Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes and personality correlates

25 Pages·2003·0.17 MB·English

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2003, 12 (2), 147–170
Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes
and personality correlates
Hilde Hetland and Gro M. Sandal
Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway
Transformational leadership is postulated to take different shapes in various
cultural contexts. The aim of this study was to investigate transformational
leadership in Norway. Two research questions were addressed. First, the
relationship between transformational leadership and subordinates’ and
superiors’ ratings of satisfaction, effectiveness, and work motivation, and,
second the relationship between transformational leadership and personality.
A sample of 100 mid-level Norwegian managers employed in five different
companies completed Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire
(16PF). Four scales from the 16PF were included in the subsequent analyses:
warmth, reasoning, openness to change, and tension. For each manager,
ratings of leadership behaviour and outcomes were obtained from one superior
and two subordinates using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ).
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that transformational
leadership was strongly associated with the outcome measures in both
subordinates’ and superiors’ ratings, when controlling for the impact of
transactional and passive-avoidant leadership. Together the four personality
scales explained a modest but significant portion of the variance in
transformational leadership, when rated by subordinates, but not when rated
by superiors, suggesting that the context in which leadership occurs might be
more important determinants than the individual traits of the leader him- or
herself.
Leadership is entering a new era, as knowledge-intensive companies become
a central feature of Western society. The managers of today face the
challenge of recruiting and holding on to competent employees in
organizations where value added is difficult to supervise. In this context, a
Requests for reprints should be addressed to H. Hetland, Dept. of Psychosocial Science,
University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, 5015, Bergen, Norway.
Email:
148 HETLAND AND SANDAL
leader’s ability to inspire, motivate, and create commitment to common
goals is crucial (Bass, 1997b). These abilities are similar to those described as
being involved in transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).
Unlike the traditional leadership theories, which focused mainly on rational
processes, theories of transformational and charismatic leadership (House,
1977) emphasize emotions and values (Yukl, 1998) and imply that ‘‘leaders
and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation’’
(Burns, 1978, p. 20). Transformational leaders have been described as
broadening and elevating the interests of followers, generating awareness
and acceptance among followers, and motivating followers to go beyond self
interest for the good of the group (Bass, 1997b). The main components of
transformational leadership are defined as: Charisma/idealized influence and
inspirational motivation, which imply serving as a charismatic role model and
articulating a vision of the future that can be shared, individualized
consideration, which involves the leader paying attention to individual
differences, as well as intellectual stimulation, defined as questioning old
assumptions and the status quo (Avolio & Bass, 1995).
Several studies have documented significant correlations between
transformational leadership and organizational functioning. Transforma-
tional leadership has been linked to a variety of outcomes, such as employee
commitment to the organization (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996),
organizational commitment and lower levels of job stress (Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996), and job satisfaction and satisfaction with a
leader (Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 1995; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam,
1996). Beyond individual levels, the effectiveness of transformational teams
and organizations has been documented (Bass, 1997b; Tichy & Devanna,
1990).
Transformational leadership has been contrasted with transactional
behaviour, in which cooperation is obtained by establishing exchange of
rewards. Burns (1978) argued that where transactional leaders motivate
subordinates to perform as expected, the transforming leader typically
inspires followers to perform better than originally expected. According to
Shamir (1991), leaders must address followers’ self worth in order to engage
them and to make them commit to the organization, and furthermore, that
this is one of the strongest motivators that transformational leaders add to
the transactional exchange.
Transformational leadership theory is purported to be a behavioural
theory and a central assumption is that transformational behaviours can be
learned (Bass, 1998). However, the components of transformational
leadership are conceptually related to personality traits assumed to represent
stable dispositions. Several studies have linked personality to transforma-
tional behaviour. Using the five-factor model as a framework, Judge and
Bono (2000) found that extraversion and agreeableness positively predicted
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN NORWAY 149
transformational leadership when analyses were based on 14 samples of
managers from more than 200 organizations. Other studies have suggested
that transformational leaders could be portrayed by high self confidence,
personal adjustment, and pragmatism (Bennis & Nanus, 1997; Ross &
Offerman, 1997). Dubinsky, Yammarino, and Jolson (1995) found risk
taking and abstract orientation to be related to dimensions of transforma-
tional leadership. Moreover, intelligence, although it is traditionally not
included as part of personality measures, has been emphasized both in
transformational theories (Bass, 1997b; Den Hartog, House, Hanges, &
Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999) and in studies of leader selection on a general basis
(Melamed & Bozionelos, 1992; Mount & Barrick, 1991; Salgado, 1998; Tett,
Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Whether they concern fundamental measures
of personality, specific trait characteristics, or variables such as individual
intelligence, such findings raise questions about the extent to which
transformational leadership can, in fact, be learned.
Most of the studies exploring links between transformational leadership
and personality have been based on North American samples, which calls
into questions whether or not the results will generalize to other societies.
Cross-cultural studies have documented profound differences in the specific
traits and behaviours representing transformational leadership. Even among
Western societies, there exist various prototypes of leaders and implicit
theories of leadership (CLT), that is, conceptions of what leadership should
entail (Gerstner & Day, 1994; Helmreich & Merrit, 1998; Koopman, Den
Hartog, & Konrad, 1999; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984). Based on an
extensive cross-cultural study, Den Hartog et al. found that many attributes
associated with transformational leadership appeared to be culturally
contingent, including such traits as risk taking, self efficacy, compassion,
sensitivity, and ambitiousness. Attributes such as communicative skills,
trustworthiness, and ability to encourage were universally endorsed as
components of outstanding leadership skills in the study. Contingent
attributes may reflect variation in culturally related values. For instance, in a
culture endorsing an authoritarian style, leader sensitivity might be
interpreted as weak, whereas in a culture endorsing a more nurturing style,
the same sensitivity is likely to prove essential for effective leadership. With
expanding global markets, culturally diverse work teams, and expatriate
work assignments, understanding such similarities and differences in
leadership may prove highly beneficial for effective management (Segalla,
Fischer, & Sandner, 2000).
The major aim of the present study was to gain more knowledge of
characteristics and outcomes associated with transformational leadership in
Norway. Authors have approached the issue of the superiority of
transformational leadership in different cultures both on a theoretical basis
(Bass, 1997b) and empirically (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Koopman et al.,
150 HETLAND AND SANDAL
1999). But to our knowledge, none of the cross-cultural studies addressing
transformational leadership have included data from Norway. Hofstede’s
(1980) theoretical dimensions of culture provide one framework from which
a hypothesis regarding Norwegian leadership can be derived. In an extensive
study involving more than 50 nations, Norway was found to score lowest on
masculinity, suggesting great emphasis is placed upon cooperation and good
working relationships, traditionally seen as feminine values. Norway also
scored low on the power distance dimension, referring to the extent to which
people accept and expect that power be unequally distributed. These results
suggest that transformational leadership in Norway might relate to the
extent to which the manager is perceived as approachable, open minded, and
democratic. In the first part of the study presented in this article, we
examined whether empirical findings of the links between transformational
leadership and positive outcomes would be replicated in Norway. Second,
we explored whether ratings of transformational leadership were related to
the personality traits of managers.
The impact of transformational leadership in affecting outcomes cannot
be gleaned adequately without demonstrating that it contributes unique
variance after considering the effects of other types of leadership. One
could argue that the only real distinction that can be found in leadership
research is the distinction between the presence and absence of active
leadership (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997). Yet, according
to the augmentation hypothesis presented by Bass (1985), transformational
leadership accounts for outcomes after controlling for transactional
leadership. A few studies have directly addressed and supported this
proposition (e.g., Hater & Bass, 1988), but replication in a Norwegian
setting is needed.
To investigate the links between transformational leadership and
personality in this study, data were extracted from scales in the Sixteen
Personality Factors Questionnaire –Fifth edition (16PF5; Russel & Karol,
1994). These scales were: warmth, reasoning, openness to change, and
tension. Selection of these scales was based on their conceptual similarities
with the four components of transformational leadership and in light of
previous research (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2000). Among the scales chosen,
warmth was expected to be the most prominent attribute of transforma-
tional leaders in a Norwegian context, due to the strong cultural emphasis
on nurturing and caring qualities. Implicitly, it was assumed that warmth
would be linked to transformational leadership through the impact on
individualized consideration. Reasoning and openness to change could be
expected to affect the transformational process mainly because they are
related to the ability of the manager to be intellectually stimulating. Change
is also the core concept of transformational theories (Bass, 1997a). Finally,
one would expect a low level of tension to be essential for transformational
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN NORWAY 151
leadership. It is reasonable to expect that high tension reduces the likelihood
of almost all aspects of transformational leadership behaviour, including
risk taking, divergent thinking, and the ability to gain followers’ trust and to
present the future in a positive, compelling, and inspiring way (e.g.,
Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Yukl, 1998).
Evaluations of transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant
leadership as well as outcome measures were obtained from the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1995).
The outcomes measured included evaluations of effectiveness, satisfaction
with the leader, and work motivation. Initially, a principal component
analysis was conducted to examine whether the dimensionality of the
MLQ could be replicated in a Norwegian setting. In many previous
studies, subordinates have provided both the transformational leadership
ratings and the criterion ratings (Hater & Bass, 1988). To overcome
potential biases by same source data, the present study included both
ratings from subordinates and from the manager’s superior. Moreover,
including these different perspectives allows comparison between these
different views, as subordinates and superiors have been thought to cover
different parts of the criterion space (Conway, Lombardo, & Sanders,
2001).
The specific hypotheses of this study were the following:
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership rated by both subordinates
and superiors is related to the outcome variables, and adds to explaining
these variables beyond that of transactional and passive-avoidant
leadership.
Hypothesis 2: Warmth, openness to change, reasoning, and tension
together explain a significant portion of the variance in transformational
leadership.
Hypothesis 3: Warmth, openness to change, and reasoning are positively
related to transformational leadership, whereas tension is negatively
related.
METHOD
Sample
The sample consisted of 100 mid-level Norwegian leaders, of whom 17%
were women. The age of the sample ranged from 27 to 68 years with a mean
of 43 years (SD=9.1). On average they had held their current position for 7
years (SD=4.2). A large portion of the sample, 45%, had higher university
degrees, 34% had lower university degrees, and 18% were educated to a
lower level. The managers were recruited from five different Norwegian
152 HETLAND AND SANDAL
organizations, three public service institutions, and two private production
organizations.
Instruments
Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire. Sixteen Personality Factors
Questionnaire –Fifth edition (16 PF5; Russell & Karol, 1994) consists of 185
items based on Cattell’s theory of personality factors or source traits. The
instrument yields 16 scales, 15 of which are representative of each of these
source traits. The final scale (reasoning) is a measure of general intelligence.
The instrument also includes an impression management (IM) index, which
assesses social desirability. In addition to the primary scales, the 16PF5
contains five global factors of personality constructed by on basis of the 16
scales, but these will not be used in this study. The specific item format
varies across the instrument, but the typical format is a forced-choice
format, with the options of yes, no, cannot say. Four of the sixteen scales
were used in the analysis (see Table 1 for definitions and internal
consistencies).
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire –Form 5X (MLQ 5X; Bass & Avolio, 1995) was used to get
an evaluation of leadership behaviour and outcomes. The MLQ is a
questionnaire containing 45 items describing behaviour, each rated on a 5-
point scale (0= seldom, 4= to a large extent). The present study employed
a Norwegian translation of the MLQ 5X (Form 5x – Short). This translation
was obtained by translating the original questionnaire to Norwegian and
TABLE 1
Definitions of the personality traits from the 16 PF5
Alpha
Factor Left meaning Right meaning US UK Norway
A Warmth More emotionally Attentive and warm .69 .69 .55
distant from people to others
B Reasoning Fewer reasoning items More reasoning items .77 .80 .67
correct correct
Q1 Openness Traditional, values the Open to change, .64 .65 .67
to change familar experimenting
Q2 Tension Relaxed, placid, patient Tense, high energy, .76 .73 .68
impatient, driven
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN NORWAY 153
then back to English by two bilingual translators, in accordance with the
procedure suggested by Berry, Poortinga, Segall, and Dasen (1992). The
behaviour scales in MLQ describe transformational, transactional, and
passive-avoidant leadership, whereas the outcome scales include satisfaction
with the leader, leader effectiveness, and work motivation (extra effort).
Definitions and internal consistencies of the scales are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Dimensions of transformational, transactional, and passive-avoidant leadership
Number Cronbach’s
Leadership Scale definition of items alpha
Transformational leadership
Idealized influence—total The leader instills pride and faith in 8 .84
followers by overcoming obstacles
and confidently expressing
disenchantment with the status quo
Inspirational motivation The leader inspires followers to 4 .75
enthusiastically accept and pursue
challenging goals or a mission or
vision of the future
Individualized consideration The leader communicates personal 4 .76
respect to followers by giving them
specialized attention and by
recognizing each one’s unique needs
Intellectual stimulation The leader articulates new ideas that 4 .81
prompt followers to rethink
conventional practice and thinking
Transactional leadership
Contingent reward The leader provides rewards 4 .70
contingent on performance
Management by exception The leader takes corrective action in 4 .67
(active) anticipation of problems
Passive-avoidant leadership
Management by exception The leader takes corrective action 4 .62
(passive) when problems arise or things do not
go as planned
Laissez faire leadership Avoidance or absence of leadership 4 .71
Outcome variables
Satisfaction Satisfaction with leadership methods 2 .74
and cooperation skills
Effectiveness Leader’s effectiveness in meeting 4 .73
others’ needs, representing colleagues,
effectiveness in leading group or
organization
Work motivation (extra Leader’s ability to motivate others to 3 .85
effort) extra efforts at work
154 HETLAND AND SANDAL
Because the scales constructed to measure aspects of transformational
leadership are highly intercorrelated (all r 4 . 48, M r = .63), a global score
was calculated by summing the scores on these four scales (Cronbach’s
alpha= .87). This procedure has been suggested in other studies (Carless,
1998; Ross & Offerman, 1997). Global scores were also calculated for the
transactional and passive-avoidant leadership behaviours. The global
transactional score included contingent reward and management by
exception-active (Cronbach’s alpha= .78), while passive-avoidant leader-
ship (Cronbach’s alpha= .89), included laissez faire and management by
exception – passive. In early studies, management by exception – passive was
included as a subscale of transactional leadership. Later research suggests
that management by exception – passive should be combined with laissez
faire leadership since these two scales correlate positively with each other
and negatively with all other scales (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass &
Avolio, 2000; Den Hartog et al., 1997). The latter structure, which is applied
in this study, also resulted in a relabelling of the third dimension from laissez
faire to passive-avoidant leadership.
Procedure
The Regional Medical Committee concerning ethical issues and data storage
in Norway approved the study presented in this article. All subjects were
fully informed as to the nature of the investigation and were told their rights,
such as the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and signed a
Declaration of Consent Form providing this information. Prior to the
investigation, the managers were also given a brochure containing
information about the investigation. The project was introduced and
recommended by the top management of the organization. The ques-
tionnaires were distributed to the respondents by mail and they were asked
to return the completed forms directly to the investigators. Managers were
assured that all data collected on them were completely confidential, and
could neither help nor hinder their careers. Managers received feedback on
their own results during a subsequent leadership development training
program. A contact person in the company working in the Human Resource
department selected the subordinates appointed to evaluate the managers.
The participants were informed about which leaders they should
evaluate. One superior and two subordinates were asked to rate the
leadership behaviour of the selected leader. Self-ratings of leadership
behaviour were also collected, but were not used in the analyses. The leaders
also completed the Cattell Sixteen Personality Factors personality measure.
The subordinates were informed that all data given to the managers would
use only mean subordinate ratings, and that their anonymity would be
protected. Unfortunately, not all leaders had a superior, and a few superiors
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN NORWAY 155
were relocated during the period of the study. This resulted in some missing
values among superiors. Otherwise, missing values were replaced by mean
values, and a mean of two subordinates was used in the analyses. All
questionnaires were marked by individual codes to ensure anonymity.
RESULTS
The relative importance of transformational leadership for the outcome
variables was analysed in two parts. First, Pearson product –moment
correlation between the variables included in the study was computed (see
Table 3), then hierarchical regression analyses were performed (see Table 5
and 6). The correlation analyses revealed that all the three leadership
behaviour variables correlated significantly with the outcome variables when
rated by subordinates. Transformational and passive-avoidant leadership
also showed similar significant correlations with the outcome variables when
superiors made the ratings, whereas no significant associations were found
for transactional leadership (Table 3).
Factor structure of the MLQ in Norway
A principal component analysis with varimax rotation (see Table 4) yielded
three factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1. A screeplot before the analysis
supported the factor solutions. Bartlett’s test of spherity was significant, and
the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling was acceptable (5 .89). In
total, the three factors accounted for 78% of the variance. The first factor
explained 59% of the variance and this factor covered all the transforma-
tional leadership scales, as well as contingent reward, which is part of the
transactional scales. Also, consistent with the high correlations reported in
Table 3, the outcome variables scales loaded most strongly on the first
factor. The second factor consisted of laissez faire leadership and manage-
ment by exception – passive, explaining 10% of the variance, and the third
factor, explaining 9% of the variance, consisted of management by
exception – active. Contingent reward also loaded on this factor. Overall,
the factor structure found in this study, replicate the transformational and
passive-avoidant leadership dimensions detected in recent MLQ validation
studies. Still, the high loading of contingent reward on the first factor is
noteworthy, and might be suggestive of problems with discriminant validity
for the transformational and transactional scales.
Inter-rater correlation
As shown in Table 3, the agreement between superiors’ and subordinates’
ratings, calculated by Pearson product –moment correlation, was gen-
156
TABLE 3
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Warmth 15.8 4.2 —
2 Reasoning 12.0 2.4 7.04 —
3 Openness to change 20.8 4.9 .31** 7.06 —
4 Tension 9.8 4.3 .04 .03 .07 —
Subordinates’ ratings
5 Transformational 13.8 1.8 .21* .13 .16 7.20* —
6 Transactional 6.1 0.8 .02 .29** 7.10 7.06 .61** —
7 Passive avoidant 4.5 0.9 7.07 7.08 7.00 .07 7.38** 7.23* —
8 Satisfaction 2.9 0.6 .19 .11 .11 7.21* .76** .39** 7.51** —
9 Effectiveness 2.7 0.5 .17 .12 .13 7.17 .79** .49** 7.41** .84** —
10 Work motivation 2.3 0.6 .22* 7.02 .07 7.18 .74** .44** 7.31** .67** .72** —
Superiors’ ratings
11 Transformational 15.1 1.2 .10 .05 .21* 7.09 .28** .24* 7.19 .19 .30** .21* —
12 Transactional 6.8 0.9 7.03 .11 .02 7.03 .06 .09 7.11 .12 .22* .13 .24* —
13 Passive avoidant 4.0 1.1 7.03 .04 7.05 .07 7.29** 7.27** .14 7 .14 7.23* 7.11 7.55** 7.05 —
14 Satisfaction 3.9 0.4 .22* 7.13 .18 7.09 .25** .26** 7.16 .20* .23* .16 .69** .20* 7.54** —
15 Effectiveness 4.0 0.3 .02 .02 .07 .02 .16 .23* 7.09 .10 .20* .18 .66** .30** 7.51** .61** —
16 Work motivation 3.6 0.4 7.04 .12 .02 7.04 .20* .17 .01 .11 .27* .08 .77* .24* 7.43** .62** .65** —
*p5.05; **p5.01.