Jurnal Sim Ke-4

International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior
Influence of organizational context and followerʼs deposition on the effectiveness of transformational

leadership
Jessie Ho,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jessie Ho, (2016) "Influence of organizational context and followerʼs deposition on the effectiveness of transformational
leadership", International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, Vol. 19 Issue: 3, pp.308-343, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOTB-19-03-2016-B002
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-19-03-2016-B002
Downloaded on: 31 December 2017, At: 23:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 23:30 31 December 2017 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6 times since 2016*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:425905 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BEHAVIOR, 19 (3), 308-343 FALL 2016
INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

AND FOLLOWER’S DEPOSITION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Jessie Ho*
ABSTRACT. Past research on transformational leadership in organizations

has neglected the organizational context in which such leadership is

embedded, and the significance of the disposition of followers. The purpose
of the present study was to enrich and refine transformational leadership
theory by linking it to organizational context and the self-esteem of followers.
It was expected that organizational characteristics and subordinates’ self-
esteem could moderate the effects of transformational leadership behavior
on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Results revealed that only organizational-based self-
esteem (OBSE) significantly moderated the impact of transformational
leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Within-
and-between-analysis procedures (WABA) were used to determine the
appropriate level of data analysis. Research finding suggests that managers
should provide individualized performance feedback for high OBSE
subordinates and spend more time coaching those subordinates with low
OBSE on a one-to-one basis.
INTRODUCTION
Since its inception more than three decades ago,
transformational leadership has received considerable attention in
the leadership literature (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Transformational
leadership is defined as “influencing followers by broadening and
elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to
perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or explicit
------------------
*Jessie Ho, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer, Hong Kong Community College,
Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her research interests include leadership,
self-leadership, work motivation, personality, job satisfaction and cross-
cultural psychology.
Copyright © 2016 by Pracademics Press

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT AND FOLLOWER’S DEPOSITION 309
change agreement” (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002, p.

735).Transformational leaders inspire loyalty, encourage followers to
express their ideas and opinions, and also make followers proud to
be associated with them (Yukl, 1998; Avolio & Bass, 1988). By
building followers’ self-efficacy and self-esteem, such leaders have a
strong, positive influence over time on followers’ motivation and goal
achievement (Yukl, 1998; Hater & Bass, 1988). Empirical studies
have demonstrated that transformational leadership is a valid
determinant of desirable employee outcomes, including task
performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), organizational citizenship

(Organ, Podsakoff, & McKenzie, 2006; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006) and
proactive behavior (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010).
Traditionally, it has been assumed that transformational
leadership is a universal management practice that is equally
applicable to all organizational situations (Shamir & Howell, l999).
Consequently, numerous studies have focused on examining how
transformational leadership influences followers’ behavior (Avolio,
Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Piccolo &
Colquitt, 2006) but less attention has been paid to how context
affects leadership behavior and outcomes (Avolio, Walumbwa, &
Weber, 2009). Porter and McLaughin (2006), having conducted a
comprehensive review of the leadership literature, lamented that
despite significant progress in understanding when transformational
leadership behavior is most effective, “it is apparent that the impact
of the organizational context on leadership is an under-researched
area” (p. 573). In fact, a close relationship between organizational
context and leadership has long been realized by some researchers.
For example, Perrow (1970) claimed that “leadership style is a
dependent variable which depends on something else. The setting or
task is the independent variable” (p. 6).
In addition, issues surrounding the disposition of the followers of
transformational leaders have not been adequately explored (Bono &
Judge, 2003; Yukl, 1999). Clark and Clark (1994) asserted that
leadership acts are social processes that are always carried out by
both leaders and followers to produce exceptional effects. While a
leader’s personality is vital to leadership effectiveness, it is not the
sole determinant. The personalities of followers are equally important
in determining leadership effectiveness. To date, leadership theory
and research have mainly focused on the impact of the leader’s traits
310 HO
and behavior on followers’ attitudes and behavior (Howell & Shamir,

2005). There has been relatively little research examining the role of
follower characteristics in determining the effects of transformational
leadership on work outcomes (Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2008).
In sum, the theory of transformational leadership assumes that it
is equally applicable to all organizational situations. The existing
literature on transformational leadership in organizations has
neglected the effect of organizational context and followers’
dispositions on leadership effectiveness. In particular, little research
has been done to determine whether organizational characteristics

and followers’ personality moderate the relationship between
transformational leadership and follower criteria in Chinese
organizational settings. To address this concern, the purpose of the
present study is to examine whether organizational characteristics
and subordinates’ self-esteem moderate the effects of
transformational leadership behavior on subordinates’ organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) in Hong Kong context. By identifying those organizational and
followers’ characteristics that may substitute or enhance the leader’s
behaviors, leaders in organizations can adapt their transformational
actions accordingly.
This paper also integrates a levels-of-analysis framework into the
development of transformational leadership theory. By analyzing data
through within and between analysis (WABA), the study seeks to
determine whether the moderated processes and associations of
transformational leadership operate at the individual level or the
group level.
In the following session, how followers’ dispositions and
organizational characteristics influence the emergence of
transformational leaders would be discussed. Next, within and
between analysis (WABA), results and discussion of the findings are
also presented. Finally, the managerial implications and directions for
further research are discussed in the final section.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics
Previous researchers (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998)
have suggested that individuals may differ in their reactions to the
same leadership behavior. Yukl (1971) proposed that subordinate

personality characteristics may create subordinate preferences for
leadership. When those preferences are compatible with the leader’s
actual behavior, subordinates are more motivated to perform well
and are more satisfied with and committed to their jobs. It is also
argued that followers’ self-concepts are related to preferences for
leadership, which may in turn influence how followers react to
specific leadership styles (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Ehrhart
and Klein (2001) found that followers who rated higher on self-
esteem were more likely to be drawn to transformational leaders. This

finding suggests that transformational leadership may be more
effective for some followers than for others. However, no previous
studies have examined whether follower self-esteem interacts with
leadership style to influence work-related attitudes and performance.
Self-esteem is a person’s overall evaluation of his or her self-
worth (Rosenberg, 1979). Individuals with high self-esteem tend to
view themselves as “highly capable, significant, successful, and
worthy” (Gardner & Pierce, 1998, p. 51). According to self-consistency
theory, people tend to behave in a manner that is consistent with
their self-concept (Korman, 1970). Shamir et al. (1993) asserted that
followers with high self-esteem are attracted to a transformational
leader who communicates expectations of high performance and
challenges them to take on greater responsibility. Associating with
such a leader would be consistent with followers who view
themselves positively and believe in their own ability to accomplish
challenging goals (Conger, 1989; Shamir et al., 1993). In essence,
transformational leadership may depend in part on the dynamics of
exclusion to ensure both follower commitment and high performance
outcomes (Conger, 1999). The leader may use exclusion from an
“inner circle” to stimulate followers to greater effort and in turn
induce higher performance levels. When followers’ self-concepts
depend on the leader’s approval, followers with high self-esteem are
more motivated to gain inclusion in the “inner circle” through
heightened personal efforts and commitment (Shamir et al., 1993). In
contrast, followers with lower self-esteem may view the
transformational leader as a threat to their view of self, as they may
doubt their ability to live up to their leader’s performance
expectations.
312 HO
In addition to heightened motivation, transformational leadership

has also been demonstrated to enhance employee satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior
(Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroek,
& Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, &
Bachrach, 2000). Given the above discussion, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively related to
followers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership is more likely to be

effective on followers who have high self-esteem than those who
have low self-esteem in promoting subordinates’ job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and OCB. Specifically, increased
levels of self-esteem will strengthen the positive relation between
transformational leadership and organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and OCB.
Organizational Characteristics as Substitutes for Leadership

Another approach of leadership research that is explicitly
designed to advance our understanding of the contextual factors is
Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) Substitutes for Leadership model.
According to the tenets of this model, the key to improving leadership
effectiveness is to identify the situational variables that can either
substitute for, neutralize, or enhance the leader’s ability to influence
his/her subordinates’ performance and attitudes (Farh, Padsakoff, &
Cheng, 1987; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993b).
The substitutes-for-leadership approach assumes that leaders can
create substitutes in their environment to supplement or enhance
their effectiveness (Podsaoff, MacKenzie & Fetter, 1993a). In early
research, Kerr and Jermier (1978) identified several organization
characteristics (organizational formalization; organizational
inflexibility; group cohesiveness and the degree of spatial distance
between supervisors and subordinates) that are potential leadership
substitutes.
Organizational formalization is characterized by explicit plans,
goals, areas of responsibility, guidelines, and ground rules;
organizational inflexibility is characterized by rigid rules and
procedures (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Employees working in those
organizations with high degree of organizational formalization and
inflexibility could follow the standard guidelines, rule or procedures

for problem solving. Thus they are less likely to rely on the
transformational leaders for individualized support or professional
coaching for goal achievement. In contrast, for those dynamic
organizations with low degree of organizational formalization and
inflexibility, employees cannot rely on a set of rules and regulations
for solution when problems arise. In other words, there are no
common methods or procedures to tell the person exactly what to do.
Workers are more likely to be frustrated and discouraged by
temporary setbacks, lack of progress, and ill-structured problems. In

this condition, while creativity is required, transformational leaders’
articulation of visions and group goals and intellectual stimulation for
encouraging innovation and problem solving are expected to have
strong impact on subordinates’ job attitude and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB).
Close-knit, cohesive, interdependent work groups provide
information, guidance, and performance feedback that may
substitute for what a leader might offer. Close-knit, cohesive work
groups can also furnish emotional support, encouragement, and
friendship, and thus reduce the need for individualized support and
intellectual stimulation from the transformational leaders (Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996)
Spatial distance between superior and subordinates is also an
organizational substitute. Bass (1990) noted that when subordinates
work at a great physical distance from their leaders, many leadership
practices have limited usefulness as a result of reduced social
interaction and richness of information transmission (Daft & Lengel,
1984). For example, both charisma and inspirational aspect of
transformation leaders employ non-verbal and verbal cues to
motivate their subordinates (Kirkpatrick & Locke,1996). These
transformational behaviors that are emotional in nature may occur
less frequently when the spatial distance between superior and
subordinates is high.
Despite the fact that Kerr and Jermier (1978) explicitly indicated
that they intended their notion of “substitutes” to be applicable to a
wide variety of different organizational and cultural settings, the
substitutes model has never been applied to the study of
transformational leadership within the context of Chinese culture.
This research is the first study designed to fill this gap and examine
314 HO
whether organizational characteristics may serve as moderators of

the effects of transformational leaders in Hong Kong. Thus:
Hypothesis 3: Organizational characteristics are expected to
moderate the impact of transformational leadership on
subordinates’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
OCB. Specifically, heightened organizational characteristics
weaken the positive relationship between transformational
leadership and organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and
OCB.
Multiple Levels of Analysis

According to Yammarion and Dansereau (2008), it is possible
that the relationships among variables specified in the above
hypotheses may operate at the individual or group levels. In particular,
the level of analysis at which the moderated processes and
associations of transformational leadership may hold has never been
examined in Chinese contexts. However, traditional raw-score
analyses such as correlation and hierarchical multiple regression do
not allow examination of a phenomenon’s “locus/level of analysis”.
Thus, WABA is used to overcome these shortcomings by determining
whether the raw-score bivariate, multivariate, and moderator effects
found in this study should occur within group, between group, both
within and between group (individual level), or neither (Schriesheim,
1995).
In a comprehensive review of the leadership literature,
Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, and Dansereau (2005) concluded that
transformational leadership is primarily conceptualized, measured,
and inferred to hold at the individual level of analysis. Another
objective of this research is to determine whether the relationships
found in this study are consistent with interpretations at the
individual level of analysis.
Using a levels-of-analysis approach in this study results in four
conceptual views of the interaction between a leader and his or her
followers (Avolio & Yammarino, 1990). These four views can be
tested statistically using the procedures of within and between
analysis (WABA) developed by Dansereau, Alutto, and Yammarino
(1984). First, transformational leaders may exhibit a similar style or
behavior toward an entire group of followers (Kerr & Schriesheim,
1974). In other words, leaders’ relationships with followers are
identical within the group but may vary among different leaders (Kerr
& Schriesheim, 1974). This model of leadership–follower interaction
is referred to as the average leadership style (ALS) approach or whole
group model (Dansereau et al., 1984). For example, in terms of the
individualized dimension of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985),
all followers of a particular leader might develop a supportive
relationship with him or her, while all followers of another leader
might have a poor relationship with that leader (Yammarion & Bass,
1990). The effectiveness of transformational leadership may be
based on a whole group ALS approach (Bass & Yammarino, 1988).

Second, the leader may exhibit a different style or behavior
toward each follower within a group (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass,
1985). The nature of each leader–follower relationship differs within
the group and each is managed by the leader relative to the others in
the group. When leaders of other groups act similarly, there is a lack
of differences between groups in leader–follower relationships
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Seers & Graen, 1984). This
approach has been labeled the leader–member exchange (LMX)
approach.
A third perspective on leader–follower relationships can be
termed the individual differences approach. This view asserts that
leaders treat their followers differently and interactions between a
leader and his or her followers depend on how individuals perceive
and interpret their leader’s behavior, independent of group
membership (Eden & Leviation, 1975; Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977).
In this case, each follower perceives his or her leader uniquely, and
there are differences both within and between leaders. Thus leader–
follower interactions are individualized and not group based
(Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994).
A fourth possibility is that the focus for leader–follower
interactions is neither individual nor group based. In this case, no
differences are found within or between leaders. If this case is found,
it suggests that the level of analysis chosen to compare one leader
with another was indeterminate.
316 HO
METHOD
Participants
The participants comprised 150 superior–subordinate dyads in
58 work groups. In an attempt to increase the variability of the
organizational characteristics measures, the respondents were
recruited from 20 companies with varying size (50 to more than 500
employees) representing a wide range of industries (printing,
manufacturing, electronics, governmental agencies, insurance and
health care), departments (e.g., production, accounting, marketing

and personnel), and organizational levels (entry level to Directors).
For the subordinates, 50% were male, 60% were between 18 and 35
years old, and 40% were between 36 and 55 years old; a bachelor
degree was held by 43%, 53% had completed high school and 4%
had completed primary school; the average tenure in the organization
was 8 years; 50% had clerical positions, 23% were junior level
executives, and the remaining 25% were middle level executives.
For the supervisors, 72% were male, 35% were between 18 and
35 years old, and 65% between 36 and 55 years old; 73% had a
bachelor degree, and 27% had completed high school; the average
tenure in the organization was 11 years; 4% had clerical positions,
20% were junior level executives, 53% were middle level executives,
19% were senior level executives, and 3% were directors or CEOs.
The effective response rate was 18% for subordinates and 25%
for superiors. Potential participants were dropped from the analyses if
(1) a subordinate report was provided but a matching superior report
was not; (2) a superior report was provided but a matching
subordinate report was not; and (3) a supervisor was only rated by a
single subordinate. It was a requirement of the study that supervisors
were rated by at least two subordinates, to investigate the group
effect.
Procedures
A complete set of questionnaires (one supervisor questionnaire
and three subordinate questionnaires) were distributed in person to
respondents who were part-time students in diploma or master
degree courses in business management. The respondents were
asked to distribute the questionnaires to either their supervisors or
subordinates. Accompanying each questionnaire was a letter from the
author promising confidentiality, and a pre-addressed stamped

envelope for the questionnaires to be returned directly to the
researcher.
Measures
To pre-validate the measures, the questionnaire items were
translated into Chinese using Brislin’s (1980) translation/back-
translation procedure. Survey items were translated into Chinese by
the author, who is bilingual in Chinese and English, and back-
translation was provided by another bilingual academic. Finally,

another academic examined the original version in English and the
back-translated English version and found no discrepancies.
Predictor Variables
All of the measures of the predictor variables were answered by
the subordinates. They were measured on five-point Likert scales
ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.”
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership behaviors were measured using 27
items from the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) by Bass
(1985). Ten items related to charisma, including sample items:
“Commands respect from everyone in the organization”. Seven items
related to individual consideration, a sample item being: “Makes me
feel we can reach our goals without him/her if we have to.” Seven
items related to inspiration, a sample item being: “He/She inspires
loyalty to the organization.” Three items related to intellectual
stimulation, a sample item being: “Has provided me with new ways of
looking at things which used to be a puzzle for me.” Previous
research has shown that the four dimensions are highly correlated
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004). In this study, the average correlation
coefficient (r) among the four dimensions was .71. Thus, consistent
with previous studies (e.g. Bono & Judge, 2003; Liao & Chuang, 2007;
Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu., 2008), I combined the four dimensions to
form a composite transformational leadership index (α = .95).
Organizational Characteristics
Organizational characteristics as substitutes identified by Kerr
and Jermier (1978) were measured with a reduced version (74 items)
318 HO
of the substitutes-for-leadership scales modified by Podsakoff et al.,

(1993). Four dimensions of organizational characteristics measures
are included: (1) organizational formalization (4 items); (2)
organizational inflexibility (4 items); (3) closely knit, cohesive,
interdependent work groups (4 items); and (4) spatial distance
between superior and subordinate (3 items). Previous research
(Podsakoff et al., 1993a; Podsakoff et al., 1996) has demonstrated
that this scale possesses adequate psychometric properties.
Factor analysis using varimax rotation was performed on the
organizational characteristics items and resulted in four factors.

Factor 1 tapped into the organizational formalization dimension;
factor 2 tapped into spatial distance dimension; factor 3 tapped into
the group cohesiveness dimension; and factor 4 tapped into the
organizational inflexibility dimension. Two organizational inflexibility
items loaded weakly and thus were dropped from this factor. The
reliabilities of organizational formalization, organizational inflexibility,
group cohesiveness and spatial distance are .80, .60, .86 and .75,
respectively.
Self-Esteem
The organizational-based self-esteem (OBSE) concept developed
by Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, and Dunham (1989) was used to
measure the self-esteem of the subordinates. OBSE is defined as the
degree to which an organizational member believes that he or she
can satisfy their personal needs by participating in roles within the
context of an organization. I measured OBSE using eight items.
Sample items included, “I count around here,” and “ I am taken
seriously around here.” The reliability of this scale in this sample was
0.85.
Criterion Variables
Three criterion variables were examined. Two of these criterion
variables—job satisfaction and organizational commitment—were self-
report measures, whereas measures of organizational citizenship
behavior were provided by the supervisors of each of the
respondents.
Job Satisfaction
Subordinates’ satisfaction was assessed by the Job Descriptive
Index (JDI), developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). It was
chosen because the evidence regarding its validity and reliability has
generally been quite favorable (Johnson, Smith, & Tucker, 1982;
Schriesheim & Kinicki, 1982). A 5-point scale was used, ranging from
(1) “very dissatisfied” to (5) “very satisfied.” The reliability of this
scale in this study was 0.77.
Affective Organizational Commitment

Affective commitment was measured with four items chosen from
Meyer and Allen’s (1984) 8-item Affective Commitment Scale (ACS); a
sample item is “I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this
organization.” These four items were chosen based on high loadings
in McGee and Ford’s (1987) factor analysis. A 5-point scale format
was used, ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.”
Overall affective organization commitment was measured by taking
an average of these four items. The reliability of this scale in this
sample was .76
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Employees’ OCB was measured by supervisor ratings. OCB refers
to employees’ behavior that is discretionary in nature and beyond the
level of formal requirements (Organ, 1988). Due to space constraints,
ten items representing five dimensions of OCB (two items for
altruism, two items for courtesy, two items for conscientiousness, two
items for civic virtue, and two items for sportsmanship) were chosen
based on high loadings on these five factors found in Farh, Early, and
Lin’s (1997) factor analysis. A 4-point scale was used, ranging from
(1) “never happens” to (4) “always happens.”
A principle components factor analysis using varimax rotation for
this sample results in the emergence of three factors. All of the
altruism and civic virtue items combined to form Factor 1, which was
labeled Consideration because of its emphasis on helping others or
organizations. The second factor included two sportsmanship items
and one courtesy item that loaded weakly. Thus it was dropped from
this factor. The third factor contained two conscientiousness items.
One courtesy item was eliminated as it loaded on two factors that
were uninterpretable and were subsequently dropped from further
320 HO
analyses. Prior work studying the relationship between

transformational leadership and OCB has always combined various
OCB dimensions (e.g., Blader & Tyler, 2009; Dijke, Cremer, Brebels, &
Quaquebeke, 2015) in order to examine the effects of
transformational leadership and interaction effects on overall OCB. I
therefore created an overall variable of OCB by averaging the mean
scores of consideration, sportsmanship and conscientiousness. The
reliability of this scale in this sample was 0.69.
RESULTS
Validity Issues
Given the relatively small sample size in relation to the
measurement items, item parceling procedures were used to achieve
an adequate sample-size-to-parameter ratio. For the multi-
dimensional constructs (i.e. transformational leadership,
organizational characteristics, and organizational citizenship
behaviors), I averaged items into dimension and treated the different
dimensions as indicators of their corresponding constructs. For the
unidimensional constructs with more than 5 items (i.e., OBSE and job
satisfaction), parcels were created by randomly assigning items from
their respective scales.
Next, prior to testing the hypotheses, the author conducted a
series of confirmatory factor analyses to examine the discriminant
validity of the measures. The hypothesized six-factor model
(transformational leadership, organizational characteristics, OBSE,
job satisfaction, OCB and affective organizational commitment) was
used as the baseline model. Six alternative models were examined
against the baseline six-factor model. As shown in Table 1, this
baseline six-factor model fit the data reasonably well (χ2 (155) = 243,
CFI = .94; GFI = .90; RMSEA = .06), whereas the other alternative
models all exhibited significantly worse fit than the baseline model.
These results justified the examination of transformational leadership,
organizational characteristics, OBSE, job satisfaction, OCB and
affective organizational commitment as distinct constructs.
Table 2 presents the variable means, standard deviations,
coefficient alpha internal consistency reliabilities, and Pearson
product-moment intercorrelations. Transformational leadership was
TABLE 1
Comparison of Measurement Models for Study Variables
Model Description χ2 df ∆ χ2 CFI GFI RMSEA
Baseline Transformational 243 155 .94 .90 .06
model: leadership, organizational
Six factors characteristics, OBSE, job
satisfaction, OCB and
affective organizational
commitment
Model 1: Transformational 314 160 71** .87 .82 .08

Five-factors leadership and
organizational
characteristics were
combined as one factor
Model 2: Transformational
Five factors leadership and OBSE were 465 160 222** .73 .74 .12
Four factors leadership, organizational
characteristics and OBSE
were combined as one
factor
Model 4: OCB, affective 283 164 40* .89 .84 .07
Four factors organizational
commitment and job
satisfaction were
Two factors leadership, organizational
characteristics and OBSE
were combined as one
factor; OCB, affective
organizational
commitment and job
satisfaction were
combined as another
Model 6: All parcels and items were 628 171 385** .60 .67 .14
One factor loaded on a single factor
Note. CFI = comparative fix index; GFI = goodness of fit index; SRMR =
standardized root mean squared residual; RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation.
**p < .01, two-tailed.
322 HO
TABLE 2
Means, SD, Reliabilities and Intercorrelations of Leader Behaviors
and Employee Outcome Variables (N = 150)
Variables M* SB Al* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Transformational
Leadership 3.48 .55 .95
2. Organizational
Formalization 3.18 .78 .80 .17a
3. Organizational
Inflexibility 3.35 .64 .60 .02 .60b

4. Group cohesiveness 3.78 .69 .86 .30b .22b .24b
5. Spatial Distance 2.30 .81 .75 -.21b .26b -.15 -.25b
6. Organization-Based
Self Esteem (OBSE) 3.51 .52 .85 .40b .28b .25b .35b -.23b
7. Job Satisfaction 3.46 .84 .77 .50b .18b .10 .42b -.29b .46b
8. Organizational
Citizenship Behavior 4.21 .48 .69 .00 .15 -.03 -.08 -.07 .17a .07
9. Affective Organiza-
tional Commitment 3.16 .77 .76 .49b .23b .12 .52*
.37b -.28b .47b .47b .09
*
Note: a p ≤ 0.05, b P ≤ 0.01. M* = Means; Al** = Alpha.
significantly related to the three dimensions of organizational

characteristics (organizational formalization, r = .17, p < .01; group
cohesiveness, r = .30, p < .01; spatial distance, r = -.21, p < .01),
OBSE (r = .40, p < .01), job satisfaction (r = .50, p < .01) and affective
organizational commitment (r = .49; p < .01). However, OCB did not
significantly correlate with transformational leadership (r = .00, n.s.).
Furthermore, job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment were positively associated with OBSE (r = .46, p < .01;r
=.47, p < .01), organizational formalization (r = .18, p < .01; r = .23, p
< .01), group cohesiveness (r = .42, p < .01; r = .37, p < .01) and
negatively associated with the spatial distance between the superior
and subordinate (r = -.29, p < .01; r = - .28, p < .01).
Tests of Hypotheses
The data set of this study included a nested structure (i.e., on
average, 2.59 subordinates under one supervisor). As transforma-
tional leadership and four separate dimensions of organizational
characteristics are shared group property, I computed the intra-class
correlation coefficients based on ICC(1) and ICC(2) to justify the
aggregation of individual perceptions of these variables to the focal

leader of analysis (Bliese, 2000). The ICC(1) values of transforma-
tional leadership, organizational formalization, organizational
inflexibility, group cohesiveness, and spatial distance ranged from
0.13 to 0.18, whereas the ICC (2) values ranged from 0.28 to 0.51.
James (1982) recommended a cutoff point of 0.12 for ICC(1) and
Bliese (2000) suggested ICC(2) values of 0.70 or above as a cutoff
point to justify aggregation. Although all ICC(1) values of these five
constructs were slightly greater than the cutoff point of 0.12, most
ICC (2) values were far below the recommended value of 0.7. Taken
together, statistical justifications for aggregation of these five
constructs were not sufficient in this study. Therefore no aggregation
was conducted before running the analysis of regression.
Hypotheses 1–3 were then tested using hierarchical multiple
regression. In the moderated regression procedure, transformational
leader behavior as a predictor variable was entered into the equation
first. Then, the four dimensions of organizational characteristics as
moderators were entered in the second step. Finally, a cross-product
term (transformational leadership × each dimension of organizational
characteristics, e.g. TL x Organizational Formalization) was added to
each regression to assess the unique variance contributed by the
interaction of organizational characteristics and the perceived
transformational leader behavior variable. The same procedures were
repeated for another moderator, organizational-based self-esteem
(OBSE). As shown in Table 3 (step 1), transformational leadership was
positively and significantly related to job satisfaction (β = .50, p < .05)
and affective organizational commitment (β = .49, p < .05), but was
not significantly related to OCB (β = .02, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was
partially supported.
Step 3 in Table 3 displays the results for the TL × OBSE
interaction and TL × four dimensions of organizational characteristics
interactions. Only one interaction term was significant. The
transformational leadership × OBSE interaction was significantly
related to OCB (β = - 1.57, p < 0.05), but not significantly related to
job satisfaction (β = 0.35, p > 0.05), and affective organizational
commitment (β = -.73, p > 0.05). Furthermore, all of the four
dimensions of organizational characteristics did not significantly
moderate the influence of transformational leadership on job
satisfaction, OCB or affective organizational commitment. Therefore,
324 HO
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported and Hypothesis 3 was not

supported.
Follow-up analyses were conducted when a significant ΔR2 value
was obtained for the interaction term. These analyses were
performed by: (1) calculating separate regression equations (Y
values) at values one standard deviation above and below the mean
of the moderator variable, (2) plotting these results graphically to
visualize the nature of the moderating relation, and (3) testing
whether the slopes of two simple regression lines differed
significantly from zero.
TABLE 3
Raw-Score Moderated Regression Results for the Dependent Variable
Step and Independent Unstandardized Partial Regression
Variable Added Coefficient (ß)
Independent Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Δ R2 Total R2
Job Satisfaction (Dependable Variable)
1.Transformational Leadership (TL) .50 .38**.71 .25** .25**
2.Organizational formalization (OF) .03.68 .10** .35**
Organizational inflexibility (OI) -.01-.24
Group cohesiveness (GC) .28** .22
Spatial Distance (SD) -.12.23
3. TL x OF -.86 .01 .35**
TL x OI .30
TL x GC .11
TL x SD -.35
1. Transformational Leadership (TL) .50* 0.37** .16 .25** .25**
2. OBSE 0.31** .11 .08** .33**
3. TL x OBSE .35 .00 .33**
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Δ R2 Total
R2
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Dependable Variable)
1.Transformational Leadership (TL) .02 -.01 .25 .00 .00
2.Organizational formalization (OF) .19 .55 .04 .05
Organizational inflexibility (OI) -.14 .13
Group cohesiveness (GC) -.10 -.38
Spatial Distance (SD) -.11 .04
3. TL x OF -.49 .01 .06
TL x OI -.36
TL x GC .47
TL x SD -.14
Transformational Leadership (TL) .02 - .06 .89 .00 .00
i. OBSE — .20* 1.11* .03* .03*
ii. TL x OBSE — — -1.57* .02* .05*
TABLE 3 (Continued)
Step and Independent Unstandardized Partial Regression
Variable Added Coefficient (ß)
Independent Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Δ R2 Total R2
Affective Organizational Commitment (Dependable Variable)
1.Transformational Leadership (TL) .49** .37** .96 .24** .24**
2.Organizational formalization (OF) .11 .14 .08** .32**
Organizational
inflexibility (OI) -.02 .15
Group cohesive-
ness (GC) .21** .35

Spatial Distance(SD)
3. TL x OF -.12 .56
TL x OI -.04 .01 .33**
TL x GC -.23
TL x SD -.22
-.67
1. Transformational Leadership (TL) .49** .35* .80 0.24** .24**
2. OBSE — .33** .75 0.08** .32**
3. TL x OBSE — — -.73 0.01 .33**
Notes: * p ≤ 0.05.; ** p ≤ 0.01.
Figure 1 presents a graphical plot of the interaction effect. The

influence of transformational leaders in motivating subordinates’ OCB
was more effective on those subordinates who had high OBSE than
on those who had low OBSE. In addition, a test of the regression line
shown in Figure 1 for two subgroups (high vs low OBSE) finds that
both slopes were significantly different from 0 (β = 0.78, p < 0.05 for
the high OBSE group; β = 0.60, p < 0.05 for the low OBSE group).
Level of Analysis
WABA was employed to assess whether the significant main and
moderator effects found in the above analysis could best be viewed
as individual-level, group-level, or null phenomena. There are three
steps in WABA. WABA I is used to determine whether the variation of
each variable is primarily between, within, or both between and within
groups. Within and between Etas are used to assess variation in
variables and their differences are tested with F-tests of statistical
significance and E-tests of practical significance. WABA II is used to
assess each relationship among variables at a particular level to
326 HO
FIGURE 1
Effect of Interaction between
Transformational Leadership and Organizational-Based Self-Esteem
on Organizational Citizenship Behavior
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
BCO
-0.2 OBSE High

-0.4 OBSE Low
-0.6
-0.8
Transformational Leadership
determine whether the co-variation among variables is primarily

between, within, both between and within, or neither between nor
within the groups (Schriesheim, 1995). The total correlation between
two variables is broken down into a between-groups correlation and a
within-groups correlation and their differences are tested with Z-tests
of statistical significance and A-tests of practical significance. In
addition, using t- and R-tests, each between- and within-cell
correlation is tested for statistical and practical significance. Finally,
using the WABA equation (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1990), the results
of the first two steps are combined to draw an overall conclusion from
the data. In particular, the within and between components are
examined to draw an inference about the level of analysis at which
effects operate. (For a complete description of the WABA procedures,
see Dansereau et al., 1984; Schriesheim, 1995.) In WABA analysis,
the results of the first condition, average leadership style, may
indicate that between-group variation or co-variation is more likely to
occur than those of within groups. The leader would display a
consistent style toward the entire group and subordinates’ ratings
within a group about a leader would be similar. In the second

condition, the leader–member exchange approach, WABA test results
may show that within- rather than between-group differences are
more likely to occur. In this case, a leader would portray a different
but interdependent style toward each subordinate. In the third
condition, the individual differences (nongrouped or equivocal)
approach, there is variation or co-variation both within and between
groups. This finding suggests that variation and co-variation exist
between leaders and among the subordinates’ ratings of the same
leader. Thus a leader’s behavior would be perceived as unique to

each subordinate. Under this condition, the total correlation rather
than either the between-groups or within-groups correlation should be
used as the basis for analysis. Finally, under the fourth condition, the
traditional null condition, WABA results may show a lack of systematic
variation or co-variation both within and between groups.
Within-And-Between Analysis I: Variance Results

The variance of the variables in WABA I was examined to
determine whether the variable varied primarily between, within, or
both between and within groups (individual level). Table 4 presents
the WABA I results, which include the composite variables that were
calculated according to the multivariate WABA procedures suggested
by Schriesheim (1995). As shown in Table 4, the between-group etas
of TL, OBSE and OCB were larger than the within-groups etas. All of
the F-tests for these variables were significant. However, none of the
E-tests were statistically significant. Therefore, the between groups
effect was weak. As such, all of the variables were interpreted as
equivocal (individual differences), varying both within and between
groups. These results suggest that individual differences in
subordinates’ perceptions may lead to leadership ratings and
outcome measures (e.g., job satisfaction) independent of their group
membership (Yammarino, Dubinsky, & Spangler, 1998). That is, the
leader’s style would be viewed differently by each follower, and this
pattern would be found across different leaders.
Within-And-Between Analysis II: Co-variance Results

As shown in Table 4, all relationships were clearly nongrouped
(equivocal) because both the A- and Z-tests were not significant
(Yammarino, 1998). This result suggested that the differences
between within-group and between-group correlations were not
328 HO
practically and statistically significant. As such, all of these

relationships did not hold at the group level of analysis. These results
showed that subordinates’ ratings of transformational leadership
measures and outcomes co-varied within and between leaders,
implying that individual differences in the perceptions of the
interactions among leaders and followers were most likely.
Inference of Within-And-Between Analysis Components

When the results of WABA I and II are combined, the key question
is, “Are the results consistent?” Table 4 also presents the

decomposed raw-score correlations and an overall inference. Note
that the within- and between-groups components total the raw score
(individual level) correlation for each relationship. Only one
relationship (TL/job satisfaction) where the components did differ
from one another. However, the results of WABA II indicated that this
relationship was held at the individual level. Based on the evaluative
criteria of Dansereasu et al. (1984), the between-group (TL/job
satisfaction) effects should probably be considered “very weak.” The
remaining three relationships including the moderator effect were
clearly nongrouped, because the within and between components
were not significantly different from one another. In sum, the WABA
results suggested that all main and interaction effects found in the
analysis of hierarchical multiple regression mentioned above were all
operated at the individual level of analysis.
TABLE 4
Results of within and between Groups Analysis (WABA)
WABA I: Variation Source
Variable Eta Ratio Inference
Within Between E Fa
Transformational .65** .74** 1.13 2.06** Between

leadership (TL) (weak)/ ID
Organizational-Based Self .69** .73** 1.06 1.80** Between
Esteem (OBSE) (weak)/ID
Job Satisfaction .74** .68** .92 1.37 IDID
Affective Organizational * ID
.76** .64** 0.84 1.14 ID
commitment
Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB) .54** .83** 1.55+ 3.86** Between
TABLE 4 (Continued)
WABA I: Variation Source
Eta Ratio
Variable Within Between E Fa Inference
WABA II: Covariation Source
Relationship Correlation Ratio
Betwee Inference
Withinb nc A- Test Z-testd
TL and job satisfaction .61**++ .69** .11 .83 ID
TL and affective
organizational commitment .46** .51** .06 .38 ID
Commitment TL and OCB .18* -.07 -.25 -1.47 ID
OCB and TL x OBSE .31+** .18 -.13 -.78 ID
interaction & OCB
WABA Component
Relationship Overall
Within Between Inference
TL and job satisfaction .29 -.34e ID
TL and affective organizational
commitment .23 .24 ID
Commitment TL and OCB .06 -.04 ID
OCB and TL x OBSE .15 .08 ID
Notes: ID = Individual Differences.

a All F-tests with one independent variable have df = 92, 57;
b for k = 1 independent variables, df (t) = 19;

c for k = 1 independent variables, df (t) = 56;
d for k = 1 independent variables, df (Z) = 55, 90;
e between-group component is statistically and practically differ
from within-group component;
A- and Z-tests are used to test for practically and statistically
significance;
+ Significant by the 15º test;
++ Significant by the 30º test;
* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study is to determine the potential
interaction effects that organizational context and followers’
330 HO
disposition have on the relationship between transformational

leadership behavior, followers’ attitudes, and organizational
citizenship behavior. In addition, this study seeks to use WABA
analysis to determine the appropriate level of analysis where such
main and interaction effects would operate.
An examination of the effects of transformational leader behavior,
organizational characteristics, and organizational-based self-esteem
(OBSE) on subordinates’ job attitudes and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) produced a number of interesting findings. First, the
data reported in Table 3 indicated that transformational leadership

only had a main effect on subordinates’ job satisfaction and
organizational commitment; no significant main effect was found for
subordinates’ OCB. According to the WABA analysis, these main
effects operated at the individual level, suggesting that the leader–
follower interactions are individualized, rather than group based.
Thus, subordinates’ ratings about leaders differed both within and
between groups. I can conclude that subordinates of the various
leaders perceive a unique interaction with their leader, independent
of other followers.
These results are compatible with much theoretical and empirical
work on transformational leadership. For example, in terms of
charisma, the qualities of a leader that generate admiration and
respect in some subordinates can breed contempt and distrust in
others (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Likewise, an attempt to inspire
subordinates may be viewed by some as spirited encouragement or
support and by others as nonsense. Thoughts and actions that
stimulate subordinates intellectually are often an individualized
phenomenon tailored to each subordinate. Also, showing
individualized consideration to subordinates often requires focusing
on the uniqueness of each subordinate. Such results suggested that
regardless of situational factors (subordinates’ self-esteem and
organizational characteristics), transformational leaders generate
confidence and inspiration in individual followers rather than in a
group of followers, leading to high job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Yummarion & Dubinsky, 1994).
Moreover, OBSE, although it has no main effect on OCB, can
significantly moderate the impact of transformational leadership
behavior on OCB. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partially supported.
Transformational leadership is more effective on followers who have
high self-esteem than those who have low self-esteem in promoting

subordinates’ OCB, and this moderation effect operated at an
individual level. This result suggested that interactions between a
superior and his or her followers depend on how each individual
perceives and interprets the leader’s behavior or actions,
independent of other followers (Yummarion & Dubinsky, 1994).
Issues surrounding the dispositional character of followers of
transformational leaders have been poorly explored. The moderation
effect identified in the present study merits further discussion.
Subordinates with a high level of perceived organizational-based self-

esteem are more willing to take up challenges. Such behavior
provides the leaders with more scope to offer intellectual stimulation
and expect high performance, which in turn leads to higher levels of
OCB.
In addition, according to Conger (1989) and Shamir and
colleagues (1993), the leader’s expression of high expectations
would also promote a sense of obligation in followers to continually
live up to their leader’s expectations. As this relationship deepens,
the personal approval of the leader becomes a principal measure of a
subordinates’ self-worth in an organization. A dependency then
develops to the point that the leader increasingly defines the
subordinates’ level of performance and ability. Subordinates can only
validate the leader’s trust in them and win their approval through
expending effort beyond the formal job requirements as measured by
OCB.
In contrast, subordinates who have low perceived OBSE may view
the intellectual stimulation and high expectation of their leaders as a
threat rather than a personal challenge and opportunity for growth
(Shamir et al., 1993). Thus, they are less likely to comply with the
leaders’ standard of performance, leading to a failure to meet
expectations. Eden (1992) suggests that the views leaders hold of
subordinates may affect the leaders’ own behavior, which in turn may
shape their subordinates’ performance. Leaders with high
expectations may gear their activities toward facilitating high
performance, which Eden (1992) calls the Pygmalion effect; leaders
with low expectations may do little to facilitate subordinate success.
Due to the lack of affirmation about their achievements, subordinates
are less motivated to perform beyond expectations, leading to lower
subordinate OCB.
332 HO
Organizational Characteristics
The results of the present study provide no support for Hypothesis
3, the moderating effects of the four dimensions of organizational
characteristics on the relationship between transformational leader
behaviors and subordinate criterion variables. These disappointing
results are consistent with the discouraging pattern of findings
reported in other studies (Farh, Padsokoff, & Cheng, 1987; Padsakoff
et al., 1993b). An analysis of power tables (medium effect size; f 2 =
0.15; see Cohen 1988) indicates that the power of this result for both
subordinate criterion variables exceeds 0.95. Therefore, with samples

this large (n = 150), even relatively small effects had a high
probability of being detected, which may lead us to question whether
theoretical substitutes for leadership really do substitute for
leadership in reality.
However, it would be a mistake to conclude from this result that it
is safe to ignore the substitutes when examining the effects of
transformational leader behavior. This is due to the fact that three
dimensions of organizational characteristics (i.e., organizational
formalization, spatial distance between supervisor and subordinate,
and group cohesiveness) are positively correlated with
transformational leader behaviors. It is possible that supervisors
actually have a stronger impact than previously suggested because
they can influence subordinates not only through their behavior, but
also by shaping the context in which the subordinates work (Kerr,
1977; Podsakoff et al., 1993b). This speculation may be particularly
applicable to this research, with data collected from a Chinese
context (Hong Kong).
Based on extensive leadership research conducted on overseas
Chinese (including Hong Kong Chinese), the major forces that
dominate management practice are personalism (Redding, 1993)
and paternalism (Cheng, 1995; Redding, 1993; Westwood & Chan,
1992). Personalism refers to the tendency to use personal criteria
and relationships as a basis for decision-making and action (Farh et
al., 1997). In other words, leaders do not apply universal rules to the
treatment of their employees. Instead, they use the quality of their
relationship as one of the most important bases for their decision-
making. The individual-level effects found by WABA seem to
empirically confirm the existence of personalism in the Hong Kong
workplace. Paternalism refers to a combination of strong discipline
and authority with fatherly benevolence and moral integrity (Farh &
Cheng, 1999). Paternalistic leaders tend to see themselves as “father
figures” of the organization, and treat employees strictly with
authority but at the same time show personal care about employees’
well-being and demonstrate high moral integrity. Westwood’s model
of paternalistic headship (Westwood, 1997) also suggests that
harmony building, along with relationship maintenance, is a
paramount social value in Chinese societies. The head of an
organization will try to eliminate any conflict that exists among
subordinates. This strong concern for group harmony also positively

influences cohesiveness among subordinates.
According to Bass (1997), transformational leadership may be
autocratic and directive or democratic and participative. In Hong
Kong, Chinese transformational leaders can on the one hand
consistently demonstrate highly individualized concerns for
subordinates’ well-being, but on the other hand authoritatively direct
subordinates’ plans and procedures for completing work
assignments. Management is highly centralized and the boss’s
authority is not easily shared or delegated (Redding & Pugh, 1986;
Westwood & Chan, 1992). Consequently, leaders can shape
organizational characteristics by formulating detailed work rules,
guidelines, policies as well as the spatial distance between leader
and followers within an organization. Dorfman et al., (1997) found
that Chinese subordinates prefer a leadership style where the leader
maintains a harmonious considerate relationship with followers while
being directive. Thus, the shaping of organizational characteristics is
accepted as legitimate and appropriate. As these leaders can
influence the organizational characteristics to the extent that they no
longer function as substitutes for leaders, such phenomena may
explain why no interaction effect could be found in this Hong Kong
sample.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The individual-level effects found using WABA confirm that
interactions between a superior and his or her followers depend on
how each individual perceives and interprets the leader’s behavior or
actions, independent of other followers. Thus, a manager who strives
to stimulate subordinates intellectually, or to show individualized
consideration to subordinates, should focus on the uniqueness of
334 HO
each subordinate. Every thought and action should be tailored to

meet individual needs.
The individual-level moderating effect of OBSE between
transformational leadership and OCB found in the present study has
important implications for leadership practice. Managers should
aware that subordinates who have lower self-esteem than others are
less likely to perform OCB. Instead of getting disappointed, these
managers should spend more time coaching these subordinates on a
one-to-one basis to improve these subordinates’ self-esteem.
Managers could prompt subordinates to accept challenging goals,

and encourage them to believe in their abilities to meet expectations.
In addition, to sustain the continuity of OCB in organizations,
managers must provide continuous performance feedback for high
OBSE subordinates. These employees have to rely on their
performance evaluations as confirming evidence that bolsters their
own self view. As such interactions operate at the individual level,
managers should provide individualized performance feedback.
Followers who feel they receive unique and personal attention from
their leaders are more likely to perform OCB in order to meet leaders’
high expectations.
The results of this study showed that organizational
characteristics, in addition to transformational leadership, can
significantly improve job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Managers therefore need to have a better understanding of these
contextual factors that influence subordinates’ organizational
commitment and job satisfaction. Besides providing vision,
consideration, and intellectual stimulation to subordinates, managers
must try to provide detailed work rules, guidelines, policies, and
procedures. To maintain strong cohesiveness among subordinates,
managers must try to eliminate any conflict that exists between them.
Limitations and Future Research

Although the moderation effect of OBSE on the relationship
between transformational leadership behavior and OCB has been
found to operate at the individual level, more empirical research is
needed to examine whether it may operate at a higher level of
analysis. In this study, the sample was small (150 dyads and 58
groups), and the groups tended to be small. Perhaps in larger groups
of subordinates reporting to a common superior, group-level effects

for transformational leadership would be more likely to be displayed.
In addition, Chinese workers tend to prefer their leaders to be
both directive and considerate (Cheng, 1995). Future research could
investigate the relative effectiveness of transformational leadership
and authoritative leadership behavior.
REFERENCES
Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). “Transformational Leadership,

Charisma, and Beyond.” In J.G. Hung, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, &
C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging Leadership Vistas (pp. 29-49).
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. (2009). “Leadership:
Current Theories, Research and Future Directions.” Annual
Review of Psychology, 60: 421–449.
Avolio, B.J., & Yammario, F.J. (1990). “Operationalizing Charismatic
Leadership Using a Level of Analysis Framework.” Leadership
Quarterly, 1(3): 193-208.
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(8): 951–968.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation.
New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1997). “Does the Transactional-transformational
Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries?”
American Psychologist, 52(2): 130-139.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1990). “Developing Transformational
Leadership: 1992 and Beyond.” Journal of European Industrial
Training, 14 (5): 21-27.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (2004). Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire: Manual Leader Form, Rater, and Scoring Key for
MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
336 HO
Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J (1988). Leadership: Dispositional and

Situational (Technical Report No. ONE-TR-1). Arlington, VA: Office
of Nanval Research.
Blader, S., & Tyler, T. (2005). “Organizational Justice: Where Do We
Stand?” In J. Greenberg and J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Justice (pp. 329-354). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bliese, P.D. (2000). “Within-group Agreement, Non-independence, and
Reliability: Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis.” In K.J.

Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New
Directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bas.
Bono, J., & Judge, T. (2003). “Self-concordance at Work: Toward
Understanding the Motivational Effects of Transformational
Leaders.” Academy of Management Journal, 46(5): 554-571.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). “Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and
Written Materials.” In H. C. Triandis and W. W. Lambert (Eds.),
Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349-444).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Cheng, B.S. (1995). Authoritarian Values and Executive Leadership:
The case of Taiwanese Family Enterprises. (Report Prepared for
Taiwan’s National Science Council, in Chinese). Taiwan: National
Taiwan University.
Clark, K.E., & Clark, M.B. (1994). Choosing to Lead. Charlotte, NC: Iron
Gate.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conger, J.A. (1989). The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of
Exceptional Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J.A. (1999). “Charismatic and Transformational Leadership in
Organizations: An Insider’s Perspective on these Developing
Streams of Research.” Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2): 145-169.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in
Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). “Information Richness: A New

Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design.” In
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 191–233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J.A., & Yammarion, F.J. (1984). Theory Testing in
Organizational Behavior: The Variant Approach. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W.J. (1975). “A Vertical Dyad
Linkage Approach to Leadership within Formal Organizations: A

Longitudinal Investigation of the Role-making Process.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1): 46-78.
Dijke, M.V., Cremer, D.D., Brebels, L., & Quaquebeke, N.V. (2015).
“Willing and Able: Action-state Orientation and the Relation
between Procedural Justice and Employee Cooperation.” Journal
of Management, 41(7): 1982-2003.
Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A.
(1997). “Leadership in Western and Asian countries:
Commonalities and Differences in Effective Leadership Processes
across Cultures.” The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3): 233–274.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). “A Meta-Analysis of
Transformational and Transactional leadership Correlates of
Effectiveness and Satisfaction: An update and Extension.” In B. J.
Avolio and F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and
Charismatic Leadership: The road Ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 35-66).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
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 (4): 735–744.
Eden, D. (1992). “Leadership and Expectations: Pygmalion Effects and
Other Self-fulfilling Prophecies in Organizations.” The Leadership
Quarterly, 3 (4): 271–305.
Eden, D., & Leviatan. U. (1975). “Implicit Leadership Theory as a
Determinant of the Factor Structure underlying Supervisory
Behavior Scales.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6): 736-741.
338 HO
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. (2001). “Predicting Follower’s Preference

for Charismatic Leadership: The Influence of Follower Value and
Personality.” Leadership Quarterly, 12(2): 153-179.
Farh, J.L., & Cheng, B.S. (1999). “A Cultural Analysis of Paternalistic
Leadership in Chinese Organizations.” In J.T. Li, A.S.Tsui & E.
Weldon (Eds.), Management and Organizations in China: Current
Issues and Future Research Directions (pp. 84-127). London, UK:
MacMillan.
Farh, J.A., Earley, P.C., & Lin, S.C. (1997). “Impetus for Action: A
Cultural Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Chinese Society.” Administrative Science Quarterly,
42 (3): 521-444.
Farh, J.L., Padsakoff, P.M., & Cheng, B.S. (1987). “Culture-free
Leadership Effectiveness versus Moderators of Leadership
Behavior: An Extension and Test of Kerr and Jermier’s”
Substitutes for Leadership Model in Taiwan.” Journal of
International Business Studies, 18(3): 43-60.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998). “Self-esteem and Self efficacy
Within the Organizational Context.” Group and Organization
Management, 23 (1): 48–70.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.C., & Farh, J.L. (2009). “Employee Learning
Orientation, Transformational Leadership, and Employee
Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-efficacy.”
Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4): 765–778.
Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988). “Supervior’s Evaluations and
Subordinates’ Perceptions of Transformational and Transactional
Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4): 695-702.
Howell, J. N., & Shamir, B. (2005). “The Role of Followers in the
Charismatic Leadership Process: Relationships and their
Consequences.” Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 96-
112.
James, L.R. (1982). “Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual
Agreement.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2): 219–229.
Johnson, S.M., Smith, P.C., & Tucker, S.M. (1982). “Response Format
of the Job Descriptive Index: Assessment of Reliability and Validity
by the Multitrait-multimethod Matrix.” Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67(4): 500-505.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). “Transformational and
Transactional Leadership: A Meta-analytic Test of their Relative
Validity.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5): 755-768.
Kerr S. (1977). “Substitutes for Leadership: Some Implications for
Organizational Design.” Organization and Administrative Science,
8 (1): 135–146.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J.M. (1978). “Substitutes for Leadership: Their
Meaning and Measurement.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 22 (3): 375-403.
Kerr, S., & Schriesheim, C.A. (1974). “Consideration, Initiating
Structure, and Organizational Criteria: An Update of Korman’s
1966 Review.” Personnel Psychology, 27(4): 555-568.
Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1996). “Direct and Indirect Effects of
Three Core Charismatic Leadership Components on Performance
and Attitudes.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1): 36−51.
Korman, A. K. (1970). “Toward a Hypothesis of Work Behavior.” The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 54 (1): 31–41.
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(4): 1006–1119.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
“Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-analytic Review of the MLQ Literature.”
Leadership Quarterly, 7(3): 385-425.
McGee, G.W., & Ford, R.C. (1987). “Two (or More?) Dimensions of
Organizational Commitment: Reexamination of the Affective and
Continuance Commitment Scales.” Journal of Applied Psychology,
72(4): 638-642.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen N.J. (1984). “Testing the Side-bet Theory" of
Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considera-
tions.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3): 372-378.
340 HO
Morgeson, F.P., DeRue, D.S., & Karam, E.P. (2010). “Leadership in

Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership
Structures and Processes.” Journal of Management, 36(1): 5–39.
Organ,D.W.(1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good
Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Piccolo, R.F., & Colquitt, J. (2006). “Transformational Leadership and
Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics”.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2): 327–340.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., & Dunham, R.B. (1989).
“Organization-based Self-esteem: Construct Definition,
Measurement, and Validation.” Academy of Management Journal,
32 (3): 622-648.
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 (2): 259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Fetter, R. (1993a). “Substitutes
for Leadership and the Management of Professionals.”
Leadership Quarterly, 4(1): 1-44
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, B.J., & Bacharach, D.J.
(2000). “Organizatonal Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review of
the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for
Future Research.” Journal of Management, 6: 513-563.
Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.P., MacKenzie, S.B., & Williams, M.L.
(1993b) “Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitue for
Leaderhip? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier’s
Situational Leadership Model.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Process, 54(1): 1-44.
Porter, L.M., & McLaughlin, G.B. (2006). “Leadership and the
Organizational Context: Like the Weather?” The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(6): 559–576.
Redding, S.G. (1993). The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. New York: de
Gruyter.
Redding, S.G., & Pugh, D.S. (1986). “The Formal and the Informal
Japanese and Chinese Organization Structures.” In In S.R. Clegg,
D.C. Dunphy & S.G. Redding (Eds.), The Enterprise and
Management in East Asia (pp. 153-167). Hong Kong: Center for
Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Rush, M.C., Thomas, J.C., & Lord, R.G. (1977). “Implicit Leadership
Theory: A Potential Threat to the Internal Validity of Leader
Behavior Questionnaires.” Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 20(1): 93-110.
Schriesheim, C.A., & Kinicki. (1982). “The Measurement of
Satisfaction by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI): A Review.”
(Working Paper). Las Angeles, CA: University of Southern
California.
Schriesheim, C.A. (1995). “Multivariate and Moderated Within- and
Between-Entity Analysis (WABA) Using Hierarchical Linear Multiple
Regression.” Leadership Quarterly, 6(1): 1-18.
Seers, A., & Graen, G. (1984). “The Dual Attachment Concept: A
Longitudinal Investigation of the Combination of Task
Characteristics and Leader-member Exchange.” Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 33 (3): 283-306.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Authur, M.B. (1993). “The Motivation Effects
of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-concept Based Theory.”
Organization Science, 4(4): 577-594.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J.M. (1999). “Organizational and Contextual
Influences on the Emergence and Effectiveness of Charismatic
Leadership.” Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2): 257-283.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The Measurement of
Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). “How
Transformational Leadership Weaves its Influence on Individual
Job Performance.” Personnel Psychology, 61(4): 793–825.
Westwood, R.I. (1997). “Harmony and Patriarchy: The Cultural Basis
for ‘Paternalistic Headship’ among the Overseas Chinese.”
Organization Studies, 18 (3): 445-80.
342 HO
Westwood, R. I., & Chan, A. (1992). “Headship and Leadership.” In R.I.

Westwood (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: Southeast Asian
Perspectives (pp. 118-143). Hong Kong: Longman.
Yammarino, F.J. (1998). “Multivariate Aspects of the Varient/Waba
Approach: A Discussion and Leadership Illustration.” The
Leadership Quarterly, 9(2): 203–227
Yammarino, F.J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). “Transformational Leadership
and Multiple Level of Analysis.” Human Relations, 43 (10): 975-
995.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). “Multi-level Nature of and
Multi-level Approaches to Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly,
19 (2): 135−141.
Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., & Dansereau, F. (2005).
“Leadership and Levels of Analysis: A State-of-the-Science
Review.” The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (6): 879−919.
Yammarino, F.J., & Dubinsky, A.J. (1990). “Salesperson Performance
and Managerially Controllable Factors: An Investigation of
Individual and Work Group Effects.” Journal of Management, 16
(1): 91-110.
Yammarino, F. J., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1994). “Transformational
Leadership Theory: Using Levels of Analysis to Determine
Boundary Conditions.” Personnel Psychology, 47(4): 787−811.
Yammarino, F. J., Dubinsky, A. J., & Spangler, W. D. (1998).
“Transformational and Contingent Reward Leadership: Individual,
Dyad, and Group Levels of Analysis.” The Leadership Quarterly, 9
(1): 27−54.
Yukl, G. (1971). “Toward a Behavioral Theory of Leadership.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6(4): 414–
440.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations (4th ed.). Englework
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. (1999). “An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership Theories.”
Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2): 285–305.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2008). “Moderating Role of
Follower Characteristics with Transformational Leadership and
Follower Work Engagement.” Group & Organization Management,
34 (5): 590-619.

Jurnal Sim Ke-4

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jurnal Sim Ke-4

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior

Influence of organizational context and followerʼs deposition on the effectiveness of transformational

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

ABSTRACT. Past research on transformational leadership in organizations

has neglected the organizational context in which such leadership is

Copyright © 2016 by Pracademics Press

change agreement” (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002, p.

performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), organizational citizenship

and behavior on followers’ attitudes and behavior (Howell & Shamir,

has been done to determine whether organizational characteristics

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

same leadership behavior. Yukl (1971) proposed that subordinate

esteem were more likely to be drawn to transformational leaders. This

In addition to heightened motivation, transformational leadership

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership is more likely to be

Organizational Characteristics as Substitutes for Leadership

inflexibility could follow the standard guidelines, rule or procedures

temporary setbacks, lack of progress, and ill-structured problems. In

whether organizational characteristics may serve as moderators of

Multiple Levels of Analysis

based on a whole group ALS approach (Bass & Yammarino, 1988).

health care), departments (e.g., production, accounting, marketing

author promising confidentiality, and a pre-addressed stamped

translation was provided by another bilingual academic. Finally,

of the substitutes-for-leadership scales modified by Podsakoff et al.,

organizational characteristics items and resulted in four factors.

Affective Organizational Commitment

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

analyses. Prior work studying the relationship between

Model 1: Transformational 314 160 71** .87 .82 .08

Inflexibility 3.35 .64 .60 .02 .60b

significantly related to the three dimensions of organizational

aggregation of individual perceptions of these variables to the focal

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported and Hypothesis 3 was not

significantly from zero.

ness (GC) .21** .35

Notes: * p ≤ 0.05.; ** p ≤ 0.01.

Figure 1 presents a graphical plot of the interaction effect. The

-0.2 OBSE High

determine whether the co-variation among variables is primarily

within a group about a leader would be similar. In the second

leader. Thus a leader’s behavior would be perceived as unique to

Within-And-Between Analysis I: Variance Results

Within-And-Between Analysis II: Co-variance Results

practically and statistically significant. As such, all of these

Inference of Within-And-Between Analysis Components

is, “Are the results consistent?” Table 4 also presents the

Transformational .65** .74** 1.13 2.06** Between

Notes: ID = Individual Differences.

b for k = 1 independent variables, df (t) = 19;

disposition have on the relationship between transformational

data reported in Table 3 indicated that transformational leadership

high self-esteem than those who have low self-esteem in promoting

Subordinates with a high level of perceived organizational-based self-

subordinate criterion variables exceeds 0.95. Therefore, with samples

subordinates. This strong concern for group harmony also positively

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

each subordinate. Every thought and action should be tailored to

Managers could prompt subordinates to accept challenging goals,

Limitations and Future Research

of subordinates reporting to a common superior, group-level effects

Transformational .65 .74 1.13 2.06** Between