Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.003Get rights and content

Abstract

This study aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational, transactional, and charismatic leadership. More specifically, the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of two instruments, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS), was explored. It was found that transformational and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. Moreover, these leadership styles were divergent from transactional leadership. With regard to criterion validity, subjective (e.g. satisfaction) as well as objective (profit) performance indicators were assessed. Firstly, results indicated that transformational as well as charismatic leadership augmented the impact of transactional leadership on subjective performance. In addition, transformational and charismatic leadership both contribute unique variance to subjective performance, over and above the respective other leadership style. Secondly, transformational leadership had an impact on profit, over and above transactional leadership. This augmentation effect could not be confirmed for charismatic leadership. Furthermore, transformational leadership augmented the impact of both transactional and charismatic leadership on profit. Implications for leadership theory and practice are discussed.

Section snippets

Similarities

Both the MLQ and CKS belong to what has been labeled “neo-charismatic” leadership theories (Antonakis & House, 2002). Fundamental to the theories of Bass (1985) and Conger & Kanungo (1998) is the representation and articulation of a vision by the leader (Sashkin, 2004). As a long-term attempt to change followers' attitudes, self-concepts (House & Shamir, 1993) and motives, this vision is rooted in commonly-held ethics and values (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The ethical foundation of the vision

Leadership styles and performance: The augmentation effect

Several meta-analyses provided evidence for the criterion-related validity of transformational and charismatic leadership (DeGroot et al., 2000, Dumdum et al., 2002, Fuller et al., 1996, Judge and Piccolo, 2004). These two constructs consistently showed a positive impact on both subjective (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996) and objective (Barling et al., 1996, Geyer and Steyrer, 1998) performance criteria. In addition, transactional leadership was positively related to outcome criteria,

Overview of the present study

In combination, we intended to provide insights into both the interrelationship as well as the effects of partially rivaling leadership constructs (Avolio and Yammarino, 2002, Yukl, 1999). More specifically, the present study had three objectives. First, using data from an empirical investigation, we investigated the nomological network of charismatic, transformational, and transactional leadership. We proposed that transformational and charismatic leadership share some attributes, are highly

Participants

Participants were employees in a large public transport company in Germany. From a total of N = 298 employees, 220 responded (response rate = 73.8%). These employees assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader (i.e. supervisor) who led one of the companys' 45 branches. At least two employees reported to their respective leader. The branches are hierarchically nested so that leaders of four hierarchical levels were rated. Seven employees (3.4%) reported to top executives, 37

Subjective measures

The present study included three subjective performance measures. Respondents were asked to rate their Extra Effort (EEF), the Effectiveness of leaders' behavior (EFF), and their Satisfaction (SAT) with the respective leader. These scales ranged from (1) very low to (5) very high and are part of the MLQ-5X (Bass & Avolio, 2000).

Objective measures

The participating transport company had a clearly defined system of evaluating the financial performance of the 45 branches. Prior to each year, the top management

Procedure

The questionnaires were administered to participants during work time; full anonymity was assured. All N = 220 participants filled out both the MLQ (which included the subjective performance criteria) and the CKS. The survey took place during the last 3 months of the same year for which the objective performance measures were collected.

Convergent and divergent analysis

Using correlational analysis, we explored the relationships between transformational (TF), transactional (TA — both measured with the MLQ) and charismatic leadership (as measured by the CKS, CKS-CH). TA is seen as divergent, TF and CKS-CH as convergent leadership styles. Table 3 shows the intercorrelations of constructs (individual level, N = 220).

Leadership style and performance

Table 3 reveals that all of the leadership styles were significantly associated with indicators of subjective performance. Thus, hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were supported by the data. It should be noted that focal leaders' hierarchical level was significantly correlated with transformational and charismatic leadership style as well as the three subjective performance indicators. Thus, higher-level leaders exhibit more of these leadership behaviors which are, in turn, associated with subjective

Augmentation analyses

The results reported above show that transformational and charismatic leadership are highly convergent. However, as already mentioned, the two questionnaires (MLQ and CKS) both measure facets of leadership behavior that are not part of the respective other instrument. Therefore, on the one hand, it was examined if the facets of transformational and charismatic leadership augment transactional leadership and, on the other hand, if they augment each other, i.e. if they explain genuine variance in

Discussion

Although they are often compared and used interchangeably, charismatic (CKS) and transformational (MLQ) leadership have a differential focus on the leadership phenomenon and its outcomes on top of the many components they share. This study provides evidence for convergent validity between transformational (MLQ) and charismatic (CKS) leadership. From the results reported in Table 3, we estimate the shared variance between these constructs to be 78%. While this supports the idea that charismatic

Acknowledgement

The assistance of L.H. Laukamp with data collection is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank D. Liepmann, the senior editor, and three anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

  • (1)

    Research Edition Translation performed by Dr. Jens Rowold on September 25th, 2003. Translated and reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., Redwood City, CA 94061 www.mindgarden.com from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.

References (60)

  • A.E. Rafferty et al.

    Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions

    Leadership Quarterly

    (2004)
  • H.L. Tosi et al.

    CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance

    Leadership Quarterly

    (2004)
  • F.J. Yammarino et al.

    Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation

    Leadership Quarterly

    (1993)
  • F.J. Yammarino et al.

    Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis

    Leadership Quarterly

    (1998)
  • G. Yukl

    An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories

    Leadership Quarterly

    (1999)
  • J. Antonakis et al.

    The full-range leadership theory: The way forward

  • B.J. Avolio

    Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations

    (1999)
  • B.J. Avolio et al.

    Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Manual and sampler set

    (2004)
  • B.J. Avolio et al.

    Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

    Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

    (1999)
  • B.J. Avolio et al.

    Reflections, closing thoughts, and future directions

  • B.J. Avolio et al.

    Identifying common method variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue

    Journal of Management

    (1991)
  • B.J. Avolio et al.

    Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (2004)
  • J. Barling et al.

    Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1996)
  • B.M. Bass

    Leadership and performance beyond expectations

    (1985)
  • B.M. Bass

    Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?

    American Psychologist

    (1997)
  • B.M. Bass

    Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact

    (1998)
  • B.M. Bass et al.

    MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire

    (2000)
  • B.M. Bass et al.

    Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect

    Group & Organization Studies

    (1987)
  • O. Behling et al.

    Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions

    (2000)
  • P. Cohen et al.

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text