Out

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBORDINATES PERCEPTION OF THE
LEADERSHIP STYLE OF IT MANAGERS AND THE SUBORDINATES

PERCEPTIONS OF IT MANAGERS ABILITY TO INSPIRE EXTRA EFFORT,
TO BE EFFECTIVE, AND TO ENHANCE SATISFACTION WITH MANAGEMENT
IN AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT.
By
Thomas M. Bennett
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
The H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University
In partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
2009
UMI Number: 3352391
Copyright 2009 by
Bennett, Thomas M.
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
______________________________________________________________
UMI Microform 3352391

Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBORDINATES PERCEPTION OF THE

LEADERSHIP STYLE OF IT MANAGERS AND THE SUBORDINATES
PERCEPTIONS OF IT MANAGERS ABILITY TO INSPIRE EXTRA EFFORT,
TO BE EFFECTIVE, AND TO ENHANCE SATISFACTION WITH MANAGEMENT
IN AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENT.
By
Thomas M. Bennett
The current study examined the Transformational,

Transactional, and Passive/Avoidant Leadership styles as
defined by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) and how they are
perceived by subordinates in predicting subordinate Extra
Effort, manager Effectiveness, and Satisfaction with
management. One hundred fifty IT professionals from AITP,
Association of Information Technology Professionals, were
administered the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X-Short
form (MLQ 5X-Short). The survey measured all nine full range
leadership variables and results were analyzed using multiple
regression.
Three hypotheses examined the relationship between the

subordinates perception of the leadership style of IT
managers and one of three dependent measures: predicting
subordinate Extra Effort, manager Effectiveness, and
Satisfaction with management. Partial support was found for
all three hypotheses. In the first, Transformational
Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership, but not
Transactional Leadership was able to predict Extra Effort. In
the second, Transformational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership (via a slightly modified reversed form as well as
the two subscales individually), and Passive/Avoidant
Leadership were able to predict management Effectiveness. In
the last, Transformational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership (reversed and subscales), were able to predict
subordinates Satisfaction with their leaders. Most findings
were consistent with existing literature. In addition, this
study also identified several areas of further study.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks and appreciation to Kathy, Andy, Megan, and

Phil for their constant support and encouragement.
Thank you to my committee members, Chair Dr. David L. Morton,

Dr. Robert Preziosi, and Dr. Stephen A. Morreale, for their
guidance, support, patience, and encouragement all along the
way. A special thanks to Dr. Richard Rees who was my chair
initially, but passed away suddenly in early 2008 and to Dr.
Morton who stepped in at a critical time, agreed to become
chair, and guided me the rest of the way.
Thanks and appreciation to Dr. Sharon Kristovich for her

assistance with SPSS, encouragement, and guidance.
Thanks to Past President Mark Gilfand, Executive Director Eric

Hawkinson, and other leaders of the Association of Information
Technology Professionals (AITP) for allowing me to survey
their membership and to learn more about how their membership
views transformational leadership.
Thanks to my friends and classmates Phil Skip Cox, George

Helms, Dianne Daniels, and Roger Montero for their continued
encouragement and support.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES............................................ viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION...................................... 1
Background and Introduction ................................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ....................................... 5
Research Questions ......................................... 6
Hypotheses ................................................. 6
Scope and Limitation of this Study ......................... 7
Assumptions of the Study ................................... 8
Summary .................................................... 8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................. 10
Great-Man Theory .......................................... 10
Trait Theory .............................................. 11
Behavioral Theory ......................................... 15
Western Electric Company - Hawthorne Studies ............ 16
Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan .... 16
White Collar Workers................................... 17
Railroad Workers....................................... 18
Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University .... 20
New Tools and Methods for Research..................... 20
U.S. Naval Submarines.................................. 21
The Managerial Grid ..................................... 22
Participative Leadership ................................ 24
Theory X............................................... 24
Theory Y............................................... 25
Contingency Theory ........................................ 26
Fiedlers Contingency Model ............................. 26
Hersey and Blachards Situational Model ................. 28
Houses Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Model ............ 31
Transformational and Transactional Leadership ............. 34
Theories from Burns and Bass ............................ 34
Transformational Leadership Key Factors ................. 38
Transactional Leadership Key Factors .................... 39
Passive/Avoidant Leadership Key Factors ................. 40
Measuring Outcomes of Different Leadership Styles ....... 40
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - MLQ .............. 41
Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture .. 43
Transformational Leadership and Society ................. 43
Transformational Leadership and Ethics .................. 45
Summary ................................................... 47
CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY................................... 49
Introduction .............................................. 49
Hypotheses ................................................ 49
Sample Population ......................................... 50
The Instrument ............................................ 50
vi
Survey Design ........................................... 50
Content Reliability and Validity ........................ 52
1996 study by Lowe, Kroech, and Sivasubramaniam........ 53
2002 Study by Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio................. 54
2004 Study by Judge and Piccolo........................ 56
Data Collection ........................................... 58
Summary ................................................... 59
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS.......... 60
Introduction .............................................. 60
Data Analysis ............................................. 60
Sample Size ............................................... 61
Demographics .............................................. 61
Scoring Survey Responses .................................. 69
Data Preparation ........................................ 69
Scale and Subscale Calculations ......................... 71
Regression Models ......................................... 75
Transactional Subscale Correlation ...................... 75
Colinearity Between Independent Variables ............... 76
Hypothesis One ............................................ 77
Correlations ............................................ 77
Regression Model I ...................................... 79
Regression Model II ..................................... 81
Hypothesis Two ............................................ 83
Correlations ............................................ 83
Hypothesis Three .......................................... 89
Correlations ............................................ 90
Summary .................................................. 100
Transformational Leadership ............................ 101
Transactional Leadership ............................... 102
Passive/Avoidant Leadership ............................ 103
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS.................................... 104
Overview ................................................. 104
Discussion and Implications for Future Research .......... 105
Transformational Leadership ............................ 105
Passive/Avoidant Leadership ............................ 106
Transactional Leadership ............................... 110
Summary .................................................. 113
APPENDIX A................................................. 115
APPENDIX B................................................. 116
REFERENCES CITED........................................... 117
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................... 135
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Demographic Comparison............................ 66
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent

Variables (n=150)................................ 74
Table 3 Correlations Between Independent Variables (n=150) 77
Table 4 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Transactional and Passive/Avoidant with Extra Effort
(n=150)........................................... 80

Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with
Extra Effort (n=150).............................. 82

Transactional, and Passive/Avoidant with
Effectiveness (n=150)............................. 86

Passive/Avoidant, Two Transactional Subscale
Variables with Effectiveness (n=150).............. 87

Effectiveness (n=150)............................. 88

Transactional, Passive/Avoidant and Satisfaction
(n=150)........................................... 93
Table 10 Regression Coefficients Between Satisfaction &

Transformational, Passive/Avoidant & Two
Transactional Subscale Variables.................. 94

Two Passive/Avoidant Subscales & Two Transactional
Subscales with Satisfaction Variables (n=150)..... 95

Satisfaction (n=150).............................. 97
viii
Transactional (reversed) Management-By-Exception
(active), and Two Passive/Avoidant Subscales with
Satisfaction (n=150)............................. 98
Table 14 Summary of Regression Coefficients Without

Transactional Leadership (reversed) (n=150)...... 101
Table 15 Summary of Regression Coefficients With

Transactional Leadership (reversed) (n=150)...... 101
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Introduction
Since the 1960s and 1970s, the world has seen a
tremendous increase of change. Due to major technological and
social changes, the world has figuratively, gotten smaller,
and has become more complex and inter-related (Friedman,
2005). Today, organizations have to be more flexible, more
nimble and more adept than ever before. Managers must not
only need to be involved in the day-to-day activities of their
company but they must also effectively provide vision that
will lead, inspire, and motivate employees. This vision will
be necessary to help others embrace change, create new
products, improve processes, lower costs, and be more
competitive in a global economy (Friedman, 2005).
The rules have changed. Companies are flattening out
their structure and reducing the number of second and third
level management. National boundaries are declining.
Decisions are being pushed down the chain of command.
Solutions need to be identified sooner. Employees are being
asked to do more then ever before. There has been a paradigm
shift and a new kind of leader is needed (Friedman, 2005;
Avolio, Waldman & Yammarino, 1991).

Transformational Leadership, 2
Leaders need to do more than just manage the day to day
operations. Leaders need to provide leadership that
encourages followers and employees to take on more ownership
of issues and problems, to think out of the box more to solve
business concerns, and to demonstrate self-sacrifice for the
good of the team and company. What kind of leadership is
necessary to help employees transform themselves, to
demonstrate personal sacrifice for the benefit of their
company, and to help their company move forward to the next
level and beyond? This is a critical question for business.
Leadership can determine the success or failure of an
organization and has been an important topic of discussion for
thousands of years.
Burns (1987) and Bass (1985) along with many others
believe that transformational leadership is a key to our
future success. Research has indicated that leadership style
can influence employees willingness to exert Extra Effort,
job Satisfaction, burnout, and productivity (Burns, 1987;
Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Transformational leadership
can positively affect employees willingness to exert Extra
Effort, job Satisfaction, and perception of supervisor
Effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Burns
and Bass have identified a model that focuses on three key
types of leadership: Transformational Leadership,

Transactional Leadership, and Laissez-Faire Leadership (Burns,
1987; Bass, 1985). Through continued research, this model
continues to advance and current researchers have found it
helpful to use the term Passive/Avoidant Leadership instead of
Laissez-Faire Leadership as one of the three types of
leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999).
Transformational Leadership motivates workers and appeals
to followers ideals and moral values. Transformational
leaders inspire others, create vision, and set direction.
This approach would encourage greater commitment, loyalty,
trust, and respect from employees and increase the overall
effectiveness of the organization (Bass, 1985). Transactional
Leadership motivates by appealing to individual desires.
Passive/Avoidant or Laissez-Faire Leadership delays decisions,
is not accountable or responsible to others in achieving
goals, and takes a hands-off approach to management (Bass,
1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Statement of the Problem
Increased globalization has increased business
competition (Friedman, 2005). For a company to be successful
in this new world, each employee must reach their full
potential, add value to the bottom line, and embrace change
quickly.
Informational Technology (IT) is a critical piece of any
businesss operations and strategic planning. Technology is a
competitive advantage as it enhances customer service,
improves and streamlines processes, reduces costs, shortens
the time to get new products to production, and attracts new
customers. A companys IT effort is supported by such IT
professionals as systems analysts, developers, programmers,
technicians, project leaders, etc. These IT professionals
support and maintain current systems. They build new
applications and integrate them with other systems already in
place. Their technical expertise is extremely critical to a
companys success and it can become quickly out-of-date. IT
professionals have a need to continually grow and learn about
new upgrades, new enhancements, and new directions in IT.
Choosing the wrong path in IT can cost millions of dollars and
force a company to fall behind the competition. Technology
has become more complicated and challenging than ever before.
One key element of success for a company is for leaders
to manage and motivate their IT employees to reach their
maximum potential, to be engaged, to embrace change, and to
make good technical decisions. What is the best way for
leaders to manage their IT personnel? How can leaders help
employees deal with stress and burnout? How do IT

professionals want to be motivated? What is important to
them? What is not?
Although there has been a substantial amount of research
done on Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership
and Laissez-Faire Leadership since the 1980s, there has been
limited amount of research conducted in the IT area. Much of
this research has focused more on employee burnout, leadership
styles of IT project managers, and the lack of skills IT
management has to lead people (Kakabadse & Korac-Kakabadse,
2000; Sumner, Bock, & Giamartino, 2006; Hetland, Sandal, &
Backer Johnsen, 2007; Thite, 1999, 2000). It is important to
investigate the perceptions that IT subordinates have of their
managers and to identify the style of leadership under which
IT subordinates perform the best.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the
relationship between the full range of leadership of
Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and
nontransactional Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership
styles of IT managers as perceived by their subordinates and
the subordinates Satisfaction with their IT manager, the
subordinates willingness to exert Extra Effort, and the

subordinates perception of the IT managers Effectiveness as
defined by Bass (1985) and Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999).
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide the research
on the full range of leadership as described by Bass (1985).
1. Is there a significant relationship between the
managers and subordinates perceptions of IT managers to
inspire extra effort?
managers and subordinates perceptions of IT manager
effectiveness?
managers and subordinates perceptions of IT managers to
enhance subordinate satisfaction with their manager?
Hypotheses
This study focused on the full range of leadership that
includes Transformational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership
and the following hypotheses:

1. There is a relationship between the subordinates
perception of the leadership style of IT managers and the
subordinates perception of IT managers to inspire extra
effort.
perception of the leadership style of the IT manager and
the subordinates perception of IT manager effectiveness.
subordinates perception of IT managers ability to
enhance subordinate satisfaction with their manager.
Scope and Limitation of this Study
This study was limited to people in the IT industry that
utilize the membership of the Association of the Information
Technology Professionals (AITP). This was not a situation
whereby participants were chosen in a random fashion; all
members within AITP were invited to participate.
AITP is a national organization with a membership of over
3,000 people and consists of project managers, analysts,
programmers, supervisory, managers, directors, marketing and
sales, consultants, and academia. This survey will help
researchers identify leadership trends in relation to Extra

Effort, manager Effectiveness, and Satisfaction of their
subordinates.
Assumptions of the Study
This study was based on several assumptions. First, it
was assumed that Transformational Leadership was applicable to
the study of IT professionals. It was assumed that the
Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire or
Passive/Avoidant Leadership factors as well as the outcomes of
Extra Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness were able to
measure the performance of IT professionals. The third
assumption was that the MLQ 5-X survey was able to measure
Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire or
Passive/Avoidant Leadership behavior in the IT industry.
Fourth, IT professionals that responded were able to evaluate
fairly, honestly, and objectively the skills of their leaders.
Finally, this study assumed that the respondents of AITP were
representative of the IT population as a whole.
Summary
Chapter I provided the background and introduction of
Transformational Leadership. It focused briefly on the need
for leaders to engage employees to become better problem
solvers, to think beyond themselves, and to embrace change.

The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the full
range of leadership and the relationship between the
Transformational, Transactional, and nontransactional Laissez-
Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership styles of IT managers as
perceived by subordinates Satisfaction with their IT manager,
willingness to exert Extra Effort, and perception of IT
manager Effectiveness. Research questions and hypotheses were
briefly explained. The rest of Chapter I focused on the
scope, limitations, and assumptions of this study.
Moving forward, Chapter II provides a literature review
going back to the early 1900s of the various management and
leadership theories that have effected the development of
transformational leadership. Chapter III provides the
methodology by which the survey will be created, distributed,
gathered, and analyzed. It also included substantial evidence
for the reliability and validity of the MLQ 5-X survey
instrument. Chapter 4 includes the analysis and review of the
data. Finally, Chapter 5 contains a summary of what had
occurred, conclusions drawn from the data, and possible
alternatives for future research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
As our world becomes more complex and more intertwined,
the need for effective leadership has become ever more
critical and challenging for an organizations future success.
Thousands of research studies, books, presentations have been
conducted, written, and presented since the early 1900s in an
effort to better define and understand effective leadership
and its relationship to motivating others to greater
productivity. This review focused on five of the main
organizational leadership theories that have developed over
time. These theories are the great-man theory, trait theory,
behavioral theory, contingency theory, and the most recently,
transformational leadership theory.
Great-Man Theory
In the early 1900s, Great-Man theories were popular and
focused on great leaders that helped to change and shape the
course of world events. These theories focused on such great
leaders as Moses, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and
Winston Churchill and attempted to explain leadership based on
inheritance. The belief was that leaders were born, not made.
Leaders like these possessed specific traits or
characteristics that enabled them to stand out from others, to

attract the necessary followers, to set direction, and to be
strong leaders in their time. These theories evolved and were
the natural forerunners to Trait theory (Bass, 1990;
Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991).
Trait Theory
Trait theory focused on identifying superior and specific
traits or characteristics of effective leaders and much of
this work was developed in the first half of the 1900s.
Stogdill (1948) surveyed over 100 studies that conducted trait
theory research from the 1920s to the late 1940s. In his
survey, Stogdill noted several different research methods had
been used including: observation, case study, interview,
standardized testing that focused on intelligence and or
personality, as well as factor analysis. He found research
that had looked at all ages, pre-school through adult.
Several different characteristics were analyzed and studied,
including: chronological age, height, weight, physique,
energy, health, appearance, ability to speak and influence,
intelligence, knowledge, judgment and decision, insight,
originality, adaptability, introversion/extroversion,
dominance, initiative, persistence, responsibility, integrity,
self-confidence, mood control, emotional control, social and
economic status, social skills, and popularity.

The results of Stogdills survey concluded that no traits
were consistently identified that could separate followers
from leaders. Fifteen or more of the studies supported the
concept that the average leader had higher intelligence,
scholarship, and dependability than the average member of
their group. Stogdill also found the highest correlations to
be between leadership and originality, popularity, and
sociability. There was some low positive correlation between
leadership and age, height, weight, and energy (Stogdill,
1948). Perhaps one of the most interesting findings was that
Stogdill noted that an individual might be a leader in one
situation but not in another (Stogdill, 1948).
Mann (1959) followed Stogdills study and looked at
leadership in small group settings. In his research of
studies from 1900 to 1957, Mann identified over 500 different
measures of personality. From these, he identified seven
major dimensions including intelligence, adjustment,
extroversion-introversion, dominance, masculinity-femininity,
conservatism, and interpersonal sensitivity and compared
results of these with leadership. In his research, Mann found
that several studies had identified a highly significant
relationship between leadership and intelligence, adjustment,
and extroversion. Multiple times, dominance, masculinity, and
interpersonal sensitivity were also positively related to

leadership. There was also some evidence that the technique
used for measuring leadership may have impacted the results.
Mann believed there also may be a situational element with
leadership as well. However, Mann did not identify traits or
characteristics that were universal in all studies.
Several years later, Stogdill (1974) commented that it
was difficult to identify specific traits because traits act
in combination to effect group performance. Different
situations may require different combinations of traits to
effect group productivity. Fieldler (1967) noted that there
is very limited ability to predict who will be the leaders
based on traits alone. Vroom (1976) noted that there is not
one trait that could be used for selecting leaders for every
situation. The concept is more complex than that and
leadership may be more situational in nature. In addition,
other studies such as Chaffee (1989) and Kenny and Zaccaro
(1983) have not been able to identify specific traits that
separate leaders from followers.
However, Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) go further to argue
that this does not mean that specific traits dont exist. The
real problem is inadequate research measurement strategies.
Instead, they recommended further development of better tools
to measure traits more accurately. Lord, De Vader, and George
(1985) and Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) argued that traits do

make a difference and there is plenty of evidence to support
that claim. Lord et al. (1985) believed that the studies
completed by Stogdill and Mann were erroneous in a variety of
ways and therefore created wrong conclusions. Results were
over generalized and were interpreted too negatively. Better
methodology exists today that would provide better results.
Other studies have supported trait theory by identifying
specific key leadership traits or characteristics (Kilpatrick
& Locke, 1991; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; & Boyatzis, 1982).
Kilpatrick and Locke (1991) identified six traits or
characteristics; drive, leadership motivation, honesty and
integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge
of the business. Kouzes and Posner (1993) identified four key
characteristics: being honest, forward-looking, inspiring, and
competent. Boyatzis (1982) identified a different set of four
key characteristics: self-confidence, use of oral
presentations, logical thought, and conceptualization.
Although trait theory research and debate will continue, it
has also helped to move leadership theory in a logical
progression from a study of leadership traits to one of
leadership behaviors.
Behavioral Theory
Research on leadership behaviors began in the late 1920s
and focused on identifying behaviors of effective leaders.
What do managers and leaders do and how do they make
decisions? The list of normal activities can be lengthy and
the decision making process can be very formal. Most managers
are responsible for planning, staffing, directing,
coordinating, controlling, and leading. In reality, many
times, management activities are reactive, unorganized, and
hectic. Decisions are often made with a limited amount of
information (Cribbin, 1972; Tosi & Carroll, 1976; Mintzberg,
1973; Isenberg, 1984; Mintzberg & McHugh, 1985; Schweiger,
Anderson, & Locke, 1985; Cohen & March, 1986; Kouzes & Posner,
1987).
Many leadership studies were conducted and theories were
developed over the next thirty to fifty years. Some of the
key efforts included the study done by Western Electric
Company and Mayo, multiple concepts and theories put forth by
the University of Michigan as well as Ohio State University,
the Managerial Grid model by Blake and Mouton, participative
leadership with Theory X and Theory Y by McGregor, and a host
of others.
Western Electric Company - Hawthorne Studies
From 1927 to 1932, a select group of operators at the
Western Electric Company were asked to produce relays under a
variety of conditions. No matter how the conditions changed,
production improved. After an investigation by several
researchers, including Elton Mayo, it was determined that
there was a link between supervision, morale, and
productivity. Supervisors had become more open with the
workers. They demonstrated more willingness to listen and
showed more concern with the workers about their lives outside
of work. Their behavior positively influenced the results and
helped to create an informal social group that supported
teamwork and productivity (Mayo, 1933). This study, better
known as the Hawthorne Studies, helped lead the way for the
human relations movement.
Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan
Several studies have been conducted at the Survey
Research Center at the University of Michigan and have often
focused on five dimensions of managements Effectiveness: the
uniqueness of the managers role, employee-centered versus the
production-centered manager, level of giving direction,
relationship with the team, and the type of leadership the
manager experiences with their superior (Cribbin, 1972).

Through these efforts, a variety of management systems were
reviewed (Likert, 1967). Two leadership research studies
often discussed in literature were completed in the 1940s.
The first focused on white collar workers and the second
focused on railroad workers.
White Collar Workers
In 1947, the Survey Research Center conducted a study led
by Katz, MacCoby, and Morse that focused on employee
Satisfaction and productivity of white collar workers (Katz,
MacCoby, & Morse, 1950; Morse, 1953). The survey focused on
high producing and low producing clerical work groups within a
large organization. Over 800 employees, workers, first line
supervisors, and second line supervisors, were surveyed. Over
80% of those surveyed were female. Over 95% were American
born. Interestingly, they noted that over 75% of those
interviewed were not married and 66% lived at home.
There were a few limitations noted in this study. The
employees surveyed were not taken from a true random sample.
In addition, research was conducted through a series of
interviews and research questions but without front line
observations.
This study focused on the following supervisory
behavioral traits: closeness of supervision, degree of

authority delegated to employees, degree of pressure imposed
on subordinates, approach to employees, freedom of conduct
permitted to employees, and warm versus cold personality (Katz
et al., 1950; Morse, 1953). Results identified two main types
of supervisors. The first type would apply general
supervisory practices with employees. They would delegate
work and authority to employees, be less harsh when providing
punishment, consider workers as human beings, and demonstrate
a warm personality in the workplace. The second type of
supervisor provided closer supervision, delegated less work,
focused more on the tasks at hand, and demonstrated a colder
personality. In addition, results identified a trend that
when employees worked for supervisors that demonstrated
general supervisory practices, they felt stronger team
identification and demonstrated higher productivity. Again,
this was only a trend because some situations were noted where
close supervision also produced higher productivity (Katz et
al., 1950; Morse, 1953).
Railroad Workers
In 1948 and 1949, the Survey Research Center conducted a
study on railroad foremen and workers of the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad in Michigan. The study attempted to measure
differences between foremen that worked in high performing

groups of workers and other foremen that worked in low
performing groups. Specifically, the study focused on the
relationship between attitudes and behavior as well as the
relationship between productivity and morale (Katz, MacCoby,
Gurin, & Floor, 1951).
From the study, it appeared that foremen in high
performing groups had slightly more education and more
experience but differences in age, birthplace, and length of
service on the railroad were not significant. Survey results
indicated that foremen of high performing groups spent more
time supervising, planning, and leading while spending less
time doing the same job as their workers. Workers in high
performing groups believed that their foreman took more
personal interest in them, took more interest in their
training and development, were less punitive when things went
wrong, and were more people oriented than their counterparts
(Katz et al., 1951).
Researchers identified a few limitations of this study.
Research was gathered through interviews with both foremen and
workers rather than through direct observations. This raised
a concern because foremen and workers could say in the
interview they responded a certain way in a specific situation
when, in reality, they might do something quite different.
Secondly, it was difficult for researchers and foremen to

identify the high performers individually. The necessary data
to do this was not available (Katz et al., 1951).
Bureau of Business Research at Ohio State University
The Ohio State Leadership Studies began a ten year
program in 1945, organized to develop a better understanding
of leadership. Hundreds of leadership studies were conducted
in business, education, and in the military and focused in a
variety of ways on Satisfaction, morale and performance
(Stogdill & Shartle, 1955; Scott, 1956; Campbell, 1956; Kerr &
Schriesheim, 1974; Korman, 1966; Cribbins, 1972). Cribbins
(1972) noted the Ohio State Leadership Studies identified two
key variables: consideration and initiation of structure.
Stogdill and Shartle (1955) summarized results from several
studies that identified new tools and methods for research.
Campbell (1956) conducted a leadership study on U.S. naval
submarines and is one of many conducted by the Ohio State
Leadership Studies. Both of these are described below.
New Tools and Methods for Research
Stogdill and Shartle (1955) identified seven methods that
could be used to study any type of organization with work to
complete. They wanted to measure what leaders do as well as
specific aspects of the organization. These methods included

conducting interviews, reviewing organization charts and
manuals, measuring preference relationships and sociometric
methods, measuring the responsibility, authority, and
delegation of leaders (RAD scales), conducting administrative
performance reviews (work analysis forms), identifying leader
behaviors (leader behavior descriptions), and Effectiveness
ratings. Stogdill and Shartle (1955) also documented the
reliability and validity of each method.
U.S. Naval Submarines
In the early 1950s, Campbell conducted leadership
research on officers and enlisted men serving on ten U.S.
naval submarines. Using a variety of data sources and
surveys, researchers focused part of their study on the
following leadership behaviors: communication up, recognition,
organization, initiation, membership, communication down,
integration, production, representation, and non-domination.
Results indicated that subordinates viewed leaders at any
level that stressed production as more unpopular. Non-
dominating leaders positively affected crew morale. Crew
members preferred leaders that were high on integration,
communication down, initiation, recognition, and organization.
The best leaders were especially high on integration and
recognition (Campbell, 1956).

The Managerial Grid
Blake and Mouton (1964) focused on managements attitudes
and practices. They broke that down into concern for people
and concern for production, or getting the work done. To help
measure the relationship between these two factors and how
they effect managements behavior, Blake and Mouton created a
9 X 9 table. Managements concern for production was placed
on the horizontal axis. Managements concern for people was
placed on the vertical axis. Several theories can be
demonstrated by using this table and varying the different
levels of concern and production. However, Blake and Mouton
focused primarily on five theories, one in each corner of this
table and the fifth in the middle. They believe these
theories are commonly demonstrated in a wide range of
organizations and cultures. These leadership theories are:
1. Grid 1,1 Impoverished Management - Management has both
a low concern for production and people. In this
situation, little is expected by the manager and little
is given.
2. Grid 9,1 Task Management - Management has a high
concern for production and a low concern for people. In
this scenario, management can be seen as a task master

and only focused on efficiency and getting the work done.
Blake and Mouton ties this to entrepreneurship.
3. Grid 5,5 Dampened Pendulum Management - Management has
an intermediate concern for production and a moderate
concern for employees. Issues are resolved through
compromise and persuasive logic. For the most part,
people are satisfied in these conditions.
4. Grid 1,9 Country Club Management - Management has a
high concern for people and a low concern for production.
In this setting, people come first. Managements focus
is on the security, well-being, and the comfort of the
employees. They focus on praise and on the positive
things the team is accomplishing.
5. Grid 9,9 Team Management - Management has both a high
concern for people and production. Unlike the other four
approaches, management does not see a conflict between
getting the work done and concern for the people. Each
benefits the other. In this case, management is focused
on encouraging creativity, high productivity, high
morale, accomplishment, and contribution. People and
production are tied together (Blake & Mouton, 1964).
Of these five, Blake and Mouton (1964, 1981) and Cribbins
(1972) recommended the Grid 9,9 management style as the best
to use.
Participative Leadership
Participative leadership is part of behavior theory and
has been documented in several studies (Cotton, Vollrath,
Froggati, Longneck-Hall, & Jennings, 1988; Miller & Monge,
1986; Wagner & Gooding, 1987.) These studies support the idea
that participation is multidimensional and its effect on
employee Satisfaction and performance has been inconsistent.
Theory X and Theory Y are two of the prevalent theories and
have helped to focus on two different approaches management
take with their employees (McGregor, 1960).
Theory X
McGregor (1960) was the key person in developing Theory X
and Theory Y. Theory X suggested that people must be coerced
and threatened to work. People do not like to work. They
wish to avoid responsibility and prefer to be told what to do
rather than think for themselves. Based on this approach,
management would have to provide closer detailed supervision
and focus on control. However, McGregor also believed that
Theory X over simplified employee motivation. Needs change.
As one need for a person is satisfied, another is raised, and
in turn, the person must then work to satisfy that need. This
effort never ends. Examples of needs include the need for

food, for shelter, for safety, for sex, for self-esteem and
acceptance, and for love. Both McGregor (1960) and Maslow
(1954) focused on the different levels of needs and how they
related to motivation and Satisfaction. Malsow (1954) looked
at the individual as a complex whole. Although McGregor was
encouraging use of Theory Y, some authors have pointed out
there is still a need for Theory X managers for some employees
respond better in those situations (Bobic & Davis, 2003;
Harter, 1997; Meeker, 1982).
Theory Y
McGregor (1960) wanted management to move toward Theory
Y, a model that was more encouraging and humanitarian in
nature. Under the right conditions, people would seek
responsibility and work would be more satisfying. The threat
of punishment was not the only way to motivate. Employees
have ambition. They have a desire to be creative and to add
meaning to their lives. Theory Y stresses focusing on these
desires and notes that both the needs of the employees and the
organization must be recognized and acknowledged.
Organizations will be most successful when employee goals and
organization goals are integrated, aligned together, and in
the same direction (McGregor, 1960; Carson, 2005). Although
many managers voice support for Theory Y, management still too

often acts with Theory X in mind (Halal, 1981). Despite this
concern, these two theories have heavily influenced
managements approach to controlling employee behavior today.
Behavior models and theory have helped to reveal more
about leadership, management, and motivation. Yet, research
has not been able to identify leadership traits or behaviors
that were consistently appropriate to use in every situation.
Some research has gone further to suggest that different
situations may require different leadership styles and
approaches. This concept has led to a major shift in thinking
and to contingency theory.
Contingency Theory
The four most prevalent contingency models of leadership
include Fiedlers contingency model, Hersey and Blachards
situational model, Houses path-goal model, and the leader-
participation model.
Fiedlers Contingency Model
Fiedlers theory was developed in the 1950s and 1960s and
was viewed as a complement the Michigan and Ohio State studies
(Cribbins, 1972). Hundreds of articles and book chapters have
been written in support and several studies have validated
Fiedlers theory (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984;

Fiedler, 1987). The theory is based on the concept that very
few leaders are successful in all situations. Situations will
change but a leaders style typically does not change, except
perhaps gradually over time. Fiedler believes the key for a
leaders success is to find the right match between a leaders
style and the situation (Fiedler, 1967, 1987). Cribbins
(1972) goes on to say it is easier to fit the situation to the
manager than to change the manager.
Fiedler looked at leaders as having primarily one of two
styles, task-oriented or relationship oriented. Success will
depend on both a leaders typical style and situational
control. Situational control is the amount of control and
influence a leader has in a situation and can be subdivided
into leader member relations, task structure, and position
power (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984; Fiedler, 1987).
Fiedler developed a survey to determine leadership style.
The survey requests the user to identify the Least Preferred
Coworker (LPC) the user has ever worked with and then to work
through a series of choices to determine a score. If the
overall score was 73 or higher, the user had a high LPC and
was considered a relationship-motivated leader. If the score
was 64 or lower, the user had a low LPC and was considered a
task-motivated leader (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984).

In low control situations, high LPC leaders seek group
support and may become so concerned about group support that
they fail to get the job done. In high control situations,
high LPC leaders may become board, look to get more into the
details, and come across bossy (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler &
Chemers, 1984; Fiedler, 1987).
In low control situations, low LPC leaders focus on the
job. They are not that concerned about what others think and
may seem harsh in completing tasks. In high control
situations and when low LPC leaders are confident the work
will get done, low LPC leaders are more relaxed and more
friendly (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984; Fiedler,
1987).
In summary, no research on Fiedlers theory has yet
indicated that there is one best leadership style. In
addition, Fiedlers work indicates that task motivated leaders
are most effective in high control or low control situations.
Relationship motivated leaders are most effective in moderate
control situations (Fiedler, 1967; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984;
Fiedler, 1987).
Hersey and Blachards Situational Model
Hersey and Blanchards work built upon Michigan and Ohio
State studies (Cribbins, 1972) as well as on research

conducted by W. J. Reddin and others (Reddin, 1967; Reddin &
Stuart-Kotze, 1973; Veechio, 1987; Blake & Mouton, 1964, 1981;
Bass, 1990). This theory focused primarily on the
relationship between tasks and relationships as well as
readiness (originally identified as maturity). Using these
variables, Hersey and Blanchard identified four different
leadership styles, one of which would be the most appropriate
to use based on the specific situation. The four styles are:
telling or directing, persuading or coaching, participating or
supporting, and delegating (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1996;
Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996).
Hersey and Blanchard related the different styles of
leadership to the different growth phases of a child. At
first, the relationship between parent and child is high task
low relationship. The parent provides the structure to
feed, to clothe, to bathe, and to take care of all of the
childs needs. The leadership style used is telling or
directing. As the child grows and develops, the relationship
changes and becomes more high task high relationship. The
child matures and gains trust from the parent. In this
situation, the leadership style changed to persuading or
coaching. In the third situation, the child goes to college
and takes on more responsibility and accountability in meeting
personal and emotional needs. As a result, the parent child

relationship is more low task high relationship and the
leadership style changed to participating or supporting.
Finally, as the child begins to make their own living, the
structure and support by the parent decreases and the
relationship has changed to low task low relationships and
the leadership style is delegating. Both in working with a
child or with an employee, these changes are gradual and must
evolve from one phase to the next. Yet, it is not as much
about leadership as it is focusing on and meeting employees
needs (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1996; Hersey, Blanchard, &
Johnson, 1996).
Although this theory is widely known and accepted, there
have been detractors and limited research conducted to support
this theory (Veechio, 1987). Graeff (1983) noted several
weaknesses of the model as well as with the leader
Effectiveness and adaptability description instrument.
Veechio (1987) noted that Hersey and Blanchard tried to tie
their theory back to several earlier theories but noted that
still does not validate their model. Yet, Veechio (1987)
provided at least partial support in a study that focused on
303 teachers in 14 high schools.
Hambleton and Gumpert (1982) conducted a survey of 159
managers of an unspecified company. Study results supported
the validity of the model and indicated that managers that

applied the theory appropriately performed significantly
better and employee job performance increased. Although this
study looked promising, more needs to be done before findings
can be generalized. The manager sample was not representative
of the entire company and much of the data was gathered
through self-reported surveys (Hambleton & Gumpert, 1982).
Houses Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Model
This theory is based on the expectancy theory of
motivation discussed by Vroom (1982). House and Mitchell
(1974) noted that the Path-Goal theory of leadership is
similar to other contingency theories in that it helps define
different leadership styles but it also goes further to
explain why a specific leadership style is most effective.
The basic focus of this model is on how the leader influences
employee perceptions on their goals and the path on how to
achieve these goals. A leader motivates, clear obstacles, and
helps employees to achieve their goals. Employees are
motivated and energized if they believe their work helps lead
to achieving their goals (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House &
Mitchell, 1974; Mitchell, 1974).
In this model, there are four leader behaviors, two
contingency factors, and three subordinate attitudes and
behavior. The four leader behaviors are directive,

supportive, achievement-oriented, and participative. The
contingency factors include both subordinate characteristics
and environmental factors. The subordinate characteristics
include authoritarianism, locus of control, and ability and
they influence personal perceptions. The environmental
factors include: task, formal authority system, and primary
work group which influences constraints and rewards. The
three subordinate attitudes and behaviors include: job
Satisfaction which leads to rewards, acceptance of leader
which leads to rewards, and motivational behavior effort which
leads to performance and then rewards (Evans, 1970; House,
1971; House & Mitchell, 1974; Mitchell, 1974).
Research conducted on this model has been inconsistent.
House (1971) provided information from two studies that
generally supported this theory. However, Dessler and Valenzi
(1977) and Schriesheim and Glinow (1977) provided mixed
results on several other studies.
The Great-Man theories, trait theories, behavioral
theories, and contingency theories have been helpful in
introducing new ideas and proposing new questions. Over time,
focus has moved from leadership traits, to leadership
behaviors, to using different leadership styles in various
situations. However, the models discussed so far have not

agreed on the best approach for leaders to motivate and
influence their followers to higher productivity.
Theories had focused primarily on making operations more
efficient. Researchers had looked for ways to increase
production and improve operations (Bass, 1985). Employee
motivation was key. Vrooms expectancy theory noted that
motivation effects job performance and that workers were
motivated by receiving rewards and avoiding punishment. They
tied the level of their effort to their expected outcome.
Workers were motivated by wages, social interaction, and
social status of their position. Employees were transaction
driven (Vroom, 1982). Transactional leaders understood the
needs of their employees and how to meet those needs in
exchange for the appropriate level of effort. Transactional
leaders focused on efficiencies, current processes,
maintaining the status quo, and meeting contractual agreements
(Bass, 1985).
However, there was a piece missing. Researchers saw
situations where groups were led by visionary and charismatic
leaders that helped their organizations achieve more than what
was believed possible (Bass, 1985; House, 1977). These
leaders helped to move their members from the lower levels of
Maslow hierarchy of needs to the higher levels that included
the need for growth, self-actualization and developing their

own potential (Maslow, 1954; Bass, 1985). Charismatic leaders
such as these included Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King
Jr., President John Kennedy, and Lee Iacocca. These leaders
were able to transform their followers, to raise their level
of awareness, to help them think beyond themselves for the
good of the organization, and to move the organization beyond
what others thought possible (Bass, 1985). Researchers and
events like these have helped lay the foundation for
transformational leadership theory.
Transformational and Transactional Leadership
Strands of transformational leadership theory can be
traced back thousands of years to Plato (Takala, 1998) and
Xenophon (Howland, 2000). In more modern times, it can be
linked to thoughts from Follet & Bernard (Humphreys &
Einstein, 2003), Taylor (Wren, 2005), and Weber (Jones, 2001).
In addition, substantial research on charisma has provided a
major influence on the development of transformational
leadership (Downton, 1973; House, 1977; DeGroot, Kiker, &
Cross, 2000; Jones, 2001; Humphreys & Einstein, 2003).
Theories from Burns and Bass
The more modern day body of thought on Transactional and
Transformational Leadership began to develop in the 1970s and

1980s. Downton (1973) was recognized as one of the first to
use the phrase, transformational leadership. Burns (1978)
soon followed with a focus on Transformational Leadership and
Transactional Leadership in the political arena. Burns
further defined the concepts of Transactional and
Transformational Leadership and looked at them as opposites
(Burns 1978). Bass added to these concepts but believed that
managers could demonstrate both depending on the situation
(Bass, 1985). Later, Bass et al. (1987) and Waldman, Bass,
and Yammarino (1990) noted that Transformational Leadership
was an extension of Transactional Leadership. Much of the
research on Transformational Leadership today goes back to the
original works of Burns and Bass.
Burns and Bass define Transformational Leadership as
leadership that motivates and appeals to followers ideals and
moral values to do more. Transformational Leaders look to
inspire, to set direction and vision, to empower subordinates
to participate and take the initiative in changing the
organization. As workers think beyond themselves, they would
then provide Extra Effort to do the work, take more
Satisfaction from their jobs, be Effective in getting the job
done, and increase productivity. Transformational Leaders
take a real interest in the well being of their employees
(Howell & Avolio, 1993). Bass (1985) believed that

Transformational Leadership would result in employees
performing beyond expectations and that improvement could be
due to the followers commitment to the leader and their sense
of purpose and mission. Followers would demonstrate Extra
Effort, Satisfaction, Effectiveness, and overall productivity
in their jobs. They would also demonstrate more trust and
respect toward the leader. Transformational Leaders were
highly charismatic leaders that led, inspired, and improved
behavior and productivity (Bass, 1985; Tucker & Russell,
2004).
On the other hand, Transactional Leadership motivated
subordinates by appealing to their personal desires. Burns
described this as a favor-for-favor exchange (Burns, 1978).
Rewards were based on expected performance. Transactional
leaders focused on doing things right while Transformational
leaders focused on doing the right things (Bass, 1985).
Bass (1985) found evidence for five leadership factors:
Individualized Consideration, Charismatic Leadership,
Intellectual Stimulation, Contingent Rewards, and Management-
By-Exception. Transformational Leadership consisted of the
first three: Charismatic Leadership, Individualized
Consideration, and Intellectual Stimulation. Transactional
Leadership consisted of the last two factors: Contingent
Rewards and Management-By-Exception.

Based on additional research approximately between 1985
and 1995, the theory was expanded to denote three types of
leadership behavior: Transformational, Transactional, and
nontransactional Laissez-Faire Leadership or Passive
Leadership and is referred to as the full range of leadership
(Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Also, the
theory expanded to nine factors: five transformational
factors, three transactional factors, and one nontransactional
Leadership factor (Hater & Bass, 1988; Yammarino & Bass, 1990;
Howell & Avolio, 1993, Den Hartog et al., 1997; Avolio et al.,
1999; Bass et al., 1999; Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington,
2001; Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson,
2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Barbuto Jr., 2005; Rowold &
Heinitz, 2007).
Lowe et al. (1996), DeGroot, Kiker and Cross (2000),
Dumdum et al. (2002), and Judge and Piccolo (2004) all
conducted meta-analysis of multiple studies. Together, they
provided a review of hundreds of studies completed over the
past twenty years. Over that time, it appeared that there has
been fairly consistent support for the key factors of
Transformational Leadership: Charisma/Idealized Influence,
Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and
Individual Consideration (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Yet, the theory continues to be modified. Antonakis et
al. (2003) suggested using Idealized Influence instead of
Charisma and that Idealized Influence should be separated into
two parts: Attributed and Behavior. Hater and Bass (1988)
noted that Management-By-Exception should be divided into two
parts: Active and Passive. Avolio and Bass (2004), Avolio et
al. (1999), Geyer and Steyrer (1998), and Den Hartog et al.
(1997) suggested using the term Passive/Avoidant instead of
Laissez-Faire because it was more descriptive as the third
leadership type, that Management-By-Exception (active) was a
better fit with Transactional Leadership, and Management-By-
Exception (passive) was a better fit with laissez faire as two
subscales under the third type of leadership, now identified
as Passive/Avoidant.
Transformational Leadership Key Factors
There are five key factors of Transformational
Leadership. Idealized Influence (attributed) refers to
charisma, being confident and powerful, focusing on ethics,
and followers identifying with the leader. Idealized
Influence (behavior) refers to charismatic actions focused on
values and missions, as well as having a trustworthy role
model to follow (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003).
This work extended Houses view of charisma and his focus on

the interaction between the leader and follower (Bass, 1985;
House, 1977). Inspirational Motivation allows leaders to
share a positive vision of the future and challenge followers
to high standards and morals. Through Intellectual
Stimulation, leaders question current traditions and beliefs
and look for new ways of doing things. Questioning beliefs is
encouraged. Employees are encouraged to think for themselves.
Through Individualized Consideration, leaders deal with people
as individuals and focus on individual strengths and
development areas and help them achieve the higher parts of
Maslows needs hierarchy. They helped improve worker
Satisfaction (Bass, 1985; Antonakis, Avolio, &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003).
Transactional Leadership Key Factors
There are two key factors of Transactional Leadership.
Contingent Reward allows leaders to clarify expectations, make
promises, negotiate, and reward for successful performance.
Management-By-Exception (active) allows leaders to monitor
performance and take action if performance deviates. It also
is pro-active in trying to prevent mistakes (Bass, 1985;
Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999; Geyer & Steyrer,
1998; Den Hartog et al., 1997).

Passive/Avoidant Leadership Key Factors
There are two key factors of Passive/Avoidant Leadership.
Management-By-Exception (passive) allows leaders to monitor
performance and take action if performance deviates. This
occurs when leaders wait to jump in until problems become
serious. They wait until mistakes are brought to their
attention. Laissez-Faire describes the leader that avoids
responsibilities, fails to follow up on issues, and basically
demonstrates a lack of any kind of leadership (Antonakis et
al., 2003; Bass 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al.,
1999: Geyer & Steyrer, 1998; Sarver, 2008).
Measuring Outcomes of Different Leadership Styles
Basss model proposes that Transformational Leadership will
contribute more to a followers or workers Extra Effort in
doing the work, Effectiveness of getting the job done, and
Satisfaction with their management than Transactional
Leadership or Nontransactional Laissez-Faire
(Passive/Avoidant) Leadership (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass,
2004; Avolio et al., 1999). Extra Effort pertains to leaders
getting others to do more than expected, to try harder, and be
more productive than they thought they could. Satisfaction
pertains to follower Satisfaction with the leader and how the
leader helps followers to work with others in a satisfying

way. Effectiveness pertains to the ability of the leader in
meeting individual, group, and organizational needs, and
leading the group and getting results. All three outcomes are
from the view of the employee (Bass 1985). Others have also
conducted research on the effect of Transformational
Leadership on Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness with
positive supporting results (Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Medley &
Larochelle, 1995; Densten, 2002; zaralli, 2003; Chen, 2004).
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - MLQ
Bass created the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) to measure the effect of the three independent variables
of Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and
Nontransactional Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership
upon the three dependent variables of Extra Effort,
Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass,
2004). Since the beginning, various versions of the MLQ have
been used in over 20 countries and translated in 12 languages
(Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Originally, the survey included 73 items and was based on
the original five factors identified by Bass (1985). Over the
last twenty years, a number of factor models have been used by
researchers and items have been changed, added, or eliminated.
Although the MLQ survey has been by far the most often used
tool when measuring transformational leadership, it also has
had its critics (Dumdum et al., 2002). Hater and Bass (1988)
made a major change when they split management-by-exception
into active and passive components. Den Hartog, Muijen, and
Koopman (1997) altered their scale when they found that
internal consistency was missing from two of the three scales.
Carless (1998) indicated that the MLQ survey does not measure
separate transformational behaviors but instead, it measured a
single construct of Transformational Leadership. Tejeda,
Scandura, and Pillai (2001) questioned the reliability and
validity of the MLQ instrument and recommended using a 27 item
reduced version. Multiple studies documented the concern that
Contingent Reward was related to Transformational Leadership
(Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Waldman, et al., 1990;
Goodwin et al., 2001). Avolio, Bass, & Jung (1999)
acknowledged several shortcomings of the survey and after
additional studies, revised it to 36 items. Rafferty and
Griffin (2004) has gone further to recommend that the five
components of Transformational Leadership should be: Vision,
Inspirational Communication, Intellectual Stimulation,
Supportive Leadership, and Personal Recognition.
Today, the MLQ-5X contains 45 items. It takes
approximately 15 minutes to complete and is at a U.S. ninth-
grade reading level (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Of those 45, 36

items were based on the current nine components that make up
the full range of leadership noted earlier. The other nine
items assess three leadership outcomes (Antonakis et al.,
2003). Antonakis et al. (2003) and Barge and Schlueter (1991)
also support the current MLQ-5X as being a valid and reliable
instrument.
Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture
Several studies have looked at how Transformational
Leadership not only affects the individual but also the
behavior and culture of the organization. At times, the MLQ
survey instrument was modified and the results of these
studies have varied (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1994; Masi & Cooke,
2000; Maswood, Dani, Burns, & Backhouse, 2006; Schlechter &
Engelbrecht, 2006; Xenikou & Simois, 2006; Boerner,
Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007).
Transformational Leadership and Society
Researchers have broadened out and are looking more at
the effect of Transformational and Transactional Leadership on
productivity within different societies. Jung and Avolio
(1999) divided cultures into two groups: individualists and
collectivists. People in individualist societies were more
focused in satisfying their own interests and needs.

Individual initiative, individual achievement and goals, and
personal rewards were most prized. With that perspective, it
would appear that individualist societies would work better
under Transactional Leadership (Jung & Avolio, 1999).
People in collectivist societies were more focused on
group or team goals. Followers in this kind of society would
be expected to more readily accept the leaders beliefs. With
this perspective, collectivist societies would be expected to
work better under Transformational Leadership (Jung & Avolio,
1999).
Jung and Avolio (1999) conducted a test of this logic
with 347 college students that consisted of a mix of Asian and
Caucasians, males and females. The group was divided into two
groups of Asians and two groups of Caucasians. A
transformational leader led one group from each type and a
transactional leader led the second group of each type. Each
group was given the task to brainstorm and generate ideas on
how best to achieve a specific goal. Because of culture, the
two Asian groups were viewed as collectivist groups and
Caucasians were viewed as individualist groups. Expectations
were that the Asian group led by a transformational leader and
the Caucasian group led by a transactional leader would
produce the best results. To help measure the results, the
students took the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

Form 5X to measure Transformational and Transactional
Leadership for each leader.
Study results found that collectivists led by a
transformational leader generated more ideas than with a
transactional leader. The study also showed that
individualists generated more ideas with a transactional
leader than with a transformational leader. Group performance
appeared higher than individuals working alone. This study
also provided some insight on how work might be organized
differently for individual groups versus collectivists (Jung &
Avolio, 1999). Several studies in recent years have supported
the positive impact that Transformational Leadership can
provide on culture and productivity but more research is
needed to refine understanding of leadership and culture (Jung
& Avolio, 1999; Kuchinke, 1999; Walumbawa, Lawler, Avolio,
Wang, & Shi, 2005; Felfe, Tartler, & Liepmann, 2004;
Prabhakar, 2005; Rowold & Heinitz, 2007).
Transformational Leadership and Ethics
There has been some discussion that Transformational
Leadership, depending on the leader, may actually encourage
followers in unethical directions. In recent years, with news
events surrounding Enron and other companies, integrity in
leadership is becoming an increasing concern. Without

integrity and ethical leadership, companies may be at risk.
Companies that act ethically have been found to have increased
effectiveness, a stronger culture, lower turnover rates, and
increased effort. Parry and Proctor-Thomson (2002) conducted
a study to measure this relationship between transformational
leadership and leader integrity. The study used both the
Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) (Craig & Gustafson,
1998) and the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and
distributed them to 6025 managers throughout New Zealand.
This sample included member lists from both public and private
management organizations. 1354 surveys were returned. A
large percentage of the managers were male and European. The
study showed a significant positive correlation between
transformational leadership and perceived integrity which in
turn, correlated with perceptions of organizational
effectiveness (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). Other research
also suggests that transformational leadership can help create
a climate supportive of ethical behavior (Banerji & Krishnan,
2000; Krishnan, 2001; Odom & Green, 2003). This research so
far appears to support the link between transformational
leadership, morality, and organization effectiveness as cited
by both Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) many years before.

Summary
This chapter presented a brief literature review of
leadership theory that has evolved from the great man theory
in the early 1900s to trait theory, behavior theory,
contingency theory, and now to the full range of leadership
that includes Transformational Leadership, Transactional
(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al.,
1999). Many studies have given support to Transformational,
Transactional and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership
styles as well as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ-5X) measuring tool.
Transactional Leadership focused on day-to-day
activities, status quo, operation efficiencies of the
operations, and motivated employees by appealing to individual
desires. Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership was
totally hands off management and took no responsibility for
the actions of others (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio
et al., 1999). Transformational Leadership was an extension
of Transactional Leadership and looked to motivate and inspire
followers to do more, to develop themselves further, and to do
more than they themselves thought possible (Bass, 1985). Bass
created the MLQ instrument to measure the effect of the three
independent variables of Transformational Leadership,

Transactional Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or
Passive/Avoidant Leadership upon the three dependent variables
of Extra Effort, Satisfaction, and Effectiveness (Bass, 1985;
Avolio et al., 1999). This particular study will be used to
extend research on this full range of leadership which
included Transformational Leadership, Transactional
Leadership, and Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership.

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter presents the research methodology used for
this study. It includes the hypotheses, design of the sample,
design of the measuring instrument, content validity and
reliability of the MLQ-5X, data collection, and data analysis.
Hypotheses
This study focused on the full range of leadership that
includes Transformational Leadership, Transactional
and the following hypotheses:
effort.
enhance subordinate satisfaction.

Sample Population
IT employees are one key to a companys future success
and this research looks to identify the leadership style that
manages and motivates their IT employees to be the most
productive, to put forth the greatest Extra Effort and obtain
the greatest Satisfaction. To do that, this study focused on
the 3,000 members of the Association of Information Technology
Professionals (AITP) (www.aitp.org).
AITP provides educational opportunities and professional
networking with almost 3,000 IT experienced peers, IT
professionals, educators, and students. AITP members work in
every aspect of IT including mainframe systems, PCs, and PC
based network systems. They work in colleges and
universities, military, government, and business and have
different education levels, technical backgrounds, and ages.
The demographics of this organization are presented and
summarized in Table 1 - Demographics Comparison, located in
Chapter IV.
The Instrument
Survey Design
The survey used in this study included the latest 45
questions from the MLQ followed by eight multiple choice

demographic questions. The MLQ instrument contains 45 items
that measure leadership and effectiveness.
Thirty-six items focused on the nine subscales of the
three independent variables. Twenty items focused on the
Transformational Leadership independent variable: four each
for the Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence
(behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual
Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration subscales.
Eight items focused on the Transactional Leadership
independent variable: four each for the Contingent Reward and
Management-By-Exception (active) subscales. Eight items
focused on the Passive/Avoidant Leadership independent
variable: four each on the Management-By-Exception (passive)
and Laissez-Faire subscales.
Nine items focused on the three dependent variables.
Three items focused on the Extra Effort put forth by
associates. Four items focused on Effectiveness. Two items
focused on Satisfaction with the leader.
Demographic questions requested information on gender,
age, AITP region, current level of position in IT, highest
level of education, ethnic origin, size of the company, and
employer sector. This information would be compared to a
demographic study conducted by AITP on their membership in
2007.
A six-point Likert scale was used for each of the MLQ 45
items. The responses to be used are listed below:
Rating Scale
1 = Not at all
2 = Once in a while
3 = Sometimes
4 = Fairly often
5 = Frequently, if not always
6 = Not Applicable
The 53 question survey, combining demographic questions with

the MLQ, was developed online through www.zoomerang.com. The
scale for this study is the same as the one for the MLQ-5X
survey instrument except for the addition of option 6, Not
Applicable. Option 6 was included to force the responder to
give an answer to each question.
Content Reliability and Validity
The MLQ developed by Bass and Avolio (1995) was the
instrument administered to the sample population. Bass and
Avolio (1995) used two confirmatory analyses to test the
construct validity and refine the original instrument into its
present form. There has also been a large body of research
done since Bass created the original instrument in 1985.

1996 study by Lowe, Kroech, and Sivasubramaniam
Lowe, Kroech, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) conducted a
comprehensive review of the results produced by this
instrument. Their literature search located over 75 studies.
Of those, 39 met their pre-defined criteria. Twenty-two
studies were published and yielded 29 usable validity
coefficients for at least one scale of the MLQ. Seventeen
unpublished studies provided 23 usable validity coefficients
for at least one scale of the MLQ. These studies came from a
variety of countries and organizations. Reliability data was
provided in 23 studies for Charisma and Intellectual
Stimulation, 22 studies for Individualized Consideration and
Contingent Reward, and 21 studies for Management-By-Exception.
Their review focused on five factors of the MLQ:
Charisma, Individualized Consideration, Intellectual
Stimulation, Contingent Reward, and Management-by-Exception.
Internal reliability was good as the Mean Cronbach scale
obtained for the five scales tested were 0.92 for Charisma,
0.88 for Individualized Consideration, 0.86 for Intellectual
Stimulation, 0.82 for Contingent Reward, and 0.65 for
Management-by-Exception. The mean raw correlation and the
mean corrected correlation values were 0.623 and 0.713 for
Charisma, 0.528 and 0.615 for Individualized Consideration,
0.512 and 0.602 for Intellectual Stimulation, 0.338 and 0.408

for Contingent Reward, and 0.040 and 0.054 for Management-by-
Exception. Across the studies, findings showed that Charisma
was the variable most related to leader Effectiveness.
Management-by-Exception showed mixed results. Overall, this
study provided strong reliability and validity support for the
MLQ instrument (Lowe et al., 1996).
2002 Study by Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio
Dumdum et al. (2002) provided an update to the work of
Lowe et al. (1996) as they conducted a meta-analysis that
focused on forty-nine studies that dated back to 1995.
Together, their work would expand approximately 15 years of
Transformational Leadership research.
This review focused on twelve scales of the MLQ;
Attributed Charisma, Idealized Influence, Inspirational
Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized
Consideration, Transformational Leadership, Contingent Reward,
Management-by-Exception (active), Management-by-Exception
(passive), Management-by-Exception, Laissez Faire, and
Transactional Leadership. Internal reliability was good as
the Mean Cronbach scale obtained for eleven of the twelve
scales tested were above 0.70. Management-by-Exception
(passive) was the one exception but it was at 0.69 (Dumdum et
al., 2002).
The mean raw correlation and the mean corrected
correlation values reported for Effectiveness were 0.55 and
0.68 for Charisma, 0.52 and 0.68 for Idealized Influence, 0.46
and 0.55 for Inspirational Motivation, 0.47 and 0.59 for
Intellectual Stimulation, 0.47 and 0.59 for Individualized
Consideration, 0.43 and 0.50 for Transformational Leadership,
0.41 and 0.51 for Contingent Reward, 0.04 and 0.05 for
Management-by-Exception (active), -0.26 and -0.34 for
Management-by-Exception (passive), -0.16 and -0.21 for
Management-by-Exception, -0.30 and -0.38 for Laissez faire,
and 0.17 and 0.20 for Transactional Leadership (Dumdum et al.,
2002).
The results of the Dumdum et al. (2002) study were
consistent with those found by Lowe et al. (1996). The
results were very similar between the two for Charisma,
Individual Consideration, and Intellectual Stimulation.
Contingent Reward was a little different but still positive
(0.56 for the Dumdum study and 0.41 for the Lowe study). The
biggest difference was Management-by-Exception (-0.30 for the
Dumdum study and 0.05 for the Lowe study). It is important to
note that since 1996, this scale has often been replaced by
two subscales, Management-by-Exception (active) and
Management-by-Exception (passive). Secondly, Management-by-
Exception (active) in Dumdums study was close to the

Management-by-Exception in Lowes study (0.08 to 0.05).
Dumdum et al. (2002) suggested these differences may be due to
the several changes that were made to the MLQ tool since 1996.
However, the overall results of the meta-study still provide
strong support for the MLQ tool.
2004 Study by Judge and Piccolo
Judge and Piccolo (2004) conducted a third meta-study and
looked at the full range of transformational, transactional,
and Laissez-Faire leadership. They identified 87 studies that
met their criteria of use. This review focused on five
leadership behaviors: Transformational Leadership, Contingent
Reward, Management-by-Exception (active), Management-by-
Exception (passive), and Laissez-Faire.
The mean corrected correlation values was 0.44 for
Transformational Leadership, 0.39 for Contingent Reward, 0.15
for Management-by-Exception (active), -.18 Management-by-
Exception (passive), and -.37 for Laissez-Faire. There
continues to be strong broad support for the validity of
Transformational Leadership and Contingent Reward. However,
in this study, Transformational and Transactional Leadership
appear to be so highly related that it is difficult to
separate. This finding provides additional support for using
Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception (active) as

subscales for Transactional Leadership and Management-By-
Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire subscales for
Passive/Avoidant Leadership.
Note that charisma was used in a variety of studies.
However, the model continues to change and grow. As noted
earlier, Antonakis et al. (2003) suggested using Idealized
Influence instead of Charisma and also separating Idealized
Influence into two parts: Attributed and Behavior. Hater and
Bass (1988) recommended separating Management-By-Exception
into two parts: Active and Passive. Avolio and Bass (2004)
recommended moving Management-By-Exception (active) under
Transactional Leadership and move Management-By-Exception
(passive) and Laissez-Faire together as two subscales under
the third type of leadership, Passive/Avoidant.
Moving forward, the independent variables for this study
were: Transformational Leadership, composed of Idealized
Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence (behavior),
Individualized Consideration; Transactional Leadership,
composed of Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception
(active); and Passive/Avoidant Leadership, composed of
Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire. The
dependent variables were: Extra Effort, IT manager
Effectiveness, and Satisfaction.

Data Collection
For this study, the survey was developed into an online
electronic survey using www.zoomerang.com. The amount of time
to take this survey was approximately fifteen minutes. The
AITP office sent out an introductory email to each association
member requesting them to take the survey through a link,
documented the significance of the survey, noted that the
survey had the support of AITP leadership, and that the
findings would be shared with the membership. Overall, three
emails were sent to the membership asking for their
participation. A link to the survey was also included in the
AITP newsletter located on their website. The survey was made
available for thirty days in the fall of 2008 and each member
was allowed to respond once. For an added incentive, the
researcher agreed to pay AITP a monetary amount for every 100
members that took the survey beyond the first 200 members
(only 150 took the survey). Participants were not
compensated, only the organization.
Permission to use the MLQ-5X survey instrument was
requested and obtained from the publishers, Mind Garden, Inc.
(www.Mindgarden.com), who hold the license for usage (see
Appendix A). The survey was shared with Mind Garden, Inc.
both for approval of survey appearance and approach. A copy
of the final report was made available on AITPs website for

member viewing. Anonymity of individual responses was
maintained.
Summary
This chapter presented the three key hypotheses of this
study surrounding the full range of leadership of
Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and
Laissez-Faire or Passive/Avoidant Leadership. It focused on
the design of the sample population, the MLQ-5X instrument,
the strong validity and reliability of the instrument, as well
as how the data was collected.

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents and analyzes the data derived from
the 45 question MLQ-5X survey instrument and eight demographic
questions. It will provide a detailed description of the
sample population, documentation on how the survey questions
were scored, identify the statistical procedures used for
analysis, and provide statistical evidence surrounding each of
the three hypotheses.
Data Analysis
To test the hypotheses, the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS), version 16, was used to conduct linear
regression analysis on the data obtained from the sample. The
independent variables were: Transformational Leadership,
composed of Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized
Influence (behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual
Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration; Transactional
Leadership, composed of Contingent Reward and Management-By-
Exception (active); and Passive/Avoidant Leadership composed
of Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire. The
dependent variables were Extra Effort, IT manager
Effectiveness, and Satisfaction.

Sample Size
During the 30 day time period the survey was available,
150 out of approximately 3,000 AITP members completed the
survey. This translates into an estimated 5% return.
Multiple attempts were made to increase this low response
rate. Three emails were sent to each AITP member asking for
their participation. A link to the survey was included in the
AITP newsletter located on their website. Monetary incentives
were also offered to the organization to increase its
membership response rate but with limited effect. With such a
low response rate, only whole sample analysis can be
conducted.
Demographics
The eight demographic questions focused on sex, age, AITP
region, current position in IT, highest level of education,
ethnic origin, size of company, and employer sector. A
similar set of demographic questions were given to the AITP
membership in the fall of 2007 and serves as the population
estimate. A total of 776 members out of approximately 3,000
responded to that survey for a 25.8% return (Association of
Information Technology Professionals, http://www.aitp.org).
Demographics of the sample of this study were compared to the
demographics of the population.

In general, there are some minor differences between the
demographics for the sample in this study and the population
estimates. Table 1 summarizes the demographics for both the
sample in this study and for the population. Both indicated
the large majority of participants were male (62% of todays
sample and 73% of the population). The majority of
participants in the sample and population showed that most of
the responders were in the age bracket of over 55 (38.7% &
34%). However, this sample showed the next largest age group
was age 36 45 (35.3%) while the population showed the next
largest age group to be age 46 - 55 (31%). In both this
sample and the population, there were very few under the age
of 25 (3.3% and 1.0%). With respect to age, the sample in
this study was slightly younger than the population. However,
this study is looking for people in IT that are supervised and
typically those that are younger are more likely to be
supervised. Yet, caution needs to be taken when generalizing
both between gender and age specifics.
Each region was organized geographically and the number
and size of professional and student organizations vary.
Regions 1 (Southwestern Region) and 4 (Central Region) were
over represented and regions 0 (Region Presidents Council), 3
(South Central Region), 5 (Pacesetter Region), and 7 (Southern

Hospitality Region) were under represented compared to the
population.
For both this study and the population, more responders
had a bachelor degree (36.7% and 32.0%) followed by those with
a graduate degree (22.7% and 28.0%). Both had about the same
percentage of some college work (12.7% and 11.0%), an
associate degree (10.7% and 11.5%), and a doctorate (5.4% and
7.0%).
Both had a large response by White Caucasians (88.0% and
90.0%) followed by African Americans (6.0% and 3.0%). African
Americans and American Indians were over represented and White
Caucasians and Hispanics were under represented in the sample
for this study relative to the population. These appear to be
relatively small differences but yet caution still needs to be
taken when generalizing about ethnic background.
Responders had a wide range of positions in IT.
Professional/Non-supervisory was the highest in the sample for
this study as well as the population (19.3% and 15.0%)
followed by project manager/analyst/programmer (20% and 14.0%)
and manager (17.3% and 13.0%). Managers, Professional/Non-
supervisory, Project Manager/Analyst/Programmer were over
represented and Retired, Supervisory, and VP/Executive groups
were under represented in this sample relative to the
population. The under representation of the retired,

Supervisory and VP/Executive groups should not be a major
concern because this study is focused more on IT professionals
that are supervised.
The largest group of responders for both the sample and
the population came from companies that were larger than 1000
employees (44.7% and 38%). The second largest group for both
came from companies that had 100 - 500 employees (20.7% and
21.0%) followed by companies that had 500 1000 employees
(14.0% and 11.0%). The number of responders in this sample
that worked in companies <100, 500 1000, and >1000 employees
were slightly over represented when compared to the
population. The over representation for responders in
companies of 500 1000 and > 1000 employees could provide
additional members helpful to this study because they are more
likely to be supervised by management. The number of
responders in this sample was less than the number of retired,
unemployed, and self-employed in the population. However,
this should not be a major concern because these groups
typically are not supervised and would not provide additional
insight applicable to this study.
The last demographic set focused on employer sector.
Approximately 17% of the sample and 14% of the population came
from the Finance/Insurance sector. Next, 16% of both the
sample and the population came from the Education sector.

Approximately 15% of the sample and 14% of the population came
from the Retail/Manufacturing/Distribution sector. Next, 8%
of the sample and 12% of the population came from the
Telecommunications/IT sector. Approximately 15% of the sample
and 9% of the population came from the Government sector. For
the retired sector, 0% came from the sample and 6% came from
the population. This should not be a major concern because
retirees typically are not supervised and would not provide
additional insight to this study. For the Other category,
16% came from the sample and 17% came from the population.
After review, the sample in this study is sufficient for
overall regression analysis but due to these demographic
differences and small sample size, a decision was made not to
conduct subgroup analyses.

Table 1
Demographic Comparison
2008 MLQ 2007
Survey Membership
Survey
N=150 N=776
Percentage Percentage
Gender
Male 62.0 73.0
Female 38.0 27.0
Age
Under 25 3.3 1.0
Age 26 35 21.3 11.0
Age 36 45 35.3 22.0
Age 46 55 30.0 31.0
Over 55 38.7 34.0
AITP Region
0 - Region Presidents Council 0.0 4.0
1 - Southwestern Region 10.7 3.0
2 - Northwestern Region 6.7 5.0
3 - South Central Region 8.7 13.0
4 - Central Region 31.3 13.0
5 - Pacesetter Region 12.0 22.0
7 - Southern Hospitality Region 8.0 11.0
11 - Middle Atlantic Region 6.0 5.0
13 - Empire Region 3.3 4.0
18 - Leadership Region 8.0 9.0
At Large 5.3 11.0
Highest Level of Education

High School 0.7 1.0
Some College 12.7 11.0
Associate 10.7 11.5
Bachelors 36.7 32.0
Some Graduate School 9.3 9.5
Graduate Degree 22.7 28.0
Doctorate 5.3 7.0
Vocational/Trade 0.7 1.75
Table 1 (Continued)
2008 MLQ Survey 2007 Membership
Survey
N=150 N=776
Ethnic Origin
African American 6.0 3.0
American Indian 1.3 0.0
Asian 0.7 2.0
White Caucasian 88.0 90.0
Hispanic 0.0 2.0
Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0
Current Position in IT
Academia 8.0 8.0
Consultant 6.0 7.0
Director 10.0 10.0
Manager 17.3 13.0
Marketing/Sales 2.7 5.0
Professional/ 19.3 15.0
Nonsupervisory
Project Manager/ 20.0 14.0
Analyst/Programmer
Retired 1.3 8.0
Student 3.3 0.0
Supervisory 2.0 5.0
VP/Executive 7.3 11.0
Other 2.6 17.0
Size of Company Member Works For

< 100 employees 13.3 0.0
100 500 20.7 21.0
employees
500 1000 14.0 11.0
employees
>1000 employees 44.7 38.0
Retired 0.7 0.0
Self-employed 4.0 5.0
Unemployed 0.7 6.0
Other 2.0 19.0
Table 1 (Continued)
2008 MLQ Survey 2007 Membership
Survey
N=150 N=776
Employing Sector
Construction .7 2.0
Education 16.0 16.0
Finance/Insurance 17.3 14.0
Government 14.7 9.0
Healthcare 5.3 6.0
Relations/Marketing/A 1.3 1.0
dvertising/Media
Retail/Manufacturing/ 15.3 14.0
Distribution
Telecommunications/IT 8.0 12.0
Transportation 3.3 2.0
Retired 0.0 6.0
Other 16.0 17.0
Scoring Survey Responses
As mentioned earlier, AITP members took the 53 question
survey online through www.zoomerang.com. The survey included
all 45 questions from the MLQ-5X instrument and eight
demographic questions.
Data Preparation
The response frequency was reviewed for each question.
Of the 45 questions offered, option 6, Not Applicable, was
selected 3 or fewer times in 91% of the questions. Responders
had selected option 6, Not Applicable, 4 or more times for the
following questions:
1. Question 27 - The person I am rating directs my
attention toward failures to meet standards. Option
6 was selected four times for this question and was
tied to the Management-By-Exception (active) subscale.
2. Question 17 - The person I am rating shows that
he/she is a firm believer in if it ain't broke, don't
fix it. Option 6 was selected five times for this
question and was tied to the Management-By-Exception
(passive) subscale.
3. Question 24 - The person I am rating keeps track of
all mistakes. Option 6 was selected six times for

this question and was tied to the Management-By-
Exception (active) subscale.
4. Question 40 - The person I am rating is effective in
representing me to higher authority. Option 6 was
selected eleven times for this question and was tied
to the dependent variable, Effectiveness. Note this
was only one of the four questions for Effectiveness
so this scale was still strong. Of the eleven times,
option 6 was chosen once by a VP, once by a Director,
twice by project managers, twice by Professional/Non-
supervisory, and four times by managers. Eight of
eleven responders were in formal leadership positions.
Those eight responders may have used this option
because of the sensitivity of the question or that the
responders boss did not have anyone to report to,
which in that case, option 6 would have been most
appropriate selection.
The data was also analyzed case wise. Approximately 97%
of the responders selected option 6, Not Applicable, three
times or less. Other frequencies in the use of option 6, Not
Applicable, included:
1. Two responders used option 6 four times. In both
cases, the use of option 6 was distributed across the

subscales so that each subscale had at least half of
the items answered.
2. Two responders used option 6 seven times. Again, the
use of option 6 was distributed across the subscales
so that each subscale had at least half of the items
answered.
3. One responder used option 6 ten times. As before, the
use of option 6 was distributed across the subscales
so that at least half of the items were answered.
The use of option 6, not applicable, was well
distributed and should not affect subscale and scale creation
more than having missing data would. After this review,
questions marked with option 6 were recoded as a missing
response consistent with Mind Garden, Inc. instructions.
Answers 1 5, were reverted back to the 0 4 numbering
sequence as recommended by Mind Garden, Inc. and scales and
subscales were then calculated for each responder.
Scale and Subscale Calculations
Information on how to score the MLQ-5X survey was
obtained from Mind Garden, Inc. (www.Mindgarden.com). Each of
the nine subscales had four questions on the survey. Scores
for each scale and subscale were determined by adding the
responses for the questions together and dividing by the

number of non-missing responses. The score for each
leadership type was calculated at the item level.
Transformational Leadership had 20 related questions,
Transactional Leadership had eight related questions, and
Passive-Avoidant Leadership had eight related questions.
The dependent variable was scored in the same manner as
the independent variable. Extra Effort had three related
questions, Effectiveness had four questions, and Satisfaction
had two questions.
The mean and standard deviation for each leadership type,
subscale, and dependent variable were found in Table 2. Note
that of the three independent variables, Transformational
Leadership had the highest average rating followed by
Transactional Leadership followed by Passive/Avoidant
Leadership. Generally, the five subscales of Transformational
Leadership had the highest means. The exception was
Contingent Reward. Contingent Reward, a subscale of
Transactional Leadership had a higher mean than two subscales
of Transformational Leadership: Intellectual Stimulation and
Individualized Consideration. The subscales of
Passive/Avoidant Leadership had the lowest average ratings of
all. Based on these average ratings, it appears that
responders had the perception their immediate supervisor
demonstrated more often the qualities of a transformational

leader than either a transactional or passive/avoidant leader.
There was also the perception that the responders saw the
qualities of a passive/avoidant leader the least often of the
three leadership types. These statistics are similar to those
based on the earlier work of Bass and Avolio (Bass, 1985;
Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999).

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent

Variables (n=150)
Mean Standard
(scale 0-4) Deviation
Transformational Leadership 2.45 0.99
Idealized Influence (Attributed) 2.54 1.16
Idealized Influence (Behavior) 2.45 1.07
Inspirational Motivation 2.73 1.08
Intellectual Stimulation 2.27 1.01
Individualized Consideration 2.26 1.16
Transactional Leadership 2.05 0.65
Contingent Reward 2.38 1.01
Management by Exception (Active) 1.73 1.01
Passive/Avoidant 1.36 0.93
Management by Exception (Passive) 1.58 1.01
Laissez-Faire 1.15 1.01
Extra Effort 2.30 1.29
Effectiveness 2.57 1.12
Satisfaction 2.50 1.34

Regression Models
Once the data were reviewed and the descriptive
characteristics identified, several linear regressions were
run. Correlations between leadership type subscales and
dependent variables were calculated. These correlations serve
as zero-order regressions and a 0.01 significant level was
used. The framework for this study was based on the work of
Bass and Avolio (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et
al., 1999). A complete list of all correlations between
individual independent variables, subscales, and dependent
variables are found in Appendix B. Since all leadership types
and scales correlated significantly with the dependent
measures, it means that each independent variable by itself
predicts the level of each dependent variable. Full
regression models were run using the three independent
measures as indicators.
Transactional Subscale Correlation
As shown in Appendix B, the two subscales of
Transactional Leadership were correlated with the dependent
variables in opposite directions. Contingent Reward
correlated positively with all three dependent variables.
However, Management-by-Exception (active) correlated
negatively with all three dependent variables. A review of

the survey items showed that Management-By-Exception (active)
questions were phrased in an opposite manner as the Contingent
Reward questions. In order for both subscales to correlate
positively, Management-by-Exception (active) was reversed and
Transactional Leadership was recalculated. Another set of full
regression models were run with the three independent
variables as indicators except Transactional Leadership
(reversed) was used instead of Transactional Leadership.
Colinearity Between Independent Variables
Intercorrelations amongst independent variables are quite
common but they create problems when interpreting regression
results. For instance, the zero-order regression between an
independent and dependent variable may be significant but when
independent variables were added to the model, the original
independent variable may no longer be significant. This is
often due to one of the other independent variables accounting
for the same variability - hence the colinearity. Care must
be taken in the interpretation of the regression results.
Table 3 shows the collinearity between Transformational
Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Passive/Avoidant
Leadership, and Transactional Leadership (reversed) (with
Management-by-Exception (active) reversed). Results indicate
the reversal of the Management-by-Exception (active) subscale

showed an increased correlation of Transactional Leadership
with Transformational Leadership (0.784) and Passive/Avoidant
Leadership (-0.579).
Table 3
Correlations Between Independent Variables (n=150)

Transactional and
(Transactional Passive-
Transformational (reversed)) Avoidant
Transformational 1.000
Transactional and 0.505** (0.784**) 1.000
(Transactional
(reversed))
Passive-Avoidant -0.648** -0.256**(-0.579**) 1.000
** - Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Hypothesis One
There is a relationship between the subordinates
effort.
Correlations
All zero-order correlations for all three leadership
independent variables, subscales, and the Extra Effort
dependent variable were significant (p=>.01) and are found in
Appendix B. At first glance, this suggests that leadership
type might be able to predict level of Extra Effort. There

was a strong correlation between Transformational Leadership
and Extra Effort (0.840). Transformational Leadership
subscales of Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized
Influence (behavior), Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual
Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration also had strong
correlations (0.839, 0.654, 0.691, 0.809, and 0.804,
respectively).
As expected, Transactional Leadership had a much lower
correlation of 0.473. As noted earlier, the two Transactional
Leadership subscales were correlated in opposite directions
with Extra Effort and may be the reason for the lower
correlation. Contingent Reward had a high positive
correlation of 0.772 and was higher than two Transformational
Leadership subscales: Idealized Influence (Behavior) (0.654)
and Inspirational Motivation (0.691). The relatively high
value of Contingent Reward was also consistent with other
research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et
al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
On the other hand, the second subscale, Management-By-
Exception (active), had a correlation of -0.269. Results from
several documented studies have shown that this has been
either positive or negative in nature (Avolio et al., 1999,
Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Passive/Avoidant Leadership had a negative correlation
with Extra Effort (-0.634). Its two subscales, Management-By-
Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire, were consistent with
each other and had correlations of -0.539 and -0.627,
respectively. These negative correlations have been
consistent with other research (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et
al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge
and Piccolo, 2004).
Regression Model I
A linear regression on the full model of leadership was
conducted to predict the effect of Transformational
Leadership, Transactional Leadership, and Passive/Avoidant
Leadership on Extra Effort. The full model of leadership was
significant overall (F(3,146)=128.015, p=0). R2 for this model
was 0.725. However, significance tests for individual
independent leadership variables were not all significant.
Transformational Leadership (t=10.786, p=0) and
Passive/Avoidant Leadership (t=-2.863, p=.005) were
significant, but Transactional Leadership was not. The model
coefficients for the three leadership scales are listed below
in Table 4. Note that Transformational Leadership was
positively correlated to Extra Effort, while Passive/Avoidant
Leadership was negatively correlated.

An examination of the part and partial correlations show
that there was little relationship between Transactional
Leadership and Extra Effort once Transformational Leadership
and Passive/Avoidant Leadership were controlled for in the
model. This effect was most likely due to the collinearity
that exists between the independent variables since, by
itself, Transactional Leadership produced significant results
(F(1, 148)=42.689, p=0).
Table 4
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional

and Passive/Avoidant with Extra Effort (n=150)
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .076 .288 .266 .791
Transformational
.898 .083 .693 10.786 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.161 .100 .082 1.614 .109
Leadership
Passive/Avoidant
-.228 .080 -.164 -2.863 .005
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
A model without Transactional Leadership was run to see
if there was a significant change in the regression
coefficients. The change was nominal, suggesting the
contribution of Transactional Leadership not already accounted
for in the other two leadership styles was not significant.

Since the two components of Transactional Leadership were
correlated with Extra Effort in an opposite manner, a model
was run substituting its two subscales: Contingent Reward and
Management-by-Exception (active). Neither subscale
significantly contributed to the model, individually or
together, suggesting that the full model and not the subscale
model best predicts Extra Effort.
Regression Model II
The full regression model was also run using
Transactional Leadership (reversed) instead of Transactional
Leadership. Results are provided in Table 5. While the full
model was significant overall (F(3,146)=124.975, p=0) and R2
was 0.720, Transactional Leadership still did not
significantly contribute to Extra Effort. Both
Transformational Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership
were significant. An examination of the part and partial
correlations show that there was little relationship between
Transactional Leadership and Extra Effort once
Transformational Leadership was controlled for in the model.
This effect is most likely due to the collinearity that exists
between the independent variables since, by itself,
Transactional Leadership produces significant results (F(1,
148)=124.112, p=0).
Table 5
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Transactional (reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with Extra
Effort (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) .215 .291 .740 .460
Transformational
.945 .099 .729 9.547 .000
Leadership
Transactional
Leadership .023 .106 .015 .216 .829
(reversed)
Passive-Avoidant
-.212 .081 -.152 -2.618 .010
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Extra Effort
In summary, there is partial support for this hypothesis.
A significant relationship between Transformational
Leadership, Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Extra Effort was
found. Transformational Leadership had the strongest
correlation with Extra Effort and supports the concept that
subordinates prefer to exert Extra Effort when led by
Transformational Leadership. Passive/Avoidant Leadership had
a significant opposite effect on Extra Effort and was the
least effective form of leadership to inspire Extra Effort by
subordinates. However, Transactional Leadership, when
considered with the other two leadership types, does not
appear to inspire Extra Effort. The results for

were consistent with the literature review. However, the
result for Transactional Leadership predicting Extra Effort
was not (Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999,
Lowe et al., 1996, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al.,
1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Hypothesis Two
Correlations
independent variables, subscales, and the manager
Effectiveness dependent variable were significant (p=>.01) and
are found in Appendix B. At first glance, this suggests that
leadership type might be able to predict level of
Effectiveness. There was a strong correlation between
Transformational Leadership and management Effectiveness
(0.886). Transformational Leadership subscales of Idealized
Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence (behavior),

Individualized Consideration also had strong correlations
(0.887, 0.706, 0.781, 0.761, and 0.861, respectively).
with Effectiveness and may be the reason for the lower
correlation. The first subscale, Contingent Reward, had a
high correlation of 0.881 and was higher than four
Transformational Leadership subscales: Idealized Influence
(Behavior) (0.706), Inspirational Motivation (0.781),
Intellectual Stimulation (0.761), and Individualized
Consideration (0.861). The relatively high value of
Contingent Reward was also consistent with other research
(Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al.,
2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
The second subscale, Management-By-Exception (active),
had a correlation of -0.391. Results from various documented
studies have shown that this could be positive or negative
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990, Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al.,
2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Passive/Avoidant Leadership had a negative correlation
with Effectiveness of -0.711. Its two subscales, Management-
By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire, were consistent with
each other and had values of -0.577 and -0.733, respectively.

These negative values have been consistent with other research
(Avolio & Bass, 2004; Hater & Bass, 1988, Avolio et al., 1999,
Yammarino & Bass, 1990, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et
al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Regression Model I
Leadership on Effectiveness. The full model of leadership was
significant overall (F(3,146)=218.573, p=0). R2 for this model
was 0.818. However, significance tests for individual
independent leadership variables were not all significant.
Transformational Leadership (t=14.388, p=0) and
Passive/Avoidant Leadership (t=-4.995, p=.000) were
significant, but Transactional Leadership was not. The model
coefficients for the three leadership scales are shown below
in Table 6. Note that Transformational Leadership was
positively correlated to Effectiveness, while Passive/Avoidant
Leadership was negatively correlated.

Table 6
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional,

and Passive/Avoidant with Effectiveness (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) .991 .204 4.848 .000
Transformational
.850 .059 .751 14.388 .000
Leadership
Transactional
-.056 .071 -.032 -.785 .434
Leadership
Passive/Avoidant
-.282 .057 -.233 -4.995 .000
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Effectiveness
Leadership and Effectiveness once Transformational Leadership
and Passive/Avoidant Leadership were controlled for in the
model. Again, this effect is most likely due to the
collinearity that exists between the independent leadership
variables since, by itself, Transactional Leadership produced
significant results (F(1, 148)=29.269, p=0).
Since the two components of Transactional Leadership were
correlated with Effectiveness in an opposite manner, a model
was run substituting its two subscales: Contingent Reward and
Management-By-Exception (active). This model turned out to be
a better model than the one with the three leadership scales.
The model was significant overall (F(4,145)=173.54, p=0). R2
for this model was 0.827. The model coefficients were listed
below in Table 7. The two subscales were significant at the
0.05 level. Contingent Reward was positively correlated with
Effectiveness, while Management-By-Exception (active) was
negatively correlated.
Table 7
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Passive/Avoidant,

Two Transactional Subscale Variables with Effectiveness (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) 1.113 .205 5.433 .000
Transformational
.667 .087 .590 7.678 .000
Leadership
* Contingent Reward .143 .070 .146 2.046 .043
* Mgt-By-Exception
-.087 .041 -.079 -2.12 .036
(Active)
Passive/Avoidant
-.266 .056 -.219 -4.78 .000
Leadership
+ Note: Mgt - Management
Regression Model II
Leadership and those results are provided in Table 8. This
time, not only was the full model of leadership significant
overall (F(3,146)=231.727, p=0) and R2 was 0.826 but all three
individual independent variables were significant

(Transformational Leadership (t=10.339, p=0); Transactional
Leadership (reversed) (t=2.799, p=0.006) and Passive/Avoidant
Leadership (t=-4.754, p=0)).
Table 8
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Effectiveness (n=150)
Std.
Model B Error Beta T Sig.
(Constant) .741 .200 3.707 .000
Transformational
.703 .068 .622 10.339 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.203 .072 .157 2.799 .006
(reversed)
Passive/Avoidant
-.264 .055 -.218 -4.754 .000
Leadership
A significant relationship between Transformational
Leadership, Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Effectiveness were
found. Transformational Leadership had the strongest
correlation with Effectiveness and supports the concept that
subordinates believe that managers are more effective when
they provide Transformational leadership. Passive/Avoidant
Leadership had a significant opposite effect and is the least
effective form of leadership. The results for

were consistent with much of the literature (Bass, 1985;
Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Lowe et al., 1996,
Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997, Judge and
Piccolo, 2004).
At first glance, Transactional Leadership doesnt appear
to be significant. Yet, the two subscales were significant
and when the Management-By-Exception (active) scale was
reversed and recalculated, Transactional Leadership became
significant. These results suggest that the construction of
the scale might be the reason that Transactional Leadership
was not always significant. This indicates that the
Transactional Leadership questions, scales, and subscales
needs to be explored further. Results for Transactional
Leadership and related subscales were somewhat different from
the literature (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 1999,
Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Hypothesis Three
enhance subordinate satisfaction with their manager.

Correlations
independent variables, subscales, and the Satisfaction
dependent variable were significant (p=>.01) and are found in
Appendix B. At first glance, this suggests that leadership
type might be able to predict level of Satisfaction. There
was a strong correlation between Transformational Leadership
and subordinate Satisfaction (0.869). Transformational
Leadership subscales of Idealized Influence (attributed),
Idealized Influence (behavior), Inspirational Motivation,
Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration
also had strong correlations (0.879, 0.718, 0.757, 0.717, and
0.848, respectively).
with Satisfaction and may be the reason for the lower
correlation. Contingent Reward had a high correlation of
0.809 and was higher than three Transformational Leadership
subscales: Idealized Influence (Behavior) (0.718),
Inspirational Motivation (0.757), and Intellectual Stimulation
(0.717). The relatively high value of Contingent Reward was
and Piccolo, 2004). On the other hand, the second subscale,
Management-By-Exception (active), had a correlation of -0.395.
Results from the various documented studies have shown that
this could be positive or negative and that both have often
been documented in the literature (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio
et al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et al., 1997,
Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Passive/Avoidant Leadership had a negative correlation of
-0.618 with the subordinates perception of the IT managers
ability to enhance subordinate Satisfaction. Its two
subscales, Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-
Faire, were consistent with each other and had values of -0.497
and -0.642, respectively. These negative values have been
and Piccolo, 2004).
Regression Model I
Leadership on Satisfaction. The full model was significant
overall (F(3,146)=155.475, p=0) and R2 for this model was
0.762. However, significance tests for individual independent

variables were not all significant. Transformational
Leadership (t=13.917, p=0) was the only significant indicator.
Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Transactional Leadership were
not. The model coefficients for the three leadership scales
are listed below in Table 9.
Leadership, Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Satisfaction once
Transformational Leadership was controlled for in the model.
This effect was most likely due to the collinearity that
exists between the independent variables since, by themselves,
Transactional Leadership produces significant results (F(1,
148)=28.501, p=0) as well as Passive/Avoidant Leadership (F(1,
148)=91.377, p=0). Note that Transformational leadership was
positively correlated to Satisfaction and although not
significant, Transactional Leadership and Passive/Avoidant
Leadership were negatively correlated with Satisfaction.

Table 9
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Transactional,

Passive/Avoidant and Satisfaction (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) .090 .280 .321 .748
Transformational
1.126 .081 .831 13.917 .000
Leadership
Transactional
Leadership -.084 .097 -.041 -.863 .390
Passive/Avoidant
-.130 .077 -.090 -1.683 .095
Leadership
Dependent Variable: Satisfaction
Additional regression runs were made. Since
Transactional Leadership consisted of two subscales,
Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception (active), and
Passive/Avoidant Leadership consisted of Management-By-
Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire subscales, two
additional models were run. The first run substituted the
Transactional Leadership subscales Contingent Reward and
Management-By-Exception (active) for Transactional Leadership.
The second run kept the two Transactional Leadership subscales
but substituted the two Passive/Avoidant Leadership subscales
Management-By-Exception (passive) and Laissez-Faire for
Passive/Avoidant Leadership.
When only the Transactional Leadership subscales were
substituted, the model turned out to be only slightly better
model than the one with the three leadership scales. The
model was significant overall (F(4,145)=128.616, p=0). R2 for
this model was 0.780. Contingent Reward was significant at
the 0.01 level and Management-By-Exception (active) was
significant at the 0.05 level. Contingent Reward was
positively correlated with Satisfaction, while Management-By-
Exception (active) was negatively correlated. The model
coefficients are listed below in Table 10.
Table 10
Regression Coefficients Between Satisfaction & Transformational,

Passive/Avoidant & Two Transactional Subscale Variables
Std.
(Constant) .298 .277 1.077 .283
Transformational
.818 .117 .604 6.975 .000
Leadership
* Contingent Reward .245 .094 .209 2.600 .010
* Mgt-By-Exception
-.143 .055 -.108 -2.574 .011
(active)
Passive-Avoidant
-.102 .075 -.071 -1.364 .175
Leadership
+ Note - Mgt - Management
When the Passive/Avoidant Leadership subscales were
included, the inclusion did improve the overall model a bit
but its two subscales were not significant. Laissez-Faire

Leadership was close with p=0.057. The table of coefficients
is listed below in Table 11.
Table 11
Regression Coefficients Between Transformational, Two

Passive/Avoidant Subscales & Two Transactional Subscales with
Satisfaction Variables (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) .293 .276 1.063 .290
Transformational
.817 .117 .604 6.996 .000
Leadership
* Contingent
.230 .094 .196 2.439 .016
Reward
* Mgt-By-Exception
-.130 .056 -.098 -2.322 .022
(active)
* Mgt-By-Exception
.040 .074 .030 .549 .584
(passive)
* Laissez-Faire
-.159 .083 -.119 -1.922 .057
Leadership
A final regression was run, removing Passive/Avoidant
Leadership from the equation. The model R2 increased a small
amount (0.783), and both Contingent Reward and Management-By-
Exception (active) were significant at the 0.05 level. Most
likely, this is due to the intercorrelation between the
independent variables. However, neither Management-By-
Exception (passive) nor Laissez-Faire was significant at the
0.05 level. The last two regression models clearly show that
Passive/Avoidant Leadership did not significantly predict
Satisfaction.
Regression Model II
Leadership. Results were included in Table 12. While the
full model was significant overall (F(3,146)=169.756, p=0) and
R-squared for this model was 0.777, not all the independent
variables were significant. Transformational Leadership
(t=9.672, p=0) and Transactional Leadership (reversed)
(t=3.318, p=.001) were the only significant indicators.
Passive/Avoidant Leadership was not. An examination of the
part and partial correlations show that there was little
relationship between Passive/Avoidant Leadership and
Satisfaction once the other independent variables were
controlled for in the model. This effect is most likely due
to the collinearity that exists between the independent
variables since, by itself, Passive/Avoidant Leadership
produces significant results (F(1, 148)=91.377, p=0).

Table 12

(reversed), and Passive/Avoidant with Satisfaction (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) -.307 .271 -1.133 .259
Transformational
.892 .092 .659 9.672 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.326 .098 .211 3.318 .001
(reversed)
Passive/Avoidant
-.100 .075 -.069 -1.329 .186
Leadership
The full model was run again but with the
Passive/Avoidant Leadership subscales Management-By-Exception
(passive) and Laissez-Faire subscales. The model was
significant overall (F(4,145)=120.031, p=0) and R2 for this
model was 0.781. Transformational and Transactional
Leadership (reversed) and Management-By-Exception (active)
significantly contributed to the model as shown in Table 13.
However, the subscales were not significant, even though
Laissez-Faire was nearly significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 13

(reversed) Management-By-Exception (active), and Two
Passive/Avoidant Subscales with Satisfaction (n=150)
Std.
(Constant) -.259 .272 -.954 .342
Transformational
.890 .092 .657 9.692 .000
Leadership
Transactional
.299 .100 .194 3.004 .003
(reversed)
* Laissez-Faire
-.162 .083 -.121 -1.95 .053
Leadership
* Mgt-By-Exception
.045 .074 .033 .607 .545
(passive)
A significant relationship between Transformational Leadership
and Satisfaction was found. Transformational Leadership had
the strongest correlation with Satisfaction and supports the
concept that subordinates have more Satisfaction with
management that provides Transformational Leadership. These
results were very similar to those found in other studies
(Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al.,
1999, Lowe et al., 1996, Dumdum et al., 2002, Den Hartog et
al., 1997, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).

Initially, Transactional Leadership doesnt appear to be
significant. Yet, the two subscales were significant and when
the Management-By-Exception (active) scale was reversed and
recalculated, Transactional Leadership became significant.
These results suggest that the construction of the scale might
be the reason that Transactional Leadership was not always
significant. This indicates that the Transactional Leadership
questions, scales, and subscales needs to be explored further.
Results for Transactional Leadership and related subscales
were somewhat different from the literature (Avolio & Bass,
2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and
Piccolo, 2004).
Passive/Avoidant Leadership was not significant in
predicting Satisfaction. Neither the Passive/Avoidant scale,
Management-By-Exception (passive) subscale, nor the Laissez-
Faire Leadership subscale was significant and these results
were different from much of the literature (Avolio & Bass,
2004; Avolio et al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and
Piccolo, 2004). However, it is important to note that
Yammarino and Bass (1990) and this study had similar findings.
Management-By-Exception (passive) was not significant with
Satisfaction in both studies and although Laissez-Faire was
significant only in their study, Laissez-Faire was close here
with p=.053.
Summary
Table 14 and Table 15 provide a summary of the findings
for all three hypotheses. Note there was partial support for
all three hypotheses, since at least two of the three
independent variables significantly predicted each of the
three dependent variables.

Table 14
Summary of Regression Coefficients Without Transactional Leadership

(reversed) (n=150)
Independent Variable Hypothesis Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3
1 (Extra (Effectiveness) (Satisfaction)
Effort) R2=0.818 full R2=0.762 full
2
R =0.725 model, 0.827 model, 0.780
full model for subscale for subscale
model model
Transformational .850 full; 1.126
.898
0.667 subscale
Transactional N/S N/S full N/S full
* Contingent Reward N/S .143 .245
* Mgt-By-Exception
N/S -.087 -.143
(active)
Passive/Avoidant -.228 -.282 full; - N/S either
.266 subscale model
+ N/S Not Significant + Mgt Management
Table 15
Summary of Regression Coefficients With Transactional Leadership

(reversed) (n=150)
Independent Variable Hypothesis Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3
1 (Extra (Effectiveness) (Satisfaction)
Effort) R2= 0.826 R2=0.777 full
2
R =0.720 model
full model
Transformational .945 .703 .892
Transactional N/S (full
(reversed) or
.203 .326
subscale
models)
Passive/Avoidant N/S (full or
-.212 -.264 subscale
models)
+ N/S Not Significant
Transformational Leadership
Looking across all three hypotheses, Transformational
Leadership had the strongest effect on Extra Effort,

Effectiveness, and Satisfaction of all three leadership types.
Regression coefficients were high in both full scale and
subscale regression runs. By far, responders preferred to
work for leaders that demonstrated Transformational
Leadership.
Although Contingent Reward is a subscale of Transactional
Leadership, it had a higher mean than two of the
Transformational Subscales. In addition, Contingent Reward
had correlations with each of the dependent variables that
were higher than at least two of the Transformational
Leadership subscales. These results indicate that there seems
to be more here between Contingent Reward and Transformational
Leadership than is currently known and more investigation is
needed (Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Transactional Leadership
The Transactional Leadership scale as defined by Avolio
and Bass (2004) and Hater and Bass (1988), did not
significantly predict the level of Extra Effort,
Effectiveness, or Satisfaction of subordinates. However, when
the two subscales were used independently in the model, there
appears to be some predictive ability. Subscales Contingent
Reward and Management-By-Exception (active) were significant
for Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort.

Also, when the Management-By-Exception (active) subscale was
reversed and the Transactional Leadership scale was
recalculated, Transactional Leadership significantly predicted
Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort. As noted
earlier, these results may suggest that the construction of
the scale might be the reason that Transactional Leadership
was not always significant. Further research on this scale is
necessary.
Passive/Avoidant Leadership
Passive/Avoidant Leadership significantly predicted Extra
Effort and Effectiveness, but not Satisfaction. This scale was
unique in that it was negatively correlated with the dependent
measures. Neither the scale nor its two subscales were
significant in the regression models.
Yammarino and Bass (1990) had similar findings.
Management-By-Exception (passive) was not significant with
Satisfaction in both studies and although Laissez-Faire was
significant only in their study, Laissez-Faire was close here
at p=.053.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS
This chapter provides an overview and purpose for this
study. It also includes a summary of the findings, possible
implications, and recommendations for future research.
Overview
Informational Technology (IT) is a critical piece of any
business operations and strategic planning and is supported
by a variety of professionals that need to grow and adapt to
the changing technical and business environments. Company
leaders need to identify and apply the leadership styles that
will most effectively manage and motivate their IT employees
to make good technical decisions, to reach their maximum
potential, and provide the biggest benefit for their company.
The purpose of this study was to conduct research on the
relationship between the Transformational, Transactional, and
Passive/Avoidant Leadership styles of IT managers as perceived
by their subordinates and the subordinates willingness to
exert Extra Effort, the subordinates perception of the IT
managers Effectiveness, and the subordinates Satisfaction
with their IT manager, as defined by Bass (1985), Avolio, et
al. (1999), and Avolio & Bass (2004). This relationship was
examined with the MLQ-5X survey on AITP members.

Discussion and Implications for Future Research
Transformational Leadership
As noted by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985),
Transformational Leadership motivates and appeals to
followers ideals and moral values to do more.
Transformational Leaders inspire and set direction and vision.
They empower subordinates to participate and take initiative
in changing the organization. Transformational Leadership
would result in employees performing beyond expectations and
that improvement could be due to the followers commitment to
the leader and their sense of purpose and mission.
Of all three leadership styles, the level of
Transformational Leadership was the strongest predictor of
Extra Effort, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction. For all three
dependent measures, the Transformational Leadership scale
accounted for the most variance in the regression models.
Thus, the results indicate that responders in AITP prefer to
be challenged, inspired and given a vision to work toward.
The high correlation between Extra Effort and all five
Transformational Leadership subscales indicate that the more
leaders are transformational, the more IT associates want to
succeed and try harder to be productive in the workplace.

These correlations are consistent with the literature (Lowe et
al., 1996 and Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Idealized Influence (Attributed) and Intellectual
Stimulation subscales had the highest two correlations with
Extra Effort. The correlation between the Intellectual
Stimulation subscale and Effectiveness suggest that
independent thinking from subordinates is acceptable. The
other correlation between Effectiveness and the Individual
Consideration subscale suggests that IT professionals expect
their boss to help coach, mentor, and develop them for future
career opportunities. In both correlations, these specific
characteristics are measured in the MLQ.
Furthermore, Satisfaction with management is highest with
subordinates that perceive higher levels of Transformational
Leadership. There was a high correlation between the
Inspirational Motivation subscale and the Intellectual
Stimulation subscale with Satisfaction. These findings
support the belief that in Transformational Leadership,
subordinates are encouraged to be enthusiastic about the
future and to look for new ways to solve problems.
Passive/Avoidant Leadership
As noted by Avolio and Bass, (2004), Passive/Avoidant
Leadership delays decisions, is not accountable or responsible

to others in achieving goals, and takes a hands-off approach
to management. In all regression models, Passive/Avoidant
Leadership was not as strong of a predictor as
Transformational Leadership for Extra Effort and Effectiveness
and did not significantly predict Satisfaction at all. In
addition, Passive/Avoidant Leadership had the opposite effect
of Transformational Leadership. The more a leader
demonstrated Passive/Avoidant Leadership, the less
subordinates were willing to demonstrate Extra Effort to get
the job done and the less effective subordinates felt their
boss was in the organization. Therefore, these results
further imply that IT professionals look for management to
inspire, provide vision, encourage extra effort, and are
effective within the organization.
The high negative correlation between Passive/Avoidant
Leadership and Extra Effort support that AITP professionals
are less willing to provide extra effort when management is
not willing to make decisions or go beyond the idea of if it
aint broke, dont fix it mentality. This finding further
suggests that IT professionals expect managers to do more than
just go with the status quo. They exert more effort for
management that are engaged, willing and capable to make
timely decisions.
The strong negative correlation between Passive/Avoidant
Leadership and management Effectiveness support the concept
that the more the Passive/Avoidant leadership style is
demonstrated, the more managers are perceived as not meeting
subordinates individual job related needs or the
organizations needs. In other words, IT subordinates expect
management to be aware of individual needs, organizational
needs, and engaged in organizational activities.
As noted earlier, the negative correlation between
Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Satisfaction was not
significant in the regression models. This finding was
surprising since Dumdum et al. (2002) noted that Laissez-Faire
(a subscale of Passive/Avoidant Leadership) negatively
predicted Satisfaction. Later, Avolio & Bass (2004) noted
that both Laissez-Faire and another subscale of
Passive/Avoidant Leadership, Management-By-Exception
(passive), negatively predicted Satisfaction. Since Laissez-
Faire and Management-By-Exception (passive) are subscales of
Passive/Avoidant Leadership, it was expected that
Passive/Avoidant leaders should predict Satisfaction in this
study.
One possible explanation for this unique finding may be
that over time, lack of action by leadership may affect
subordinates sense of satisfaction with their management.

Yet, as sometimes happens when there is a leadership void
others step in. Highly motivated subordinates, respected by
others, may take the initiative and leadership courage to put
out the daily fires or help set long-term vision and
direction. Some of this effort may be done behind the
scenes to avoid potential political battles and help achieve
desired results. Perhaps, an IT professionals manager may be
nice, kind to employees, easy to get along with, but is not
engaged in the work; resulting in the variable Satisfaction
ratings.
Although it is not the best scenario, subordinates can
live and work with weak management as long as management does
not interfere with progress. Perhaps, when subordinates are
highly motivated, willing to take initiative, and are
knowledgeable about the job, Satisfaction becomes irrelevant.
At that point, Passive/Avoidant Leadership cannot reliably
predict Satisfaction. In this study, there may have been
enough responders in similar situations that prevented
Passive/Avoidant Leadership from predicting Satisfaction.
However, the survey was not designed to measure the level of
importance Satisfaction was to IT professionals so further
research is needed.
Transactional Leadership
As noted by Bass (1985), Transactional leaders understand
the needs of their employees and how to meet those needs in
exchange for the appropriate level of effort. Transactional
leaders focus on efficiencies, current processes, maintaining
the status quo, and meeting contractual agreements.
At first glance, the Transactional Leadership Scale did
not appear to predict any of the three dependent variables,
Extra Effort, Effectiveness, or Satisfaction. However, both
subscales, Contingent Reward and Management-By-Exception
(active), when considered independently in the models,
predicted Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort.
For every tested hypothesis and dependent variable, the two
subscales were oppositely correlated with the dependent
measure. Each time, Contingent Reward was positively
correlated and Management-By-Exception (active) was negatively
correlated with the dependent variables.
In addition, when the Management-By-Exception (active)
subscale was reversed, Transactional Leadership was able to
predict Effectiveness and Satisfaction but not Extra Effort.
This is not a unique finding. Previous research has found that
Transactional Leadership and its two subscales were not always
significant (Lowe et al., 1996; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998; Dumdum
et al., 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Since the subscales and
the reversed-Transactional scale successfully predicted two of
the three dependent measures, it suggests that the construct
of Transactional Leadership is sound, but the construction of
the scale needs further research.
As noted above, Transactional Leadership (reversed),
subscale Contingent Reward, and subscale Management-By-
Exception (active) were not able to predict Extra Effort.
Perhaps, transactional leaders did not significantly motivate
subordinates to try harder to be successful. The expectation
of appropriate monetary awards was not enough to overcome the
negative approach of management tracking a subordinates
mistakes and errors. Subordinates valued a more positive
management approach found in Transformational Leadership.
Transactional Leadership (reversed), subscale Contingent
Reward, and subscale Management-By-Exception (active) were
able to predict management Effectiveness. Perhaps, the high
correlation between Transactional Leadership (reversed) and
subscale Contingent Reward with management Effectiveness
support the concept that the more managers follow through with
their promises of appropriate financial rewards when goals are
achieved, the more effective they are perceived by AITP
professionals. Thus, this builds trust and loyalty between
subordinates and management.

The negative correlation between the Management-By-
Exception (active) subscale with management Effectiveness
supports the idea that the more managers focused on
proactively tracking mistakes, failures, and irregularities,
the less effective management was perceived by AITP
professionals. Subordinates could have experienced a drop in
morale and perceived that management focused on the trivial
things, things that kept leaders from helping subordinates get
to the real root of problems. Since the role of morale in
leadership style is not specifically addressed in the MLQ-5X,
more research is needed.
Transactional Leadership (reversed), subscale Contingent
Reward, and subscale Management-By-Exception active) were able
to predict Satisfaction with management. The high correlation
between Transactional Leadership (reversed) and subscale
Contingent Reward with Satisfaction support that the more
leadership followed through with financial rewards, the more
satisfied AITP professionals were with management. As with
Effectiveness, fulfilling promises builds trust. The negative
correlation between the Management-By-Exception (active)
subscale with Satisfaction further support that the more the
managers tracked mistakes and failures, the less satisfied
AITP professionals were with their management. Thus,
subordinates perceived that they were always under the

microscope and that their management was only tracking the
losses and not the wins. Over time, this could create
frustration and diminish the desire for subordinates to take
calculated risks for the good of the team or company.
Unfortunately, the ultimate result could be for subordinates
to play it safe, not make waves, and consequently not provide
the kind of technical leadership a company needs to compete in
a fast changing technical environment.
Finally, Contingent Reward, a subscale of Transactional
Leadership, had higher correlations than at least two
subscales of Transformational Leadership (see Appendix B).
These results have been consistent with the literature and
some researchers have noted that more research should be done
to determine if Contingent Reward should be a component of
Transformational Leadership (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et
al., 1999, Dumdum et al., 2002, Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Summary
In summary, this study has found partial support for all
three hypotheses. In hypothesis one, Transformational
Leadership and Passive/Avoidant Leadership were able to
predict Extra Effort. In hypothesis two, Transformational
Leadership, Transactional Leadership (reversed), Contingent
Reward, Management-By-Exception (active), and Passive/Avoidant

Leadership were able to predict Effectiveness. In hypothesis
three, Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership
(reversed), Contingent Reward, and Management-By-Exception
(active) were able to predict Satisfaction. Most of these
findings were consistent with existing literature.
However, this study also identified several items that
need more research. First, the relationship between
Passive/Avoidant Leadership and Satisfaction needs to be
examined further. Second, the construct of Transactional
Leadership is appears sound but the construction of the scale
needs further examination. Third, the role of morale in
leadership style is not addressed specifically in the MLQ-5X
survey instrument. Fourth and last, the relationship between
Contingent Reward and Transformational Leadership should be
clarified further to see if Contingent Reward is actually a
component of Transformational Leadership.

APPENDIX A
Permission Notification to use MLQ-5X Short Survey

APPENDIX B
Pearson Correlations for All Independent Variables, Subscales, and Dependent Variables
TrForm TrAct TrAct Pas/A
L L L rev v L IIA IIB IM IS IC CR MBEa MBEar MBEp LF L EE EFF SAT
TrForm L 1.000
TrAct L .505 1.000
TrAct L rev .784 .141 1.000
Pas/Av L -.648 -.256 -.579 1.000
IIA .946 .469 .743 -.651 1.000
IIB .873 .460 .638 -.494 .783 1.000
IM .901 .444 .692 -.555 .811 .800 1.000
IS .880 .458 .684 -.629 .797 .678 .705 1.000
IC .920 .449 .788 -.606 .872 .699 .764 .815 1.000
CR .874 .657 .836 -.579 .827 .739 .772 .770 .845 1.000
MBEa -.338 .531 -.762 .325 -.325 -.241 -.300 -.285 -.379 -.285 1.000
MBEar .338 -.531 .762 -.325 .325 .241 .300 .285 .379 .285 -1.000 1.000
MBEp -.545 -.231 -.456 .920 -.518 -.424 -.479 -.554 -.503 -.471 .236 -.236 1.000
LF L -.648 -.238 -.612 .921 -.680 -.486 -.544 -.602 -.614 -.596 .366 -.366 .696 1.000
EE .840 .473 .675 -.634 .839 .654 .691 .809 .804 .772 -.269 .269 -.539 -.627 1.000
EFF .886 .406 .770 -.711 .887 .706 .781 .761 .861 .811 -.391 .391 -.577 -.733 .827 1.000
SAT .869 .402 .768 -.618 .879 .718 .757 .717 .848 .809 -.395 .395 -.497 -.642 .819 .919 1.000
+ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
+ Shaded areas are referred to in Chapter IV.
+ Abbreviations
TrForm L Transformational Leadership IM - Inspirational Motivation MBEp - Mgt-By-Exception (passive)
TrAct L Transactional Leadership IS - Intellectual Stimulation LF L Laissez-Faire Leadership
TrAct L rev Transactional Leadership (reversed) IC - Individual Consideration EE Extra Effort
Pas/Av L - Passive/Avoidant Leadership CR Contingent Reward EFF - Effectiveness
IIA - Idealized Influence (Attributed) MBEa Mgt-By-Exception (active) SAT - Satisfaction
IIB - Idealized influence (Behavior) MBEar Mgt-By-Exception (active) (reversed)
116
REFERENCES CITED
Antonakis, J. Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003,
June). Context & leadership: an examination of the nine-
factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(3), 261-295.
Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP)
retrieved June 10, 2008 from http://www.aitp.org/.
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (2004). Multifactor leadership
questionnaire: Third edition manual & sampler set. Menlo
Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining
the components of transformational and transactional
leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading
in the 1990s; The four Is of transformational
leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training,
15(4), 8-16.
Banerji, P. & Krishnan, V.R. (2000). Ethical preferences of
transformational leaders: An empirical investigation.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(8),
405-413.
Barbuto Jr., J.E., (2005). Motivation and transactional,
charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of
antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 11(4), 26-41.
Barbuto Jr., J.E. & Burback M.E. (2006). The emotional
intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study
of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,
146(1), 51-64.
Barge, J.K. & Schlueter, D.W. (1991, May). Leadership as
organizing: A critique of leadership instruments.
Management Communication Quarterly, 4(4), 541-570.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership.
New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership:
A response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman
(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions (pp 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). The multifactor leadership
questionnaire (form R, revised). Palo Alto, CA: Mind
Garden, Inc.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodeim, L. (1987). Biography and
the assessment of transformational leadership at the
world-class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-20.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (1999, December). Re-
examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid.
Houston: Gulf.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1981, December). Management by
grid principles or situationalism: Which? Group and
Organization Studies, 6(4), 439-455.
Bobic, M.P. & Davis, W.E. (July, 2003). A kind word for theory
X: Or why many newfangled management techniques quickly
fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 13(3), 239-264.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower
Behavior and Organizational Performance: The impact of

transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.
Boyatzis (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective
performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Campbell, D. (1956). Leadership and its effects upon the
group. Ohio State University: Bureau of Business
Research, Monograph Number 83.
Carless, S.A. (1998, December). Assessing the discriminant
validity of transformational leader behavior as measured
by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Carson, C.M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregors
Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.
Chaffee, E. (1989). Leadership in higher education: variations
on a theme. Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 167-175.
Chen, L.Y. (2004, September). Examining the effects of
organization culture and leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job
performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.
Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity:
The American college president (2nd ed.) Cambridge:
Harvard Business School Press.

Cotton, J.L. Vollrath, D.A., Froggati, K.K., Longneck-Hall,
M.L., & Jennings, K.R. (1988, January). Employee
participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.
Craig, S.B. & Gustafson, S.B. (1998). Perceived leader
integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee
perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly,
9(2), 127-145.
Cribbin, J. (1972). Effective managerial leadership. American
Management Association, Inc.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S., & Cross, T.C. (2000). A meta-
analysis to review organizational outcomes related to
charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356-371.
Den Hartog, D.N. Van Mijen, J.J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997,
March). Transactional versus transformational
leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.
Densten, I.L. (2002). Clarifying inspirational motivation and
its relationship to extra effort. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 23(1/2), 40-44.
Dessler, G. & Valenzi, E. R. (June, 1977). Initiation of
structure and subordinate satisfaction: A path analysis

test of path-goal theory. Academy of Management Journal,
20,(2), 251-259.
Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and
charisma in the revolutionary process. New York: Free
Press.
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 & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road
ahead (pp. 35-66). Amsterdam: JAI.
Evans, M.G. (1970). Leadership and motivation: A core concept.
Academy of Management Journal, 13,01, 91-102.
Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced
research in the field of transformational leadership.
Zeitschrift fr Personalforschung, 18(3), 262-288.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. & Chemers, M. (1984). Improving leadership
effectiveness : the leader match concept. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. (1987). The contingency model and dynamics of
leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). 59-112.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, New
York: Free Press.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of
the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Geyer, A.L.J. & Steyrer, J.M. (1998). Transformational
leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied
Psychology, 47(3), 397-420.
Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Whittington, J.L. (2001,
November). A theoretical and empirical extension to the
transformational leadership construct. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 759-774.
Graeff, C.L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A
critical review. Academy of Management, 8, 285-296.
Halal, W.E. (1981). Participative management: Myth and
reality. California Management Review, 23,(4), 20-32.
Hambleton, R.K. & Gumbent, R. (1982). The validity of Hersey
and Blanchards theory of leader effectiveness. Group and
Organization Studies, 7, 225-242.
Harter, N.W. (Feb, 1997). The shop floor Schopenhauer: Hope
for a theory-X supervisor. Journal of Management
Education, 21(1), 87-96.
Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988, November). Superiors'
evaluations and subordinates perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of
leadership. Training and Development, 23, 26-34.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1996). Great ideas revisited:
Revisiting the life cycle theory of leadership. Training
and Development, 50(1), 42-48.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (1996).
Management of Organizational Behavior (7th ed.). Upper
saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M., & Backer Johnson, T. (2007, March).
Burnout in the information technology sector: Does
leadership matter? European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 58-75.
House, R. (1971). A path goal theory of leadership
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),
321-338.
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In
J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.) Leadership: The cutting
edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of
leadership. Journal of Contemporary of Business, 4(3),
81-87.
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993, December). Transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control,
and support for innovation, key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
Howland, J. (2000). Xenophons philosophic odyssey: On the
anabasis and Platos republic. The American Political
Science Review, 94(4), 875-889.
Humphreys, J.H. & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the
sun: Transformational leadership from a historical
perspective. Management Decision, 41,(1/2) 85-95.
Isenberg, D.J. (1984, November-December). How senior managers
think. Harvard Business Review, 62, 81-90.
Jones, H.B. (June, 2001). Magic, meaning and leadership:
Webers model and the empirical literature. Human
Relations, 54(6), 753-771.
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.
Jung, D.I. & Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style
and followers cultural orientation on performance in
group and individual task conditions. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 208-218.

Kakabadse, A. & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2000). Future role of
IS/IT professionals. The Journal of Management
Development, 19(2), 97-154.
Katz, D., MacCoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. (1951).
Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad
workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for
Social Research.
Katz, D., MacCoby, N. & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity,
supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social
Research.
Kenny, D. & Zarccaro, S. (1983). An estimate of variance due
to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68 (4), 678-685.
Kerr, S. & Schriesheim, C. (1974). Consideration, initiating
structure, and organizational criteria-an update of
Kormans 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 7(4), 555-
568.
Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: Do traits
matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Korman, A.K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure and
organizational criteria a review. Personnel Psychology,
19, 349-361.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge:
How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kouzes, O. & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain
it and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Krishnan, V.R. (2001). Value systems of transformational
leaders. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, 22(3), 126-131.
Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related
values and leadership styles among one companys U.S. and
German telecommunication employees. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and
value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-
analysis of the relation between personality traits and
leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71(3), 402-410.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analysis of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Mann, R.D. (July, 1959). A review of the relationships
between personality and performance in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-271.
Masi, R.J. & Cooke, R.A. (2000). Effects of transformational
leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms,
and organizational productivity. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 16-47.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper Row.
Maswood, S.A., Dani, S.S., Burns, N.D., & Backhouse, C.J.
(2006). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture: The situational strength perspective.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
220(B6), 941-949.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial
civilization. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Medley, F. & Larochelle, D.R. (1995, September).
Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Nursing
Management, 26(9), 64-68.
Meeker, S.M. (1982). Theory Y: Another look. Southern Review
of Public Administration, 5(4), 500-510.

Miller, K. & Monge, P. (1986). Participation, satisfaction,
and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of
Management Journal, 29: 727-753.
Mind Garden, Inc. retrieved March 1, 2008 from
http://www.mindgarden.com/.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York:
Harper and Row.
Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an
adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160-197.
Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction,
occupational preference and effort: A theoretical,
methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological
Bulletin, 81(12), 1053-1077.
Morse, N. (1953). Satisfactions in the white-collar job. Ann
Research.
Odom, L. & Green, M.T. (2003). Law and the ethics of
transformational leadership. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 24(1/2), 62-69.
zaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on
empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership and

Parry, K.W., & Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2002). Perceived
integrity of transformational leaders in organizational
settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 75-96.
Prabhakar, G.P. (2005, December). An empirical study
reflecting the importance of transformational leadership
on project success across twenty-eight nations. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 53-60.
Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. (2004). Dimensions of
transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical
extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.
Reddin, W. (1967). The 3-D management style theory. Training
and Development Journal, 21, 8-17.
Reddin, W. & Stuart-Kotze, R. (1973). Toward Situational
Management. Cost and Management, 47(3), 24-27.
Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K (2007). Transformational and
charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent,
divergent and criterion validty of the MLQ and the CKS.
The Leadership Quarterly, 18(2), 121-133.
Sarver, M. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness: An
examination of the leadership styles of Texas police
chiefs and the correlates of the most effective leaders.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(04). (UMI No.
3311989).
Schlechter, A.F. & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2006). The relationship
between transformational leadership, meaning, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Management Dynamics,
15(4), 2-16.
Schriesheim, C. & Glinow, M.A. (1977, September). The path-
goal theory of leadership: A theoretical and empirical
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 398-405.
Schweiger, D.M., Anderson, C.R. & Locke, E.A., (1985). Complex
decision making: A longitudinal study of process and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 245-272.
Scott, E. (1956). Leadership and perceptions of organization.
Ohio State University: Bureau of Business Research,
Monograph Number 82.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with
leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Stogdill, R. (1974). Historical trends in leadership theory
and research. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 1-
17.
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the
literature. New York: Free Press.

Stogdill, R. & Shartle, C(1955). Methods in the Study of
Administrative Leadership. Ohio State University: Bureau
of Business Research, Monograph Number 80.
Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006, Fall). Exploring
the linkage between the characteristics of IT project
leaders and project success. Information Systems
Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., & Pilla, R. (2001). The MLQ
revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.
Thite, M. (1999). Identifying key characteristics of technical
project leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 20(5), 253-261.
Thite, M. (2000, August). Leadership styles in information
technology projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 18(4), 235-241.
Tosi, H. & Carroll, S. (1976). Management: contingencies,
structure, and process. Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Tucker, B.A. & Russell, R.F. (2003, Spring). The influence of
the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and

Vecchio, R.P. (1987). Situational Leadership theory: An
examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(3), 444-451.
Vroom, V. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
1527-1551. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Vroom, V. (1982). Work and Motivation. Florida: Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.
Wagner, J.A. & Gooding, R.Z. (1987). Shared influence and
organizational behavior: A met-analysis of situational
variables expected to moderate participation-outcome
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-
541.
Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990, December).
Adding to contingent-reward behavior the augmenting
effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization
Studies (1986-1998). Beverly Hills, 15(4), 381-395.
Walumbawa, F.Q., Lawler, J.L., Avolio, B.J., Wang, P., & Shi,
K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related
attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-
efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and
Wren, D.A. (2005). The history of management thought (5th
ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Xenikou, A. & Simois, M. (2006). Organizational culture and
transformational leadership as predictors of business
unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
21(6), 566-579.
Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. (1990, October). Transformational
leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human
Relations, 43(10), 975-996.
Yammarino, F.J. & Dubinsky, A.J. (1994, Winter).
Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 787-816.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Antonakis, J. Avolio, B.J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003,
June). Context & leadership: an examination of the nine-
factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(3), 261-295.
Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP)
retrieved June 10, 2008 from http://www.aitp.org/.
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (2004). Multifactor leadership
questionnaire: Third edition manual & sampler set. Menlo
Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining
the components of transformational and transactional
leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Leading
in the 1990s; The four Is of transformational
leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training,
15(4), 8-16.
Avolio, B.J., Weichun, Z., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004).
Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment

and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of
Banerji, P. & Krishnan, V.R. (2000). Ethical preferences of
transformational leaders: An empirical investigation.
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(8),
405-413.
Barbuto Jr., J.E., (2005). Motivation and transactional,
charismatic, and transformational leadership: A test of
antecedents. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 11(4), 26-41.
Barbuto Jr., J.E. & Burback M.E. (2006). The emotional
intelligence of transformational leaders: A field study
of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology,
146(1), 51-64.
Barge, J.K. & Schlueter, D.W. (1991, May). Leadership as
organizing: A critique of leadership instruments.
Management Communication Quarterly, 4(4), 541-570.
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of
leadership. New York: The Free Press.
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. (1993). Transformational leadership:
A response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman
(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions (pp 49-80). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). The multifactor leadership
questionnaire (form R, revised). Palo Alto, CA: Mind
Garden, Inc.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Goodeim, L. (1987). Biography and
the assessment of transformational leadership at the
world-class level. Journal of Management, 13, 7-20.
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (1999, December). Re-
examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid.
Houston: Gulf.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1981, December). Management by
grid principles or situationalism: Which? Group and
Organization Studies, 6(4), 439-455.

Bobic, M.P. & Davis, W.E. (July, 2003). A kind word for theory
X: Or why many newfangled management techniques quickly
fail. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 13(3), 239-264.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower
Behavior and Organizational Performance: The impact of
transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership and
Boyatzis (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective
performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bradford, D.L. & Cohen, A.R. (1984). Managing for excellence:
The guide to developing high performance organizations.
New York: Wiley.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Campbell, D. (1956). Leadership and its effects upon the
group. Ohio State University: Bureau of Business
Research, Monograph Number 83.
Carless, S.A. (1998, December). Assessing the discriminant
validity of transformational leader behavior as measured
by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Carson, C.M. (2005). A historical view of Douglas McGregors
Theory Y. Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.

Chaffee, E. (1989). Leadership in higher education: variations
on a theme. Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 167-175.
Chen, L.Y. (2004, September). Examining the effects of
organization culture and leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and job
performance at small and middle-sized firms of Taiwan.
Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.
Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and ambiguity:
The American college president (2nd ed.) Cambridge:
Harvard Business School Press.
Cotton, J.L. Vollrath, D.A., Froggati, K.K., Longneck-Hall,
M.L., & Jennings, K.R. (1988, January). Employee
participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.
Craig, S.B. & Gustafson, S.B. (1998). Perceived leader
integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee
perceptions of leader integrity. Leadership Quarterly,
9(2), 127-145.
Cribbin, J. (1972). Effective managerial leadership. American
Management Association, Inc.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S., & Cross, T.C. (2000). A meta-
analysis to review organizational outcomes related to
charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17(4), 356-371.

Den Hartog, D.N. Van Mijen, J.J., & Koopman, P.L. (1997,
March). Transactional versus transformational
leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.
Densten, I.L. (2002). Clarifying inspirational motivation and
its relationship to extra effort. Leadership and
Dessler, G. & Valenzi, E. R. (June, 1977). Initiation of
structure and subordinate satisfaction: A path analysis
test of path-goal theory. Academy of Management Journal,
20,(2), 251-259.
Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and
charisma in the revolutionary process. New York: Free
Press.
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 & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road
ahead (pp. 35-66). Amsterdam: JAI.
Evans, M.G. (1970). Leadership and motivation: A core concept.
Academy of Management Journal, 13,01, 91-102.

Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced
research in the field of transformational leadership.
Zeitschrift fr Personalforschung, 18(3), 262-288.
Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. & Chemers, M. (1984). Improving leadership
effectiveness : the leader match concept. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. (1987). The contingency model and dynamics of
leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). 59-112.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 11, New
York: Free Press.
Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of
the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Fry, L., Kerr, S. & Lee, C. (1986, December). Effects of
different leader behaviors under different levels of task
interdependence. Human Relations. New York, 39(12),
1067-1082.
Gardner, L. & Avolio, B.J. (January 1998). The charismatic
relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(1), 32-58.
Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship
between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior

level managers. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 23(1/2), 68-78.
Geyer, A.L.J. & Steyrer, J.M. (1998). Transformational
leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied
Psychology, 47(3), 397-420.
Goodwin, V.L., Wofford, J.C., & Whittington, J.L. (2001,
November). A theoretical and empirical extension to the
transformational leadership construct. Journal of
Graeff, C.L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A
critical review. Academy of Management, 8, 285-296.
Gray, E. & Smeltzer, L. (1989). Management: the competitive
edge. New York: Macmillan.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the
nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press,
New York, NY
Halal, W.E. (1981). Participative management: Myth and
reality. California Management Review, 23,(4), 20-32.
Hambleton, R.K. & Gumbent, R. (1982). The validity of Hersey
and Blanchards theory of leader effectiveness. Group and
Organization Studies, 7, 225-242.
Harter, N.W. (Feb, 1997). The shop floor Schopenhauer: Hope
for a theory-X supervisor. Journal of Management
Education, 21(1), 87-96.

Hater, J.J., & Bass, B.M. (1988, November). Superiors'
evaluations and subordinates perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.
Hayashi, A. & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership. The Journal
of Experiential Education, 28(3), 222-242.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life cycle theory of
leadership. Training and Development, 23, 26-34.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1996). Great ideas revisited:
Revisiting the life cycle theory of leadership. Training
and Development, 50(1), 42-48.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (1996).
Management of Organizational Behavior (7th ed.). Upper
saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hetland, H., Sandal, G.M., & Backer Johnson, T. (2007, March).
Burnout in the information technology sector: Does
leadership matter? European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 58-75.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage.
Hofstede, G (1991). Cultures and organizations. London:
McGraw-Hill.
House, R. (1971). A path goal theory of leadership
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3),
321-338.
House, R. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In
J.G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.) Leadership: The cutting
edge: 189-207. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
House, R. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of
leadership. Journal of Contemporary of Business, 4(3),
81-87.
Howell, J., & Avolio, B. (1993, December). Transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control,
and support for innovation, key predictors of
consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
Howland, J. (2000). Xenophons philosophic odyssey: On the
anabasis and Platos republic. The American Political
Science Review, 94(4), 875-889.
Humphreys, J.H. (2005). Contextual implications for
transformational and servant leadership: A historical
investigation. Management Decision, 43(10), 1410-1431.
Humphreys, J.H. & Einstein, W.O. (2003). Nothing new under the
sun: Transformational leadership from a historical
perspective. Management Decision, 41,(1/2), 85-95.

Isenberg, D.J. (1984, November-December). How senior managers
think. Harvard Business Review, 62, 81-90.
Jabnoun, Naceur & Rasasi, Aisha Juma A L (2005).
Transformational leadership and service quality in UAE
hospitals. Managing Service Quality, 15,(1), 70-81.
Jones, H.B. (June, 2001). Magic, meaning and leadership:
Webers model and the empirical literature. Human
Relations, 54(6), 753-771.
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.
Jung, D.I. & Avolio, B.J. (1999). Effects of leadership style
and followers cultural orientation on performance in
group and individual task conditions. Academy of
Management Journal, 42, 208-218.
Kakabadse, A. & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (2000). Future role of
IS/IT professionals. The Journal of Management
Development, 19(2), 97-154.
Katz, D., MacCoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L. (1951).
Productivity, supervision, and morale among railroad
workers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for
Social Research.
Katz, D., MacCoby, N. & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity,
supervision, and morale in an office situation. Ann
Research.
Kenny, D. & Zarccaro, S. (1983). An estimate of variance due
to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68 (4), 678-685.
Kerr, S. & Schriesheim, C. (1974). Consideration, initiating
structure, and organizational criteria-an update of
Kormans 1966 review. Personnel Psychology, 7(4), 555-
568.
Khatri, N., NG, H.A., & Lee, T.H. (July 2001). The distinction
between charisma and vision: An empirical study. Asia
Pacific Journal of Management, 18(3), 373-393.
Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1991). Leadership: Do traits
matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.
Korman, A.K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure and
organizational criteria a review. Personnel Psychology,
19, 349-361.
Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1987). The leadership challenge:
How to get extraordinary things done in organizations.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kouzes, O. & Posner, B. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain
it and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Krishnan, V.R. (2001). Value systems of transformational
leaders. Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal, 22(3), 126-131.
Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related
values and leadership styles among one companys U.S. and
German telecommunication employees. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.
Kpers, W. & Weibler, J. (2006). How emotional is
transformational leadership really? Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 27(5), 368-383.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and
value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Larson, L., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (1976, December). The great
hi-hi leader behavior myth: A lesson from occams razor.
Academy of Management Journal, 19(4), 628-641.
Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. & Alliger, G.M. (1986). A meta-
analysis of the relation between personality traits and
leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71(3), 402-410.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., & Sivasubramaniam (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analysis of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.
Mann, R.D. (July, 1959). A review of the relationships
between personality and performance in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 56(4), 241-271.
Masi, R.J. & Cooke, R.A. (2000). Effects of transformational
leadership on subordinate motivation, empowering norms,
and organizational productivity. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 16-47.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper Row.
Maswood, S.A., Dani, S.S., Burns, N.D., & Backhouse, C.J.
(2006). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture: The situational strength perspective.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
220(B6), 941-949.
Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial
civilization. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Medley, F. & Larochelle, D.R. (1995, September).
Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Nursing
Meeker, S.M. (1982). Theory Y: Another look. Southern Review
of Public Administration, 5(4), 500-510.
Miller, K. & Monge, P. (1986). Participation, satisfaction,
and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of
Management Journal, 29: 727-753.
Mind Garden, Inc. retrieved March 1, 2008 from
http://www.mindgarden.com/.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York:
Harper and Row.
Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an
adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 160-197.
Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction,
occupational preference and effort: A theoretical,
methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological
Bulletin, 81(12), 1053-1077.
Morreale, Stephen A. (2002) Analysis of perceived leader
behaviors in law enforcement agencies. D.P.A.
dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, United States
-- Florida. Retrieved July 19, 2008, from Dissertations &
Theses @ Nova Southeastern University database.
(Publication No. AAT 3074882).

Morse, N. (1953). Satisfactions in the white-collar job. Ann
Research.
Odom, L. & Green, M.T. (2003). Law and the ethics of
transformational leadership. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 24(1/2), 62-69.
zaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on
empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership and
Parry, K.W., & Proctor-Thomson, S.B. (2002). Perceived
integrity of transformational leaders in organizational
settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 25, 75-96.
Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A., & Huber, V.L.
(1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and
punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
Prabhakar, G.P. (2005, December). An empirical study
reflecting the importance of transformational leadership
on project success across twenty-eight nations. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 53-60.
Quinn, R.E. & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983, March). A spatial model of
effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values
approach to organizational analysis. Management Science,
29(3), 363-377.
Rafferty, A.E. & Griffin, M.A. (2004). Dimensions of
transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical
extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354.
Reddin, W. (1967). The 3-D management style theory. Training
and Development Journal, 21, 8-17.
Reddin, W. & Stuart-Kotze, R. (1973). Toward Situational
Management. Cost and Management, 47(3), 24-27.
Rowold, J. & Heinitz, K (2007). Transformational and
charismatic leadership: Assessing the convergent,
divergent and criterion validty of the MLQ and the CKS.
Sarver, M. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness: An
examination of the leadership styles of Texas police
chiefs and the correlates of the most effective leaders.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(04). (UMI No.
3311989).
Schlechter, A.F. & Engelbrecht, A.S. (2006). The relationship
between transformational leadership, meaning, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Management Dynamics,
15(4), 2-16.
Schriesheim, C. & Glinow, M.A. (1977, September). The path-
goal theory of leadership: A theoretical and empirical
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 398-405.

Schweiger, D.M., Anderson, C.R. & Locke, E.A., (1985). Complex
decision making: A longitudinal study of process and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 36, 245-272.
Scott, E. (1956). Leadership and perceptions of organization.
Ohio State University: Bureau of Business Research,
Monograph Number 82.
Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V., & Kuzmenko, T.N. (Spring, 2004).
Transformational and servant leadership: Content and
contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
Stogdill, R. (1974). Historical trends in leadership theory
and research. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 1-
17.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal factors associated with
leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the
literature. New York: Free Press.
Stogdill, R. & Shartle, C(1955). Methods in the Study of
Administrative Leadership. Ohio State University: Bureau
of Business Research, Monograph Number 80.
Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., Patterson, K. (2004).
Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference

in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 25(3/4), 349 361.
Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006, Fall). Exploring
the linkage between the characteristics of IT project
leaders and project success. Information Systems
Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., & Pilla, R. (2001). The MLQ
revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations.
Thite, M. (1999). Identifying key characteristics of technical
project leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 20(5), 253-261.
Thite, M. (2000, August). Leadership styles in information
technology projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 18(4), 235-241.
Tickle, E.L. Brownlee, J., & Nailon, D. Personal
epistemological beliefs and transformational leadership
behaviors. The Journal of Management Development,
24(7/8), 706-719.
Tosi, H. & Carroll, S. (1976). Management: contingencies,
structure, and process. Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Tucker, B.A. & Russell, R.F. (2003, Spring). The influence of
the transformational leader. Journal of Leadership and
Vecchio, R.P. (1987). Situational Leadership theory: An
examination of a prescriptive theory. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72(3), 444-451.
Veechio, R. (1988). Organizational Behavior. Chicago: Dryden.
Vrba, M. (2007). Emotional intelligence skills and leadership
behavior in a sample of South African first-line
managers. Management Dynamics, 16(2), 25-35.
Vroom, V. (1976). Leadership. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
1527-1551. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Vroom, V. (1982). Work and Motivation. Florida: Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.
Vroom, V. & Yetton, P. (1981). Leadership and Decision-making.
Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
Wagner, J.A. & Gooding, R.Z. (1987). Shared influence and
organizational behavior: A met-analysis of situational
variables expected to moderate participation-outcome
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-
541.
Waldman, D.A., Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1990, December).
Adding to contingent-reward behavior the augmenting

effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organization
Studies (1986-1998). Beverly Hills, 15(4), 381-395.
Walumbawa, F.Q., Lawler, J.L., Avolio, B.J., Wang, P., & Shi,
K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related
attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-
efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and
Wren, D.A. (2005). The history of management thought (5th
ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Xenikou, A. & Simois, M. (2006). Organizational culture and
transformational leadership as predictors of business
unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
21(6), 566-579.
Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. (1990, October). Transformational
leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human
Relations, 43(10), 975-996.
Yammarino, F.J. & Dubinsky, A.J. (1994, Winter).
Transformational leadership theory: Using levels of
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 47(4), 787-816.
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

Out

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Out

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBORDINATES PERCEPTION OF THE

LEADERSHIP STYLE OF IT MANAGERS AND THE SUBORDINATES

The H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship

In partial fulfillment of the

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

All rights reserved

UMI Microform 3352391

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBORDINATES PERCEPTION OF THE

The current study examined the Transformational,

Three hypotheses examined the relationship between the

Special thanks and appreciation to Kathy, Andy, Megan, and

Thank you to my committee members, Chair Dr. David L. Morton,

Thanks and appreciation to Dr. Sharon Kristovich for her

Thanks to Past President Mark Gilfand, Executive Director Eric

Thanks to my friends and classmates Phil Skip Cox, George

LIST OF TABLES............................................ viii

Table 1 Demographic Comparison............................ 66

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent

Table 3 Correlations Between Independent Variables (n=150) 77

Table 4 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 5 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 6 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 7 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 8 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 9 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 10 Regression Coefficients Between Satisfaction &

Table 11 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 12 Regression Coefficients Between Transformational,

Table 14 Summary of Regression Coefficients Without

Table 15 Summary of Regression Coefficients With

Background and Introduction

Since the 1960s and 1970s, the world has seen a

tremendous increase of change. Due to major technological and

social changes, the world has figuratively, gotten smaller,

and has become more complex and inter-related (Friedman,

2005). Today, organizations have to be more flexible, more

only need to be involved in the day-to-day activities of their

company but they must also effectively provide vision that

will lead, inspire, and motivate employees. This vision will

be necessary to help others embrace change, create new

products, improve processes, lower costs, and be more

competitive in a global economy (Friedman, 2005).

The rules have changed. Companies are flattening out

their structure and reducing the number of second and third

level management. National boundaries are declining.

Decisions are being pushed down the chain of command.

Solutions need to be identified sooner. Employees are being

asked to do more then ever before. There has been a paradigm

shift and a new kind of leader is needed (Friedman, 2005;

Avolio, Waldman & Yammarino, 1991).

Leaders need to do more than just manage the day to day

operations. Leaders need to provide leadership that

encourages followers and employees to take on more ownership

of issues and problems, to think out of the box more to solve

business concerns, and to demonstrate self-sacrifice for the

good of the team and company. What kind of leadership is

necessary to help employees transform themselves, to

demonstrate personal sacrifice for the benefit of their

company, and to help their company move forward to the next

level and beyond? This is a critical question for business.

Leadership can determine the success or failure of an

organization and has been an important topic of discussion for

Burns (1987) and Bass (1985) along with many others

believe that transformational leadership is a key to our