transformational leadership at the ceo-tmt-interface
TRANSCRIPT
Transformational Leadership at the CEO-TMT-Interface
–
The Mediating Influence of Behavioral Integration
Bachelorarbeit
vorgelegt von
Philip Alexander Hörlezeder
an der
Sektion Politik – Recht – Wirtschaft
Fachbereich Politik- und Verwaltungswissenschaft
1. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Florian Kunze
2. Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Sabine Boerner
Konstanz, 2015
Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-296506
I
Table of Contents
List of Figures III
List of Tables IV
Abstract 1
1. Introduction 2
1.1 Scientific Relevance 3
1.2 Practical Relevance 4
1.3 Outline 4
2. Theoretical Foundations and State of Research 5
2.1 Transformational Leadership 5
2.1.1 The theoretical concept of transformational leadership. 5
2.1.2 Scientific research on transformational leadership. 6
2.2 Leadership Dispersion 7
2.3 Upper Echelons Theory 9
2.3.1 The role of top management teams in organizational leadership. 9
2.3.2 Top management team behavioral integration. 9
2.4 Individual Action in Social Context 10
3. Theory and Hypotheses Development 12
3.1 Toward an Integrated Model of Individual Behavior 12
3.2 CEO Transformational Leadership and TMT Transformational Leadership 14
3.3 CEO Transformational Leadership and TMT Behavioral Integration 17
3.4 TMT Behavioral Integration and TMT Transformational Leadership 18
3.5 Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation 22
4. Method 24
4.1 Sample 24
II
4.2 Measures 26
4.2.1 Transformational leadership. 28
4.2.2 TMT behavioral integration. 30
4.2.3 Organizational innovation. 31
4.2.4 Control variables. 32
4.3 Analytical Procedures 32
5. Results 33
5.1 Descriptive Statistics 33
5.2 Measurement Model 36
5.3 Structural Model 37
6. Discussion 43
6.1 Theoretical Implications 45
6.2 Practical Implications 46
6.3 Limitations and Future Research 47
7. Conclusion 50
References 51
Appendix 77
III
List of Figures
1 Integrated model of individual behavior 12
2 Hypothesized model 24
3 Results of structural equation modeling for the hypothesized model 38
IV
List of Tables
1 Intercorrelations of study variables 34
2 Results of confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model 37
3 Comparison of different structural models 38
4 Direct, indirect, and total effects of study relations in the hypothesized model 40
A1 Effects, outcomes, and moderators of transformational leadership 77
A2 Antecedents and predictors of transformational leadership and leader emergence 84
A3 Effects and outcomes of top management team composition, processes, behavior,
decision making, and behavioral integration 89
A4 English and German wording of study items 91
A5 Results of confirmatory factor analyses for study measures and items’ summary
statistics 99
A6 Study variables’ aggregation and summary statistics 104
A7 Results of structural equation modeling for the hypothesized model 105
A8 Direct, indirect, and total effects of study relations in the structural model without
controls 106
1
Abstract
This paper addresses transformational leadership and its dispersion in top management teams
(TMT). Drawing on different theories of individual action in social context and combining
them into an integrated model of individual behavior, it is argued that transformational
leadership exhibited by the chief executive officer (CEO) spurs TMT members’
transformational leadership. It is supposed that a significant part of this positive effect is
mediated by TMT behavioral integration, and that both CEO and TMT transformational
leadership relate positively to organizational innovation. The proposed model was tested
relying on quantitative data from a large-scale study with 31,594 participants from 215
German small to medium-sized enterprises. Structural equation modeling provided support
for all hypothesized relationships, to such an extent that CEO transformational leadership was
positively related to TMT transformational leadership both directly and indirectly (via TMT
behavioral integration). Likewise, empirical evidence for a positive impact of TMT
transformational leadership on organizational innovation and for a complete mediation of the
respective influence of CEO transformational leadership (via TMT transformational
leadership) was found. With its theoretical argumentation and empirical findings, this study
makes valuable contributions to research on antecedents and effects of transformational
leadership, leadership dispersion, individual behavior in social context, and upper echelons
theory. Additionally, results hold important practical implications for effective leadership in
organizations.
2
1. Introduction1
Transformational leadership (TFL) is the most popular and most extensively studied scientific
approach to leadership in the past decades (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Judge,
Woolf, Hurst, & Livingston, 2006). Emphasizing the extraordinary effect that leaders can
have on their followers, it “enjoys the reputation of explaining […] the most effective form of
leadership” (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013, p. 2) and is therefore of particular interest not
only to researchers, but also to organizations and managers striving for success.
The primary aim of the present study is to examine how TFL disperses in TMTs, and
especially the extent to which TFL behaviors are passed on from the CEO to individual TMT
members. With recourse to upper echelons theory and different approaches of individual
action in social context, it is argued that CEO TFL fosters TMT behavioral integration, the
degree to which top managers behave as a team, which in turn fosters TMT TFL. It is
supposed that besides this indirect, mediated effect, CEO TFL furthermore exerts a direct
influence on TMT TFL. The proposed rationale is that individual attitudes, perceived socio-
normative expectations, and perceived behavioral efficacy as determinants of behavioral
intentions are greatly influenced by the attitudes and behavior of referents, to whom a
transformational CEO and – in the case of a highly integrated TMT – manager’s peers belong.
Concerning the effects of TFL, it is argued that through intellectual stimulation,
individualized consideration, idealized influence, and inspirational motivation
transformational leaders can spur followers’ creativity and organizational innovation. In this
relation, TMT TFL is supposed to partially mediate the effect of CEO TFL on organizational
1 For improved legibility, only the masculine form is used throughout the paper. However, the
feminine form is always included.
3
innovation, since TMT members represent channels through which the influence of the CEO
cascades downward in an organization.
1.1 Scientific Relevance
While the effects of TFL received substantial scientific attention, it is considerably less clear
what determines this specific leadership style (Avolio et al., 2009; Day, Fleenor, Atwater,
Sturm, & McKee, 2014). Particularly, various researchers pointed to a lack of knowledge
regarding the questions how TFL may be encouraged by contextual influences (Nielsen &
Cleal, 2011), how it spreads among peers and cascades in organizations (Walter & Bruch,
2009), and to what extent transformational CEOs animate TMT members to perform TFL
themselves (Bommer, Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004; Ling, Simsek, Lubatkin, & Veiga, 2008b).
This work aims at enhancing scientific knowledge in this regard.
Although various approaches tried to retrace TFL dispersion in work groups, no study to date
has – at least to the knowledge of the author – addressed this issue with respect to TMTs, so
that mechanisms of dispersion remain largely unknown. The present paper tries to address this
academic void by showing how social influences, emanated from both the CEO and TMT
members, combine to spur the inclination of individual managers to exhibit TFL.
In integrating TMT behavioral integration into the analysis, insights into TMT dynamics and
how they are influenced by CEO leadership are provided, thereby answering calls from upper
echelons literature (Carmeli, Tishler, & Edmondson, 2012; Hambrick, 1994, 2009).
Especially, determinants of TMT behavioral integration have only sparsely received attention
in scientific research to date (Carmeli, Schaubroeck, & Tishler, 2011; Simsek, Veiga,
Lubatkin, & Dino, 2005), a shortcoming which this study seeks to remedy.
4
Finally, advancement of both TFL and upper echelons literature is sought by separately
modeling the effects of CEO and TMT leadership, rather than disregarding the CEO-TMT-
interface and treating the former as a normal member of the latter – as has been done in the
majority of previous research. As recommended by various researchers, this paper examines
how TMT TFL is related to organizational innovation – over and above the influence of CEO
TFL (Colbert, Barrick, & Bradley, 2014; Ling et al., 2008b).
1.2 Practical Relevance
Prior research established strong positive links between TFL and various outcomes of
superior organizational interest (see Table A1 in the appendix for a detailed summary of TFL
effects). Accordingly, appointing, promoting, and developing leaders who exhibit this specific
leadership style is in the very interest of every organization. By providing insights into how
TFL proliferates in TMTs and how this process is influenced by social context, this study
intends to delineate some guidelines for firms on how to adjust organizational structure,
culture, and the working environment in order to facilitate TFL dispersion. In assessing the
relative importance of TMTs for organizational innovation, it is intended to be shown through
which channels the influence of CEO TFL actually is effectuated. Based on the findings,
implications for leader selection, promotion, and training are derived.
1.3 Outline
In order to delineate the focal theoretical concepts examined in this paper, a short overview of
the relevant literature on TFL, leadership dispersion, upper echelons theory, and individual
action in social context is given first. Subsequently, these theoretical streams are combined to
derive the hypotheses proposed above. After describing the method of the present analysis,
5
structural equation modeling (SEM) is conducted to test the hypothesized relations. The paper
then concludes with a discussion of the results, their implications and an outlook for future
research.
2. Theoretical Foundations and State of Research
2.1 Transformational Leadership
2.1.1 The theoretical concept of transformational leadership. Burns (1978) was the
first scholar to outline the specific role of charismatic leaders in transforming the values of
their followers. While “traditional” leadership is conceived to consist of purely transactional
relationships – for example the exchange of wages for work effort – TFL “engages the full
person of the follower” (Burns, 1978, p. 4) and moves followers to “performance beyond
expectations” (Bass, 1985). Conceptually, TFL consists of four key components, the four Is
(Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass & Riggio, 2006).
First, idealized influence describes how a transformational leader acts as a role model to elicit
followers’ admiration, identification, trust, and loyalty. Developing high levels of pride in
terms of their belonging to the in-group of the leader, followers begin to emulate leader’s
behavior.
Second, transformational leaders exert inspirational motivation by delineating an attractive
vision of the future and making followers believe to be an indispensable part of it. By giving
meaning to the work and lives of followers, the alignment of interests around the common
vision, commitment, and cohesion are fostered.
6
Third, transformational leaders broaden the “horizon of the possible”, thereby intellectually
stimulating followers and fueling their creativity and innovative capacity. By communicating
high expectations and at the same time encouraging new approaches and calling into question
existing assumptions, transformational leaders promote followers’ personal development and
problem-solving capabilities.
Finally, transformational leaders display individualized consideration by acting as mentors for
their personnel and being attentive to their needs for growth and achievement. Leader-
follower-interactions are personalized, so that the follower feels personally valued, and the
leader tries to identify and realize the follower’s potential by providing individually tailored
learning opportunities (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Bass & Riggio, 2006).
2.1.2 Scientific research on transformational leadership.2 Initially, research on TFL
focused on its impact, seeking to verify Bass’s (1985) postulate of “performance beyond
expectations”. Over time, strong evidence for positive effects of TFL on different variables of
superior organizational interest has been accumulated – both in a variety of settings and with
regard to leaders, subordinates, teams, as well as the organization as a whole. Perhaps most
importantly, TFL was found to be the “most important predictor of […] leadership
2 Despite minor theoretical differences, there is considerable conceptual overlap between TFL and
charismatic leadership, and leaders scoring high on one type’s measure usually score high on the other
one’s, too (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Conger, 1999; House, 1977; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013;
Walter & Bruch, 2009; Yukl, 1999). Summaries of TFL outcomes and antecedents therefore also
include findings on charismatic leadership.
7
effectiveness” (Piccolo et al., 2012, p. 567).3 A comprehensive summary of TFL effects and
outcomes is given in Table A1 in the appendix.
Albeit academic interest in TFL antecedents somewhat lagged behind, numerous studies have
meanwhile deepened scientific knowledge with regard to demographic variables, personality
traits, contextual variables, attitudes and behavior, or life experiences influencing leader
emergence and TFL. Promising from a practical perspective, the effectiveness of leader
training was repeatedly confirmed. As Bass (1990) points out: “through training, managers
can learn the techniques and obtain the qualities they need to become transformational
leaders” (p. 19). Table A2 in the appendix provides a summary of TFL predictors and
antecedents.
Importantly for this work, several antecedent-oriented approaches tried to retrace leadership
dispersion in groups and organizations. They are discussed in the following section.
2.2 Leadership Dispersion4
Avolio and Bass (1995) introduced leadership diffusion, a mechanism which can operate in
two directions. In a downward flow of influence, senior managers can create an organizational
culture with strong normative expectations toward a specific leadership behavior by
3 It is noteworthy that TFL seems to be universally valid, since its phenomena were observed and its
effectiveness attested across a variety of organizations and cultures (e.g., Bass, 1997; Den Hartog,
House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999; Jung, Yammarino, & Lee, 2009; Walumbwa &
Lawler, 2003).
4 Bass (1990) noted that “managers tend to model their own leadership style after that of their
immediate supervisors” (p. 26). However, he failed to provide a thorough theoretical explanation for
his observation, which is why this approach is not discussed in this paper. The same applies to social
contagion, a mechanism of proliferation proposed by Meindl (1990), which is more suitable to explain
the spread of TFL effects than the dispersion of actual TFL behavior.
8
establishing corresponding structures and procedures, which then affect individual leadership.
Conversely, in an upward direction, individual leadership behavior can emerge as a group
norm and subsequently be conveyed to the entire organization through role modeling and the
rotation of group members, thereby gradually becoming part of the organizational culture
(Avolio & Bass, 1995).
This concept is essentially an advancement of Bass, Waldman, Avolio, and Bebb’s (1987)
model of leadership cascade, which proposed that – due to role modeling processes – the
more top managers’ leadership behaviors are transformational, the more TFL is exhibited
concomitantly at lower levels of management (see also Waldman & Yammarino, 1999).
Finally, Bommer et al. (2004) examined the impact of peer leadership behavior on the
exercise of TFL. With recourse to Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of planned behavior –
an advancement of which is used as explanatory framework in this study – they argued that
the performance of TFL depends on the extent to which it is displayed by a leader’s peer
group, since this group influences leader’s individual attitudes, social expectations, and
perceived behavioral control regarding TFL. Although Bommer et al. (2004) made use of
different explanatory models of individual action, their approach failed to integrate them into
a comprehensive scheme – a shortcoming which this work tries to remedy.
Taken as a whole, albeit examining leadership dispersion in different social environments,
none of these three approaches paid attention to TFL dispersion in TMTs and the CEO’s role
in this process, so that both this highly specific organizational unit and the actual mechanisms
of proliferation lack thorough investigation. The purpose of this paper is to address these
academic voids. In doing so, the following section sheds light on TMTs’ importance and
9
integrative dynamics within them by introducing upper echelons theory, before different
approaches to individual action in social context – which serve as an explanatory framework
in this work – are discussed.
2.3 Upper Echelons Theory
2.3.1 The role of top management teams in organizational leadership. While research
on leadership and organizational success initially focused on the dominant role of the CEO, a
more comprehensive approach was adopted by upper echelons theory suggesting that an
organization is a “reflection of its top managers” (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). The central
assumption – top executives play a decisive role in affecting the fate of companies – also
resonates in the distinction between leadership in and of organizations – the latter implying
leadership at the highest management level (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999).
With recourse to March and Simon’s (1958) theory of bounded rationality, Hambrick (1994)
argued that in light of the complexities and informational demands of organizational steerage,
the management of an organization is essentially a “shared activity, extending well beyond
the chief executive” (p. 172; see also Daily & Schwenk, 1996). Accordingly, attention shifted
to the TMT, the most powerful and influential group in an organization (Carmeli et al., 2011).
Organizational outcomes were supposed to be predicted by top managers’ cognitive filters,
individual “givens” that determine how environmental stimuli are interpreted and – in the
aggregate – how organizational decisions are made (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Hambrick,
1994, 2007, 2009).
2.3.2 Top management team behavioral integration. Hambrick (1994) noted that the
level of “teamness” in TMTs can be very limited, to such an extent that TMT members
10
perform their respective tasks more or less autonomously, rather than engaging in collective
behavior. On the contrary, in TMTs with a high level of behavioral integration, managers
frequently and substantially interact. Depicting the “degree to which the group engages in
mutual and collective interaction”, behavioral integration consists of (1) the quantity and
quality of information exchange, (2) collaborative behavior, and (3) joint decision making –
thus the sharing of information, resources, and decisions (Hambrick, 1994, p. 188, 2007,
2009).
Various studies have substantiated the importance of TMTs (and especially TMT behavioral
integration) for organizational outcomes – over and above the influence of the CEO. A
summary of the relevant literature is provided in Table A3 in the appendix.
Given this well documented relevance of top managers, it seems mandatory to extend
research on TFL dispersion to TMTs. Drawing on an integrated model for explaining
individual behavior, this paper argues that TMT behavioral integration plays a key role in
facilitating leadership proliferation. Accordingly, existing approaches to individual action in
social context are outlined in the next section.
2.4 Individual Action in Social Context
A basic but essential precondition for action lies in an individual’s ability to perform the
respective behavior. According to Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory, “most human
behavior is learned observationally through modeling” (p. 22). Observing others allows an
individual to evaluate a behavior against its observed outcome and thus to decide on his
actions without having to directly experience their respective consequences beforehand.
Hence, behavioral cues of others become the most effective guideline in orientating one’s
11
actions, which holds especially true for individuals to whom the observer is attracted or to
whom he ascribes high levels of status or competence (Bandura, 1977).
In a similar vein, Cialdini (1985) suggested that the principle of social proof heavily
influences individuals by providing cues for appropriate behavior. According to him, the
perceived rightness and appropriateness of a given behavior rises with the number of people
performing that behavior – and particularly if the perceived similarity between observer and
observed is high (Cialdini, 1985).
Similarly, Salancik and Pfeffer’s (1978) social information processing approach underlined
the importance of the social context in affecting individual attitudes and behavior. By
influencing how events are interpreted and emanating pressures for conformity, a person’s
immediate social environment (i.e., the attitudes and opinions of others) constrains his actions
as a “function of the unanimity of shared beliefs” regarding socially acceptable behavior
(Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978, p. 240). Hence, individual behavior is adapted to the social context
in which it occurs and to its predominant norms and expectations.
The most comprehensive approach to individual action in social context, Fishbein and
Ajzen’s (1975) theory of planned behavior, conceived actual behavior as a result of the
interplay of four elements: (1) an individual’s attitude toward a given behavior, (2) subjective
norms as an individual’s perception of others’ approval or disapproval of the behavior, (3)
behavioral control or the perceived ability to perform the behavior, and (4) the intention to
perform or not perform the behavior as a product of attitude, subjective norms, and behavioral
control. As in the other three approaches, the role of referents, important others with whom
the individual is motivated to comply, is emphasized. Depending on an individual’s liking for
12
the referent and the legitimacy with which the referent can make demands on the individual,
motivation to comply causes that subjective norms ultimately guide individual behavior by
transmitting social influence and pressure (Ajzen, 1988, 1991).
In conclusion, existing approaches highlight different aspects of individual action in social
context. To provide an explanatory framework for TFL diffusion in TMTs, they are combined
into an integrated model in the following section.
3. Theory and Hypotheses Development
3.1 Toward an Integrated Model of Individual Behavior
Synthesizing the different schemes of individual action in social context illustrated above, an
integrated model of individual behavior (Figure 1) is proposed.
Figure 1. Integrated model of individual behavior
In line with social information processing, referents’ attitudes are supposed to influence
individual attitudes through their effect on the interpretation of events and their meaning. For
13
example, a manager’s attitude toward an organizational decision on personnel cutbacks is
likely to differ considerably depending on whether the individual is surrounded by people
favoring the measure or strongly opposing it – over and above conformity pressures. It is by
interacting with the social environment that individual attitudes and subjective reality are
constructed (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
With recourse to the approaches of social information processing, social proof and planned
behavior, it is argued that both referents’ attitudes and behavior shape individual perceptions
of appropriate behavior. Emanating strong conformity pressures, the intensity of perceived
socio-normative expectations determines the rigidity of constrains the individual faces when
deciding on his behavior.
Referents’ behavior influences an individual’s perceived behavioral efficacy, his belief
regarding the ability of performing the behavior. By thoroughly observing others, an
individual learns how to emulate a behavior and builds the self-confidence necessary for
actually displaying it – a reasoning derived from social learning theory.
Finally, as proposed by the theory of planned behavior, individual attitudes, perceived socio-
normative expectations and perceived behavioral efficacy determine behavioral intention as
ultimate antecedent of actual behavior.
Importantly, the relations between referents’ attitudes and behavior on the one side and
individual attitudes, perceived socio-normative expectations and perceived behavioral
efficacy on the other are influenced by (1) the number of referents, (2) referents’ subjective
importance to the individual, and (3) the perceived unanimity of referents’ attitudes and
14
behavior. The more referents, the greater their significance for the individual, and the higher
the consistency of their attitudes and behavior, the stronger are the effects on individual
attitudes, perceived socio-normative expectations and perceived behavioral efficacy, ceteris
paribus (see also Bandura, 1977; Cialdini, 1985; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
3.2 CEO Transformational Leadership and TMT Transformational Leadership5
Drawing on the integrated model of individual behavior developed above, CEO TFL should
provide a fertile soil for tendencies of social influence to unfold. In the following, it is
accordingly illustrated how the four Is of CEO TFL fuel TMT TFL.
A transformational CEO gradually alters TMT members’ attitude toward TFL by exerting
idealized influence, thereby structuring the social environment within which TMT members
act and shaping their fundamental evaluation of TFL. Exposed to the role model of the leader
– whom they profoundly admire – managers come to appreciate TFL as an appropriate
behavior.6 Since they strongly identify with the CEO (Wang & Howell, 2012), his attitudes
and behavior moreover become particularly salient in stimulating strong socio-normative
pressures. Consistently observing the CEO exerting TFL, TMT members perceive strong
expectations from his part to perform TFL themselves, which they met with a sustained
eagerness to comply and put in extra effort (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011).
Accordingly, it is argued that:
5 Regarding the effects of TFL discussed in this and subsequent sections, further empirical
substantiation in terms of a variety of supporting studies can be found in Table A1 in the appendix.
6 The conception of leadership as the “management of meaning” seems particularly suitable here.
According to Smircich and Morgan (1982), leadership is “realized in the process whereby one or more
individuals succeed in attempting to frame and define the [social] reality of others" (p. 258; see also
Ou et al., 2014).
15
The idealized influence of a transformational CEO fosters TMT members’ TFL through
individual attitudes and perceived socio-normative expectations.
Transformational leaders devise attractive visions and make followers feel that their
contribution is decisive in achieving them, thereby boosting commitment to the “common
cause” and perceived work meaningfulness (Bono & Judge, 2003).7 In this process, individual
attitudes concerning aims and the appropriate means to achieving them are altered, and value
congruence with the leader emerges (Krishnan, 2005). Because TMT members are keen to put
the aspired vision into effect, they evaluate behaviors against their usefulness in doing so. As
they experience the display of TFL on the part of the CEO as well as its positive outcomes
(team cohesion, interpersonal helping behaviors, etc.), their fundamental beliefs about
leadership are profoundly modified, making them believe that TFL is by far the most effective
leadership style in realizing the delineated vision. Thus:
The inspirational motivation of a transformational CEO fosters TMT members’ TFL through
individual attitudes.
A transformational leader encourages unconventional thinking by creating an atmosphere of
“trial and error” and calling into question existing assumptions, which both challenges and
stimulates followers’ intellectual capacities (Wang et al., 2011). In the emerging climate of
renewal and cognitive ambiguity, TMT members are particularly open to learning and thus
susceptible to behavioral cues from the individual toward whom they most thoroughly orient
their behavior – the CEO. Ignorant of what to do and striving to acquire the necessary means
to handle their complex environment, executives look at the CEO for guidance and become 7 Perceived work importance and meaningfulness in itself was shown to be a significant predictor of
TFL (Nielsen & Cleal, 2011).
16
close observers and learners of his behavior, which is essentially transformational. By
successively applying their newly developed competencies, managers come to believe that
they are in charge of the course of action, which raises their self-confidence and self-efficacy
beliefs regarding the performance of TFL (see also Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010).8
Consequently, it is proposed that:
The intellectual stimulation of a transformational CEO fosters TMT members’ TFL through
perceived behavioral efficacy.
Finally, transformational leaders treat their followers as individuals with needs for
achievement and growth and make them feel personally valued. Being exposed to learning
opportunities that are tailored to their personal needs by the CEO, TMT members successfully
handle the assigned tasks and individually develop in the process of doing so (Dvir, Eden,
Avolio, & Shamir, 2002). Thereby, they successively build up self-confidence and self-
efficacy, to such an extent that their general appraisal of their ability to cope with challenges
or perform whatever behavior is enhanced (Nielsen & Munir, 2009). This holds especially
true for TFL, since they constantly observe the CEO performing it. Furthermore, due to the
personalization of the leader-follower-relationship, TMT members are eager to please the
CEO and meet his perceived expectations, which they try by emulating his (leadership)
behavior. Hence:
The individualized consideration of a transformational CEO fosters TMT members’ TFL
through perceived socio-normative expectations and perceived behavioral efficacy.
8 In line with this argumentation, it was found that leaders’ perceived situational control and
psychological empowerment are positively related to TFL (Nielsen & Cleal, 2011; Spreitzer, De
Janasz, & Quinn, 1999).
17
Altogether, this argumentation leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: CEO transformational leadership has a positive effect on TMT transformational
leadership.
3.3 CEO Transformational Leadership and TMT Behavioral Integration9
As outlined above, TMT behavioral integration consists of a substantial information
exchange, collaborative behavior, and joint decision making. It is shown in the following how
various effects of TFL are likely to promote these aspects.
A transformational CEO’s intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration boost
TMT’s collective efficacy, the group’s shared belief in its ability to jointly take on difficult
problems (Wang & Howell, 2012). Creating a team atmosphere of trust and support, the CEO
encourages TMT members to express and discuss their opinions openly, thereby strongly
encouraging communication and the exchange of information among TMT members (Carmeli
et al., 2012; Nijstad, Berger-Selman, & De Dreu, 2014).
In addition to that, the CEO leads TMT members to transcend selfish interests and adopt the
objectives of the team by rallying them around a common vision. Over time, executives
develop high levels of trust in the TMT and gradually base their very identity on the
membership in it, which greatly fosters team cohesion (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey,
9 This relationship has already been examined in two studies: Gu, Weng, and Xie (2012) found support
for a positive effect of CEO TFL on TMT behavioral integration, but their work lacked a thorough
theoretical underpinning. In contrast, Ling et al. (2008b) grounded their argumentation in TFL effects
on followers. They, too, found evidence for a positive relationship.
18
2013; Huettermann, Doering, & Boerner, 2014).10
Due to the inclusive message
communicated by the CEO, a sense of common destiny evolves which strongly stimulates
TMT members’ interaction, interpersonal helping, and organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCB) (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006) – and thus collaboration.
Finally, the CEO’s focus on executives’ development and empowerment results in a decision
making style that is substantially decentralized and consensus-oriented (Flood et al., 2000), so
that decision making powers rest with the TMT as a whole rather than with its individual
members.11
This and the common purpose around which TMT members converge fuel joint
decision making.
Given these effects of TFL, a TMT with a transformational CEO should function as a “team”
in the proper sense of the word, in that it exhibits higher levels of information exchange,
collaborative behavior, and joint decision making. Hence, it is hypothesized that:
H2: CEO transformational leadership has a positive effect on TMT behavioral integration.
3.4 TMT Behavioral Integration and TMT Transformational Leadership
If a TMT is behaviorally integrated, its members frequently and substantially interact, know
what their peers are thinking, doing, and expecting, closely work together, observe each
other’s behavior, and jointly decide on the firm’s course of action. Drawing on the integrated
model of individual behavior and the reasoning on TFL in TMTs outlined above, it is argued
10
Collective team identification was shown to result in TMT behavioral integration, as was a CEO’s
collectivistic orientation (Carmeli & Shteigman, 2010; Simsek et al., 2005).
11 Several studies showed that consensus-oriented decision making promotes TMT behavioral
integration (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2011; Ling et al., 2008b; Ou et al., 2014).
19
that the three components of behavioral integration significantly affect TMT members’
intention to perform TFL. In doing so, the adoption of TFL by TMT members is supposed to
be a gradual process, with some executives more readily emulating CEO TFL than others,
depending on their respective personal disposition (e.g., extraversion, emotional intelligence,
etc.).
By frequently exchanging information and discussing new ideas, TMT members open up to
cognitive mechanisms of reconsideration and reappraisal. In this state, their individual
attitudes are highly susceptible to change. Since some of the TMT members have already
been deeply convinced of the effectiveness of TFL, these “vanguards” share their beliefs both
explicitly and implicitly, and individual managers who are exposed to their influence are led
to take up a positive stance on TFL. This rationale not only applies to “procrastinators”,
managers who have not yet been convinced of the virtues of TFL, but also to those who have
already been persuaded to a greater extent: in a self-affirmative exchange, executives
mutually fortify their inclination to perform TFL. In addition to this impact on individual
attitudes, regular and dense communications between TMT members make reciprocal
demands and expectations more explicit to the individual. Convinced that TFL is the most
effective means in realizing the common vision, TMT members exert conformity pressures on
procrastinators, creating strong socio-normative expectations toward TFL. Accordingly, it is
argued that:
Information exchange in a behaviorally integrated TMT fosters TMT members’ TFL through
individual attitudes and perceived socio-normative expectations.
20
Members of a behaviorally integrated TMT work closely together and in doing so are subject
to the exemplary influence of their peers. Individual executives have plenty of opportunities
to observe their colleagues’ behavior, and hence directly witness the positive outcomes of
transformational vanguards’ leadership behavior for both the TMT and the organization as a
whole. As more and more of their peers engage in this specific leadership style, executives
face various occasions to observationally learn TFL behaviors. By watching a steadily
growing proportion of their peers practicing TFL, managers’ confidence in their own ability
of performing it is greatly enhanced. Additionally, they can be assured that their peers assist
them in case of any difficulties, as TMT members help each other and engage in OCB.
Accordingly, it is proposed that:
Collaborative behavior in a behaviorally integrated TMT fosters TMT members’ TFL through
perceived behavioral efficacy.
In deciding on organizational policies and procedures, TMT members profoundly shape the
culture and norms of an organization in accordance with their convictions.12
Being persuaded
of the virtues of TFL, transformational executives gradually create an organizational climate
which rewards this specific leadership behavior and discredits others. Since the behaviorally
integrated TMT shares decision making powers, all members take part in decision making and
the largest possible consensus is sought, to the extent that every executive has the opportunity
to voice his opinion and approve or disapprove a decision. Because of this involvement in
decision making, individual managers cannot easily deviate from the adopted policy – in
contrast to situations in which they have no stake in the decision making. Since they take part
in the final vote, their peers can expect them to comply with the policy agreed upon. Hence, 12
Schein’s (2010) notion of leaders as the “main architects of [organizational] culture” highlights this
point (p. xi).
21
socio-normative expectations for conformity are high, and this holds particularly true for the
question of which leadership behavior is exhibited from the part of TMT members. Hence:
Joint decision making in a behaviorally integrated TMT fosters TMT members’ TFL trough
perceived socio-normative expectations.
Altogether, TMT behavioral integration induced by a transformational CEO spurs TMT
members’ TFL by affecting individual attitudes, creating strong perceived socio-normative
expectations and boosting perceived behavioral efficacy. In doing so, the “team can influence
each member just as the individual leader can influence his or her followers”, a phenomena
labeled “team leadership” (Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung 2002, p. 67). The
collective influence of the TMT on its members thus causes strong stimuli toward TFL
dispersion. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that:
H3: TMT behavioral integration has a positive effect on TMT transformational leadership.
With recourse to the rationale of the integrated model of individual behavior, the mechanisms
described above should emanate an impetus toward TMT TFL over and above the direct
effect of CEO TFL, as (1) the number of referents approving TFL is higher, and (2) the
perceived unanimity of their attitudes and behavior grows over time. Hence, a significant part
of the total effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL should be effectuated indirectly through TMT
behavioral integration. Correspondingly, it is proposed that:
H4: TMT behavioral integration partially mediates the positive effect of CEO
transformational leadership on TMT transformational leadership.
22
3.5 Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation13
Besides examining TFL dispersion in TMTs, another major aim of the present study is to
clarify the impact of TFL on organizational innovation in special consideration of the CEO-
TMT-interface.
Transformational leaders fuel creativity by intellectually stimulating followers, by
encouraging them to question existing assumptions and to explore new ways of thinking.
Through individualized consideration, they make followers believe that their contributions are
valued, encouraging them to proactively come up with new ideas. Finally, via idealized
influence and inspirational motivation, transformational leaders increase subordinates’
intrinsic motivation, commitment, and effort, which culminates in a heightened output of new
approaches and solutions. Taken all these mechanisms together, TFL greatly promotes
organizational innovation. Thus:
H5: CEO and TMT transformational leadership have a positive effect on organizational
innovation.
The impact of TFL on organizational innovation should be particularly pronounced if it is not
only performed by the CEO, but the entire TMT. In view of organizational complexities and
ambiguities, top managers play a decisive role at the apex of organizations by sharing the
responsibility of leading with the CEO. Due to mere numerical constraints, the direct impact
of CEO TFL has a tightly limited space to unfold: only a small fraction of the total workforce
13
Prior research established the causal link between TFL and organizational innovation in more detail
(e.g., Allen, Smith, & Da Silva, 2013; Jung, Wu, & Chow, 2008; Vaccaro, Jansen, Van Den Bosch, &
Volberda, 2012).
23
immediately reports to him or is otherwise subjected to his influence, and this fraction is
largely made up of TMT members.14
Accordingly, top executives represent the individuals
most strongly affected by the CEO (Ling et al., 2008b), and the above-mentioned, innovation-
enhancing influences of CEO TFL should thus first and foremost impact them. Immerged to a
stimulating, valuing, and creative environment, managers come to pass their experiences on to
their respective subordinates, who do the same with regard to their subalterns, and so forth,
thereby exponentially multiplying the number of units and employees affected and amplifying
the impact of TFL on organizational innovation. Hence, a significant portion of the positive
influence of CEO TFL on organizational innovation is transferred through its effects on TMT
members. Accordingly:
H6: TMT transformational leadership partially mediates the positive effect of CEO
transformational leadership on organizational innovation.
Figure 2 illustrates the hypothesized model.
14
Although Waldman and Yammarino (1999) illustrated the possibility of distant leadership via
attributions, visions, and storytelling, its effects on followers should be considerably smaller than in
the case of direct leadership.
24
Figure 2. Hypothesized model
The following section outlines the method applied for testing the proposed hypotheses.
4. Method
4.1 Sample
Data collection for the present investigation took place in two waves as part of a larger
research project between February and July 2012 and June and December 2013. The self-
recruitment study was conducted by a professional agency in Germany specialized in
benchmarking small to medium-sized enterprises (SME). In order to be eligible, companies
had to be located in Germany and employ no more than 5,000 employees.
In sum, 215 SMEs applied for voluntary participation and took part in the study. As reward
for their participation, they were promised a tailored benchmarking report. Companies
represented five different industries, namely service (50.3 %), production (25.1 %), finance
(11.2 %), wholesale (9.5 %), and retail (3.9 %). Their number of employees ranged from 15 to
25
3,897, whereat 75 % of all companies reported numbers between 24 and 484. The median was
185 and the mean 381 employees.
In order to prevent common method and single source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003), data was collected from three different sources.
First, Human Resources (HR) executives were asked to provide general information on the
organization, such as industry affiliation, employment statistics, and financial performance.
Second, employees were invited to participate in the study by the HR department with a
standardized e-mail describing the purpose of the study, assuring participants’ full anonymity
and containing a link to a web-based survey hosted by an independent IT company. In order
to limit the number of questions each employee had to answer, an algorithm programmed in
the survey website randomly assigned participants to one of four survey versions, thereby
adopting a split-sample design (Rousseau, 1985; see also Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2011,
2013, for similar approaches). Amongst others, employees were asked to provide ratings of
their supervisors’ TFL behaviors.
Third, TMT members, too, were invited to participate in the study via an e-mail from the HR
department. In a separate questionnaire, they supplied ratings of TMT behavioral integration,
organizational innovation, and other rather broad organizational variables, where they were
supposed to provide the most accurate information. Furthermore, TMT members (as well as
employees) were asked to give some demographic information.
26
The questions in each survey were translated to German from the English original by
professional translators, and a double-blind back-translation procedure was applied to
guarantee semantic equivalence (Schaffer & Riordan, 2003).
In sum, 31,594 individuals took part in the survey, thereof 510 TMT members. The average
number of respondents per firm was 147, with figures ranging from 1 to 965. In comparison
with the entire personnel, an average within-organization response rate of 65.2 % was
achieved (range = 2.1-100 %).
Due to the algorithm-based allocation of employees to one of the four survey versions, the
items assessing TFL were answered by 24.5 % of all employees, or 7,622 individuals. These
were predominantly male (58.9 %), on average 39 years old, had a company tenure of 10 and
a position tenure of 6 years. With regard to the entire workforce in the sample, a potential
non-response bias could be ruled out (59.0 %; 39; 10; 6).
The items for behavioral integration and organizational innovation were answered by all of
the 510 TMT members (on average 2 per firm with a range from 1 to 14). 85.4 % of them
were male, and they reported an average age of 46, a company tenure of 13, and a position
tenure of 8 years.
4.2 Measures
Unless stated otherwise, items for all measures were gauged using a five-point response
scheme, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The precise English and
German wording of all items is listed in Table A4 in the appendix.
27
To ensure that each set of items loaded on the construct to which it was intended to do,
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) or, to be more precise, principal-component factor
analyses were conducted. Following Bagozzi and Yi (1988), the cutoff value for sufficient
loading was set at > 0.50. Cronbach’s α was calculated to evaluate the scales’ reliability and
internal consistency, respectively. The applied cutoff value for adequate reliability was > 0.70
(Acock, 2014).
For assessing overall model fit properties, different indices were assessed. First, the χ2 test
statistic was calculated. Divided by the degrees of freedom (df), χ2/df < 3.0 indicates
acceptable model fit (Homburg & Giering, 1996). Second and third, the Comparative Fit
Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) were consulted as they were shown to avoid the
underestimation of model fit in cases of relatively small samples (n < 250) to which for
instance the Normed Fit Index (NFI) is prone (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1998; Sharma,
Mukherjee, Kumar, & Dillon, 2005). The cutoff values for a reasonable fit were set at > 0.90
in agreement with common practice (Backhaus, Erichson, Plinke, & Weiber, 2003; Homburg
& Baumgartner, 1995). Finally, following the recommendations of Sharma et al. (2005) for
SEM, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was calculated. However, the
RMSEA should be treated with caution as it tends to over-reject true-population models at
small sample size (n < 250) (Hu & Bentler, 1998). The cutoff value for acceptable model fit
was set at < 0.10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Kunze et al., 2011).
28
In order to justify data aggregation from the individual to the organizational level, the intra-
class correlations ICC(1) and ICC(2) as well as the index rwg were calculated.15
Aggregation
is justifiable if the F test statistic for ICC(1) is significant, ICC(2) exceeds 0.60, and the mean
rwg across all units is > 0.7016
(Glick, 1985; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
4.2.1 Transformational leadership. TFL was assessed using 22 items from a scale
developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990).17
Answered by individual
employees and assigned to either the CEO or TMT members through a variable retaining to
whom employees directly reported, these items provided ratings on six dimensions of TFL
behavior: Intellectual Stimulation, Articulating Vision, High Performance Expectations,
Fostering Group Goals, Providing Role Model, and Individualized Support.
Because of theoretical appropriateness and practical considerations with regard to sample size
requirements and the number of parameters to be estimated in the final model, parceling
procedures were applied. In a hierarchical model with several first-order factors representing a
broader second-order factor, homogenous parcels consisting of items that load on the same
first-order factor can be constructed. In the present analysis, items were clustered in the
above-mentioned six TFL dimensions (first-order factors) to serve as indicators of TFL
(second-order factor). In light of the model fit’s tendency to decrease with an expanded
15
A detailed explanation of these aggregation statistics is provided in the appendix (p. 95). Since
Stata, the statistics software used in this work, does not possess commands for calculating ICC(1),
ICC(2), and rwg, the necessary computation formulas were programmed by the author himself. The
corresponding commands are also stated in the appendix (p. 95).
16 The expected variability for calculating rwg was operationalized as rectangular distribution, assuming
a purely random responding with each response having the same likelihood of being chosen.
17 Three of the items were measured in a seven-point response format. They were subjected to
proportional transformation – multiplying each item with a factor of 5/7 – to adjust them to a five-
point response format (see also Colman, Norris, & Preston, 1997).
29
number of items – even if the model closely approximates the focal phenomenon – this
reduction of items seems highly justifiable, all the more since the use of parcels was shown to
result in less biased parameter estimates, a normal distribution of indicators, and higher
reliability compared to the application of item-level models (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005;
Hall, Snell, & Foust, 1999; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).
Testing the six parcels, High Performance Expectation had a Cronbach’s α value below the
specified cutoff value (0.63) and a significantly smaller loading on TFL than the other five
factors (0.44). Additionally, the Cronbach’s α test statistic showed that its exclusion would
improve the internal consistency of the TFL scale. Consequently, the parcel was dropped. The
other dimensions all had sufficiently high α values and factor loadings, and the exclusion of
any one of them would have deteriorated the properties of the scale.
Fit properties of the five-parcel-model were initially not satisfactory (χ2 = 25.90; df = 5; CFI =
0.99; TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.14). Based on theoretical considerations and modification
indices, the parcels Articulating Vision and Individualized Support were allowed to covary.
While Articulating Vision focuses on how followers are inspired by the leader’s vision,
Individualized Support comprehends leader’s considerateness to followers’ feelings. As
followers’ feelings are inevitably altered by the inspirational impact of the vision, articulating
a vision in itself induces an increased perception of leader’s considerateness on the part of
followers, thus justifying the addition of a covariance path. The refined model showed
sufficient fit properties (χ2 = 10.81; df = 4; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.09), and the
internal consistency of the scale was α = 0.97.
30
Aggregation statistics were calculated separately for both CEO and TMT TFL. Results were
mixed, to such an extent that the respective ICC(1) (0.19, p < 0.001; 0.10, p < 0.001) and rwg
values (0.78; 0.73) were satisfactory, while ICC(2) values did not meet the threshold (0.50;
0.45).
4.2.2 TMT behavioral integration. TMT behavioral integration was measured using a
scale developed by Simsek et al. (2005). Thereby, TMT members answered nine items that
gauged the quality of information exchange, collaborative behavior, and joint decision
making in the TMT.
To limit the number of parameters in the final estimation, the two items that had the weakest
loading on behavioral integration (GF_35 and GF_39) were excluded and only seven were
retained for further analysis.18
All remaining items had sufficiently high α values and loadings
on the latent variable.
Initial model fit properties were moderate (χ2 = 52.17; df = 14; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.91;
RMSEA = 0.13). As both GF_36 (quality of discussed solutions) and GF_37 (level of
creativity emanating from TMT dialog) assessed positive outcomes of TMT member
communication, they were closely related to each other, and adding a covariance path
between them noticeably improved model fit (χ2 = 27.92; df = 13; CFI = 0.98; TLI = 0.96;
RMSEA = 0.08). The behavioral integration scale had a reliability of α = 0.90.
Aggregation statistics were divergent. While ICC(1) was significant (0.27, p < 0.001) and rwg
clearly above the demanded value (0.83), ICC(2) did not meet the cutoff criteria (0.54). 18
Different rules of thumb suggest a minimum of three to four indicators per construct (Hall et al.,
1999; Kenny, 1979; Kline, 2011).
31
4.2.3 Organizational innovation. Organizational innovation was assessed in a seven-
point response format with nine items from Scott and Bruce’s (1994) measure of individual
innovation that were adapted to the organizational level. Answered by TMT members, these
items gauged the frequency with which certain innovation-relevant behaviors such as the
generation of new ideas and techniques, their intra-organizational promotion and
implementation, and the evaluation of their usefulness, were performed in an organization.
Of the nine items, three were excluded: GF_78 had the weakest loading on innovation and
was equivalent to GF_79, in that both items measured the generation of new techniques and
solutions. GF_82 was redundant to GF_80 and GF_81, as all three items gauged active
support-seeking for innovative ideas. Finally, GF_85 had the second lowest loading and
assessed the frequency with which innovations are evaluated rather than the act of innovation
itself. Factor loadings and α values of the remaining six items were satisfyingly high.
Initial model fit indices were moderate (χ2 = 66.17; df = 9; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.89; RMSEA =
0.20), indicating a necessity for further refinement. GF_77 and GF_79 both measured the
generation of innovative ideas and solutions, while GF_83 and GF_84 assessed their
systematic implementation. The respective items were thus closely related, and adding two
corresponding covariances substantially improved model fit (χ2 = 18.58; df = 7; CFI = 0.99;
TLI = 0.97; RMSEA = 0.10). Cronbach’s α for the organizational innovation scale was 0.94.
In respect of aggregation statistics, ICC(1) was significant (0.26, p < 0.001) and rwg quite high
(0.82), while ICC(2) was below the requested value (0.52).
32
Table A5 presents the detailed results of CFAs and items’ summary statistics, whereas
aggregation statistics of the focal study variables are summarized in Table A6. Both tables are
enclosed in the appendix.
4.2.4 Control variables. To account for the potential influence of confounding variables,
several controls that were previously found to relate to TFL and/or behavioral integration
were added to the model. This applies for age, gender, extraversion, openness, and
neuroticism (see Table A2 in the appendix), as well as for the duration of the leader-follower-
relationship (Hambrick, 1994; Krishnan, 2005) and group size (Simsek et al., 2005).
Accordingly, TMT members’ mean age, the proportion of women, members’ average levels
of extraversion, openness, and neuroticism, executives’ average company and position tenure
and TMT size were controlled for. Moreover, the contextual variables environmental
dynamism, organizational change, firm size (i.e., the number of employees) and industry
affiliation (coded with a dummy variable for each of the five sectors) were added as controls
(see Table A2 in the appendix; Carmeli et al., 2011; Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006;
Hambrick, 1994).
4.3 Analytical Procedures
In order to test the hypothesized relations, SEM was conducted using the statistics software
Stata. In comparison with multiple regression, SEM has at least two major advantages. First,
it allows the simultaneous estimation of all paths in the model. Second, in integrating
observed variables as indicators of latent constructs, it accounts for measurement error in the
latent constructs and thus removes this potential bias from estimates of the structural
relationships (Hall et al., 1999; Ling et al., 2008b).
33
Data analysis was performed in two steps following the approach of Anderson and Gerbing
(1988). In the first step, the measurement model was fitted to the observed data by conducting
a simultaneous CFA of all study variables. Second, SEM was applied to evaluate the
structural relations between the exogenous and endogenous constructs in the hypothesized
model. In doing so, a sequence of nested models was compared in order to test the mediation
hypotheses and gain insight into which model best explains the observed covariances.
The significance of indirect effects was tested using bootstrapping procedures. Bootstrap
confidence intervals do not depend on an assumed normal distribution of residuals and are
therefore more accurate in testing the significance of mediation effects than other procedures.
By drawing various random samples with replacement from the dataset, bootstrapping uses
the distribution of parameter estimates across all replications to estimate standard errors and
hence confidence intervals of a given statistic. It is thus particularly useful if the distribution
of a statistic is unknown (Acock, 2013, 2014; Cheung & Lau, 2008). In the present analysis,
the number of replications was set at 350.19
5. Results
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
Summary statistics of all study variables are listed in Table A6 in the appendix, whereas
Table 1 illustrates the respective intercorrelations.
19
This number is mainly due to computation constraints of the statistical program used for this
analysis. Although some researchers suggested a minimum number of 500 replications (e.g., Cheung
& Lau, 2008), others reported or recommended the use of replication numbers that were considerably
smaller (50-200) (e.g., Bradley & Tibshirani, 1998; Stapleton, 2008).
34
Tab
le 1
Inte
rcorr
elati
ons
of
study
vari
able
s
Var
iable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. C
EO
TF
L
1.0
0
2. T
MT
Beh
av.
Inte
g.
0.3
6***
1.0
0
3. T
MT
TF
L
0.3
2***
0.4
3***
1.0
0
4. O
rga.
In
nov
atio
n
0.3
1***
0.6
5***
0.3
5***
1.0
0
5. A
ge
-0.0
5
-0.0
9
-0.0
1
-0.0
3
1.0
0
6. P
rop. of
Wom
en
0.1
8
0.1
8
-0.1
0
0.2
2*
-0.3
9***
1.0
0
7. E
xtr
aver
sion
0.0
6
0.0
3
0.0
9
0.0
7
-0.1
1
-0.1
1
1.0
0
8. O
pen
nes
s 0.1
3
0.2
2*
0.2
1*
0.2
4**
-0.0
4
0.0
2
0.3
0**
1.0
0
9. N
euro
tici
sm
-0.0
7
-0.0
2
-0.1
3
0.0
4
-0.1
8
0.2
0*
-0.2
5**
-0.2
4*
1.0
0
10. T
enure
Com
pan
y
-0.0
2
0.0
7
0.0
9
0.1
0
0.4
5***
-0.1
1
-0.0
1
0.0
8
-0.1
0
1.0
0
11. T
enure
Posi
tion
0.0
2
0.1
0
0.0
4
0.1
3
0.5
5***
-0.0
2
-0.1
1
-0.0
2
-0.0
2
0.6
9***
12. T
MT
Siz
e -0
.19*
-0.0
8
-0.0
2
0.0
0
0.0
1
-0.3
1***
0.0
8
0.0
9
-0.0
9
0.0
9
13. E
nv. D
yn
amis
m
0.0
0
-0.0
5
0.0
4
-0.0
5
0.2
2*
-0.2
1*
0.1
3
-0.0
5
-0.0
8
0.0
6
14. O
rga.
Chan
ge
0.2
4**
0.4
2***
0.1
6*
0.4
9***
-0.0
3
0.2
3*
-0.0
9
0.1
7
-0.2
2*
0.1
8
15. F
irm
Siz
e -0
.17*
-0.2
7***
-0.0
8
-0.2
5**
-0.0
5
-0.0
9
-0.0
3
-0.0
4
-0.0
8
-0.0
7
16.
Indust
ry:
Pro
duct
ion
-0
.05
-0.1
1
-0.1
5
-0.1
1
0.2
3*
-0.3
5***
0.0
4
-0.1
9*
0.0
2
0.1
6
17.
Indust
ry:
Whole
sale
0.0
1
0.0
6
0.0
4
0.1
1
0.0
4
-0.1
8
0.0
1
0.0
0
-0.0
7
0.1
5
18.
Indust
ry:
Ret
ail
-0.0
5
-0.0
8
-0.0
5
-0.0
6
-0.0
3
0.1
2
-0.0
1
0.0
0
0.1
2
0.0
1
19.
Indust
ry:
Ser
vic
e 0.0
6
0.1
9*
0.1
5
0.0
9
-0.2
7**
0.3
0**
-0.0
3
0.1
2
-0.0
5
-0.2
6**
20.
Indust
ry:
Fin
ance
0.0
2
-0.1
0
0.0
2
-0.0
1
0.1
0
0.0
2
0.0
5
0.1
4
-0.0
5
0.0
4
Note
. *p <
0.0
5. **p <
0.0
1. ***p <
0.0
01.
35
Tab
le 1
(co
nti
nued
)
Inte
rcorr
elati
ons
of
study
vari
able
s
Var
iable
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11. T
enure
Posi
tion
1.0
0
12. T
MT
Siz
e -0
.06
1.0
0
13. E
nv. D
yn
amis
m
0.0
5
-0.0
4
1.0
0
14. O
rga.
Chan
ge
0.0
7
-0.0
5
-0.0
3
1.0
0
15. F
irm
Siz
e -0
.06
0.1
7*
0.1
2
-0.1
4
1.0
0
16.
Indust
ry:
Pro
duct
ion
0.1
2
-0.0
6
-0.0
4
-0.0
7
0.0
3
1.0
0
17.
Indust
ry:
Whole
sale
-0
.03
0.1
9*
0.0
9
0.1
3
-0.0
4
-0.1
9*
1.0
0
18.
Indust
ry:
Ret
ail
0.0
4
-0.0
2
0.0
7
-0.0
3
0.1
7*
-0.1
2
-0.0
7
1.0
0
19.
Indust
ry:
Ser
vic
e -0
.18
0.0
7
-0.1
0
-0.0
1
-0.0
7
-0.5
4***
-0.3
3***
-0.2
1**
1.0
0
20.
Indust
ry:
Fin
ance
0.1
0
-0.1
5
0.0
9
0.0
0
0.0
2
-0.2
1**
-0.1
2
-0.0
7
-0.3
3***
1.0
0
Note
. *p <
0.0
5. **p <
0.0
1. ***p <
0.0
01.
36
As hypothesized, results showed that CEO TFL relates positively to TMT behavioral
integration and TMT TFL. Furthermore, TMT behavioral integration was positively related to
TMT TFL and both CEO TFL and TMT TFL featured a positive correlation with
organizational innovation.
Of the 15 control variables included in the analysis, five exhibited significant correlations
with one or more of the focal endogenous variables and thus were retained for further
analysis. These were: proportion of women, openness, organizational change, firm size, and
the dummy variable for the service industry. The insignificant control variables were dropped
in order to avoid biased parameter estimates due to unnecessary controls (see Becker, 2005).
5.2 Measurement Model
The final measurement model consisted of four latent constructs – CEO TFL, TMT
behavioral integration, TMT TFL, and organizational innovation – with a total of 23 items
(five, seven, five, and six, respectively). All relevant fit indices for the measurement model
were sufficiently high (χ2 = 382.89; df = 219; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.06), as
were item reliability and convergent validity. In a CFA, all indicators featured high and
significant loadings on the respective latent construct (clearly above the cutoff value of >
0.50), indicating that the items were related to the construct to which they were theorized to
be. The results of CFA for the measurement model are shown in Table 2.
37
Table 2
Results of confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model
Indicator Standardized factor loading
CEO Transformational Leadership
Intellectual Stimulation 0.83***
Articulating Vision 0.89***
Fostering Group Goals 0.89***
Providing Role Model 0.93***
Individualized Support 0.70***
TMT Behavioral Integration
GF_36 0.66***
GF_37 0.79***
GF_38 0.71***
GF_40 0.86***
GF_41 0.77***
GF_42 0.77***
GF_43 0.79***
TMT Transformational Leadership
Intellectual Stimulation 0.79***
Articulating Vision 0.94***
Fostering Group Goals 0.90***
Providing Role Model 0.92***
Individualized Support 0.73***
Organizational Innovation
GF_77 0.82***
GF_79 0.86***
GF_80 0.90***
GF_81 0.82***
GF_83 0.83***
GF_84 0.80***
Note. N = 212.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
5.3 Structural Model
For each of the retained control variables, directional paths to the endogenous variables and
nondirectional covariance paths to the exogenous variable were added before estimating the
hypothesized structural model. SEM’s main results are illustrated in Figure 3 (for improved
legibility, items and controls are not displayed). The detailed results – including effects of
38
control variables – are listed in Table A7 in the appendix. Overall, the hypothesized model
fitted the data sufficiently well (χ2 = 561.56; df = 315; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA =
0.06) (see also “hypothesized model” in Table 3).
Figure 3. Results of structural equation modeling for the hypothesized model
Table 3
Comparison of different structural models
Model χ2 df χ
2/df ∆χ
2 ∆df CFI TLI RMSEA
Hypothesized
model
561.56 315 1.78 - - 0.93 0.92 0.06
Direct effect
model 1
581.05 316 1.84 19.49 1 0.92 0.91 0.06
Direct effect
model 2
573.41 316 1.81 11.85 1 0.93 0.91 0.06
Controls
model
613.77 320 1.92 52.21 5 0.92 0.90 0.07
No controls
model
431.62 220 1.96 -129.94 -95 0.94 0.93 0.07
Note. N = 212. χ2 = Chi squared test statistic. df = Degrees of freedom. ∆ refers to the
baseline model (i.e., hypothesized model). CFI = Comparative Fit Index. TLI = Tucker Lewis
Index. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
39
H1 predicted that CEO TFL positively relates to TMT TFL. This hypothesis was supported,
as the corresponding path coefficient was positive and significant (β = 0.18, z = 2.42, p =
0.015).
H2 hypothesized that CEO TFL is positively related to TMT behavioral integration. Again,
empirical evidence validated the proposed relationship (β = 0.19, z = 2.55, p = 0.011).
Confirmation was also found for H3, which suggested that TMT behavioral integration
positively predicts TMT TFL. The respective path coefficient was positive and highly
significant (β = 0.50, z = 5.10, p < 0.001).
H4 supposed that the positive relationship between CEO TFL and TMT TFL is partially
mediated by TMT behavioral integration. As shown above, the data substantiated that CEO
TFL predicts both TMT TFL (H1) and TMT behavioral integration (H2), which in turn was
found to predict TMT TFL (H3). In order to test H4, an alternative model was specified in
which the path from TMT behavioral integration to TMT TFL was removed, thus subjecting
only the direct effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL to empirical testing. The mediation
hypothesis would be confirmed if the model fit deteriorated or remained unaltered and the
direct effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL increased significantly when suspending the indirect
path via TMT behavioral integration.
Estimation results for the adapted model confirmed the mediation hypothesis. Without the
indirect path, model fit slightly declined (see “direct effect model 1” in Table 3), and the
direct effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL was substantially higher in both powerfulness and
significance (β = 0.30, z = 3.97, p < 0.001, as opposed to β = 0.18, z = 2.42, p = 0.015 in the
40
hypothesized model). To put it the other way round: adding the indirect path CEO TFL ->
TMT behavioral integration -> TMT TFL significantly weakens the direct effect of CEO TFL
on TMT TFL, which provides strong evidence for a partial mediation and thus for H4.
To further consolidate this finding, bootstrapping procedures were applied to the hypothesized
model. In doing so, the standardized coefficients for the paths CEO TFL -> TMT behavioral
integration and TMT behavioral integration -> TMT TFL were multiplied, and the standard
error for the mediation effect was estimated by resampling the original dataset 350 times.
Results, as detailed in Table 4, provided further evidence for the mediation hypothesis, in that
the indirect effect was positive and significant (β = 0.10, z = 2.02, p = 0.043), indicating that a
substantial portion of the total effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL was transmitted indirectly via
TMT behavioral integration.
Table 4
Direct, indirect, and total effects of study relations in the hypothesized model
Effect (standardized)
Relation Direct Indirect Total
CEO TFL -> TMT TFL 0.18*
SE = 0.08
z = 2.42
p = 0.015
0.10*
SE = 0.05
z = 2.02
p = 0.043
0.28**
SE = 0.09
z = 3.04
p = 0.002
CEO TFL -> TMT
Behavioral Integration
0.19*
SE = 0.08
z = 2.55
p = 0.011
– 0.19*
SE = 0.08
z = 2.55
p = 0.011
TMT Behavioral
Integration -> TMT TFL
0.50***
SE = 0.10
z = 5.10
p = 0.000
– 0.50***
SE = 0.10
z = 5.10
p = 0.000
41
Effect (standardized)
Relation Direct Indirect Total
CEO TFL ->
Organizational Innovation
0.03
SE = 0.08
z = 0.33
p = 0.742
0.09*
SE = 0.04
z = 2.02
p = 0.044
0.11
SE = 0.12
z = 0.92
p = 0.358
TMT TFL ->
Organizational Innovation
0.31***
SE = 0.08
z = 3.71
p = 0.000
– 0.31***
SE = 0.08
z = 3.71
p = 0.000
Note. N = 212. SE = Standard error. z = z-value. p = P > |z|. Dashes indicate that effect is not
applicable. Effects are controlling for the other effects in the model.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
H5 predicted that both CEO TFL and TMT TFL are positively related to organizational
innovation. This hypothesis was partially supported, as the corresponding path coefficient for
TMT TFL was positive and significant (β = 0.31, z = 3.71, p < 0.001), while it was not
significant for CEO TFL (β = 0.03, z = 0.33, p = 0.742).
Finally, H6 suggested that the positive effect of CEO TFL on organizational innovation is
partially mediated by TMT TFL. Since the direct effect of CEO TFL on organizational
innovation (H5) was not significant in the hypothesized model, H6 had to be adapted and the
model tested for full mediation. Following the same procedure as above, an alternative model
was defined in which the path from TMT TFL to organizational innovation was removed. The
indirect effect of CEO TFL on organizational innovation via TMT TFL would be confirmed if
the overall model fit was not better than in the hypothesized model and if the direct effect
CEO TFL -> organizational innovation became significant.
42
Results for the redefined model were mixed. Although the overall model fit was virtually the
same as for the hypothesized model (see “direct effect model 2” in Table 3), the direct effect
of CEO TFL on organizational innovation was not significant at the 5 % level – albeit
marginally (β = 0.15, z = 1.95, p = 0.051, as opposed to β = 0.03, z = 0.33, p = 0.742 in the
hypothesized model).
In order to shed further light on this relationship, bootstrapping was applied. A potential
indirect effect could be effectuated alongside two different paths: first, corresponding to a
single mediation, from CEO TFL to TMT TFL and organizational innovation, and second,
constituting a double mediation, from CEO TFL to TMT behavioral integration, TMT TFL,
and finally organizational innovation. Results of the bootstrapping analysis supported the
indirect effect, by demonstrating a significant, positive effect of CEO TFL on organizational
innovation transmitted via TMT behavioral integration and TMT TFL (β = 0.09, z = 2.02, p =
0.044; see also Table 4).
Finally, as a robustness check, two alternative models were investigated. In the first, the
directional paths between the focal exogenous and endogenous variables were removed, so
that only the controls remained as explaining variables. In comparison with the hypothesized
model, model fit decreased (see “controls model” in Table 3), and the proportion of explained
variance (R2) in the endogenous variables fell considerably (from 37.5 to 34.1 % for TMT
behavioral integration, 37.0 to 17.6 % for TMT TFL, and 43.2 to 34.3 % for organizational
innovation).
Secondly, the hypothesized model was estimated without controls. Although individual fit
indices changed inconsistently, the overall model fit remained virtually unaltered (see “no
43
controls model” in Table 3). Path coefficients for the hypothesized relationships changed both
in magnitude and significance, but general evidence pointed in the same direction as before.
The most substantial change was that the total effect of CEO TFL on organizational
innovation became significant at a level of 1 %. Table A8 in the appendix illustrates the
complete SEM results for the no controls model.
Altogether, findings from both alternative models provided further support for the explanatory
power of the hypothesized model.
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to shed light on antecedents of TFL and TFL dispersion in
TMTs, for which a rationale in terms of the integrated model of individual behavior was
proposed. Additionally, TMT dynamics and how they are influenced by the CEO were
examined, and the separately modeled impact of CEO and TMT TFL on organizational
innovation was investigated.
Statistical analyses provided (at least partial) empirical support for all of the proposed
relationships. CEO TFL positively predicted TMT behavioral integration, which in turn had a
positive effect on TMT TFL. Additionally, a direct effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL was
found, to such an extent that that the total effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL was effectuated
both directly and indirectly, confirming the supposed partial mediation.
Findings on the impact of TFL on organizational innovation seem mixed, and – with regard to
CEO TFL – even contradictory. The mean level of TFL exhibited by TMT members had a
positive influence on organizational innovation, while the respective direct effect of CEO
44
TFL was insignificant. Although a significant indirect effect of CEO TFL via TMT behavioral
integration and TMT TFL was found, the total effect (as the sum of the direct and indirect
effect) was insignificant (see Table 4). Thus, a significant mediating effect in the absence of a
total effect to be mediated was found, which may seem highly astonishing at first sight.20
The argument put forward here is that an indirect effect can exist – and thus a direct effect be
fully mediated – even if the total effect (and the direct effect when excluding the mediator) is
not found to be statistically significant. This special case can occur due to “power anomalies”
as identified by Kenny and Judd (2014) in a recent study. According to them, statistical power
to test the total effect in a full mediation model can be up to 75 times smaller than the power
for testing the indirect effect, implying that a sample size 75 times larger is required to have
equal power for testing the total effect.
Importantly, this difference exits albeit the fact that – in a full mediation model – the indirect
effect and the total effect equal the same value, and it is particularly pronounced when the
mediator is distal (i.e., the coefficient for the path mediator -> dependent variable is higher
than that for the path independent variable -> mediator) – which was the case in the present
analysis. That way, it is possible that a significant indirect effect is detected, while statistical
power does not suffice to identify a statistically significant total effect. Consequently, “one
might find significant mediation even when there is no overall effect to be mediated” (Kenny
& Judd, 2014, p. 336), an observation which seems perfectly suitable for this study and
reconciles the at first contradictory findings. In the end, results of the present investigation
thus indicate that the positive effect of CEO TFL on organizational innovation is fully
mediated by TMT TFL. 20
Various researchers argued that the existence of a significant direct effect is a necessary
precondition for mediation (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; James & Brett, 1984; Judd & Kenny, 1981).
45
6.1 Theoretical Implications
The present study contributes to the scientific literature in at least four ways.
First, the process of TFL dispersion was put on a solid theoretical basis, thereby advancing
scientific knowledge on TFL antecedents. While previous approaches lacked a thorough and
comprehensive illustration of the underlying mechanisms of leadership dispersion, this
shortcoming was addressed in the present study by drawing on different theories of individual
action in social context. Combining them into an integrated model of individual behavior, a
new conceptual scheme was developed, whose application might prove fertile in the future.
Second, albeit surprising, no study to date has addressed TFL dispersion in TMTs. Previous
work either focused on the organization as a whole or on work teams in general – without
paying attention to a firm’s most important team. In the light of this academic void, the
present study showed that different mechanisms of social influence are at work in TMTs,
illustrated how they combine to unfold their effective force in transferring TFL, and
substantiated that the CEO plays a role of particular importance in this process.
The third merit of this investigation lies in the insights it provided into the effects of TFL.
Although the link between TFL and organizational innovation obtained considerable attention
and validation in previous research, the present study made a discrete contribution to the
literature by separately modeling the influence of CEO and TMT TFL. In documenting that
the impact of CEO TFL on organizational innovation was fully mediated by TMT TFL, it
offered a new array of research regarding the channels through which CEO TFL impacts
organizational outcomes.
46
Finally, an important contribution to upper echelons literature was made by unraveling TMT
processes and how they are influenced by the CEO. CEO TFL’s role as an antecedent to TMT
behavioral integration was validated, and empirical evidence substantiated the general
significance of top managers for a highly important organizational outcome – innovative
capacity.
6.2 Practical Implications
The findings of this study bear some important practical implications for organizations and
their managers.
Being aware of how the social context facilitates or impedes the dispersion of TFL in TMTs,
firms can adapt their organizational context as to reap the highest possible benefits from TFL.
It seems highly advisable that they create a structure and culture that greatly develops,
encourages, and rewards TFL, given the finding that the positive influence of CEO TFL on
organizational innovation is effectuated through TMT TFL, and that an organization’s
innovative capacity as one major precondition for sustained success thus not only depends on
the CEO, but on a wider coalition of leaders.
In consideration of TMT behavioral integration’s role as leverage for a transformational CEO
to influence TMT members, a firm’s structure may be systematically designed to foster
substantive interactions among team members throughout the firm, for instance by creating
business units of joint responsibility or institutionalizing meetings in which managers can
discuss their mutual expectations and needs. It seems likely that the same mechanisms that are
47
at work in TMTs may be effective in other work teams, too, which is why the working
environment should be structured accordingly.
In view of the CEO’s impact on TMT dynamics, the question of who is appointed to lead an
organization gains further importance. Leader selection and promotion should take present
findings into account by appointing leaders that possess the preconditions or an inclination to
exhibit TFL. Previous research on personality antecedents of TFL may serve as a guideline in
this regard. Furthermore, given this study’s findings and the well documented effectiveness of
leader training, it is recommended that development opportunities and TFL training are
provided to the entire TMT in order to maximize the positive effects of TFL.
6.3 Limitations and Future Research
Although the results of this study seem promising, several limitations have to be made.
First, questions of endogeneity may be raised with regard to common source, common-
method variance (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, & Lalive, 2010). To address these
concerns, data were collected from three separate sources (HR executives, employees, and
TMT members). However, as ratings on TMT behavioral integration and organizational
innovation were obtained from the same source (TMT members), a potential bias due to
raters’ consistency efforts cannot be ruled out.
Out of social desirability, managers might have reported inflated levels of TMT behavioral
integration and organizational innovation, thereby impairing the accuracy and reliability of
measures. Although it was tried to control for measurement error as best as possible by
48
applying SEM, future research could further enhance the reliability and validity of the
findings by including objective measures where possible (e.g., for organizational innovation).
The measurement of TFL relied on ratings from direct followers. As ICC(2) values below the
cutoff value indicated, there was considerable variation in the perception of leader’s TFL
among followers. Possibly, the reliability of the TFL measure could be enhanced in future
studies by incorporating ratings from multiple perspectives or external observers.
In order to discard the problem of omitted exogenous variables (Antonakis et al., 2010),
various controls that were previously found to relate to the study’s focal variables were
included in the analysis. However, it cannot be guaranteed that all relevant confounding
variables were taken into account.
Another major limitation lies in the retrieval of variable ratings at only one point in time. In
order to establish causality, the independent variable has to temporally precede the dependent
variable. Thus, on the basis of the applied research design, it cannot be suspended that the
actual direction of influence was reversed, in that for instance TMT TFL caused TMT
behavioral integration. Future studies could greatly enhance the validity of the present
findings and establish causality by applying a longitudinal research design with a substantial
time lag between measurements of the exogenous and endogenous variables.
With regard to the sample used in this study, the generalizability of the results has to be
restricted due to four reasons. First, all participating companies were located in Germany,
reflecting an essentially German cultural environment. As the mechanisms of influence
emanated by TFL may not – or not to the same extent – be universally valid, cross-cultural
49
validation of the findings seems indispensable. Second, participating companies were small to
medium in size, ranging from 15 to 3,900 employees. Including larger companies in the
sample is thus another task for future research. Third, although a total of 31,600 individuals
was questioned, the sample size of 215 participating firms was relatively small compared to
similar research on strategic management (see also Kunze et al., 2013), which is why
replications based on larger samples should be conducted. Finally, both firms and individual
respondents participated voluntarily in this study, instead of being randomly assigned. Thus, a
potential self-selection and sampling bias may exist which could be addressed in future
research by applying a quasi-experimental research design.
Apart from these limitations, several fields might prove fertile in future research. As was
shown, CEO TFL effectuates a significant part of its influence on TMT TFL through TMT
behavioral integration. However, there might be other mediators to this relation, such as TMT
unity or organization-based self-esteem. Further investigation is needed to shed light on the
underlying processes and mechanisms through which the influence of CEO TFL is
transmitted.
The same holds true for potential moderators of these mechanisms. Somewhat contradictory,
the proportion of women in TMTs was found to be negatively related to TMT TFL (see Table
A7 in the appendix), while previous research on TFL antecedents showed that female leaders
are more prone to perform TFL than their male counterparts. As top executives in this sample
were predominantly male (85.4 %), it is possible that with a growing portion of women,
gender stereotypes took effect and sub-group formation occurred. Accordingly, it is suggested
that gender diversity as moderator of TFL dispersion in TMTs is examined in future studies.
Investigation of other possible moderators such as organizational change or industry type
50
seems promising, too, given their significant influence on focal endogenous variables in this
study (see Table A7 in the appendix).
Additionally, research on leadership dispersion should not be limited to TFL, but also
embrace other types of leadership. This would provide insights into whether the social
mechanisms delineated in this work are generally effective – or specific to TFL.
Finally, with regard to TFL effects it is suggested that the separate modeling of CEO and
TMT influences applied in this paper is adopted in future research in order to advance
common knowledge on the channels through which TFL at the apex of an organization shapes
outcomes of organizational interest.
7. Conclusion
This study illustrated how CEO TFL disperses in TMTs and how TMT members thereby
come to perform TFL themselves. It was shown that TMT behavioral integration partially
mediates the positive relation between CEO TFL and TMT TFL, and an integrated model of
individual behavior was developed to explain TFL dispersion and more generally individual
action in social context. With regard to TFL effects, it was demonstrated that TMT TFL
positively impacts organizational innovation, and how the respective influence of CEO TFL is
fully mediated by TMT TFL. With these findings, this paper contributes to research on
antecedents and effects of TFL, leadership dispersion in TMTs, upper echelons theory, and
individual behavior in social context in various ways, and hopefully provides new impetuses
to future research in the respective fields.
51
References
Acock, A. C. (2013). Discovering Structural Equation Modeling Using Stata. College Station,
TX: Stata Press.
Acock, A. C. (2014). A Gentle Introduction to Stata (4th ed.). College Station, TX: Stata
Press.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Allen, S. L., Smith, J. E., & Da Silva, N. (2013). Leadership Style in Relation to
Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity. Perceptions from Nonprofit
Organizational Members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24, 23-42.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice. A
Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On Making Causal Claims. A
Review and Recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086-1120.
Aragón-Correa, J. A., García-Morales, V. J., & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and
Organizational Learning’s Role on Innovation and Performance. Lessons from Spain.
Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 349-359.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007).
Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well-Being. The Mediating Role of
Meaningful Work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193-203.
Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1993). Personal Attributes as Predictors of Superiors’
and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Military Academy Leadership. Human Relations, 46,
645-668.
52
Avolio, B. J. (1994). The “Natural”. Some Antecedents to Transformational Leadership.
International Journal of Public Administration, 17, 1559-1581.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational Leadership, Charisma, and Beyond. In
J. Hunt, B. Baliga, H. Dachler, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp.
29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual Consideration Viewed at Multiple Levels of
Analysis. A Multi-Level Framework for Examining the Diffusion of Transformational
Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199-218.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Einstein, W. O. (1988). Transformational Leadership in a
Management Game Simulation. Impacting the Bottom Line. Group & Organization
Studies, 13, 59-80.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership. Current Theories,
Research, and Future Directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational Leadership and
Organizational Commitment. Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment and
Moderating Role of Structural Distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., & Weiber, R. (2003). Multivariate Analysemethoden.
Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (10th ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the Emergence of
Transformational Leadership in Virtual Decision Teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 651-
663.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
53
Barbuto Jr., J. E., & Burbach, M. E. (2006). The Emotional Intelligence of Transformational
Leaders. A Field Study of Elected Officials. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 51-64.
Barbuto Jr., J. E., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., & Marx, D. B. (2007). Effects of Gender,
Education, and Age Upon Leaders’ Use of Influence Tactics and Full Range Leadership
Behaviors. Sex Roles, 56, 71-83.
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational Leadership and Emotional
Intelligence. An Exploratory Study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21,
157-161.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of Transformational Leadership
Training on Attitudinal and Financial Outcomes. A Field Experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 827-832.
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. (1990). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership. Learning to Share
the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Transformational Leadership. Looking at Other Possible Antecedents and
Consequences. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4, 293-297.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the Transactional-Transformational Leadership Paradigm
Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries?. American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational
Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
54
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The Implications of Transactional and Transformational
Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development. In W. Pasmore, & R.
Woodman (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (pp. 231-272).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The Transformational and Transactional
Leadership of Men and Women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 5-34.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit Performance by
Assessing Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 207-218.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational Leadership
and the Falling Dominoes Effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 73-87.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in
Organizational Research. A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations. Organizational
Research Methods, 8, 274-289.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability.
Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis. In K. Klein, & S. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. Foundations, Extensions, and
New Directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group Size and Measures of Group-Level
Properties. An Examination of Eta-Squared and ICC Values. Journal of Management, 24,
157-172.
55
Boerner, S., & Duetschke, E. (2008). The Impact of Charismatic Leadership on Followers’
Initiative-Oriented Behavior. A Study in German Hospitals. Health Care Management
Review, 33, 332-340.
Boerner, S., Duetschke, E., & Wied, S. (2008). Charismatic Leadership and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour. Examining the Role of Stressors and Strain. Human Resource
Development International, 11, 507-521.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower Behavior and Organizational
Performance. The Impact of Transformational Leaders. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 13, 15-26.
Boerner, S., & Freiherr von Streit, C. (2005). Transformational Leadership and Group
Climate. Empirical Results from Symphony Orchestras. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 12, 31-41.
Boerner, S., & Freiherr von Streit, C. (2006). Gruppenstimmung (Group Mood) als
Erfolgsbedingung transformationaler Führung. Ergebnisse einer empirischen
Untersuchung. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 50, 3-8.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing Attitudes about Change.
Longitudinal Effects of Transformational Leader Behavior on Employee Cynicism about
Organizational Change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733-753.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the Stage for Effective
Leadership. Antecedents of Transformational Leadership Behavior. Leadership Quarterly,
15, 195-210.
Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The Advice and Influence Networks of
Transformational Leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1306-1314.
56
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-Concordance at Work. Toward Understanding 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.
Bradley, E., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1998). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman & Hall.
Brandt, T., & Laiho, M. (2013). Gender and Personality in Transformational Leadership
Context. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 44-66.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational Leadership, Job
Satisfaction, and Team Performance. A Multilevel Mediation Model of Trust. Leadership
Quarterly, 24, 270-283.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In K.
Bollen, & J. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136-162). Newbury
Park, CA: 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.
Cannella Jr., A. A., Park, J.-H., & Lee, H.-U. (2008). Top Management Team Functional
Background Diversity and Firm Performance. Examining the Roles of Team Member
Colocation and Environmental Uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 768-
784.
Cao, Q., Simsek, Z., & Zhang, H. (2010). Modelling the Joint Impact of the CEO and the
TMT on Organizational Ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1272-1296.
57
Carmeli, A. (2008). Top Management Team Behavioral Integration and the Performance of
Service Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 33, 712-735.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2006). Top Management Team Behavioral Integration,
Decision Quality, and Organizational Decline. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 441-453.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J., & Tishler, A. (2011). How CEO Empowering Leadership
Shapes Top Management Team Processes. Implications for Firm Performance. Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 399-411.
Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). Does Participatory Decision-Making in
Top Management Teams Enhance Decision Effectiveness and Firm Performance?.
Personnel Review, 38, 696-714.
Carmeli, A., & Shteigman, A. (2010). Top Management Team Behavioral Integration in
Small-Sized Firms. A Social Identity Perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 14, 318-331.
Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2012). CEO Relational Leadership and
Strategic Decision Quality in Top Management Teams. The Role of Team Trust and
Learning From Failure. Strategic Organization, 10, 31-54.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper Echelons Research
Revisited. Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team
Composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749-778.
Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickmann, M. (2012). Effects of Leader Intelligence,
Personality and Emotional Intelligence on Transformational Leadership and Managerial
Performance. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 443-455.
Chan, S. C.-H., & Mak, W. M. (2014). Transformational Leadership, Pride in Being a
Follower of the Leader and Organizational Commitment. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 35, 674-690.
58
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Transformational Leadership and
Sports Performance. The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31, 1521-1534.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of Latent
Variables. Bootstrapping With Structural Equation Models. Organizational Research
Methods, 11, 296-325.
Cheung, M. F.Y., & Wong, C.-S. (2011). Transformational Leadership, Leader Support, and
Employee Creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32, 656-672.
Chiaburu, D. S., Smith, T. A., Wang, J., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2014). Relative Importance of
Leader Influences for Subordinates’ Proactive Behaviors, Prosocial Behaviors, and Task
Performance. A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 70-86.
Cho, J., & Dansereau, F. (2010). Are Transformational Leaders Fair? A Multi-Level Study of
Transformational Leadership, Justice Perceptions, and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 409-421.
Cialdini, R. B. (1985). Influence. Science and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using Parcels to Convert Path Analysis Models
Into Latent Variable Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235-259.
Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and Leadership
Composition in Top Management Teams. Implications for Organizational Effectiveness.
Personnel Psychology, 67, 351-387.
Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., & Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing Rating Scales of Different
Lengths. Equivalence of Scores From 5-Point and 7-Point Scales. Psychological Reports,
80, 355-362.
59
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and Transformational Leadership in Organizations. An
Insider’s Perspective on These Developing Streams of Research. Leadership Quarterly, 10,
145-179.
Daily, C. M., & Schwenk, C. (1996). Chief Executive Officers, Top Management Teams, and
Boards of Directors. Congruent or Countervailing Forces?. Journal of Management, 22,
185-208.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in
Leader and Leadership Development. A Review of 25 Years of Research and Theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 25, 63-82.
De Hoogh, A. H.B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big Five-
Factors of Personality to Charismatic and Transactional Leadership. Perceived Dynamic
Work Environment as a Moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 839-865.
De Vries, R. E. (2012). Personality Predictors of Leadership Styles and the Self-Other
Agreement Problem. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 809-821.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., & Dorfman, P. W.
(1999). Culture Specific and Cross-Culturally Generalizable Implicit Leadership Theories.
Are Attributes of Charismatic/Transformational Leadership Universally Endorsed?.
Leadership Quarterly, 10, 219-256.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and Behavioral
Theories of Leadership. An Integration and Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.
Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006). Systematic Variation in
Organizationally-Shared Cognitive Prototypes of Effective Leadership Based on
Organizational Form. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487-505.
60
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of Transformational
Leadership on Follower Development and Performance. A Field Experiment. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower Developmental Characteristics as Predicting
Transformational Leadership. A Longitudinal Field Study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327-
344.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles. A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women
and Men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591.
Ehrlich, S. B., Meindl, J. R., & Viellieu, B. (1990). The Charismatic Appeal of a
Transformational Leader. An Empirical Case Study of a Small, High-Technology
Contractor. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 229-248.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2010). Transformational Leadership and R&D Innovation.
Taking a Curvilinear Approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 364-372.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A Double-Edged Sword. Transformational
Leadership and Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management, 24, 54-68.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational Leadership
and Team Innovation. Integrating Team Climate Principles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1438-1446.
Escribá-Esteve, A., Sánchez-Peinado, L., & Sánchez-Peinado, E. (2009). The Influence of
Top Management Teams in the Strategic Orientation and Performance of Small and
Medium-Sized Enterprises. British Journal of Management, 20, 581-597.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2006). Personality and the Perception of Transformational
Leadership. The Impact of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Personal Need for Structure, and
Occupational Self-Efficacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 708-739.
61
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flood, P. C., Hannan, E., Smith, K. G., Turner, T., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. (2000). Chief
Executive Leadership Style, Consensus Decision Making, and Top Management Team
Effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9, 401-420.
García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012).
Transformational Leadership Influence on Organizational Performance Through
Organizational Learning and Innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1040-1050.
García-Morales, V. J., & Llorens-Montes, F. J. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of
Organizational Innovation and Organizational Learning in Entrepreneurship. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 106, 21-42.
Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2012). Positive Affectivity
Neutralizes Transformational Leadership’s Influence on Creative Performance and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1061-1075.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological
Climate. Pitfalls in Multilevel Research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601-616.
Gregory, B. T., Moates, K. N., & Gregory, S. T. (2011). An Exploration of Perspective
Taking as Antecedent of Transformational Leadership Behavior. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32, 807-816.
Gu, J., Weng, Q., & Xie, F. (2012). Leadership, Team and Decision Speed. Empirical Study
Using Cross-Provincial Data. Chinese Management Studies, 6, 598-609.
Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R.
E. (2011). Childhood and Adolescent Antecedents of Social Skills and Leadership
Potential in Adulthood. Temperamental Approach/Withdrawal and Extraversion.
Leadership Quarterly, 22, 482-494.
62
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational Leadership, Creativity, and
Organizational Innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461-473.
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item Parceling Strategies in SEM.
Investigating the Subtle Effects of Unmodeled Secondary Constructs. Organizational
Research Methods, 2, 233-256.
Hambrick, D. C. (1994). Top Management Groups. A Conceptual Integration and
Reconsideration of the “Team” Label. In B. Staw, & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 16) (pp. 171-213). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper Echelons Theory. An Update. Academy of Management
Review, 2, 334-343.
Hambrick, D. C. (2009). Upper Echelons Theory. Origins, Twists and Turns, and Lessons
Learned. In K. Smith, & M. Hitt (Eds.), Great Minds in Management. The Process of
Theory Development (pp. 109-127). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons. The Organization as a Reflection
of Its Top Managers. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and
Transactional Leadership. A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 17, 5-17.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The Effects of Transformational
and Change Leadership on Employees’ Commitment to a Change. A Multilevel Study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357.
Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for Outcomes of
Leadership. A 25-Year Review. Journal of Management, 37, 1137-1177.
63
Homburg, C., & Baumgartner, H. (1995). Beurteilung von Kausalmodellen.
Bestandsaufnahme und Anwendungsempfehlungen. Marketing: Zeitschrift für Forschung
und Praxis, 17, 162-176.
Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (1996). Konzeptualisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer
Konstrukte. Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung. Marketing: Zeitschrift für
Forschung und Praxis, 18, 5-24.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. In J. Hunt, & L. Larson
(Eds.), Leadership. The Cutting Edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
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.
Hu, J., Wang, Z., Liden, R. C., & Sun, J. (2012). The Influence of Leader Core Self-
Evaluation on Follower Reports of Transformational Leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
23, 860-868.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling. Sensitivity
to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
Huettermann, H., Doering, S., & Boerner, S. (2014). Leadership and Team Identification.
Exploring the Followers’ Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 413-432.
Hur, Y., van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P.M. (2011). Transformational Leadership as a
Mediator Between Emotional Intelligence and Team Outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 22,
591-603.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, Moderators, and Tests for Mediation. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
64
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating Within-Group Interrater
Reliability With and Without Response Bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2009). Getting Everyone on Board. The Role of
Inspirational Leadership in Geographically Dispersed Teams. Organization Science, 20,
240-252.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process Analysis. Estimating Mediation in Treatment
Evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational
Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and Leadership. A
Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and Leadership. A Quantitative
Review and Test of Theoretical Propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542-552.
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.
Judge, T. A., Woolf, E. F., Hurst, C., & Livingston, B. (2006). Charismatic and
Transformational Leadership. A Review and an Agenda for Future Research. Zeitschrift
für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 50, 203-214.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of Leadership Style and Followers’ Cultural
Orientation on Performance in Group and Individual Task Conditions. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 208-218.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the Black Box. An Experimental Investigation of
the Mediating Effects of Trust and Value Congruence on Transformational and
Transactional Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.
65
Jung, D. I, Bass, B. M., & Sosik, J. J. (1995). Bridging Leadership and Culture. A Theoretical
Consideration of Transformational Leadership and Collectivistic Cultures. Journal of
Leadership Studies, 2, 3-18.
Jung, D. I, Chow, C. W., & 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. W. (2008). Towards Understanding the Direct and Indirect
Effects of CEOs’ Transformational Leadership on Firm Innovation. Leadership Quarterly,
19, 582-594.
Jung, D. I., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating Role of Subordinates’
Attitudes on Transformational Leadership and Effectiveness. A Multi-Cultural and Multi-
Level Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 586-603.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The Two Faces of Transformational Leadership.
Empowerment and Dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does Valuing Androgyny and
Femininity Lead to a Female Advantage? The Relationship Between Gender-Role,
Transformational Leadership and Identification. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 620-640.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing Diversity and Enhancing Team Outcomes. The
Promise of Transformational Leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77-89.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational Leadership and the Performance of Research and
Development Project Groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501.
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.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and Causality. New York: Wiley.
66
Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Power Anomalies in Testing Mediation. Psychological
Science, 25, 334-339.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W.J. (2000). From Micro to Meso. Critical Steps in
Conceptualizing and Conducting Multilevel Research. Organizational Research Methods,
3, 211-236.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New
York: Guilford.
Korek, S., Felfe, J., & Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010). Transformational Leadership and
Commitment. A Multilevel Analysis of Group-Level Influences and Mediating Processes.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 364-387.
Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Transformational Leadership and Outcomes. Role of Relationship
Duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 442-457.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age Diversity, Age Discrimination Climate
and Performance Consequences. A Cross Organizational Study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 264-290.
Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2013). Organizational Performance Consequences of
Age Diversity. Inspecting the Role of Diversity-Friendly HR Policies and Top Managers’
Negative Age Stereotypes. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 413-442.
Kunze, F., & de Jong, S. B. (2014). Transformationale Führung. Empathie kann
Gruppenleistung gefährden. Personal Quarterly, 66, 34-39.
Kunze, F., de Jong, S. B., & Bruch, H. (in press). Consequences of Collective-Focused
Leadership and Differentiated Individual-Focused Leadership. Development and Testing
of an Organizational-Level Model. Journal of Management.
67
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming Service Employees and Climate. A Multilevel,
Multisource Examination of Transformational Leadership in Building Long-Term Service
Relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006-1019.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008a). The Impact of
Transformational CEOs on the Performance of Small- to Medium-Sized Firms. Does
Organizational Context Matter?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 923-934.
Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008b). Transformational Leadership’s
Role in Promoting Corporate Entrepreneurship. Examining the CEO-TMT Interface.
Academy of Management Journal, 51, 557-576.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To Parcel or Not to
Parcel. Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,
151-173.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I Warn You Because I Like You. Voice Behavior,
Employee Identifications, and Transformational Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21,
189-202.
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.
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and Performance
in Small- to Medium-Sized Firms. The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral
Integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646-672.
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and
Transformational Leadership Style. A Gender Comparison. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17, 387-404.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
68
Mason, C., Griffin, M., & Parker, S. (2014). Transformational Leadership Development.
Connecting Psychological and Behavioral Change. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 35, 174-194.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On Leadership. An Alternative to the Conventional Wisdom. In B. Staw,
& L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 12) (pp. 159-203).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational Leadership
Climate. Performance Linkages, Mechanisms, and Boundary Conditions at the
Organizational Level. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 893-909.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective Commitment to Change and
Innovation Implementation Behavior. The Role of Charismatic Leadership and Employees’
Trust in Top Management. Journal of Change Management, 9, 399-417.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2011). Under Which Conditions Do Middle Managers Exhibit
Transformational Leadership Behaviors? An Experience Sampling Method Study on the
Predictors of Transformational Leadership Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 344-352.
Nielsen, K., & Munir, F. (2009). How Do Transformational Leaders Influence Followers’
Affective Well-Being? Exploring the Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy. Work & Stress, 23,
313-329.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Brenner, S.-O., Randall, R., & Borg, V. (2008). The Importance of
Transformational Leadership Style for the Well-Being of Employees Working With Older
People. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63, 465-475.
Nijstad, B. A., Berger-Selman, F., & De Dreu, C. K.W. (2014). Innovation in Top
Management Teams. Minority Dissent, Transformational Leadership, and Radical
Innovations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 310-322.
69
Oezaralli, N. (2003). Effects of Transformational Leadership on Empowerment and Team
Effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 335-344.
Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R.
E. (2011). Adolescent Family Environmental Antecedents to Transformational Leadership
Potential. A Longitudinal Mediational Analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 535-544.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014).
Humble Chief Executive Officers’ Connections to Top Management Team Integration and
Middle Mangers’ Responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 34-72.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2002). Vertical Versus Shared Leadership as Predictors of
the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams. An Examination of Aversive, Directive,
Transactional, Transformational, and Empowering Leader Behaviors. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172-197.
Peterson, R. S., Smith, D. B., Martorana, P. V., & Owens, P. D. (2003). The Impact of Chief
Executive Officer Personality on Top Management Team Dynamics. One Mechanism by
Which Leadership Affects Organizational Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 795-808.
Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The
Relative Impact of Complementary Leader Behaviors. Which Matter Most?. Leadership
Quarterly, 23, 567-581.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors. The
Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-
340.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and Charisma. A “Meso” Level Examination of the
Relationship of Organic Structure, Collectivism, and Crisis to Charismatic Leadership.
Journal of Management, 24, 643-671.
70
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational Leader
Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction,
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 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. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors. A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and
Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational Leadership in Context. Face-to-
Face and Virtual Teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.
Raes, A. M.L., Bruch, H., & De Jong, S. B. (2013). How Top Management Team Behavioural
Integration Can Impact Employee Work Outcomes. Theory Development and First
Empirical Tests. Human Relations, 66, 167-192.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of Transformational Leadership.
Conceptual and Empirical Extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329-354.
Reichard, R. J., Riggio, R. E., Guerin, D. W., Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A.
E. (2011). A Longitudinal Analysis of Relationships Between Adolescent Personality and
Intelligence with Adult Leader Emergence and Transformational Leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 22, 471-481.
71
Reina, C. S., Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. (2014). CEO Grandiose Narcissism and Firm
Performance. The Role of Organizational Identification. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 958-
971.
Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The Bright-Side and
the Dark-Side of CEO Personality. Examining Core Self-Evaluations, Narcissism,
Transformational Leadership, and Strategic Influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1365-1381.
Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. (1997). Transformational Leaders. Measurement of
Personality Attributes and Work Group Performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 1078-1086.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of Level in Organizational Research. Multi-Level and Cross-
Level Perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37.
Rowold, J. (2011). Relationship between Leadership Behaviors and Performance. The
Moderating Role of a Work Team’s Level of Age, Gender, and Cultural Heterogeneity.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32, 628-647.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading From Within. The Effects of
Emotion Recognition and Personality on Transformational Leadership Behavior. Academy
of Management Journal, 48, 845-858.
Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A.L. (2012). Transformational Leadership and Its Predictive Effects
on Leadership Effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3, 186-
197.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A Social Information Processing Approach to Job
Attitudes and Task Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
72
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A Review of Cross-Cultural Methodologies for
Organizational Research. A Best-Practices Approach. Organizational Research Methods,
6, 169-215.
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.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior. A Path Model of
Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580-607.
Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational Leadership. Beyond Initiation and
Consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and Contextual Influences on the
Emergence and Effectiveness of Charismatic Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257-
283.
Sharma, S., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (2005). A Simulation Study to
Investigate the Use of Cutoff Values for Assessing Model Fit in Covariance Structure
Models. Journal of Business Research, 58, 935-943.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity.
Evidence From Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703-714.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the Multilevel
Determinants of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 69-84.
73
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A Longitudinal
Model of the Effects of Team Leadership and Group Potency on Group Performance.
Group & Organization Management, 27, 66-96.
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are Leaders’ Well-Being,
Behaviours and Style Associated With the Affective Well-Being of Their Employees? A
Systematic Review of Three Decades of Research. Work & Stress, 24, 107-139.
Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership. The Management of Meaning. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.
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.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). Beneath the Mask. Examining the
Relationship of Self-Presentation Attributes and Impression Management to Charismatic
Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 217-242.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational Leadership and
Dimensions of Creativity. Motivating Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups.
Creativity Research Journal, 11, 111-121.
Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to Lead. The Role of
Psychological Empowerment in Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 511-
526.
Stapleton, L. M. (2008). Variance Estimation Using Replication Methods in Structural
Equation Modeling With Complex Sample Data. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 183-
210.
Tse, H. H.M., & Chiu, W. C.K. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Job Performance. A
Social Identity Perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2827-2835.
74
Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J.P., Van Den Bosch, F. A.J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012).
Management Innovation and Leadership. The Moderating Role of Organizational Size.
Journal of Management Studies, 49, 28-51.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A Critical Assessment of Charismatic-
Transformational Leadership Research. Back to the Drawing Board?. Academy of
Management Annals, 7, 1-60.
Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).
Leadership, Self, and Identity. A Review and Research Agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15,
825-856.
Waldman, D. A., Ramírez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does Leadership
Matter? CEO Leadership Attributes and Profitability Under Conditions of Perceived
Environmental Uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134-143.
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.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An Affective Events Model of Charismatic Leadership
Behavior. A Review, Theoretical Integration, and Research Agenda. Journal of
Management, 35, 1428-1452.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural Impacts on the Occurrence and Effectiveness of
Transformational Leadership. An Empirical Study at the Organizational Level of Analysis.
Leadership Quarterly, 21, 765-782.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building Effective Organizations. Transformational
Leadership, Collectivist Orientation, Work-Related Attitudes and Withdrawal Behaviours
in Three Emerging Economies. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14, 1083-1101.
75
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational Leadership
and Performance Across Criteria and Levels. A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of
Research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (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, 420-432.
Wang, X.-H., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A Multilevel Study of Transformational Leadership,
Identification, and Follower Outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 775-790.
Wang, Y.-S., & Huang, T.-C. (2009). The Relationship of Transformational Leadership With
Group Cohesiveness and Emotional Intelligence. Social Behavior and Personality, 37,
379-392.
Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the Levers. Transformational
Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence. Public Administration
Review, 72, 206-215.
Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2010). Consequences of Differentiated Leadership in
Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90-106.
Yucel, I., McMillan, A., & Richard, O. C. (2014). Does CEO Transformational Leadership
Influence Top Executive Normative Commitment?. Journal of Business Research, 67,
1170-1177.
Yukl, G. (1999). An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and
Charismatic Leadership Theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and Effects of
Transformational Leadership in Adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 211-226.
76
Zhang, W., Wang, H., & Pearce, C. L. (2014). Consideration for Future Consequences as an
Antecedent of Transformational Leadership Behavior. The Moderating Effects of
Perceived Dynamic Work Environment. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 329-343.
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, 39-52.
Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational Leadership and Group Interaction as
Climate Antecedents. A Social Network Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744-
757.
Zopiatis, A., & Constanti, P. (2012). Extraversion, Openness and Conscientiousness. The
Route to Transformational Leadership in the Hotel Industry. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 33, 86-104.
77
Appendix
Tab
le A
1
Eff
ects
, outc
om
es, a
nd
mo
der
ato
rs o
f tr
ansf
orm
ati
onal
leader
ship
Out
com
e va
riab
le
Ref
eren
ce
Lea
der
eff
ects
an
d o
utc
om
es
Acc
epta
nce
Fel
fe &
Sch
yns,
200
6
Per
form
ance
and
eff
ecti
vene
ss
Byc
io,
Hac
kett
, &
All
en,
1995
; C
avaz
otte
, M
oren
o, &
Hic
kman
n, 2
012;
DeR
ue,
Nah
rgan
g,
Wel
lman
, & H
umph
rey,
201
1; H
ille
r, D
eChu
rch,
Mur
ase,
& D
oty,
201
1; H
ur, v
an d
en B
erg,
&
Wil
dero
m, 2
011;
Jud
ge &
Bon
o, 2
000;
Jud
ge &
Pic
colo
, 200
4; J
ung,
Yam
mar
ino,
& L
ee, 2
009;
Pic
colo
et
al.,
2012
; S
adeg
hi &
Pih
ie,
2012
; S
eltz
er &
Bas
s, 1
990;
Sos
ik,
2005
; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
& C
olbe
rt,
2011
; Z
acha
rato
s, B
arli
ng,
& K
ello
way
, 20
00;
Zha
ng,
Wan
g, &
Pea
rce,
2014
Pos
itio
n ce
ntra
lity
in
infl
uenc
e ne
twor
ks
Bon
o &
And
erso
n, 2
005
Subord
inate
eff
ects
an
d o
utc
om
es
Aff
ecti
ve a
nd n
orm
ativ
e co
mm
itm
ent
Avo
lio,
Zhu
, K
oh,
& B
hati
a, 2
004;
Bar
ling
, W
eber
, &
Kel
low
ay,
1996
; B
ono
& J
udge
, 20
03;
Byc
io,
Hac
kett
, &
All
en,
1995
; C
han
& M
ak,
2014
; C
olbe
rt,
Bar
rick
, &
Bra
dley
, 20
14;
Josh
i,
Laz
arov
a, &
Lia
o, 2
009;
Kor
ek,
Fel
fe,
& Z
aepe
rnic
k-R
othe
, 20
10;
Kun
ze &
de
Jong
, 20
14;
Kun
ze,
de J
ong,
& B
ruch
, in
pre
ss;
Pic
colo
& C
olqu
itt,
200
6; P
odsa
koff
, M
acK
enzi
e, &
Bom
mer
, 19
96;
Raf
fert
y &
Gri
ffin
, 20
04;
Wal
umbw
a &
Law
ler,
200
3; Y
ucel
, M
cMil
lan,
&
Ric
hard
, 201
4
78
Aff
ecti
ve a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
wel
l-be
ing
Arn
old,
Tur
ner,
Bar
ling
, K
ello
way
, &
McK
ee,
2007
; N
iels
en &
Mun
ir,
2009
; N
iels
en,
Yar
ker,
Bre
nner
, Ran
dall
, & B
org,
200
8; S
kako
n, N
iels
en, B
org,
& G
uzm
an, 2
010
Cyn
icis
m a
bout
org
aniz
atio
nal
chan
ge (
CA
OC
)
(neg
ati
ve e
ffec
t) a
nd c
omm
itm
ent
to o
rgan
izat
iona
l
chan
ge
Bom
mer
, R
ich,
& R
ubin
, 20
05;
Her
old,
Fed
or,
Cal
dwel
l, &
Liu
, 20
08;
Mic
hael
is,
Ste
gmai
er,
&
Son
ntag
, 200
9
Dep
ende
ncy
on t
he le
ader
E
isen
beis
s &
Boe
rner
, 20
13;
Kar
k, S
ham
ir,
& C
hen,
200
3; V
an K
nipp
enbe
rg,
van
Kni
ppen
berg
, D
e
Cre
mer
, & H
ogg,
200
4
Dev
elop
men
t an
d em
pow
erm
ent
Avo
lio,
Zhu
, K
oh,
& B
hati
a, 2
004;
Dvi
r, E
den,
Avo
lio,
& S
ham
ir,
2002
; G
umus
luog
lu &
Ils
ev,
2009
; Ju
ng,
Cho
w,
& W
u, 2
003;
Kar
k, S
ham
ir,
& C
hen,
200
3; O
ezar
alli
, 20
03;
Van
Kni
ppen
berg
,
van
Kni
ppen
berg
, De
Cre
mer
, & H
ogg,
200
4; W
ang
& H
owel
l, 2
012
Ext
ra e
ffor
t B
ass,
199
0; B
ycio
, Hac
kett
, & A
llen
, 199
5; E
hrli
ch, M
eind
l, &
Vie
llie
u, 1
990;
Sel
tzer
& B
ass,
199
0;
Sos
ik, 2
005;
Wan
g, O
h, C
ourt
righ
t, &
Col
bert
, 201
1; Z
acha
rato
s, B
arli
ng, &
Kel
low
ay, 2
000
Idea
gen
erat
ion
and
crea
tivi
ty
Che
ung
& W
ong,
201
1; E
isen
beis
s &
Boe
rner
, 20
13;
Gil
mor
e, H
u, W
ei,
Tet
rick
, &
Zac
caro
, 20
12;
Gum
uslu
oglu
& I
lsev
, 20
09;
Jung
& A
voli
o, 1
999;
Shi
n &
Zho
u, 2
003;
Tse
& C
hiu,
201
4; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
& C
olbe
rt, 2
011
Iden
tifi
cati
on
Wit
h th
e le
ader
Wit
h th
e te
am
Wit
h th
e or
gani
zati
on
Kar
k, S
ham
ir,
& C
hen,
200
3; V
an K
nipp
enbe
rg,
van
Kni
ppen
berg
, D
e C
rem
er,
& H
ogg,
200
4;
Wan
g &
How
ell,
201
2; W
u, T
sui,
& K
inic
ki, 2
010
Hue
tter
man
n,
Doe
ring
, &
B
oern
er,
2014
; K
earn
ey
&
Geb
ert,
20
09;
Tse
&
C
hiu,
20
14;
Van
Kni
ppen
berg
, va
n K
nipp
enbe
rg,
De
Cre
mer
, &
Hog
g, 2
004;
Wan
g &
How
ell,
201
2; W
u, T
sui,
&
Kin
icki
, 201
0
Kri
shna
n, 2
005
79
Init
iati
ve b
ehav
iors
and
pro
acti
vity
B
oern
er &
Due
tsch
ke,
2008
; C
hiab
uru,
Sm
ith,
Wan
g, &
Zim
mer
man
, 20
14;
Van
Kni
ppen
berg
, va
n
Kni
ppen
berg
, De
Cre
mer
, & H
ogg,
200
4
Inte
rper
sona
l hel
ping
beh
avio
rs a
nd o
rgan
izat
iona
l
citi
zens
hip
beha
vior
(O
CB
)
Boe
rner
, Due
tsch
ke, &
Wie
d, 2
008;
Boe
rner
, Eis
enbe
iss,
& G
ries
ser,
200
7; C
ho &
Dan
sere
au, 2
010;
Gil
mor
e, H
u, W
ei,
Tet
rick
, &
Zac
caro
, 20
12;
Hil
ler,
DeC
hurc
h, M
uras
e, &
Dot
y, 2
011;
Pic
colo
&
Col
quit
t, 20
06;
Pod
sako
ff,
Mac
Ken
zie,
& B
omm
er,
1996
; P
odsa
koff
, M
acK
enzi
e, M
oorm
an,
&
Fet
ter,
199
0; P
odsa
koff
, M
acK
enzi
e, P
aine
, &
Bac
hrac
h, 2
000;
Raf
fert
y &
Gri
ffin
, 20
04;
Sos
ik,
2005
; T
se &
Chi
u, 2
014;
Wan
g, L
aw,
Hac
kett
, W
ang,
& C
hen,
200
5; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
&
Col
bert
, 201
1
Mot
ivat
ion
Bon
o &
Jud
ge, 2
003;
Cha
rbon
neau
, Bar
ling
, & K
ello
way
, 200
6; H
ille
r, D
eChu
rch,
Mur
ase,
& D
oty,
2011
; Ju
dge
& P
icco
lo,
2004
; P
icco
lo &
Col
quit
t, 2
006;
Shi
n &
Zho
u, 2
003;
Wan
g, O
h, C
ourt
righ
t,
& C
olbe
rt, 2
011;
Wri
ght,
Moy
niha
n, &
Pan
dey,
201
2
Org
aniz
atio
n-ba
sed
self
-est
eem
a K
ark,
Sha
mir
, & C
hen,
200
3; V
an K
nipp
enbe
rg, v
an K
nipp
enbe
rg, D
e C
rem
er, &
Hog
g, 2
004
Per
form
ance
B
oern
er,
Eis
enbe
iss,
&
G
ries
ser,
20
07;
Bon
o &
Ju
dge,
20
03;
Chi
abur
u,
Sm
ith,
W
ang,
&
Zim
mer
man
, 20
14;
Dvi
r, E
den,
Avo
lio,
& S
ham
ir,
2002
; Ju
ng &
Avo
lio,
200
0; L
iao
& C
huan
g,
2007
; P
icco
lo &
Col
quit
t, 2
006;
Pod
sako
ff,
Mac
Ken
zie,
& B
omm
er,
1996
; V
an K
nipp
enbe
rg,
van
Kni
ppen
berg
, D
e C
rem
er,
& H
ogg,
200
4; W
ang
& H
owel
l, 2
012;
Wan
g, L
aw,
Hac
kett
, W
ang,
&
Che
n, 2
005;
Wan
g, O
h, C
ourt
righ
t, &
Col
bert
, 201
1
80
Pri
de i
n be
ing
a fo
llow
er o
f th
e le
ader
C
han
& M
ak, 2
014
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Wit
h th
e jo
b
Wit
h th
e le
ader
Bon
o &
Jud
ge,
2003
; B
raun
, P
eus,
Wei
swei
ler,
& F
rey,
201
3; D
eRue
, N
ahrg
ang,
Wel
lman
, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Jud
ge &
Pic
colo
, 20
04;
Nie
lsen
, Y
arke
r, B
renn
er, R
anda
ll, &
Bor
g, 2
008;
Pic
colo
et a
l.,
2012
; P
odsa
koff
, M
acK
enzi
e, &
Bom
mer
, 19
96;
Pod
sako
ff,
Mac
Ken
zie,
Moo
rman
, &
Fet
ter,
1990
; R
oss
& O
ffer
man
n, 1
997;
Sel
tzer
& B
ass,
199
0; S
kako
n, N
iels
en,
Bor
g, &
Guz
man
, 20
10;
Wal
umbw
a &
Law
ler,
200
3; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
& C
olbe
rt, 2
011
Byc
io,
Hac
kett
, &
All
en,
1995
; D
eRue
, N
ahrg
ang,
Wel
lman
, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Jud
ge &
Pic
colo
,
2004
; Ju
ng &
Avo
lio,
200
0; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
& C
olbe
rt,
2011
; Z
acha
rato
s, B
arli
ng,
&
Kel
low
ay, 2
000
Sel
f-co
ncor
danc
eb and
val
ue c
ongr
uenc
e w
ith
the
lead
er
Bon
o &
Jud
ge, 2
003;
Jun
g &
Avo
lio,
200
0; K
rish
nan,
200
5
Sel
f-co
nfid
ence
and
sel
f-ef
fica
cyc
Avo
lio
& B
ass,
198
8; D
vir,
Ede
n, A
voli
o, &
Sha
mir
, 200
2; L
iao
& C
huan
g, 2
007;
Nie
lsen
& M
unir
,
2009
; R
affe
rty
& G
riff
in,
2004
; S
kako
n, N
iels
en,
Bor
g, &
Guz
man
, 20
10;
Van
Kni
ppen
berg
, va
n
Kni
ppen
berg
, De
Cre
mer
, & H
ogg,
200
4; W
u, T
sui,
& K
inic
ki, 2
010
Tru
st In
the
lea
der
In t
he t
eam
Bra
un,
Peu
s, W
eisw
eile
r, &
Fre
y, 2
013;
Jun
g &
Avo
lio,
200
0; P
odsa
koff
, M
acK
enzi
e, &
Bom
mer
,
1996
; P
odsa
koff
, Mac
Ken
zie,
Moo
rman
, & F
ette
r, 1
990
Bra
un, P
eus,
Wei
swei
ler,
& F
rey,
201
3; J
oshi
, Laz
arov
a, &
Lia
o, 2
009
81
Tur
nove
r in
tent
ion
(neg
ati
ve e
ffec
t)
Byc
io, H
acke
tt, &
All
en, 1
995;
Raf
fert
y &
Gri
ffin
, 200
4
Voi
ce b
ehav
iors
d L
iu, Z
hu, &
Yan
g, 2
010
Wor
k im
port
ance
and
mea
ning
fuln
ess
Arn
old,
T
urne
r,
Bar
ling
, K
ello
way
, &
M
cKee
, 20
07;
Bon
o &
Ju
dge,
20
03;
Kor
ek,
Fel
fe,
&
Zae
pern
ick-
Rot
he, 2
010
Tea
m e
ffec
ts a
nd
outc
om
es
Coh
esio
n B
ass,
Avo
lio,
Jun
g, &
Ber
son,
200
3; W
ang
& H
uang
, 200
9
Con
sens
us d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
Flo
od e
t al
., 20
00
Cre
ativ
ity
and
inno
vati
on (
U-s
ha
ped
eff
ect)
B
oern
er, E
isen
beis
s, &
Gri
esse
r, 2
007;
Eis
enbe
iss
& B
oern
er, 2
010;
Sos
ik, K
ahai
, & A
voli
o, 1
998
Ela
bora
tion
of
task
-rel
evan
t inf
orm
atio
n an
d
com
mun
icat
ion
Kea
rney
& G
eber
t, 2
009;
Oez
aral
li, 2
003;
Zoh
ar &
Ten
ne-G
azit
, 200
8
Per
form
ance
and
eff
ecti
vene
ss
Bar
ling
, W
eber
, &
Kel
low
ay,
1996
; B
ass,
Avo
lio,
Jun
g, &
Ber
son,
200
3; B
raun
, P
eus,
Wei
swei
ler,
&
Fre
y,
2013
; C
harb
onne
au,
Bar
ling
, &
K
ello
way
, 20
06;
DeR
ue,
Nah
rgan
g,
Wel
lman
, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Flo
od e
t al
., 20
00;
How
ell
& A
voli
o, 1
993;
Jos
hi,
Laz
arov
a, &
Lia
o, 2
009;
Jud
ge
& P
icco
lo,
2004
; K
elle
r, 1
992,
200
6; L
owe,
Kro
eck,
& S
ivas
ubra
man
iam
, 19
96;
Oez
aral
li,
2003
;
Pea
rce
& S
ims
Jr.,
2002
; P
illa
i &
Mei
ndl,
199
8; P
urva
nova
& B
ono,
200
9; R
esic
k, W
hitm
an,
Wei
ngar
den,
& H
ille
r, 2
009;
Sch
aubr
oeck
, Lam
, & C
ha, 2
007;
Siv
asub
ram
ania
m, M
urry
, Avo
lio,
&
Jung
, 20
02;
Van
Kni
ppen
berg
, va
n K
nipp
enbe
rg,
De
Cre
mer
, &
Hog
g, 2
004;
Wan
g &
How
ell,
2012
; Wan
g, O
h, C
ourt
righ
t, &
Col
bert
, 201
1; W
u, T
sui,
& K
inic
ki, 2
010
82
Pot
ency
e and
col
lect
ive
effi
cacy
B
ass,
Avo
lio,
Jun
g, &
Ber
son,
200
3; S
chau
broe
ck,
Lam
, &
Cha
, 20
07;
Siv
asub
ram
ania
m,
Mur
ry,
Avo
lio,
&
Ju
ng,
2002
; S
kako
n,
Nie
lsen
, B
org,
&
G
uzm
an,
2010
; V
an
Kni
ppen
berg
, va
n
Kni
ppen
berg
, De
Cre
mer
, & H
ogg,
200
4; W
ang
& H
owel
l, 2
012;
Wu,
Tsu
i, &
Kin
icki
, 201
0
Psy
chol
ogic
ally
saf
e te
am c
lim
atef
Nij
stad
, Ber
ger-
Sel
man
, & D
e D
reu,
201
4
Org
aniz
ati
on
al
effe
cts
an
d o
utc
om
es
Abs
ente
eism
(n
ega
tive
eff
ect)
Z
hu, C
hew
, & S
pang
ler,
200
5
Cli
mat
e fo
r or
gani
zati
onal
cha
nge
read
ines
s A
llen
, Sm
ith,
& D
a S
ilva
, 201
3
Cre
ativ
ity
and
inno
vati
on
All
en,
Sm
ith,
& D
a S
ilva
, 20
13;
Ara
gón-
Cor
rea,
Gar
cía-
Mor
ales
, &
Cor
dón-
Poz
o, 2
007;
Gar
cía-
Mor
ales
, Ji
mén
ez-B
arri
onue
vo,
& G
utié
rrez
-Gut
iérr
ez,
2012
; G
arcí
a-M
oral
es &
Llo
rens
-Mon
tes,
2006
; G
umus
luog
lu &
Ils
ev,
2009
; Ju
ng,
Cho
w,
& W
u, 2
003;
Jun
g, W
u, &
Cho
w,
2008
; V
acca
ro,
Jans
en, V
an D
en B
osch
, & V
olbe
rda,
201
2
Org
aniz
atio
nal l
earn
ing
Ara
gón-
Cor
rea,
Gar
cía-
Mor
ales
, &
Cor
dón-
Poz
o, 2
007;
Gar
cía-
Mor
ales
, Ji
mén
ez-B
arri
onue
vo,
&
Gut
iérr
ez-G
utié
rrez
, 201
2; G
arcí
a-M
oral
es &
Llo
rens
-Mon
tes,
200
6
Per
form
ance
and
eff
ecti
vene
ss
Ara
gón-
Cor
rea,
G
arcí
a-M
oral
es,
&
Cor
dón-
Poz
o,
2007
; A
voli
o,
Wal
dman
, &
E
inst
ein,
19
88;
Col
bert
, B
arri
ck,
& B
radl
ey,
2014
; G
arcí
a-M
oral
es,
Jim
énez
-Bar
rion
uevo
, &
Gut
iérr
ez-G
utié
rrez
,
2012
; Ju
dge
& P
icco
lo,
2004
; M
enge
s, W
alte
r, V
ogel
, &
Bru
ch,
2011
; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
&
Col
bert
, 201
1; Z
hu, C
hew
, & S
pang
ler,
200
5
83
Pro
duct
ive
orga
niza
tion
al e
nerg
y (P
OE
)g W
alte
r &
Bru
ch, 2
010
Moder
ato
rs
Env
iron
men
tal
unce
rtai
nty
and
dyna
mis
m
Bas
s, A
voli
o, J
ung,
& B
erso
n, 2
003;
De
Hoo
gh,
Den
Har
tog,
& K
oopm
an,
2005
; W
aldm
an,
Ram
írez
, Hou
se, &
Pur
anam
, 200
1
Org
aniz
atio
nal s
ize
Lin
g, S
imse
k, L
ubat
kin,
& V
eiga
, 200
8a; V
acca
ro, J
anse
n, V
an D
en B
osch
, & V
olbe
rda,
201
2
Tea
m c
lim
ate
and
moo
d B
oern
er &
Fre
iher
r vo
n S
trei
t, 20
05, 2
006;
Eis
enbe
iss,
van
Kni
ppen
berg
, & B
oern
er, 2
008
Tea
m g
ende
r he
tero
gene
ity
Row
old,
201
1
Met
a-a
naly
ses
an
d r
evie
ws
D
eRue
, N
ahrg
ang,
Wel
lman
, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Hil
ler,
DeC
hurc
h, M
uras
e, &
Dot
y, 2
011;
Jud
ge
& P
icco
lo,
2004
; Ju
dge,
Woo
lf,
Hur
st,
& L
ivin
gsto
n, 2
006;
Low
e, K
roec
k, &
Siv
asub
ram
ania
m,
1996
; P
icco
lo e
t al
., 20
12;
Ska
kon,
Nie
lsen
, B
org,
& G
uzm
an,
2010
; V
an K
nipp
enbe
rg &
Sit
kin,
2013
; V
an K
nipp
enbe
rg,
van
Kni
ppen
berg
, D
e C
rem
er,
& H
ogg,
200
4; W
ang,
Oh,
Cou
rtri
ght,
&
Col
bert
, 201
1
Note
. Unl
ess
othe
rwis
e st
ated
, stu
dies
sup
port
ed a
pos
itiv
e ef
fect
of
tran
sfor
mat
iona
l lea
ders
hip
on th
e re
spec
tive
out
com
e va
riab
le.
a An
indi
vidu
al’s
sel
f-pe
rcei
ved
valu
e as
mem
ber
of t
he o
rgan
izat
ion.
b Deg
ree
of c
ongr
uenc
e be
twee
n jo
b-re
late
d go
als
and
the
valu
es a
nd m
otiv
es o
f th
e
indi
vidu
al.
c An
indi
vidu
al’s
bel
ief
conc
erni
ng h
is a
bili
ty t
o fu
lfil
l a
give
n ta
sk a
nd c
ope
wit
h en
viro
nmen
tal
dem
ands
. d S
peak
ing
out
(voi
ce t
owar
d pe
ers)
and
spea
king
up
(voi
ce t
owar
d th
e le
ader
). e A
gro
up’s
sha
red
beli
ef i
n it
s ab
ilit
y to
tak
e on
dif
ficu
lt p
robl
ems
and
succ
essf
ully
add
ress
cha
llen
ges.
f Gro
up
atm
osph
ere
of tr
ust a
nd s
uppo
rt, e
ncou
ragi
ng m
embe
rs t
o ex
pres
s di
verg
ent
opin
ions
. g Foc
us o
f co
llec
tive
res
ourc
es a
nd e
ffor
t on
pro
duct
ive
wor
k.
84
Tab
le A
2
Ante
ceden
ts a
nd
pre
dic
tors
of
tra
nsf
orm
ati
onal
leader
ship
and l
eader
em
ergen
ce
Pre
dict
or v
aria
ble
Ref
eren
ce
Dem
ogra
phic
s
Age
B
arbu
to J
r., F
ritz
, Mat
kin,
& M
arx,
200
7
Gen
der:
fem
inin
ity
Bal
thaz
ard,
Wal
dman
, &
War
ren,
200
9; B
ass,
Avo
lio,
& A
twat
er,
1996
; B
rand
t &
Lai
ho,
2013
;
Eag
ly,
Joha
nnes
en-S
chm
idt,
& v
an E
ngen
, 20
03;
Kar
k, W
aism
el-M
anor
, &
Sha
mir
, 20
12;
Man
dell
& P
herw
ani,
200
3
Per
sonali
ty
Big
Fiv
e
Agr
eeab
lene
ss
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ss
Em
otio
nal
stab
ilit
y
Ext
rave
rsio
n
De
Hoo
gh, D
en H
arto
g, &
Koo
pman
, 200
5; D
eRue
, Nah
rgan
g, W
ellm
an, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Jud
ge
& B
ono,
200
0; R
ubin
, Mun
z, &
Bom
mer
, 200
5
Atw
ater
& Y
amm
arin
o, 1
993;
Cav
azot
te,
Mor
eno,
& H
ickm
ann,
201
2; D
e H
oogh
, D
en H
arto
g, &
Koo
pman
, 20
05;
De
Vri
es,
2012
; D
eRue
, N
ahrg
ang,
Wel
lman
, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Jud
ge,
Bon
o,
Ilie
s, &
Ger
hard
t, 2
002
Bal
thaz
ard,
Wal
dman
, & W
arre
n, 2
009;
Bon
o &
Jud
ge, 2
004;
De
Hoo
gh, D
en H
arto
g, &
Koo
pman
,
2005
; D
eRue
, Nah
rgan
g, W
ellm
an, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Jud
ge, B
ono,
Ili
es, &
Ger
hard
t, 20
02
Bal
thaz
ard,
Wal
dman
, &
War
ren,
200
9; B
ono
& J
udge
, 20
04;
De
Vri
es,
2012
; D
eRue
, N
ahrg
ang,
Wel
lman
, &
Hum
phre
y, 2
011;
Gue
rin
et a
l.,
2011
; Ju
dge
& B
ono,
200
0; J
udge
, B
ono,
Ili
es,
&
Ger
hard
t, 2
002;
Rei
char
d et
al.
, 201
1
85
Ope
nnes
s to
exp
erie
nce
DeR
ue,
Nah
rgan
g, W
ellm
an,
& H
umph
rey,
201
1; J
udge
, B
ono,
Ili
es,
& G
erha
rdt,
2002
; Z
opia
tis
&
Con
stan
ti, 2
012
Em
otio
nal i
ntel
lige
ncea
Bar
buto
Jr.
& B
urba
ch,
2006
; B
arli
ng,
Sla
ter,
& K
ello
way
, 20
00;
Har
ms
& C
redé
, 20
10;
Hur
, va
n
den
Ber
g, &
Wil
dero
m, 2
011;
Man
dell
& P
herw
ani,
200
3; R
ubin
, Mun
z, &
Bom
mer
, 200
5; W
ang
&
Hua
ng, 2
009
Inte
llig
ence
A
twat
er &
Yam
mar
ino,
199
3; C
avaz
otte
, Mor
eno,
& H
ickm
ann,
201
2; D
eRue
, Nah
rgan
g, W
ellm
an,
& H
umph
rey,
201
1; J
udge
, Col
bert
, & I
lies
, 200
4; R
eich
ard
et a
l., 2
011
Inte
rnal
locu
s of
con
trol
and
cor
e se
lf-e
valu
atio
ns
(CS
E)b
How
ell
& A
voli
o, 1
993;
Hu,
Wan
g, L
iden
, &
Sun
, 20
12;
Res
ick,
Whi
tman
, W
eing
arde
n, &
Hil
ler,
2009
Soc
ial
skil
ls
Gue
rin
et a
l., 2
011
Lif
e ex
per
ien
ces
Ath
leti
c ex
peri
ence
A
twat
er &
Yam
mar
ino,
199
3
Fam
ily
func
tion
ing
in c
hild
hood
c O
live
r et
al.
, 201
1
Lea
der
trai
ning
B
arli
ng,
Web
er,
& K
ello
way
, 19
96;
Bas
s, 1
990,
199
9; D
vir,
Ede
n, A
voli
o, &
Sha
mir
, 20
02;
Mas
on,
Gri
ffin
, & P
arke
r, 2
014
Par
ent T
FL
in c
hild
hood
and
ado
lesc
ence
Z
acha
rato
s, B
arli
ng, &
Kel
low
ay, 2
000
Pos
itiv
e sc
hool
and
wor
k ex
peri
ence
s A
voli
o, 1
994
86
Att
itudes
and
beh
avi
or
Beh
avio
ral
copi
ngd
Atw
ater
& Y
amm
arin
o, 1
993
Con
side
rati
on o
f fu
ture
con
sequ
ence
s (C
FC
)e Z
hang
, Wan
g, &
Pea
rce,
201
4
Cyn
icis
m a
bout
org
aniz
atio
nal
chan
ge (
CA
OC
)
(neg
ati
ve e
ffec
t)
Bom
mer
, Rub
in, &
Bal
dwin
, 200
4
Dec
isio
n m
akin
g st
yle:
fee
ling
f A
twat
er &
Yam
mar
ino,
199
3
Dya
d-sp
ecif
ic p
ersp
ecti
ve ta
king
g G
rego
ry, M
oate
s, &
Gre
gory
, 201
1
Pra
gmat
ism
R
oss
& O
ffer
man
n, 1
997
Pro
-soc
ial i
mpr
essi
on m
anag
emen
t S
osik
, Avo
lio,
& J
ung,
200
2
Val
ue s
yste
m:
trad
itio
nal,
coll
ecti
vist
ic, s
elf-
tran
scen
dent
, sel
f-en
hanc
ing
Sos
ik, 2
005
Conte
xt
Col
lect
ivis
tic
cult
ure
Bas
s, 1
995*
; Jun
g, B
ass,
& S
osik
, 199
5*;
Pil
lai
& M
eind
l, 1
998
Dyn
amis
m o
f w
ork
and
orga
niza
tion
al
envi
ronm
ent
(in
con
sist
ent
effe
cts)
Con
ger,
199
9; D
e H
oogh
, Den
Har
tog,
& K
oopm
an, 2
005;
Sha
mir
& H
owel
l, 1
999*
; Z
hang
, Wan
g,
& P
earc
e, 2
014
Fol
low
ers’
init
ial
deve
lopm
enta
l le
vel
(inco
nsi
sten
t
effe
cts)
Dvi
r &
Sha
mir
, 200
3
87
Lea
der’
s pe
rcei
ved
cont
rol
Nie
lsen
& C
leal
, 201
1
Lea
der’
s ps
ycho
logi
cal e
mpo
wer
men
t S
prei
tzer
, De
Jana
sz, &
Qui
nn, 1
999
Mea
ning
fuln
ess
of w
ork
Nie
lsen
& C
leal
, 201
1
Org
aniz
atio
n’s
orga
nic
stru
ctur
eh
Cen
tral
izat
ion
of d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
auth
orit
y
(neg
ati
ve e
ffec
t)
For
mal
izat
ion
of r
ules
and
pro
cedu
res
Pil
lai &
Mei
ndl,
1998
; S
ham
ir &
How
ell,
199
9*
Wal
ter
& B
ruch
, 201
0
Wal
ter
& B
ruch
, 201
0
Org
aniz
atio
nal s
ize
(neg
ati
ve e
ffec
t)
Wal
ter
& B
ruch
, 201
0
Sit
uati
onal
cog
niti
ve d
eman
ds
Nie
lsen
& C
leal
, 201
1
Thi
rd p
arty
lea
ders
hip
beha
vior
s
Imm
edia
te s
uper
viso
r
Lea
ders
hip
casc
ade
Lea
ders
hip
diff
usio
n
Pee
r gr
oup
Soc
ial
cont
agio
n
Bas
s, 1
990
Bas
s, W
aldm
an, A
voli
o, &
Beb
b, 1
987;
Wal
dman
& Y
amm
arin
o, 1
999
Avo
lio
& B
ass,
199
5
Bom
mer
, Rub
in, &
Bal
dwin
, 200
4
Mei
ndl,
199
0
Met
a-a
naly
ses
an
d r
evie
ws
B
ono
& J
udge
, 20
04;
Con
ger,
199
9; D
ay,
Fle
enor
, A
twat
er,
Stu
rm,
& M
cKee
, 20
14;
DeR
ue,
Nah
rgan
g, W
ellm
an,
& H
umph
rey,
201
1; E
agly
, Jo
hann
esen
-Sch
mid
t, &
van
Eng
en,
2003
; Ju
dge,
Bon
o, I
lies
, & G
erha
rdt,
200
2; J
udge
, Woo
lf, H
urst
, & L
ivin
gsto
n, 2
006;
Wal
ter
& B
ruch
, 200
9
88
Note
. Unl
ess
othe
rwis
e st
ated
, stu
dies
sup
port
ed a
pos
itiv
e ef
fect
of
the
resp
ecti
ve p
redi
ctor
var
iabl
e on
tra
nsfo
rmat
iona
l le
ader
ship
. *T
heor
etic
al a
rgum
ent
wit
hout
em
piri
cal
test
ing.
a A
bili
ty t
o un
ders
tand
the
mea
ning
s of
em
otio
ns a
nd t
o m
anag
e re
lati
onsh
ips
on b
asis
of
them
. b A
n in
divi
dual
’s f
unda
men
tal
self
-app
rais
al r
egar
ding
sel
f-
este
em,
emot
iona
l st
abil
ity,
gen
eral
ized
sel
f-ef
fica
cy a
nd i
nter
nal
locu
s of
con
trol
. c E
xist
ence
of
a su
ppor
tive
and
int
elle
ctua
lly
stim
ulat
ing
envi
ronm
ent.
d Ten
denc
y to
ful
fill
one
’s w
ork
dem
ands
qui
ckly
and
sm
ooth
ly.
e Deg
ree
to w
hich
fut
ure
outc
omes
of
pres
ent
beha
vior
are
con
side
red.
f Car
e fo
r th
e ef
fect
s
of o
wn
deci
sion
s up
on o
ther
s’ f
eeli
ngs.
g Men
tal
act
of a
dopt
ing
the
foll
ower
’s p
oint
-of-
view
to
asse
ss a
sit
uati
on.
h Dec
entr
aliz
ed d
ecis
ion
mak
ing,
lit
tle
form
aliz
atio
n an
d st
anda
rdiz
atio
n, f
ew c
oerc
ive
rule
s.
89
Tab
le A
3
Eff
ects
and o
utc
om
es o
f to
p m
an
ag
emen
t te
am
com
posi
tion, pro
cess
es,
beh
avi
or,
dec
isio
n m
aki
ng,
an
d b
eha
vio
ral
inte
gra
tio
n
Out
com
e va
riab
le
Ref
eren
ce
Em
plo
yee
effe
cts
an
d o
utc
om
es
Com
mit
men
t C
olbe
rt, B
arri
ck, &
Bra
dley
, 201
4
Sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith
the
job
Rae
s, B
ruch
, & D
e Jo
ng, 2
013
Tur
nove
r in
tent
ion
Rae
s, B
ruch
, & D
e Jo
ng, 2
013
Top m
anagem
ent
tea
m e
ffec
ts a
nd
outc
om
es
Dec
isio
n m
akin
g sp
eed
Gu,
Wen
g, &
Xie
, 201
2
Dec
isio
n qu
alit
y C
arm
eli
& S
chau
broe
ck, 2
006;
Car
mel
i, S
heaf
fer,
& H
alev
i, 2
009
Eff
ecti
vene
ss
Flo
od e
t al
., 20
00
Org
aniz
ati
on
al
effe
cts
an
d o
utc
om
es
Am
bide
xter
itya
Cao
, Sim
sek,
& Z
hang
, 201
0; L
ubat
kin,
Sim
sek,
Lin
g, &
Vei
ga, 2
006
Cor
pora
te e
ntre
pren
eurs
hip
Lin
g, S
imse
k, L
ubat
kin,
& V
eiga
, 200
8b
Per
form
ance
and
eff
ecti
vene
ss
Can
nell
a Jr
., P
ark,
& L
ee,
2008
; C
arm
eli,
200
8; C
arm
eli,
Sch
aubr
oeck
, &
Tis
hler
, 20
11;
Car
mel
i,
She
affe
r, &
Hal
evi,
2009
; E
scri
bá-E
stev
e, S
ánch
ez-P
eina
do,
& S
ánch
ez-P
eina
do,
2009
; L
ubat
kin,
Sim
sek,
Lin
g, &
Vei
ga,
2006
; P
eter
son,
Sm
ith,
Mar
tora
na,
& O
wen
s, 2
003;
Rei
na,
Zha
ng,
&
Pet
erso
n, 2
014
90
Pro
duct
ive
orga
niza
tion
al e
nerg
y (P
OE
)b R
aes,
Bru
ch, &
De
Jong
, 201
3
Str
ateg
ic o
rien
tati
on
Car
pent
er,
Gel
etka
nycz
, &
San
ders
, 20
04;
Esc
ribá
-Est
eve,
Sán
chez
-Pei
nado
, &
Sán
chez
-Pei
nado
,
2009
Note
. S
tudi
es s
uppo
rted
a s
igni
fica
nt e
ffec
t of
top
man
agem
ent
team
com
posi
tion
, pr
oces
ses,
beh
avio
r, d
ecis
ion
mak
ing,
or
beha
vior
al i
nteg
rati
on o
n th
e
resp
ecti
ve o
utco
me
vari
able
. a O
rgan
izat
iona
l abi
lity
to
sim
ulta
neou
sly
purs
ue a
n ex
plor
atio
n an
d ex
ploi
tati
on s
trat
egy.
b Foc
us o
f co
llec
tive
res
ourc
es a
nd e
ffor
t on
prod
ucti
ve w
ork.
91
Table A4
English and German wording of study items
Item English original German translation as used in the study
questionnaire
Transformational Leadershipa
C_01 My leader has stimulated me to rethink
the way I do things.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter bringt mir
neue Sichtweisen auf Dinge nahe.
C_02 My leader is always seeking new
opportunities for the organization.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter sucht stets
nach neuen Chancen für das
Unternehmen.
C_03 My leader has ideas that have
challenged me to reexamine some of the
basic assumptions about my work.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter bringt mich
durch seine Ansichten dazu, einige
meiner Vorstellungen zu überdenken.
C_04 My leader paints an interesting picture
of the future for our group.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter zeichnet für
unser Unternehmen ein interessantes
Bild von der Zukunft.
C_05 My leader shows us that he/she expects
a lot from us.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter zeigt uns,
dass er viel von uns erwartet.
C_06 My leader fosters collaboration among
work groups.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter fördert die
Zusammenarbeit zwischen den
Arbeitsgruppen.
C_07 My leader encourages employees to be
“team players”.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter ermuntert
die Mitarbeiter, „Teamspieler“ zu sein.
C_08 My leader leads by “doing”, rather than
simply by “telling”.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter führt durch
Vorbildhandeln.
C_09 My leader acts without considering my
feelings. (reverse-coded)
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter handelt,
ohne meine Gefühle zu
berücksichtigen. (umgekehrt codiert)
C_10 My leader gets the group to work
together for the same goal.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter schafft es,
dass die Mitarbeiter gemeinsam für das
gleiche Ziel arbeiten.
C_11 My leader has a clear understanding of
where we are going.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter hat ein
klares Verständnis davon, wohin wir
92
Item English original German translation as used in the study
questionnaire
gehen.
C_12 My leader shows respect for my
personal feelings.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter zeigt
Respekt für meine Gefühle.
C_13 My leader challenges me to think about
old problems in new ways.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter regt mich
dazu an, auf neue Weise über Probleme
nachzudenken.
C_14 My leader behaves in a manner
thoughtful of my personal needs.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter beachtet
meine persönlichen Bedürfnisse.
C_15 My leader treats me without considering
my personal feelings. (reverse-coded)
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter behandelt
mich, ohne meine Gefühle zu
berücksichtigen. (umgekehrt codiert)
C_16 My leader inspires others with his/her
plans for the future.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter inspiriert
andere mit seinen Plänen für die
Zukunft.
C_17 My leader provides a good model for
me to follow.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter ist ein gutes
Vorbild.
C_18 My leader insists on only the best
performance.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter besteht
ausschließlich auf Bestleistungen.
C_19 My leader is able to get others
committed to his/her dream.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter bringt
andere dazu, sich für seine Träume von
der Zukunft voll einzusetzen.
C_22 My leader develops a team attitude and
spirit among employees.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter entwickelt
einen Gemeinschaftssinn und
Teamgeist unter seinen Mitarbeitern.
C_23 My leader will not settle for second
best.
Mein direkter Vorgesetzter wird sich
mit einem zweiten Platz nicht zufrieden
geben.
C_24 My leader leads by example. Mein direkter Vorgesetzter führt als
Vorbild.
TMT Behavioral Integrationb
GF_35 Quantity of ideas. Die Ideen, die die Mitglieder der
93
Item English original German translation as used in the study
questionnaire
Geschäftsführung diskutieren, sind sehr
gut.
GF_36 Quality of solutions. Die Lösungen, die die Mitglieder der
Geschäftsführung diskutieren, sind sehr
gut.
GF_37 Level of creativity and innovation. Der Dialog zwischen den Mitgliedern
der Geschäftsführung führt zu einem
hohen Maß an Kreativität und
Innovation.
GF_38 When a team member is busy, other
team members often volunteer to help
manage the workload.
Wenn ein Teammitglied der
Geschäftsführung viel zu tun hat,
helfen die anderen Teammitglieder ihm
häufig bei der Bewältigung seiner
Arbeit.
GF_39 Team members are flexible about
switching responsibilities to make
things easier for each other.
Dass die Mitglieder der
Geschäftsführung sich in Ihrem
Verantwortungsbereich gegenseitig
vertreten können, erleichtert vieles für
sie.
GF_40 Team members are willing to help each
other complete jobs and meet deadlines.
Die Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung
helfen sich gegenseitig bei komplexen
Aufgaben und der Einhaltung von
Abgabeterminen.
GF_41 Team members usually let each other
know when their actions affect another
team member’s work.
Die Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung
informieren sich für gewöhnlich
gegenseitig, wenn ihre Handlungen die
Arbeit anderer Teammitglieder
beeinflussen.
GF_42 Team members have a clear
understanding of the joint problems and
needs of other team members.
Die Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung
verstehen die arbeitsbezogenen
Probleme und Bedürfnisse der anderen
Mitglieder sehr gut.
94
Item English original German translation as used in the study
questionnaire
GF_43 Team members usually discuss their
expectations of each other.
Die Mitglieder der Geschäftsführung
diskutieren für gewöhnlich die
Erwartungen, die sie aneinander stellen.
Organizational Innovationc
GF_77 Generating new ideas addressing
difficult circumstances.
Generieren von neuen Ideen zu
schwierigen Sachverhalten.
GF_78 Developing new working methods,
techniques, and/or instruments.
Entwickeln von neuen
Arbeitsmethoden, Techniken oder
Instrumenten.
GF_79 Generating innovative solutions. Generieren innovativer
Problemlösungen.
GF_80 Mobilizing support for innovative ideas. Mobilisieren von Unterstützung für
innovative Ideen.
GF_81 Promoting innovative ideas to others. Werben für die Anerkennung
innovativer Ideen.
GF_82 Convincing important members of the
organization of innovative ideas.
Überzeugen wichtiger
Organisationsmitglieder von
innovativen Ideen.
GF_83 Transferring innovative ideas in useful
applications.
Überführen innovativer Ideen in
nützliche Anwendungen.
GF_84 Systematically implementing innovative
ideas in the work environment.
Systematisches Einführen innovativer
Ideen in das Arbeitsumfeld.
GF_85 Evaluating the usefulness of innovative
ideas.
Evaluieren der Nützlichkeit innovativer
Ideen.
Note. aScale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). bScale
developed by Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin, and Dino (2005). cScale adapted from Scott and
Bruce (1994); English wordings are the author’s own translation due to the lack of an English
original.
95
The Aggregation Statistics ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg
ICC(1) and ICC(2) assess the extent to which individual data are homogeneous within units
and heterogeneous between units, and thus the extent to which they represent a shared unit-
level construct. Based on a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), ICC(1) estimates the
proportion of a measure’s total variance that is explained exclusively by unit membership. In
doing so, it compares a measure’s variance between units with its variance within units.
ICC(2) is an advancement of ICC(1) that takes into account unit size, since measures based on
a higher number of people are more reliable (see Bliese & Halverson, 1998, for the impact of
group size). Therefore, the larger the unit, the larger the ICC(2) value, ceteris paribus (Bliese,
2000; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
By contrast, the index rwg does not compare measure variance within and between units, but
actual and expected variability within a specific unit. If the former is substantially smaller, the
unit is more homogenous than expected by chance and aggregation is justifiable. Unlike the
intra-class correlations which compare variances across the entirety of units, the index rwg has
to be calculated for every unit separately (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000).
Computation Formulas for ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg in Stata
Codebook.
firma Firm
TFL_CEO CEO Transformational Leadership
TFL_TMT TMT Transformational Leadership
Behav_Integ TMT Behavioral Integration
Innov Organizational Innovation
96
ICC(1) and ICC(2).
estimates clear
xtset firma
xtreg TFL_CEO, re
oneway TFL_CEO firma
* ICC(1)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]+([e(g_avg)-1]*[r(rss)/r(df_r)]))
* ICC(2)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)])
estimates clear
xtset firma
xtreg TFL_TMT, re
oneway TFL_TMT firma
* ICC(1)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]+([e(g_avg)-1]*[r(rss)/r(df_r)]))
* ICC(2)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)])
estimates clear
xtset firma
xtreg Behav_Integ, re
oneway Behav_Integ firma
* ICC(1)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]+([e(g_avg)-1]*[r(rss)/r(df_r)]))
* ICC(2)
97
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)])
estimates clear
xtset firma
xtreg Innov, re
oneway Innov firma
* ICC(1)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]+([e(g_avg)-1]*[r(rss)/r(df_r)]))
* ICC(2)
display ([r(mss)/r(df_m)]-[r(rss)/r(df_r)]) / ([r(mss)/r(df_m)])
rwg.
sort firma
by firma: egen SD_TFL_CEO = sd(TFL_CEO)
generate Var_TFL_CEO = SD_TFL_CEO^2
by firma: egen SD_TFL_TMT = sd(TFL_TMT)
generate Var_TFL_TMT = SD_TFL_TMT^2
by firma: egen SD_Behav_Integ = sd(Behav_Integ)
generate Var_Behav_Integ = SD_Behav_Integ^2
by firma: egen SD_Innov = sd(Innov)
generate Var_Innov = SD_Innov^2
98
by firma: keep if _n == 1
generate rwg_TFL_CEO = 1-(Var_TFL_CEO/2)
generate rwg_TFL_TMT = 1-(Var_TFL_TMT/2)
generate rwg_Behav_Integ = 1-(Var_Behav_Integ/2)
generate rwg_Innov = 1-(Var_Innov/4)
summarize rwg_*
99
Table A5
Results of confirmatory factor analyses for study measures and items’ summary statistics
Item/ item parcel αa Eigenvalue Loading Mean SD
Transformational Leadership First-Order Factors
Intellectual Stimulation
Factor 1 2.29 Factor 2 0.38 Factor 3 0.33 C_01: My leader has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.
0.76 0.88 3.30 0.94
C_03: My leader has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine some of the basic assumptions about my work.
0.79 0.87 3.10 0.93
C_13: My leader challenges me to think about old problems in new ways.
0.79 0.87 3.31 0.94
Overall Scale 0.84 Articulating Vision
Factor 1 3.63 Factor 2 0.43 Factor 3 0.39 Factor 4 0.29 Factor 5 0.27 C_02: My leader is always seeking new opportunities for the organization.
0.89 0.84 3.69 1.01
C_04: My leader paints an interesting picture of the future for our group.
0.88 0.87 3.32 1.11
C_11: My leader has a clear understanding of where we are going.
0.89 0.83 3.82 1.00
C_16: My leader inspires others with his/her plans for the future.
0.87 0.88 3.26 1.04
C_19: My leader is able to get others committed to his/her dream.
0.88 0.84 3.10 1.09
Overall Scale 0.90 High Performance Expectations
Factor 1 1.74 Factor 2 0.67 Factor 3 0.59 C_05: My leader shows us that he/she expects a lot from us.
0.58 0.73 3.87 0.93
C_18: My leader insists on only the best performance.
0.49 0.78 3.42 1.04
C_23: My leader will not settle for second best.
0.53 0.77 3.38 1.08
Overall Scale 0.63 Fostering Group Goals
100
Item/ item parcel αa Eigenvalue Loading Mean SD
Factor 1 3.16 Factor 2 0.36 Factor 3 0.25 Factor 4 0.23 C_06: My leader fosters collaboration among work groups.
0.88 0.89 3.49 1.07
C_07: My leader encourages employees to be “team players”.
0.88 0.89 3.58 1.13
C_10: My leader gets the group to work together for the same goal.
0.90 0.87 3.61 0.98
C_22: My leader develops a team attitude and spirit among employees.
0.88 0.90 3.34 1.17
Overall Scale 0.91 Providing Role Model
Factor 1 2.66 Factor 2 0.19 Factor 3 0.15 C_08: My leader leads by “doing”, rather than simply by “telling”.
0.92 0.93 3.43 1.17
C_17: My leader provides a good model for me to follow.
0.90 0.95 3.58 1.10
C_24: My leader leads by example. 0.90 0.94 3.37 1.20 Overall Scale 0.94 Individualized Support
Factor 1 2.91 Factor 2 0.57 Factor 3 0.28 Factor 4 0.23 C_09: My leader acts without considering my feelings. (reverse-
coded)
0.85 0.84 3.55 1.12
C_12: My leader shows respect for my personal feelings.
0.83 0.88 3.58 1.04
C_14: My leader behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs.
0.85 0.85 3.54 1.03
C_15: My leader treats me without considering my personal feelings. (reverse-coded)
0.84 0.85 3.80 1.06
Overall Scale 0.88
Transformational Leadership Second-Order Factor Transformational Leadership
Factor 1 4.58 Factor 2 0.95 Factor 3 0.18 Factor 4 0.15 Factor 5 0.07
101
Item/ item parcel αa Eigenvalue Loading Mean SD
Factor 6 0.06 Intellectual Stimulation 0.91 0.94 3.32 0.37 Articulating Vision 0.90 0.96 3.56 0.44 High Performance Expectations 0.97 0.44 3.61 0.28 Fostering Group Goals 0.91 0.96 3.60 0.46 Providing Role Model 0.91 0.96 3.56 0.49 Individualized Support 0.93 0.86 3.70 0.37 Overall Scale 0.94
Transformational Leadership Second-Order Factor (High Performance Expectations excluded)
Transformational Leadership
Factor 1 4.43 Factor 2 0.27 Factor 3 0.16 Factor 4 0.07 Factor 5 0.06 Intellectual Stimulation 0.96 0.93 3.32 0.37 Articulating Vision 0.95 0.96 3.56 0.44 Fostering Group Goals 0.95 0.97 3.60 0.46 Providing Role Model 0.95 0.97 3.56 0.49 Individualized Support 0.97 0.88 3.70 0.37 Overall Scale 0.97
TMT Behavioral Integration TMT Behavioral Integration
Factor 1 5.27 Factor 2 0.87 Factor 3 0.63 Factor 4 0.46 Factor 5 0.43 Factor 6 0.39 Factor 7 0.34 Factor 8 0.32 Factor 9 0.27 GF_35: Quantity of ideas. 0.90 0.69 4.12 0.66 GF_36: Quality of solutions. 0.90 0.78 4.00 0.71 GF_37: Level of creativity and innovation.
0.89 0.80 3.91 0.90
GF_38: When a team member is busy, other team members often volunteer to help manage the workload.
0.89 0.78 3.51 1.08
GF_39: Team members are flexible about switching responsibilities to make things easier for each other.
0.90 0.71 3.53 1.14
GF_40: Team members are willing to help each other complete jobs and meet deadlines.
0.89 0.80 3.86 0.90
GF_41: Team members usually let each 0.90 0.76 4.08 0.84
102
Item/ item parcel αa Eigenvalue Loading Mean SD
other know when their actions affect another team member’s work. GF_42: Team members have a clear understanding of the joint problems and needs of other team members.
0.89 0.78 3.94 0.82
GF_43: Team members usually discuss their expectations of each other.
0.90 0.77 3.78 0.92
Overall Scale 0.91
TMT Behavioral Integration (GF_35 and GF_39 excluded)
TMT Behavioral Integration
Factor 1 4.54 Factor 2 0.65 Factor 3 0.52 Factor 4 0.44 Factor 5 0.36 Factor 6 0.27 Factor 7 0.22 GF_36 0.90 0.74 4.00 0.71 GF_37 0.88 0.84 3.91 0.90 GF_38 0.90 0.76 3.51 1.08 GF_40 0.88 0.87 3.86 0.90 GF_41 0.89 0.80 4.08 0.84 GF_42 0.89 0.81 3.94 0.82 GF_43 0.89 0.82 3.78 0.92 Overall Scale 0.90
Organizational Innovation Organizational Innovation
Factor 1 6.26 Factor 2 0.64 Factor 3 0.55 Factor 4 0.38 Factor 5 0.30 Factor 6 0.28 Factor 7 0.25 Factor 8 0.19 Factor 9 0.16 GF_77: Generating new ideas addressing difficult circumstances.
0.94 0.79 5.32 1.10
GF_78: Developing new working methods, techniques, and/or instruments.
0.94 0.79 5.18 1.13
GF_79: Generating innovative solutions.
0.94 0.86 5.34 1.08
GF_80: Mobilizing support for innovative ideas.
0.93 0.87 5.23 1.23
GF_81: Promoting innovative ideas to 0.94 0.82 5.14 1.28
103
Item/ item parcel αa Eigenvalue Loading Mean SD
others. GF_82: Convincing important members of the organization of innovative ideas.
0.94 0.84 5.39 1.17
GF_83: Transferring innovative ideas in useful applications.
0.93 0.87 5.25 1.21
GF_84: Systematically implementing innovative ideas in the work environment.
0.94 0.85 5.12 1.25
GF_85: Evaluating the usefulness of innovative ideas.
0.94 0.80 4.95 1.32
Overall Scale 0.94
Organizational Innovation (GF_78, GF_82, and GF_85 excluded)
Organizational Innovation
Factor 1 4.56 Factor 2 0.50 Factor 3 0.35 Factor 4 0.25 Factor 5 0.18 Factor 6 0.15 GF_77 0.93 0.85 5.32 1.10 GF_79 0.92 0.88 5.34 1.08 GF_80 0.92 0.91 5.23 1.23 GF_81 0.93 0.85 5.14 1.28 GF_83 0.92 0.88 5.25 1.21 GF_84 0.92 0.86 5.12 1.25 Overall Scale 0.94
Note. α = Cronbach’s alpha. Loading = Standardized factor loading. SD = Standard deviation. aCronbach’s alpha values for individual items/ item parcels indicate the overall scale’s α
which would be obtained if the respective item/ item parcel was dropped.
104
Tab
le A
6
Stu
dy
vari
able
s’ a
ggre
ga
tion a
nd s
um
mary
sta
tist
ics
A
ggre
gati
on s
tati
stic
s S
umm
ary
stat
isti
cs
Var
iabl
e IC
C(1
)a IC
C(2
) M
ean
r wg
Mea
n S
D
Min
M
ax
1. C
EO
TF
L
0.19
***
0.50
0.
78
3.75
0.
50
2.39
5
2. T
MT
Beh
avio
ral
Inte
g.
0.27
***
0.54
0.
83
3.90
0.
54
1.86
5
3. T
MT
TF
L
0.10
***
0.45
0.
73
3.60
0.
52
1.79
5
4. O
rga.
Inn
ovat
ion
0.26
***
0.52
0.
82
5.23
0.
81
2.67
7
5. A
ge
45
.08
7.21
30
62
6.
Pro
p. o
f W
omen
0.28
0.
40
0 1
7. E
xtra
vers
ion
3.
79
0.61
2
5 8.
Ope
nnes
s
3.67
0.
66
1.5
5 9.
Neu
roti
cism
2.10
0.
53
1 3.
5 10
. Ten
ure
Com
pany
11.2
2 7.
33
1 41
11
. Ten
ure
Pos
itio
n
6.47
5.
21
0 23
12
. TM
T S
ize
3.
11
2.42
1
14
13. E
nv. D
ynam
ism
4.84
0.
80
2.3
6.6
14. O
rga.
Cha
nge
3.
76
0.49
2.
5 5
15. F
irm
Siz
e
381.
19
553.
49
15
3897
16
. Ind
ustr
y: P
rodu
ctio
n
0.25
0.
44
0 1
17. I
ndus
try:
Who
lesa
le
0.
10
0.30
0
1 18
. Ind
ustr
y: R
etai
l
0.04
0.
20
0 1
19. I
ndus
try:
Ser
vice
0.51
0.
50
0 1
20. I
ndus
try:
Fin
ance
0.11
0.
32
0 1
Note
. SD
= S
tand
ard
devi
atio
n.
a Ast
eris
ks i
ndic
ate
the
sign
ific
ance
of
the
corr
espo
ndin
g on
e-w
ay a
naly
sis
of v
aria
nce
(AN
OV
A).
*p <
0.0
5. *
*p <
0.0
1. *
**p
< 0
.001
.
105
Table A7
Results of structural equation modeling for the hypothesized model
Variable Coefficient SE z-value P > |z|
-> TMT Behavioral Integration CEO TFL 0.19* 0.08 2.55 0.011 Proportion of Women 0.00 0.09 -0.04 0.967 Openness 0.14 0.08 1.77 0.077 Organizational Change 0.30*** 0.07 4.09 0.000 Firm Sizea -0.26*** 0.07 -3.53 0.000 Industry: Service 0.15* 0.07 2.08 0.038 -> TMT Transformational Leadership CEO TFL 0.18* 0.08 2.42 0.015 TMT Behavioral Integration 0.50*** 0.10 5.10 0.000 Proportion of Women -0.21* 0.10 -2.00 0.045 Openness 0.04 0.10 0.38 0.703 Organizational Change 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.946 Firm Sizea 0.04 0.08 0.51 0.610 Industry: Service 0.13 0.08 1.73 0.083 -> Organizational Innovation CEO TFL 0.03 0.08 0.33 0.742 TMT TFL 0.31*** 0.08 3.71 0.000 Proportion of Women 0.15 0.10 1.52 0.128 Openness 0.13 0.08 1.58 0.113 Organizational Change 0.31*** 0.07 4.46 0.000 Firm Sizea -0.18* 0.07 -2.58 0.010 Industry: Service -0.02 0.07 -0.23 0.818
Note. N = 212. Coefficients are standardized. SE = Standard error. aOut of statistical considerations, the logarithm of firm size was used in the analysis, instead
of firm size itself (i.e., number of employees).
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.
106
Table A8
Direct, indirect, and total effects of study relations in the structural model without controls
Effect (standardized)
Relation Direct Indirect Total
CEO TFL -> TMT TFL 0.15*
SE = 0.08
z = 1.98
p = 0.048
0.18*** SE = 0.05
z = 3.51
p = 0.000
0.32*** SE = 0.08
z = 4.12
p = 0.000 CEO TFL -> TMT Behavioral Integration
0.36*** SE = 0.08
z = 4.61
p = 0.000
– 0.36*** SE = 0.08
z = 4.61
p = 0.000 TMT Behavioral Integration -> TMT TFL
0.49*** SE = 0.08
z = 6.31
p = 0.000
– 0.49*** SE = 0.08
z = 6.31
p = 0.000 CEO TFL -> Organizational Innovation
0.17 SE = 0.09
z = 1.90
p = 0.058
0.13** SE = 0.04
z = 2.94
p = 0.003
0.29** SE = 0.09
z = 3.40
p = 0.001 TMT TFL -> Organizational Innovation
0.39*** SE = 0.09
z = 4.47
p = 0.000
– 0.39*** SE = 0.09
z = 4.47
p = 0.000 Note. N = 212. SE = Standard error. z = z-value. p = P > |z|. Dashes indicate that effect is not
applicable. Effects are controlling for the other effects in the model.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.