do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.
Internationally, transformational and transactional leadership styles are among the most studied in the last 20 years. It is assumed that the adoption of one style or another can be predicted by the manager’s attitudes towards each style. The objective of this study was to provide evidence of the validity of a scale for measuring attitudes toward transformational and transactional leadership. The items were extracted from validated international scales and went through the translation-retranslation process. The questionnaire was applied to a sample of 324 professionals from public and private organizations in United States. Factor analysis (PCA with Varimax rotation) indicated a structure with two factors, theoretically consistent with the previous theory: Factor 1: Transformational Leadership (24 items); Factor 2: Transactional Leadership (8 items). It is concluded that the evidences found point the validity of the scale to measure the attitude towards the two styles of leadership.
Attitudes and leadership are two recurring themes in the literature of Organizational Psychology. The first to be seen as predictors of behavior, and the second by the central role that managers occupy in the life of any organization.
As for leadership, the review by Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) provided a snapshot of the state of the art research in the area. It was pointed out, among other recommendations, the need to investigate more background on the dispositional and contextual antecedents of managerial behavior. Little is known about what characteristics of the leader and the context favor the adoption of one or another style of behavior by the leader. Knowledge of these antecedents can help not only in selection and managerial training, but also in the construction of environments that are more conducive to a certain type of behavior. In keeping with this recommendation, the research proposed here contributes to the investigation of a possible dispositional antecedent of managerial behavior: the attitude towards leadership styles. Based on the assumption that an individual’s attitude toward behavior may be a predictor of behavior (Bass, Leadership: Good, better, best, 1985), (Avolio & Kahai, 2003), it is understood that knowing this behavior can help predict behaviors of leaders or potential leaders.
Once delimited the dispositional antecedent with which to work, the attitudes, it became necessary to choose to what leadership styles these attitudes would refer. After all, as Avolio (2006) mentions, a variety of theories and styles have been mentioned in recent decades by scholars in the field. According to Avolio et al. (2009), the theory of transformational and transactional leadership has been one of the most researched in the last 20 years. According to (Yukl, 1989), traditional leadership theories such as the objective path, leading exchange and normative decision would focus on rational processes. On the contrary, transformational leadership theory emphasizes emotions and values and recognizes the importance of symbolic behaviors and the role of the leader in giving meaning to the work of the leader. Despite the emphasis given by organizations to transformational leaders, scales that assess managers’ attitudes to these leadership styles were not found in national or international surveys. The aim of the present study is to contribute to the evolution of the researches in the area, through the validation of a scale for the measurement of attitudes regarding transformational and transactional styles.
Attitudes are here understood as “psychological tendencies expressed through the evaluation of a particular entity with some degree of favorability or unfavorability” (Bandura, Social learning theory, 1977). This internal state can not be directly observed but can be measured based on observations of positive or negative evaluative responses to an attitudinal object (House, 1976).
According to the most prominent perspective of the study of the internal structure of attitudes, they would be composed of three dimensions: affective, cognitive and behavioral (Conger, The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership, 1989). While the former involves feelings and emotions, the latter includes thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, and concepts about the object. The behavioral dimension is linked to actions or intentions to act. Avolio (2003) point out that attitude can also be seen through a unicomponent view, in which the evaluative aspect of the attitude is central and the attitude could be understood as the amount of affection for or against some attitudinal object. Thus, the attitude could be measured by means of bipolar scales representing the degree of favorability or unfavorability towards an attitudinal object. Attitude, in this case, is seen as a latent variable that is presumed to influence or guide behavior (Bass & Avolio, La leadership trasformazionale. Come migliorare l’efficacia organizzativa, 1996). It is within this perspective that the scale proposed here fits.
But how can one measure attitudes if they are not directly observable? The most common methods involve physiological measures, observational techniques and measures of self-description (Bass & Riggio, Transformational leadership, 2006). The former involve measurements of physical reactions, such as pupil dilation. However, they do not indicate the intensity or direction of the reaction. The latter may include, for example, participant observation. Here it is necessary to consider the long time and the high costs involved, as well as distortions that may be caused by the presence of the researcher and by his own interpretation of the facts. Finally, self-describing measures involve conscious responses of the subject over his or her attitudes. The scale proposed in this study falls into this category. Although it is recognized that self-description can be a target for social desirability, it is a fast, low-cost method that captures the intensity and direction of attitude, maintains anonymity in responses and is not contaminated by the subjectivity of the researcher. The attitudinal object in focus will be the transactional and transactional behaviors that a manager can present.
TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP STYLES
As the name implies, the transformational style of leadership refers to the managerial behaviors that transform the leaders and inspire them to go beyond expectations, transcending personal interest in the organization’s good (Avolio et al., 2009). Bass (1999) identifies four behaviors typical of a transformational leader: idealized influence , inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The idealized influence is the ability to influence led through a socially shared ideal, ideology or values. (Zhang, Li, Ullrich, & van Dick, 2013) reinforces that it is precisely this characteristic that associates transformative style with collectively oriented behaviors, such as altruism and civic attitude. The leader becomes a model to be followed and wins the admiration, respect and confidence of the leaders (Bass & Riggio, 2006). The inspiring motivation is related to the creation of meaning and challenges for the work of the leader and the encouragement of teamwork. An attractive vision of the future is established, with the communication of clear goals that lead to overcoming limits (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Intellectual stimulation, on the other hand, concerns the leader’s ability to provoke reflection and make the leader to go beyond his own view of things. It is linked to innovation and creativity. Finally, individualized consideration refers to encouraging the self-development of the individuals through individualized attention. The leader invests time in mentoring activities and recognizes that the mentees have different desires and needs. Two-way communication is encouraged and the leader attempts to interact in a personalized way with each leader (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Going beyond this four-dimensional perspective, Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) suggest the existence of six dimensions of transformational leadership: provide an appropriate model / example, articulate a vision, stimulate intellectually, provide individualized support, encourage group acceptance of goals, and expect high performance. Providing an appropriate model is to set an example to be followed by the leaders that is consistent with the values that the leader exhibits. The articulation of vision is linked to the identification of new opportunities for its unity, division or organization, as well as the inspiration of others with its vision of the future. Intellectual stimulation involves challenging those led to reexamine some of their beliefs about work and rethink how it can be developed. To give individualized support is to indicate respect for the leaders and their concern about their personal feelings and needs. Encouraging acceptance of group goals is to promote co-operation among the leaders and to make them work together toward a common goal. Finally, expecting a high performance is to demonstrate that the leader expects excellence and quality in the performance of the work by the leaders.
It is observed that the first four dimensions of Podsakoff et al. (1990) are quite similar to those proposed by Bass (1990, 1999), but two others are included, linked more to the search for cooperation and good results. That is, this leader would mix an orientation for people with a task orientation.
Another style of leadership described by this theory is the transactional one, which focuses on trading of exchanges and the use of performance-based contingency rewards and punishments (Avolio et al., 2009). Contingent reward behaviors, active exception management, and passive exception management are all part of this style. Contingent reward involves assigning tasks and agreeing on what needs to be done with rewards in return for satisfactory performance. According to Bass and Riggio (2006), the contingent reward can be transactional if the reward is material, as a bonus, but transformational if the reward is psychological, as a compliment. By virtue of this duality, Goodwin, Wofford and Whittington (2001) and Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) suggest that this factor of transactional leadership is divided into two: one concerning implicit psychological contracts (contingent reward itself) and another for psychological contracts (or trading of exchanges). The former could be linked to transformational leadership.
The other two factors of transactional leadership are active exception management and passive exception management. In the first, the leader actively monitors the deviations from the patterns and errors of the leaders to take corrective measures, that is, to punish the poor performance. Already in the second, the leader waits passively and only takes action when the mistake has already occurred (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Although not given the name of transactional leadership, Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, & Huber (1984, quoted by Schriesheim, Hinkin, & Tetrault, 1991) have developed a model and measurement tool for leader reward and punishment behaviors. According to Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008), there is a conceptual equivalence between the contingent reward dimensions of both models, as well as between the active exception management dimension of Bass (1990) and the contingent punishment of Podsakoff et al. (1984, quoted by Schriesheim et al., 1991). Bass (1990, 1999) also considers the existence of a laissez-faire style, or abdication of leadership, and reports the relation of this style with dissatisfaction, conflict and ineffectiveness.
Having done this conceptual review, we tried to answer the following question: Are there scales to measure the attitude of individuals to transformational and transactional leadership styles? This is discussed below.
EXISTING SCALES IN THE LITERATURE
In a study carried out in the Scielo database, no national scales were found for measuring attitudes towards transformational and transactional leadership styles. In time, it is worth mentioning that in investigations predominantly studies. exploratory studies without testing of predictive models, which once again emphasizes the importance of expanding the field of national studies in this area.
Regarding international instruments, Bass and Riggio (2006) mention several scales that were created to measure the frequency of adoption of transactional and transactional behaviors, but not attitudes. One of the most used is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, by Bass, 1990). The scale measures dimensions of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration) and transactional (contingent reward, active and passive exception management). There are also items related to the laissez-faire leadership. The instrument is widely used in research on these leadership styles (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), but it is criticized for its psychometric properties (Heinitz, Liepman, & Felfe, 2005; Hinkin & Schiesheim, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Yulk, 1999). For Yulk (1999), MLQ has problems of omission of behaviors related to effective leadership, such as leadership consultation, delegation, sharing of sensitive information, task-oriented behaviors and interactions with superiors and peers. According to the author, scales with greater richness of behaviors, such as that of Podsakoff et al. (1990), presented more complex factorial structures.
The scale of Podsakoff et al. (1990), mentioned by Yulk (1999), is the Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI). It measures six transformational dimensions: providing an appropriate model / example, articulating a vision, intellectually stimulating, providing individualized support, encouraging group acceptance of goals, and expecting high performance. There is evidence that it is psychometrically reliable (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & DeChurch, 2006). It was decided, therefore, to use the 22 items of this scale for the transformational behaviors. However, this scale measures only transformational, not transactional, leadership behaviors.
To cover transactional behaviors, no complete alternative to MLQ was found. Some transactional features may be covered by subscales of the Leadership Reward and Punishment Behavior Questionnaire (LRPQ, by Podsakoff et al., 1984, quoted by Schriesheim et al., 1991). Although not designed to specifically measure transactional leadership, the inventory measures performance contingent reward and punishment behaviors that are central to transactional leadership. This scale also has good psychometric references (Hinkin & Schiriesheim, 2008; Schriesheim et al., 1991). However, it does not cover all the characteristics of transactional leadership. Issues related to barter trading (or explicit psychological contract, according to Goodwin et al, 2001) and passive management are covered, which are covered by MLQ subscales.
Thus, for transactional behaviors, it was decided to merge subscales of MLQ and LRPQ, following recommendations of Hinkin and Schiriesheim (2008) and Goodwin et al. (2001) are shown in Table 1. For the exchange trading behavior, it was decided to use the subscale EPC / MLQ trading negotiations (5 items, according to Goodwin et al., 2001). For the feedback behaviors, the Contingent Reward subscale of the LRPQ (reduced version of 5 items, according to Podsakoff et al., 1990). Performance-contingent punishment behaviors were covered by the Contingent Punishment subscale of the LRPQ (5 items) and, finally, for the passive leadership, the items of the Laissez-faire subscale of the MLQ (8 items) were used. In total, 23 items dealt with transactional behaviors.
Therefore, the instrument proposed here was elaborated based on items of the three mentioned scales (TLI for transformational behaviors and LRPQ and MLQ for transactional behaviors). However, adaptations were made to the instructions and to the scale of responses, since these are instruments to measure frequency of behavioral adoption, not attitudes. The adaptations will be described in detail below.
THE INSTRUMENT PREPARATION
In the composition of the scale of the present study, it was chosen to use items from MLQ, TLI and LRPQ. As for transformational leadership, the TLI (22 items) was used. As for the transactional, two subscales of the MLQ (negotiation of exchanges and leadership laissez-faire) and two subscales of the LRPQ (contingent reward and contingent punishment), totaling 23 items.
Therefore, the final scale had 45 items. For the MLQ scales, the criticisms and suggestions made by Hinkin and Schriesheim (2008) and Goodwin et al. (2001). The captions in Tables 2 and 3, at the end of this article, indicate the origin of each item.
It is necessary to remember that the original scales were developed to measure the frequency of presentation of a behavior by the leader, not attitudes towards these behaviors. Scale items represent behaviors, so they were kept unchanged. However, adaptations were made in the instructions and the response scale so that it was possible to measure attitudes. In the original instruments, the central question usually asked the respondent to assess how often that behavior was presented by himself (if he was a manager) or by his leader (in case of a research of hetero-evaluation with subordinates). The response scale in general was Likert type, with 5 or 7 points, with the extremes indicating Never and Always. In the instrument used here, the instructions asked the participants to indicate how favorable or contrary they were in relation to the adoption by a manager of each of the behaviors listed. A Likert type response scale was included, with 7 points, varying in -3 (totally opposite) and +3 (totally favorable), being 0 equivalent to neutral.
The instrument was applied to a non-probabilistic sample for the convenience of 324 professionals from United States, of which 76% were men, 61.1% were with a complete upper level, 88.5% were public bodies, 68.2% were related to organizations military. The mean age was 33.36 years (SD = 8.67), the average service time in the current organization was 6.75 years (SD = 8.94) and the mean duration of the managerial function was 2 , 26 years (SD = 4.34). After the treatment of omissions (missings) and extreme values (outliersuni and multivariate), 287 questionnaires were considered valid. As the scale is composed of 45 variables, we have 6.38 subjects per item, larger than the recommendations of Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson and Tatham (2009) have a sample of at least 200 subjects and at least 5 subjects per item. Therefore, it is considered that the sample is suitable for conducting an exploratory factorial analysis.
The data were collected in a printed questionnaire, preceded by a consent form explaining the study objectives and ensuring the confidentiality of the information provided. Although this research was not submitted to an ethics committee, the recommendations of research ethics were observed, especially regarding the preservation of the safety of respondents, who participated voluntarily. Subjects were approached in their workplaces, training environments or in undergraduate and postgraduate classrooms. Although they were generally grouped together in these locations, participants answered the questionnaire individually. The data went through preliminary analyzes for the verification and treatment of missing and extreme cases. Parallel analysis was made for decision on the number of factors to be extracted and exploratory factorial analysis to determine the structure. Statistical analyzes were performed with software SPSS, version 23. The results are reported below.
A preliminary factor analysis of the scale with the 45 items pointed out that the 8 laissez-faire leadership items were grouped into a specific factor that had low correlation with transactional leadership factors and negative correlation with the transformational leadership factor. This result indicates that, at least when it comes to attitude toward leadership style, passive behavior tends to be perceived as lack of leadership rather than as a dimension of the transactional style. Hence its opposite position (with high negative correlation) to the transformational leadership that, according to some authors, such as Yulk (1999), presents traces of a heroic or ideal leadership. Therefore, since the objective here is to validate a specific scale for attitudes toward transactional and transformational leadership, and not for lack of leadership, the results of the exploratory factorial analysis performed with the remaining 37 items will be reported. 8 of passive leadership.
The initial step was to verify the factorability of the correlation matrix of the items and the number of factors to be extracted. Although only about 30% of the correlations between items were above 0.30, 76% of them were significant (p <0.05). The Bartlett was 0.90, therefore, within the classification of wonderful factorability, according to Kaiser (1974). In addition, the analysis of the anti-image matrix, recommended by Field (2009) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), indicated that the values of the multiple correlations of each variable with the others were all above 0.70, that is, there are high percentage of association of each variable with the others. Therefore, evidence was found of the existence of a favorable context to the matrix factor.
The decision on the number of factors to be extracted took into account the theoretical aspects and the parallel analysis proposed by Horn (1965, quoted by Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). It is worth remembering that Zwick and Velicer (1986) compared methods of determining number of factors, among them the parallel analysis, the K1 criterion and the Scree graph. They concluded that parallel analysis was the most accurate method for estimating the number of components.
The theory pointed out that there could be nine factors (considering the dimensions of each style: six of the transformational and three of the transactional, remembering that the laissez-faire items were eliminated). In conducting the parallel analysis, the random eigenvalues for a sample of 287 subjects and 37 variables were estimated by the RanEigen software. Comparing them with the empirical eigenvalues, it was verified that from the fourth component the random eigenvalue happened to be greater than the empirical eigenvalue. That is, the calculation indicates that the correlations from the fourth component are spurious, fruits of chance and not of a real phenomenon identified by the data. Thus, in this database, there would be, in fact, up to three components. We chose to extract two and three factors and compare the results. The extractions were made by the method of Analysis of the Main Axes (PAF), with Varimax, chosen for believing that there could be correlation between the factors.
Considering the inflation of the standard errors of factorial loads, Hair et al. (2009) provide guidelines for the identification of significant factor loads based on sample size, power of the test and level of significance. For samples of 250 subjects, power of 0.80 and level of significance of 0.05, the authors suggest to use the parameter of 0.35 to consider a significant factorial load. Loads of 0.30 would be significant in samples of 350 subjects or more. As the sample of this study was of 287 respondents, the criterion of factor load of 0.35 was adopted for the inclusion of a variable in a factor.
Initially, the amount of residue and variance explained by the two-factor and three-factor solutions were verified. According to Field (2009), a model with good fit must present 50% or less of residues (residual covariance) greater than 0.05. In this case, the 2 factor model had 33% of residues greater than 0.05 and the model with 3 factors presented 25%. As for the explained variance, the 2 factor model would explain 35.18% of the variance and the 3 factor model would explain 40.66%. It can be seen that the 3-factor model has 8% less residue and explains about 5% more in the variance. However, it is a more complex model, thus contradicting the principle of parsimony. An initial analysis of the items of each factor indicated that in the three-factor model, factor 1 grouped priority items of transformational leadership, factor 2 of the transactional leadership trade negotiation dimension, and factor 3 of the contingent punitive dimension of transactional leadership . Already in the two-factor model, these two dimensions of transactional leadership came together to form a unique transactional leadership factor. Thus, considering the statistical indicators and the interpretability of factors, the extraction of 2 factors seemed adequate for the matrix under analysis.
The factorial loads of the two-factor solution were then evaluated for the verification of items with no load above 0.35 in none of the factors and items grouped in factors other than their theoretical design. Of the 37 items, 5 were excluded because they presented one of the above problems (“Have ideas that force team members to rethink some ideas they have never questioned”; “Warn when team members’ performance is unsatisfactory”; ” Treat team members without considering their personal feelings, “” Do not settle for the near-perfect, “” Warn when team members’ work falls short of expectations. “) In fact, all were among the items with the lowest commonalities (rotating between 0.04 and 0.25), and for Hair et al. (2009), communities below 0.50 make the variables candidates for elimination. Then, factorial loads and item-total correlations were calculated for the remaining 32 items, as well as the Cronbach alphas for both factors. There were no complex items. In this new matrix, the total variance explained was practically unchanged, standing at 38.48%.
The factor 1 was composed of 24 items, while the 2 was composed of 8 items. With this configuration, the internal consistency of factor 1 presents favorable indices, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91. Factor 2 has a moderate consistency, with alpha of 0.74. The mean value of the factorial loads was 0.58 for factor 1 and 0.52 for factor 2. The mean value of the corrected item-total correlation (correlation of each item with the factorial score) was 0.55 for factor 1 and 0.44 for factor 2. Tables 2 and 3 present the items of each factor, with their corrected item-total load and correlation. The last lines of the tables show the eigenvalues of each factor and its total variance explained (eigenvalue divided by the number of variables), as well as its alpha. It should be emphasized that, since there is a correlation between factors, the sum of the variances explained by factor is different from the total variance explained in the scale.
It can be concluded that the first factor brought together virtually all the items of transformational leadership, of its six dimensions (articulate a vision, intellectual stimulation, stimulate acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, provide an appropriate model and individualized support) . He also collected items of the contingent rewards dimension of the transactional leadership style, which focus on recognition and positive feedback (eg, “Praise when team members do above-average work”). As some authors point to contingent reward as a transformational characteristic (Goodwin et al., 2001; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008), it is suggested that the factor’s name is Transformational Leadership (24 items, α = 0.91).
The second factor brought together 5 items of the trade negotiation dimension and 3 items of the contingency punishment dimension of the transactional style. Its content reflects behaviors of the manager who makes arrangements with team members to ensure their good performance and get their support, and who warns or reprimands the team in case of poor performance. The suggested name for the factor is Transactional Leadership (8 items, α = 0.74).
The factorial analysis of the scale of attitudes towards leadership styles pointed out that the instrument presents structure coherent with theoretical dimensions. The two factors account for 38.48% variance. Although it is a percentage compatible with other scales of behavioral sciences, it must be emphasized that there is still a substantial amount of unexplained variance.
Overall, the reliability of the scale is good. The Transformational Leadership factor had a good consistency index (24 items, α = 0.91), while the Transformational Leadership factor had a moderate index (8 items, α = 0.74). According to Hair et al. (2009), there is a positive relationship between the Cronbach’s alpha and the number of items. In fact, the first factor was 24 items, while the second grouped 8 items. It should be noted that, initially, the contingent punishment dimension, included in the Transactional Leadership factor, had five items, but two were eliminated during the factor analysis process. It was found that, in the questionnaire applied, one of these items presented a typo that may have made it confusing for respondents. It might be advisable to carry out a new attempt to insert these two items into the scale to evaluate if they can group together with the other Transactional factor items and increase their consistency. In addition, it is necessary to remember that the Transactional factor grouped items from the LRPQ (contingency punishment subscale) and also from the MLQ (trading subscale subscale). Hinkin & Schriesheim’s (2008) analysis of the MLQ had already pointed out that perhaps the trade-trading subscale needed more items. Therefore, another option would be to formulate new items for this factor.
Another fact to emphasize is the grouping of the items linked to the contingent reward in the Transformational factor. In the literature of transformational and transactional leadership, several empirical findings have demonstrated a high correlation between this dimension and transformational leadership, so much so that it is thought that this characteristic may belong to both groups, or even be more transformational than transactional (Bass & Riggio, 2006, Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Yulk, 1999). The fact that the dimensions of transformational leadership not having separated is not new either. In 1999, Bass commented that although his model proposed the existence of four transformational dimensions, the possibility that fewer factors were necessary remained open. Bass and Riggio (2006) also reaffirm that, given the generally high correlations between transformational dimensions, it is acceptable to work with a general indicator of transformational leadership, as has been done in some studies (eg Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bathia, 2004; Rubin, Munz, & Boomer, 2005).
It should be noted that the two factors found here presented a low positive correlation, consistent with Bass’s (1999) perspective that there would be no opposition between styles, but rather complementarity. For Burns, the first to address these styles in the 1970s, there would be a dichotomy between the two types of leadership: either the leader would be transactional, or transformational. In dealing with attitudes, possibly the favorable attitude towards one style would correspond to an unfavorable attitude towards the other. However, according to Bass (1999), research has proposed that transformational leadership increases the effects of transactional leadership, that is, the former complements the latter. Waldman, Bass and Yammarino (1990), for example, studying the predictors of the leader’s effectiveness, verified that the transformational behaviors explained variance beyond what had already been explained by the t tions. For Bass (1999), leaders in general would present behaviors of the two styles of leadership. Another dichotomy that is much discussed in leadership studies is the focus of the leader: for the tasks or for the people / relationships. Yulk (2010) comments that although many research findings have been inconclusive, one can identify a general pattern that suggests that effective leaders use a behavior pattern appropriate to the situation and with high concern for both tasks and relationships. That is, in this case there would also be complementarity. Bass (1999) states that “the best leaders are both transformational and transactional” (p.21). But there is in general the predominance of one of them. For the author,leaders who tend to be more transformational and less transactional. In this context, it is possible to assume that the favorable attitude towards one style does not necessarily correspond to an unfavorable attitude towards the other.
It is concluded that this work brings a contribution to researchers and professionals in the area of people management, as it presents an instrument to measure a possible antecedent of managerial behavior: attitudes. An upcoming study could include the scale proposed here and some measure of managerial behavior in order to verify if attitudes are at least to some extent predictive of behaviors. Confirming this hypothesis opens a way for organizations to predict the behavior of leaders and potential leaders through their attitudes towards leadership styles. A limitation of the study, however, is the specificity of the sample, characterized primarily by men (76%) employed in public agencies (88.5%) and the majority related to military organizations (68.2%). It is suggested that the study replicate in other contexts to confirm the structure found for the scale.
Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003, January). Adding the “E” to E-Leadership:: How it May Impact Your Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), pp. 325–338. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(02)00133-X
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), pp. 26–40. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19–31. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the Transactional–Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries? (R. D. Fowler, Ed.) American Psychologist, 52(2), pp. 130-139. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.2.130
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. (M. M. Chemers, & R. Ayman, Eds.) Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, pp. 49-80.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1996). La leadership trasformazionale. Come migliorare l’efficacia organizzativa. Guerini e Associati.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2 ed.). Psychology Press.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Conger, J. A. (1989). The Charismatic Leader: Behind the Mystique of Exceptional Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Sage Publications.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), pp. 219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I. C., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal of business venturing, 19(2), 241-260.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Faculty of Management Studies.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Locus of Control, and Support for Innovation: Key Predictors of Consolidated-Business-Unit Performance. (N. Schmitt, Ed.) Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), pp. 891-902. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership. (K. R. Murphy, Ed.) Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), pp. 751-765. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004, October). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), pp. 755-768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), pp. 303-331. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
Judge, T. A., Parker, S., Colbert, A. E., Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2001). Job Satisfaction: A Cross-Cultural Review. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Ed.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology – volume 2: Organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 25-52). SAGE Publications. doi:10.4135/9781848608368.n3
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and Indirect Effects of Three Core Charismatic Leadership Components on Performance and Attitudes. (P. Bobko, Ed.) Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), pp. 36-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36
Larsson, M., & Lundholm, S. E. (2010). Leadership as work-embedded influence: A micro-discursive analysis of an everyday interaction in a bank. Leadership, 6(2), pp. 159-184. doi:10.1177/1742715010363208
Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004, August). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), pp. 610-621. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership Processes and Follower Self-identity. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006, April 1). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), pp. 327–340.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003, October). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), pp. 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990, June). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), pp. 107–142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984, August). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behaviors: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(1), pp. 21–63. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90036-9
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010, June 1). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), pp. 617-635. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988
Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge.
Shamir, B. (1991, July). Meaning, Self and Motivation in Organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3), pp. 405-424. doi:10.1177/017084069101200304
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers. In S. Boas, R. Pillai, & M. Uhl-Bien, Follower-Centered Perspective on Leadership (pp. 6-21). Information Age Publishing.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993, November 1). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4(4), pp. 577 – 594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003, November). Transformational Leadership, Conservation, and Creativity: Evidence From Korea. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), pp. 703-714. doi:10.2307/30040662
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-Centered Perspective on Leadership (pp. 187-209). Information Age Publishing.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), pp. 153-172. doi:10.1348/096317910X485818
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), pp. 793-825. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00131.x
Xu, J., & Thomas, H. C. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 32(4), pp. 399-416. doi:10.1108/01437731111134661
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 81–102. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(93)90005-E
Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of Management, 15(2), pp. 251-289. doi:10.1177/014920638901500207
Zhang, X.-a., Li, N., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2013, January 18). Getting Everyone on Board: The Effect of Differentiated Transformational Leadership by CEOs on Top Management Team Effectiveness and Leader-Rated Firm Performance. Journal of Management. doi:10.1177/0149206312471387
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), pp. 197-206. doi:10.1086/651257
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009, March 19). Moderating Role of Follower Characteristics With Transformational Leadership and Follower Work Engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), pp. 590-619. doi:10.1177/1059601108331242