the affiliation motive and charismatic
leadership (House et al., 1991). Perhaps, the negative relationship between the affiliation
motive and charismatic leadership in part depends on the context. For example, in a stable
context a high affiliation motive may be far less negative for charismatic leaders than in a
more turbulent context. As compared to turbulent context, in stable circumstances,
charismatic leaders may be less pressed to take forceful, swift actions and make tough
decisions with difficult consequences for others around them, requiring a low affiliation
motivation. In such circumstances, high affiliation motivation may even help leaders as they
are more prone to try to understand and attend to individual needs of followers.
The findings of Thomas, Dickson and Bliese (2001) may, however, also be relevant
here. They found the affiliation motive positively related to leadership success via the
mediation of extraversion in an assessment center setting. They interpret their results by
arguing that a high affiliation motive might be beneficial for initial leadership success. Over
the long term, however, effective leaders may be those that make and implement decisions
that require a low affiliation motivation. Future research, using longitudinal data, is therefore
warranted to further study the relationship between the affiliation motive and charismatic
Leader Motives
26
leadership as well as search for possible moderators.
Support was found for the suggestion that the relevance of a particular motive may
depend on the orientation of the organization being lead (as proposed by House et al., 2001).
Leaders high on power motivation and responsibility were rated somewhat more charismatic
in voluntary organizations than in profit organizations. The reverse was true for leaders high
on power and low on responsibility: they were rated less charismatic in voluntary and more
charismatic in profit organizations.
Ideology is central to voluntary organizations. Leaders who are high on power
motivation and have a high concern for responsibility seem to fit this context well. Engaging
in morally responsible action, emphasizing ideological values, and behaving in ways that
reinforce the values inherent in the mission seem especially important for the attribution of
charisma to leaders in this ideologically driven context. In contrast, using power for purely
personal goals runs counter to the altruistic values inherent in the mission of voluntary
organizations. As noted before, it also goes against the importance these organizations tend to
place on membership control over collective affairs (Knoke & Prensky, 1984; Wilderom &
Miner, 1991). Thus, we expected and found special relevance of the tendency to use power in
a responsible way for charismatic leaders of voluntary organizations.
Contrary to expectations and results of previous research on U.S. presidents (House et
al., 1991), no relationship was found between the achievement motive and charisma. Our
findings are, however, in line with previous research on the Big five construct of
conscientiousness (of which achievement is a major facet) and charismatic leadership for
managers in organizations (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2000). When taken together, it appears that a
high achievement motivation may be as much a liability as an asset for managers in
organizations.
In line with expectations, we found that charismatic leadership was strongly positively
Leader Motives
27
related to subordinates’ positive work attitude. The magnitude of the relationship found
between charismatic leadership and subordinates’ positive work attitude is in line with
relationships found in previous studies (e.g., Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe et al., 1996). Thus, our
results provide further evidence for the proposition that charismatic leadership is positively
related to subordinate morale (House, 1996; Shamir et al., 1993).
No direct relationships were found between leader motives and subordinates’ work
attitudes. We did find some indication that when charismatic leadership was held constant,
higher levels of power motivation were related to lower levels of subordinates’ positive work
attitude, although the effect size was small. This may be in line with the idea that a high
power motivation in itself does not differentiate between leaders using their power in a pro-
social way and leaders using their power to the detriment of others (Winter, 1988). These
latter leaders may cause dissatisfaction with their subordinates.
A fruitful road for future research would be to further examine the link between leader
motives and subordinates outcomes and, for example, collect data on participants’ justice
perceptions as well as their feelings towards moral responsibility. The relationship between
leader motives and participants’ feelings towards moral responsibility may be somewhat more
direct than that between leader motives and subordinates’ positive work attitude. Mapping
such variables may also result in an improved understanding of the influence processes
through which charismatic leadership achieves its positive effects. For example, participants’
feelings towards moral responsibility may affect the relationship between tendency to use
power in a morally responsible way and the perception of charismatic leadership.
Study Limitations
Besides strengths such as its multi-method nature, the current study also has several
limitations. First, the rather low participation rate in the profit sub-sample of our study might
limit the generalizability of the findings. Our check for selective participation did, however,
Leader Motives
28
not reveal any significant differences between the sample and the database population it was
drawn from in terms of number of employees and sector. Given the sensitivity of the topic
and the high hierarchical level of the participating managers, low participation and response
rates are not uncommon in samples like these (e.g., Finkelstein, 1992).
Second, the CEOs themselves selected the subordinates who would act as respondents
for the survey. Although this procedure is used often in this type of study, it has the potential
drawback that such self-selection of raters may result in positive bias. The CEOs were,
however, instructed to distribute questionnaires to direct reports with whom they work
closely. The CEOs in this study led small and medium-sized organizations and many
indicated that they had difficulty selecting six subordinates who met this criterion. In addition,
subordinates were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and they were informed
that individual responses would not be seen by anyone from their organization. Thus, we
expect the possible positive bias to be limited.
Third, one might suggest that we measured how leaders described they would use
their power in responsible ways, rather than measuring leaders’ personal dispositions
concerning how they use their power. However, CEOs were not aware of the fact that the
transcribed interviews would be coded for motive imagery and we specifically did not ask any
questions about self-attributed motives or direct questions such as “In which way do you use
your power?” Rather, we asked them more general questions, for instance, to describe the
history of the firm, their vision for the company, and so on. Following Winter’s (1991a;
1992b) coding methodology for motive imagery only the meaning of the text of the interviews
was scored. Therefore, it seems reasonable to infer that the obtained motive scores reflect the
CEO’s implicit motives.
Fourth, although motives were assessed through coding interviews, charismatic
leadership and positive work attitude were assessed through questionnaires. The use of
Leader Motives
29
common source data on charismatic leadership and subordinates’ positive work attitude may
lead to inflated estimates of the relationship between these two variables (e.g., Podsakoff et
al., 2003). Indeed, previous research examining charismatic leadership and performance
outcomes using common-source designs exhibited significantly higher correlations than
research using multi-source designs (e.g., De Groot et al., 2000; Lowe et al., 1996).
Inflationary bias in this study is, however, likely to be more limited than in some
previous studies because the logical distance between perceived leader behavior and
subordinates’ positive work attitude is somewhat larger than that between perceived leader
behavior and the criterion measures used in many of the earlier studies, such as subordinates’
satisfaction with the leader or their perceptions of leader effectiveness. As the distance
between charismatic leadership and perceptual outcome measures increases, common source
bias decreases (De Hoogh et al., in press). In the current study, only about half the data
regarding the relationship between charismatic leadership and subordinates’ work attitude is
based on a common source design. The other half is based on a multi-source design and is
therefore not susceptible to common source bias. No significant difference was found
between the correlation based on common source data and the one based on multi-source
data. This suggests that such bias did not play a major role.
A final comment should be made about the sample sizes in this study. Although our
total sample size (N = 73) is substantially larger than typical sample sizes of previous studies
using the motive coding methodology (e.g., Cornelius & Lane, 1984, N = 39; Spangler &
House, 1991, N = 39; Winter, 1987, N = 34) and our sub-sample sizes (n = 52 and n = 21) are
as large or larger than a previous study done by Cornelius and Lane (1984) under two levels
of management personnel (n = 21, n = 18), the available samples are still relatively small.
These small sample sizes are due to the amount of work involved in gaining access, and
conducting, transcribing and coding the interviews, which is considerable. Thus, the three-
Leader Motives
30
way interaction effect we found needs to be replicated in future research, with larger samples,
to test its robustness.
A power analysis indicated that, in our study, we had only a 53% probability of
detecting the three-way interaction effect with our sample. Cohen (1962) recommended a
power of .80 or greater as criterion for adequate sensitivity. Using data from a larger number
of CEOs will permit more powerful hypothesis tests and control for other variables which
may covary with organization type, such as organizational size.
Nevertheless, a strong advantage of our study is that we investigated the explanatory
power of leader motives for perceived leader behavior and subordinate attitudes using
independent methods in two different contexts. Our findings regarding the relationship
between motives and leader behavior and between motives and subordinate attitudes therefore
do not suffer from common source or common method bias and due to the small sample sizes
results are likely to be conservatively biased rather than attenuated.
In Conclusion
Leader motives seem interesting to study further, using different methodologies.
Although this area of research is at an early stage, some potential practical implications may
flow from the findings of this study. In line with previous studies, results suggest that leaders’
personal dispositions may be important predictors of how they are perceived and their
subsequent effects on subordinates. However, taken together with the previous study by
House et al. (1991), the results of this study suggest that it is important to also consider the
match between leader characteristics and specific leader role demands. In our study, we found
special relevance of the tendency to use power in a responsible way for charismatic leaders of
voluntary organizations.
Also, whereas we did not find a negative relationship between achievement motivation
and perceptions of charismatic leadership in organizations (in line with research by Judge &
Leader Motives
31
Bono, 2000), House and colleagues did find this relationship in the context of political
leadership. Above, we also discussed a possible contextual moderator of the relationship
between affiliation motivation and charismatic leadership. Thus, the relevance of a particular
motive for perceptions of charismatic leadership as well as leader success may in part depend
on the context, which has implications for leader selection and development.
Future research is needed on the contingent nature of leader motives as they relate to
leader behavior and outcomes as well as how these relationships change over time in different
stages of leaders’ careers, where possible also considering the use of larger sub-samples of
leaders in different contexts to increase power of statistical analyses. Such research in time
can provide more concrete advice for the integration of organizational demands of leader
functions into personnel selection and leadership development programs.
Potential future research also includes cross-cultural studies on leadership and
motives. An interesting question is whether the relationships we find in the Netherlands also
hold in other cultures. The Netherlands, in most respects, fits the Western European cultural
profile well (House et al., 2004). This suggests that the findings for this Dutch sample will
likely generalize beyond the Netherlands. However, cultural power distance is low in the
Netherlands compared to many other regions in the world (Hofstede, 2001). Power distance
may, for instance, affect the role and expression of the power motive. Thus, future research,
for example, in the on-going GLOBE study is needed to shed more light on potential culture
differences in the relationship between leader motives and behaviors.
Our study also illustrates that the use of alternative research methods, such as coding
of motives, can enrich the data gathered in more traditional survey studies. It can provide a
means to triangulate the self-report data most often used in leadership research. The
unobtrusiveness of the coding methodology makes it also difficult for the participant to know
what is being measured. The method is therefore not subjective to the same social desirability
Leader Motives
32
effects as more direct measurement approaches (McClelland, 1985b). Moreover, coding
motives, dispositions or behaviors also offers an interesting method to study the leadership of
individuals who are not easily accessible or who are no longer alive, as long as appropriate
documents exist.
Leader Motives
33
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An
examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
Atkinson, J. W. (Ed.). (1958). Motives in fantasy, action and society. Princeton, NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 468-478.
Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145-153.
Cornelius, E. T., & Lane, F. B. (1984). The power motive and managerial success in a
professionally oriented service industry organization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69, 32-39.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The
Leader Motives
34
impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75.
De Groot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational
outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 17, 356-371.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg, P. T.,
Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (in press). Charismatic leadership,
environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2001). Leadership in organizations. In N. Anderson,
D. S. Ones, H. Kepir-Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of
industrial, work & organizational psychology (Vol. 2). London: Sage.
Finkelstein, S. (1992). Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 505-538.
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.
Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2004). The development and validation of the Globe culture
and leadership scales. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, & V.
Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62
societies (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heyns, R. W., Veroff, J., & Atkinson, J. W. (1958). A scoring manual for the affiliation
motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp. 205-218).
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
Leader Motives
35
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated
theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis?
Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
House, R. J., Delbecq, A., Taris, T., & Sully de Luque, M. (2001). Charismatic theory of
leadership: An empirical test of CEO's. Manuscript in preparation.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (Vol. 1). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.
presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 36, 364-396.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-
unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
Jacobsen, C., & House, R. J. (2001). Dynamics of charismatic leadership: A process theory,
simulation model, and tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 75-112.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of personality and transformational
Leader Motives
36
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., & Baum, J. R. (2002). Measuring motive imagery
contained in the vision statement. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 139-150.
Knoke, D., & Prensky, D. (1984). What relevance do organization theories have for volunatry
organizations? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 3-20.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.
McClelland, D. C. (1985a). How do motives, skills and values determine what people do.
American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.
McClelland, D. C. (1985b). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McClelland, D. C., & Atkinson, J. W. (1976). The achievement motive. New York: Irvington.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1958). A scoring manual
for the achievement motive. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and
society (pp.179-204). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term
success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
Review, 54, 100-110, 159-166.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
Review, 81, 117-123.
McClelland, D. C., Davis, W. N., Kalin, R., & Wanner, E. (1972). The drinking man. New
York: Free Press.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and
Leader Motives
37
implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-702.
Miner, J. B. (2000). Testing a psychological typology of entrepreneurship using business
founders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 36, 43-70.
Murray, H. A. (Ed.). (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ployhart, R. E., Lim, B., & Chan, K. (2001). Exploring relations between typical and
maximum performance ratings and the Five-Factor Model of personality. Personnel
Psychology, 54, 809-843.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. K., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational leaders: Measurement of
personality attributes and work group performance. Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, 23, 1078-1086.
Schmitt, D. P., & Winter, D. G. (1998). Measuring the motives of Soviet leadership and
Soviet society: Congruence reflected or congruence created? The Leadership
Quarterly, 9, 293-308.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-454.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., Taylor, S., & Fleenor, J. (1998). Personality and organizations: A
test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
462-470.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational aspects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept theory. Organizational Science, 4, 1-17.
Leader Motives
38
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the
emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10,
257-283.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for
achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154.
Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive
profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 439-455.
Thomas, J. L., Dickson, M. W., & Bliese, P. D. (2001). Values predicting leader performance
in the U.S. army reserve officer training corps assessment center: Evidence for a
personality-mediated model. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 181-196.
Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184-193.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership
matter? CEO leader attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived
environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.
Wilderom, C. P. M., & Miner, J. B. (1991). Defining voluntary groups and agencies within
organizational science. Organization Science, 2, 366-377.
Winter, D. G. (1973). The power motive. New York: Free Press.
Winter, D. G. (1978). Navy leadership and management competencies: Convergence among
tests, interviews, and performance ratings. Boston: McBer and Company.
Winter, D.G. (1980). An exploratory study of the motives of Southern African political
leaders measured at a distance. Political Psychology, 2, 75-85.
Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders
Leader Motives
39
and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 196-202.
Winter, D. G. (1988). The power motive in women and men. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 510-519.
Winter, D. G. (1991a). Manual for scoring motive imagery in running text. University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan USA.
Winter, D. G. (1991b). A motivational model of leadership: Predicting long-term
management success from TAT measures of power motivation and responsibility. The
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 67-80.
Winter, D. G. (1992a). A revised scoring system for the power motive. In C. P. Smith (Ed.),
Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 311-324).
Cambridge: University Press.
Winter, D. G. (1992b). Scoring system for responsibility. In C. P. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and
personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 506-511). Cambridge:
University Press.
Winter, D. G., & Barenbaum, B. B. (1985). Responsibility and the power motive in women
and men. Journal of Personality, 53, 335-355.
Leader Motives
40
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Power 8.50 1.81
2. Responsibility 4.46 1.60 .14
3. Affiliation .83 .69 -.01 .20†
4. Achievement 6.98 1.75 .17 -.09 -.10
5. Power x Responsibility .14 .95 -.12 -.18 -.04 -.20†
6. Charismatic leadership 5.23 .74 .28* .09 -.18 -.09 .02
7. Positive work attitude 5.17 .75 -.10 .13 -.10 .00 -.05 .42**
8. Organizationa .29 - -.02 .55** .32** -.28* -.08 -.01 -.08
Note. Because of missing cases for some variables, the sample size for correlations ranges from 65 to 73. aType of organization: 1 = voluntary, 0 = profit.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Leader Motives
41
Table 2
Results of moderated regression analyses for motive variables explaining charismatic leadership
Charismatic leadership
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Organizationa -.01 -.01 .05 -.03
Power .30* .29* .29* .08
Affiliation -.22† -.22† -.23† -.33*
Responsibility .08 .08 .10 .11
Achievement -.13 -.12 -.13 -.16
Power x Responsibility .02 .02 -.06
Power x Organization .00 -.20
Responsibility x Organization -.12 -.03
Power x Responsibility x Organization .34*
R² .14† .14 .15 .21
∆ R² .14† .00 .01 .06*
∆ F 1.92† .03 .34 4.32*
Note. n = 65. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. aType of organization: 1 = voluntary, -1 = profit.
† p < .10. * p < .05.
Leader Motives
42
Table 3
Results of mediation analysis explaining positive work attitude
Positive work attitude
Variable Step 1 Step 2
n = 70
Organizationa -.23 -.23
Power -.15 0
-.15 0Affiliation -.09 -.09
Responsibility .29† .28†
Achievement -.02 -.03
Power x Responsibility -.05
R² .08 .08
∆ R² .08 .00
∆ F 1.10 .15
n = 65
Organizationa -.21 -.21
Mediator: Charismatic leadership .49** .50**
Power -.24† -.25*
Affiliation -.02 -.03
Responsibility .22 .19
Achievement .06 .04
Power x Responsibility -.13
R² .27** .29**
∆ R² .27** .01
∆ F 3.65** 1.03
Note. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. aType of organization: 1 = voluntary, -1 = profit.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Leader Motives
43
Profit organizations
-1
0
1
-1 0 1
Power
Cha
rism
atic
lead
ersh
ip
High responsibility Low responsibility
Voluntary organizations
-1
0
1
-1 0 1
Power
Cha
rism
atic
lead
ersh
ip
High responsibility Low responsibility
Figure 1. Charismatic leadership as a function of the power motive and the responsibility disposition (+1 and –1
standard deviations from the mean) for profit (n = 47) and voluntary (n = 18) organizations.