group processes intergroup relations 2001 martin 247 62

http://gpi.sagepub.com/Relations

Group Processes & Intergroup

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1368430201004003005

2001 4: 247Group Processes Intergroup RelationsRobin Martin and Olga Epitropaki

Transformational Leadership and Work AttitudesRole of Organizational Identification on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs),

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 1, 2001Version of Record >>

at University of Bucharest on February 20, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on February 20, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gpi.sagepub.com/


http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247



http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247.refs.html

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247.refs.html

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247.full.pdf

http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/4/3/247.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Role of OrganizationalIdentification on ImplicitLeadership Theories(ILTs), TransformationalLeadership and WorkAttitudesRobin MartinUniversity of Queensland

Olga EpitropakiUniversity of Sheffield

This investigation explores the effects of organizational identification on employees’ ImplicitLeadership Theories (ILTs) and the perception of leader behaviors. The study involved a cross-sectional survey of 439 employees from seven companies based in South Wales. Respondentscompleted two questionnaires that measured their organizational identification, ILTs, recognitionof ILTs in their manager, manager’s leadership behaviors (transactional and transformational),and psychological reactions (job satisfaction, well-being, and turnover intentions). The level oforganizational identification did not affect the prototype of an ideal work-based leader. However,high organizational identification was associated with more positive ratings on the actualmanager, the extent to which their manager displayed transactional and transformationalbehaviors, and with more positive psychological reactions to work. Employees high inorganizational identification based their judgments of their leader’s transactional andtransformational behaviors on the extent to which they recognized their leader as possessingleadership traits. However, those low on organizational identification allowed their prototype oftheir ideal leader to bias their judgment of their actual leader’s behavior. Finally, there was partialsupport for the augmenting hypothesis (that tranformational leadership would predict additionalvariance in psychological outcomes above that predicted by transactional leadership) for thosehigh in organizational identification but not for those low in organizational identification.

keywords implicit leadership theories, organizational identification, transactionaland transformational leadership

Group Processes &Intergroup Relations

2001 Vol 4(3) 247–262

SOCIAL psychology is experiencing a renaissancein examining processes within an organizationalcontext (Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000,2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2001) and inparticular the role of identification to leadership

GPIR

Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

[1368-4302(200107)4:3; 247–262; 017498]

Author’s noteAddress correspondence to Robin Martin,School of Psychology, University ofQueensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia[email: [email protected]]

05martin (to/k) 28/6/01 8:46 am 47

at University of Bucharest on February 20, 2014gpi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http:\\www.sagepub.co.uk



(e.g. Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Duck & Fielding,1999; Haslam et al., 1998; Hogg, in press; Hogg,Hains, & Mason, 1998; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg,1999; Platow, Reid, & Andrew, 1998). The major-ity of this research is being directed within theframework of social identity theory (SIT: Tajfel& Turner, 1979). According to SIT one can con-sider identification along a continuum from per-sonal to social identity. Personal identity refers tothe unique characteristics which define ourselvesas individuals and different from others. On theother hand, social identity derives from member-ship of important groups and this helps defineoneself in group terms. The process of identify-ing with a social category (in this case an organiz-ation) enables individuals to ascribe commongroup characteristics to themselves and thishelps them to differentiate from other groups.

Ashforth and Mael (1989) were one of thefirst to highlight the utility of the SIT approachto understanding organizational identification.These authors noted that a problem in this areahad been the confusion between organizationalidentification and organizational commitment.Definitions and measurement of organizationalcommitment had centered on issues central toidentification (e.g. see the Organizational Com-mitment Questionnaire, Mowday, Steers, &Porter, 1979). Several studies have shown thatorganizational commitment and identificationare empirically distinct concepts (e.g. Mael &Tetrick, 1992). Whereas organizational commit-ments tends to be viewed as a general accept-ance of an organizaion’s goals and values (whichmight be shared across organizations), organiza-tional identification involves a psychologicalattachment to a particular organization or work-group (Mael & Ashforth, 1995). One of the con-sequences of having a high identification withthe organization is that individuals will workhard to promote the interest of that organiza-tion, especially when those activities enhanceone’s social identity. Thus, within a workcontext, one would expect those with a highorganizational identification to feel more com-mitted to and satisfied with that company andconsequently be less likely to want to leave com-pared to those low in organizational identifi-cation (Abrams, Ando, & Hinkle, 1998; Lee,

1971; van Knippenberg, 2000; van Knippenberg& Van Schie, 2000; Wan-Huggins, Riordan, &Griffeth, 1998).

This aim of this paper is to extend the generalutility of examining the role of identification toorganizational processes (Haslam, 2001) to twoareas of leadership which have, hitherto, notbeen explored; namely Implicit LeadershipTheories (ILTs) and transformational leader-ship. The process of leadership is likely to bevery important to the relationship betweenorganizational identification and psychologicalreactions for two reasons; first because leadersare the main (and often only) source of infor-mation for subordinates about the organiza-tion’s goals and aspirations, and second,because leaders are often prototypical groupmembers reflecting the most desirable charac-teristics of the work group (Hogg, in press).

Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs)

The leadership categorization theory proposed byLord and his associates (e.g. Lord, 1977, 1985;Lord & Alliger, 1985; Lord & Maher, 1993;Phillips & Lord, 1981) places emphasis on thecognitive and perceptual processes underlyingleadership and the role of employees’ priorexpectations and cognitive prototypes inshaping their perceptions of managerial behav-ior (Foti & Lord, 1987; Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, & Blascovich, 1996; Larson, 1982; Lord& Alliger, 1985; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984;Lord & Maher, 1993). The assumption is thatindividuals develop ILTs, i.e. personal assump-tions about the traits and abilities that charac-terize an ideal business leader. ILTs representpre-existing cognitive structures or prototypesspecifying traits and behaviors that followersexpect from leaders, which are stored inmemory and are activated when followers inter-act with a person in a leadership position(Kenney et al., 1996). ILTs do not representobjective realities inherent to individuals butrather perceptual abstractions and summarylabels that followers use to categorize individualsin leadership positions.

According to leadership categorizationtheory, two qualitative processes determine

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 4(3)

248

05martin (to/k) 28/6/01 8:46 am Page 248




leadership perceptions: first, leadership can berecognized from the qualities and behaviorsrevealed through interactions, and second,leadership can be inferred from the outcomes ofsalient events. The ILTs’ approach focusesspecifically on the recongition-based percep-tions of leadership. Lord (1985) proposed a cat-egorization theory to leadership as anexplanation of how recognition-based leader-ship perceptions are formed. Based on Rosch’s(1978) theory of cognitive categorization, heargues that people are categorized as leaders onthe basis of the perceived match between theirbehavior or character and the attributes of a pre-existing leader category or prototype (Rush &Russell, 1988). Within this context, a prototype isan ‘abstract conception of the most representa-tive member or most widely shared features of agiven cognitive category’ (Phillips, 1984, p. 126).

Prior research on ILTs has mainly focused onissues of content and measurement and wasexperimental in nature using samples of under-graduate students, with relatively few being con-ducted within an organizational context (Lord& Maher, 1993). Of the organizationally basedstudies, Offermann, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994)examined the content, structure and generaliza-bility of ILTs. They identified eight distinctfactors of ILTs, six reflecting prototypic traits(i.e. Sensitivity, Dedication, Charisma, Attrac-tiveness, Intelligence, and Strength) and tworepresenting anti-prototypic traits (i.e. Tyrannyand Masculinity). They also found support forILTs generalizability in different gender groups(see also Epitropaki & Martin, 2000). Moreover,cross-cultural reasearch, such as the GLOBEproject (House et al., 1999), has providedsupport for similar dimensions of ILTs acrossseveral cultures (see also Bryman, 1987).

An important finding in ILTs research, whichis relevant to this article, is that ILTs can act as asource of bias in leadership measurement (e.g.Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Gioia & Sims, 1985; Nye& Forsyth, 1991). These studies show thatemployees often rely upon their implicit leaderprototype when they complete leadership ques-tionnaires which evaluate their actual leaders’behavior. This shows that leadership per-ceptions can be distorted (or biased) by ILTs.

For example, Eden and Leviatan (1975) foundthat the factor structure participants used torate a fictitious leader of a company (of whichthey had no prior knowledge) was very similar tothe structure they used to rate their own super-visor (see Weiss & Adler, 1981). Similar resultshave been found by other investigators (e.g. Foti& Lord, 1987; Larson, 1982; Phillips, 1984;Rush, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). These studiessuggest that individuals may simply regeneratetheir prototype of an ideal leader when rating anactual leader without paying sufficient attentionto the leader’s behaviors and traits (Rush &Russell, 1988). It is worth noting that none ofthese studies measured separately the respon-dents’ ILTs and their perceptions of the actualleader in order to test whether there was dis-criminant validity.

Although there is evidence that ILTs can biasleadership measures this does not denigrate therole of leader recognition processes (i.e. thatability of followers to recognize leadership traitsfrom the leader’s behavior). According to thetheory, ILTs are the benchmark employees useto form an impression of their manager andfrom which they engage in ‘ILTs vs. actualmanager’ comparisons. Therefore, one wouldexpect the recognition of ILT traits in the leaderto be a more reliable predictor of leader behav-ior perceptions than ILTs prototypes (e.g. Cron-shaw & Lord, 1987; Fraser & Lord, 1988; Lord etal., 1984). The extent to which people base theirperceptions of leader behavior on their ILTsprototype or their actual manager may beaffected by a number of factors (Weiss & Adler,1981). We suggest one such factor is an indi-vidual’s level of organizational identification.Employees who are low in organizationalidentification are likely to be disengaged(psychologically) from their organization and asa consequence have little motivation to expandeffort in evaluation of their work environment(Dutton, Dukerick, & Harquail, 1994). As a con-sequence we would anticipate that people low inorganizational identification may rely upontheir ILTs’ prototype in guiding their evalu-ations of their actual manager because to do sois cognitively parsimonious (in this case, ILTsbias perceptions of leader’s behavior). On the

Martin & Epitropaki organizational identification and leadership

249





other hand, employees with a high organiz-ational identification are likely to internalize theorganizational values and beliefs and in doing sowill actively monitor their work environment.Thus we expect those with a high organizationalidentification not to base their evaluations oftheir leader behavior on their ILTs prototypebut on their recognition process (in this case,ILTs do not bias perceptions of leader’sbehavior).

Transformational Leadership

Burns (1978) was one of the first researchers todistinguish between two types of leadership:transactional and transformational leadership.Transactional leaders influence their followerson the basis of mutual exchanges which followthe employment contract, i.e. rewards andpunishments are delivered contingent uponbehaviors realizing work-related goals. By con-trast transformational leaders attempt to satisfythe higher order needs of their followers, arevisionary in nature and encourage them toperform to the maximum potential. Bass (1985)developed these ideas further and applied themto leadership processes in organizations, whichled to the development of the Full Range Leader-ship model (Bass & Avolio, 1997; for a discussionof different approaches to transformationalleadership see Bryman, 1992; Conger, 1999;Hunt, 1999; Hunt & Conger, 1999). Bass (1985)proposes that transactional leaders guide andmotivate people to accomplish the goals theyhave set. They reward employees for achievingspecific performance levels and take action onlywhen things go wrong. Transformational leadersmotivate and inspire people to go beyond theirnormal level of work performance. They providevision and a sense of mission, gain respect andtrust, and act as models for their employees. Themodel proposes that transactional leadershipconsists of three aspects (contingent reward,management by exception—active, and manage-ment by exception—passive) while transforma-tional leadership consists of five aspects(charisma—attributed and behavioral, inspira-tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, andindividualized consideration). Each of these

factors is measured by the Multifactor Leader-ship Questionnaire (MLQ: Bass & Avolio, 1997)with the two higher-order factorial structurereceiving support from several researchers(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bycio, Hackett, &Allen, 1995; Carless, 1998; Den Hartog, VanMuijen, & Koopman, 1997) and is consistentacross many cultures (House et al., 1999; see alsoBass, 1997).

The importance of transformational leader-ship for organizational effectiveness has beenwell supported (see the meta-analytic review byLowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).Much of this research shows reliable cross-sec-tional correlations between ratings of transfor-mational leadership and a variety ofwork-related effectiveness measures, includingincreased work effort (e.g. Atwater & Yam-marino, 1989), work innovation (e.g. Howell &Higgins, 1990), and organizational citizenshipbehavior (e.g. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &Bommer, 1996). More impressive are studieswhich have shown performance improvementfollowing intervention programs designed toincrease leaders’ transformation style (e.g.Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).

Returning to the theme of the present paper,one might wonder what effect, if any, organiza-tional identification might have on employees’perceptions and reactions to transactional andtransformational leadership. Although therehas been no empirical research on this issue, itis possible to develop some hypotheses. Fromthe review above one would anticipate thatpeople low and high in organizational identifi-cation would respond differently to transac-tional and transformational leadership. Peoplelow in organizational identification tend not tobe committed to the organization, are low inmotivation, and are likely to work closely to thework contract. Low identifiers may, indeed, behighly motivated but would be more concernedwith advancing their own self-interests ratherthan the collective good of their work group ororganization (see Haslam, 2001). For these indi-viduals one would expect them to be moreresponsive to transactional than to transforma-tional leadership (because many of their workneeds are met by exchange relationships). On


250





the other hand, people high in organizationalidentification tend to be committed and moti-vated in their work and therefore one wouldexpect them to be more responsive to transfor-mational leadership (as this would allow them torealize their goals and ambitions). High identi-fiers would respond favorably to a leader whopromotes the collective good of the work groupand organization as these activities would lead toa positive social identity. Consistent with this lineof reasoning is Lord et al.’s (1999) recent inte-gration of the self-concept into leadershipresearch. They make a similar prediction to our-selves when they state in one of their proposi-tions, ‘Transactional leadership will be mosteffective when the subordinates’ self is definedat an individual level, whereas transformationalleadership will be most effective when the sub-ordinates’ self is defined at the group or collec-tive level’ (p. 176).

The level of organizational identification hasimplications for another aspect of the FullRange Leadership model. The model viewstransactional and transformational leadershipas separate dimensions, which can be simul-taneously exhibited by a leader. However, eachis not equally important in determining effec-tive leadership. While effective leadershipdepends on some transactional relationship, themodel proposes that transformational leader-ship augments transactional leadership in pre-dicting employee satisfaction and performance(termed the augmenting hypothesis). In otherwords, transformational leadership accounts foradditional variance in followers’ psychologicalreactions to their work and performance abovethat accounted for by transactional leadership.There is consistent evidence for the augmentinghypothesis (Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Waldman,Bass, & Yammarino, 1990) showing that transac-tional leadership can be the basis for effectiveleadership but greater benefits can be achievedby the addition of transformational leadership.Since we argue that those high in organizationalidentification are more receptive to trans-formational leadership than those low inorganizational identification, we further predictthat the augmenting hypothesis (increased vari-ance explained by transformational leadership

above transactional leadership) would applymore to those high than low in organizationalidentification.

Method

SampleThe sample consisted of 439 employees of seven(six manufacturing and one service) organiza-tions based in South Wales. Manufacturingemployees accounted for 72 percent of thesample and 46.5 percent of the sample wereshopfloor employees. Male respondentsaccounted for 67.4 percent of the sample. Theaverage age was 39 years (SD = 10.69 years) andthe mean organizational tenure was 14.69 years(SD = 10.5 years). Finally, regarding their jobtype, 18.7 percent had a managerial/super-visory job; 15.9 percent were professional staff,21.2 percent technical staff, 24 percent clerical,and 12.3 percent had a sales job.

ProcedureThe study utilized two questionnaires: theLeader Characteristics Questionnaire, measur-ing employees’ ILTs and the Employee OpinionQuestionnaire, exploring their perceptions oftheir actual manager, as well as their workattitudes and well-being. In order to avoid apossible confounding effect of the ILTsmeasurement on the ratings of the actualmanager, the two questionnaires were mailedseparately to participants with a (minimum)time interval of two weeks between them (i.e.participants received the second questionnairetwo weeks after completing and sending backthe first one). In order to control for ordereffects, half of the participants received theLeader Characteristics Questionnaire first andthen the Employee Opinion Questionnaire,while the reverse order was followed for theother half of the sample. Since no significantorder effects were found on any of the analyses,this factor is not discussed further.

MeasureILTs A revised 20-items version of the original41-item scale developed by Offermann et al.(1994) was used to measure ILTs (Epitropaki &


251





Martin, 2000). Participants were asked to ratehow characteristic each of the 20 traits pre-sented was of a business leader. Each trait wasrated on a 9-point scale ranging from ‘Not at allcharacteristic’ (1) to ‘Extremely characteristic’(9). The ILTs scale comprises six dimensions ofimplicit leadership theory, namely: Sensitivity (3items: understanding, sincere, helpful; � = .87),Intelligence (3 items: intelligent, educated,clever; � = .77) Motivation (3 items: motivated,dedicated, enthusiastic; � = .83), Dynamism (2items: energetic, strong; � = .70), Tyranny (7items: domineering, pushy, manipulative, loud,conceited, selfish, obnoxious; � = .85), Mascu-linity (2 items: masculine, male; � = .83). A dis-tinction was made between prototypicdimensions, i.e. sensitivity, intelligence, moti-vation and dynamism (Leadership Prototype: �= .87) and anti-prototypic dimensions, i.e.tyranny and masculinity (Leadership Anti-prototype: � = .83).

ILTs recognition The revised 20-item Offer-mann et al.’s (1994) ILTs scale was also used forthe measurement of characteristics recognizedin the direct manager but the instructions givenwere changed. Instead of stating how thecharacteristics applied to a business leader, par-ticipants were now asked to state how the samecharacteristics applied to their manager. Thesame 9-point scale used for the ILTs measurewas employed. Six dimensions, i.e. Sensitivity (�= .89), Intelligence (� = .91), Motivation (� =.90), Dynamism (� = .80), Tyranny (� = .86) andMasculinity (� = .82) were hypothesized for theILTs Recognition scale and again a distinctionwas made between recognition of prototypicattributes (Prototype Recognition: � = .92) andanti-prototypic attributes (Anti-prototypeRecognition: � = .75). Confirmatory factoranalyses of this scale in the present study sug-gested a good fit for a 6-factor structure (�2(157,N = 439) = 451.02, p < .001, �2/df = 2.8, CFI = .97;NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .06). Based on prelimi-nary reliability, as well as common method vari-ance analyses, an alteration to the ILTsRecognition scale was made. The item-total cor-relations of the Masculinity dimension itemswith the total Anti-prototype Recognition scale

revealed very low correlations (.08 for the item‘male’, and .06 for ‘masculine’), suggesting thatthe conceptualization of Masculinity as an inte-gral part of the Anti-prototype Recognitionwould be problematic. Most likely Masculinity,in the case of ILTs Recognition, represents anactual fact (i.e. the actual gender of the directmanager) that is characterized by a mainlydescriptive quality. Whereas in the case of theimplicit Anti-prototype it is a perceptual traitwith an implied evaluative quality. Thus, Mascu-linity was dropped from subsequent analyses forboth the prototype and recognition measures.

Leadership behaviors Transactional andtransformational leadership were measuredusing Bass and Avolio’s (1997) MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire (MLQ)– Short Form5X. Respondents judged how frequently theirdirect manager engaged in a range of specificbehaviors. Each behavior was rated on a 5-pointscale ranging from ‘Not at all’ (1) to ‘Fre-quently, if not always’ (5). The Transactionalmeasure comprised three subscales: ContingentReward (3 items, � = .78), Management byException—Active (MBE-A) (4 items, � = .82),and Management by Exception—Passive (MBE-P) (4 items, � = .86). The Transformationalmeasure comprised five subscales: IdealizedInfluence—Attributed often referred to asCharisma (6 items, � = .83), Idealized Influ-ence—Behavioral (6 items, � = .84), Inspira-tional Motivation (4 items, � = .81), IntellectualStimulation (4 items, � = .69), and Individual-ized Consideration (4 items, � = .70).

Organizational identity (OID) Identificationwith the organization was measured with Cookand Wall’s (1980) 2-item subscale from theirorganizational commitment scale (r = .58, p <.001). Responses were made on a 7-point dimen-sion from ‘Strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘Stronglyagree’ (7). The items were: ‘I am quite proudto be able to tell people who it is I work for’ and‘I feel myself to be a part of the organization’.Low (n = 187) and high (n = 252) organizationalidentification groups were formed by dividingthe sample at the median (MLow OID = 3.79MHigh OID = 6.23, t = 30.24, p < .001).


252





Job satisfaction Overall job satisfaction wasmeasured using the Warr, Cook and Wall’s(1979) 15-item scale (� = .91). Respondentsindicated how satisfied they were with 15 aspectsof their work, e.g. physical conditions, cowork-ers, etc. Responses were obtained on a 7-pointformat from ‘Strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘Stronglyagree (7).

Well-being Respondents’ job-related well-being was measured using Warr’s (1990) Job-related anxiety–comfort and Job-relateddepression–enthusiasm 12-items scale. Items arepreceded by: ‘Thinking of the past few weeks,how much of the time has your job made youfeel each of the following?’ Responses are on a6-point dimension from ‘Never’ (1) to ‘All of thetime’ (6). A principal components factor analy-sis using a varimax rotation was conducted andthis specified a two-factor solution. The firstfactor, which had an eigenvalue of 5.84 andaccounted for 48.6 percent of the variance, con-sisted of six items and refers to Negative Well-being(Tense, Depressed, Worried, Anxious, Gloomy,and Miserable; � = .91). Scores on this factorwere reverse coded such that higher scoresreflect better well-being. The second factor,which had an eigenvalue of 2.2 and accountedfor 18.3 percent of the variance, also consistedof six items and refers to Positive Well-being (Opti-mistic, Motivated, Calm, Enthusiastic, Relaxed,and Comfortable; � = .87).

Turnover intentions The extent to which therespondents were considering leaving theorganization was measured on three items (� =.70); ‘I sometimes feel like leaving this employ-ment for good’, ‘Even if the organization werenot doing well financially I would be reluctant tochange to another employer’ (reverse coded),and ‘The offer of a bit more money with anotheremployer would not seriously make me think ofchanging my job’ (reverse coded). Higher scoresindicated greater turnover intention. Responseswere made on a 7-point dimension from‘Strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly agree’ (7).

Demographics Information on demographicand background variables such as gender, age,

organizational position (shopfloor vs. non-shopfloor), organizational tenure (measured inmonths), and the frequency of everyday contactbetween manager and employee was also col-lected. The frequency of manager–employeecontact was measured with a 3-point scale from‘Not at all’ (1) to ‘Always’ (3).

Results

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlationsfor all study variables are displayed in Table 1.Some of the demographics factors were relatedto the main study variables. In particular,females were more likely to have a positiveleader prototype and to rate their actual leadermore favorably than did males. In addition,females rated their leaders higher on the trans-actional and transformational measures thandid males. The other consistent pattern wasfound for the amount of employee/managercontact. The greater the amount of contact withthe manager, the more negative were the leaderanti-prototype scores, more positive the rating ofthe actual leader and the leaders’ behaviors.The amount of contact was the only variable toshow a consistent pattern of significant associ-ations with the outcome variables; the greaterthe amount of contact with one’s manager wasassociated with greater reported job satisfaction,well-being and lower intention to leave. Thelevel of organizational identification was eithernot related or weakly associated with leader pro-totype ratings. However, the greater theorganizational identification the more employ-ees rated their actual manager as having positivecharacteristics, and as displaying transactionaland transformational behaviors. Organizationalidentification was strongly associated with posi-tive outcome scores.

Organizational identification, ILTs, andleadership behaviorsThere was no difference between those with alow or high organizational identification on anyof the Leadership Prototype or Leadership Anti-Protytpe subscales. Those respondents with ahigh organizational identification rated theirdirect manager higher on all the Prototype


253





Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations 4(3)

254

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between study variables (N = 439)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Gender 1.33 0.472. Age 39.04 10.69 –.24***3. Organizational

position 1.54 0.50 .16** –.034. Organizational

tenure 176.28 126.07 –.11 .64*** –.065. Manager–employee

contact 2.59 0.67 .03 –.04 .15** –.066. Identification 5.19 1.47 .01 .11* .07 –.01 .15**7. Leader prototype 6.19 0.79 .14** –.04 .08 –.04 –.07 .11*8. Leader anti-

prototype 5.64 0.80 –.07 .15** .06 .08 –.13** –.02 .40***9. Prototype

recognition 6.52 1.47 .13** –.07 .18*** –.06 .21*** .29*** .22*** .0710. Anti-prototype

recognition 3.97 1.71 –.22*** .02 –.06 .05 –.19*** –.16** –.08 .10* –.35***11. Transactional

leadership 3.19 0.57 .25*** –.11* .22*** –.09 .22*** .26*** .13** –.08 .60*** –.40***12. Transformational

leadership 3.13 0.79 .19*** –.09* .18*** –.10* .18*** .33*** .20*** .02 .75*** –.29*** .59***13. Job satisfaction 4.58 1.13 .15** .02 .25*** –.04 .17*** .62*** .19*** .07 .55*** –.29*** .50*** .60***14. Well-being

(positive) 3.59 1.07 –.01 –.01 .13** –.07 .15** .52*** .14** .05 .45*** –.19*** .33*** .49*** .68***15. Well-being

(negative) 5.35 1.14 .07 –.01 .06 –.11* .09* .38*** .09 –.01 .30*** –.31*** .31*** .31*** .53*** .49***16. Turnover intention 3.83 1.69 .08 –.28*** –.11* –.13* –.13** –.62*** –.06 –.05 –.28*** .16*** –.23*** –.26*** –.57*** –.52***–.39***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.Note: Gender coded 1 = male, 2 = female; organizational position coded 1 = shopfloor, 2 = nonshopfloor.


at University of B

ucharest on February 20, 2014

gpi.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from



Recognition subscales than those with a loworganizational identification; Sensitivity (MHigh

OID = 6.71 vs. MLow OID = 5.90; t = 4.77, p < .001),Intelligence (MHigh OID = 6.87 vs. MLow OID = 6.39;t = 2.92, p < .005), Motivation (MHigh OID = 7.12 vs.MLow OID = 6.43; t = 4.15, p < .001), and Dynamism(MHigh OID = 6.56 vs. MLow OID = 5.75; t = 4.50, p <.001). However, there was no effect of organiza-tional identification on the Anti-prototypeRecognition scale (i.e. Tyranny) (MHigh OID =3.84 vs. MLow OID = 4.14; t = 1.78).

Turning to consider the effects of organiz-ational identification the results showed, asexpected, that those with a high organizationalidentification reported their leaders to be moretransactional and transformational; ContingentReward (MHigh OID = 3.38 vs. MLow OID = 2.86; t =5.34, p < .001), Management by Exception—Passive (MHigh OID = 3.61 vs. MLow OID = 3.28; t =3.91, p < .001), Idealized Influence—Attributed(MHigh OID = 3.30 vs. MLow OID = 2.85; t = 5.28, p <.001), Charisma (MHigh OID = 3.33 vs. MLow OID =2.97; t = 4.45, p < .001), Inspirational Motivation(MHigh OID = 3.63 vs. MLow OID = 3.16; t = 5.00, p <.001), Intellectual Stimulation (MHigh OID = 3.14vs. MLow OID = 2.91; t = 2.76, p < .007), Individual-ized Consideration (MHigh OID = 3.05 vs. MLow OID= 2.71; t = 3.69, p < .001). However, the level oforganizational identification did not affectratings of Management by Exception—Active(MHigh OID = 2.91 vs. MLow OID = 3.02; t = 1.28).

From these analyses three conclusions can bemade. First, people’s prototype of an ideal work-based leader did not differ for those with a lowor high organizational identification. Second,respondents with a high organizational identifi-cation reported their manager as possessingmore of the positive (but not negative) proto-type characteristics than those with a lowidentification. Third, those high in organiza-tional identification reported their managers asdisplaying more transactional and transforma-tional behaviors than those low in organiza-tional identification.

Relationship between ILTs and leaderbehaviorsAs noted in the introduction, there is evidenceto suggest that ILTs may act as a source of bias in

the measurement of leadership behaviors in thatpeople rely upon their implicit leader prototypewhen they describe their actual leader. If thiswas the case then the leader prototypes shouldaccount for a significant amount of variance inevaluations of leadership behavior (transac-tional and transformational) over thataccounted for by ratings of the actual manager.

We propose that the biasing effect of ILTs ismore likely to happen for those individuals whoare low in organizational identification (as theyrely upon their prototype) than those high inorganizational identification (who rely moreupon the perception of the leader). To examinethese hypotheses a series of hierarchical regres-sion analyses were conducted predicting trans-actional and transformational leadershipseparately for the low and high organizationalidentification groups. In the first step the fivedemographics variables were entered (gender,age, organizational position, organizationaltenure, and the amount of employee/managercontact). In the second step the leader proto-type and leader anti-prototype scores wereentered. In the final step the prototype recog-nition and anti-prototype recognition scoreswere entered. The results of these analyses areshown below in Table 2 (note for step 3, resultsare also provided for the step 2 variables ofleadership prototype and leadership anti-proto-type). For all the analyses the group of demo-graphic variables entered in the first stepaccounted for a reliable amount of variance inthe leadership behavior scores.

For those with a low organizational identifi-cation, the inclusion of the leadership prototypeand leadership anti-prototype scores (step 2) sig-nificantly increased the amount of varianceexplained in the transactional (4%) and trans-formational (5%) measures. The individual betaweights showed that the more the employee hada positive leader prototype and a negative anti-prototype, the greater they perceived their actualleader as being transactional and transforma-tional. The third step of the analysis, involvingadding the prototype recognition and anti-pro-totype recognition measures, showed that thisincreased the amount of variance explained intransactional (33%) and transformational


255





(39%) measures. One would expect the rating ofthe actual manager to predict strongly the per-ceptions of that manager’s leadership behaviors.More importantly, step 3 showed that one of theprototype measures (leader anti-prototype)remained a significant predictor of the actualleaders’ behaviors. Thus for both transactionaland transformational measures, perceptions ofan ideal leader (negative characteristics) reliablypredicted actual leader behavior scores abovethat explained by the recognition measures. Thissupports our hypothesis that for those low inorganizational identification, individuals (par-tially) rely upon their prototype in evaluatingtheir leaders’ behavior.

The results for the high organizationalidentification group were different from thoselow in organizational identification. The firstdifference is that the inclusion of the leadershipprototype and the leadership anti-prototype

measures (step 2) did not significantly increasethe variance in either leadership behaviormeasure. Second, while the inclusion of the pro-totype recognition and anti-prototype recog-nition scores (step 3) significantly increased theamount of variance explained in transactionaland transformational measures, the leadershipprototype and leadership anti-prototypemeasures remained nonsignificant. Consistentwith our hypotheses, those with a high organi-zational identification did not rely upon theirleader prototype in judging their actualmanager. Instead, perceptions of the actualleader behaviors were determined directly byrecognition of key characteristics in the leader.

Relationship between leader behaviors andoutcome variablesAccording to Bass and Avolio’s (1997) FullRange Model of Leadership, transformational


256

Table 2. Summary of regression analyses predicting transactional and transformational leader behaviors

Organizational identification———————————————————————————————————

Low (n = 187) High (n = 252)————————————————— ————————————————–

Step and predictor Transactional Transformational Transactional Transformationalleadership leadership leadership leadership

Step 1Gender .25** .21** .17** .11Age –.07 –.11 –.07 –.04Organizational position .09 .03 .20** .19**Organizational tenure –.01 –.05 –.02 –.03Manager–employee contact .20** .15* .11 .08R2 .17*** .13*** .10*** .07**Step 2Leadership prototype .15* –.02 .21** .05 .09 .03 .10 .01Leadership anti–prototype –.19** –.16** –.16* –.15** –.01 –.03 .10 .07�R2 .04* .05** .01 .02Step 3Prototype recognition .50*** .69*** .48*** .72***Anti–prototype recognition –.27*** –.01 –.12* –.02�R2 .33*** .39*** .26*** .49***

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.Notes: The displayed coefficients are standardized beta weights at each step. For step 3 the beta weights forstep 2 are displayed to the right of the dotted line. Gender coded 1 = male, 2 = female; organizational positioncoded 1 = shopfloor, 2 = non-shopfloor.





leadership can explain additional variance inoutcome measures (such as, satisfaction andwork performance) above that explained bytransactional leadership (termed the augment-ing hypothesis). While effective leadershipneeds transactional relationships, transforma-tional leadership can enhance the leadershipprocess resulting in positive benefits. Wehypothesized that the augmenting effect oftransformational leadership would be mostnotable for those who are high in organizationalidentification than those low in organizationalidentification.

To test these hypotheses a number of hierar-chical regression analyses were conducted foreach outcome variable separately for the lowand high organizational identification groups.In the first step the same demographic variableswere entered as used in our previous analysis. Inthe second and third steps the transactional andtransformational scores were entered. The aug-menting hypothesis is supported if the inclusionof the transformational measure (step 3) sig-nificantly increased the amount of variance inthe outcome measures above that explained by

the inclusion of the transactional measure (step2). A summary of these analyses is reported inTable 3.

For those low in organizational identification,the transactional measure predicted all theoutcome variables. The greater the leader wasperceived as displaying transactional behaviorsthe greater was the reported job satisfaction andwell-being and the lower the turnover intentions.Our hypothesis concerning the absence of anaugmenting effect for this group was supportedin two of the four measures. While transforma-tional leadership accounted for a significantincrease in variance above that accounted bytransactional leadership (showing augmentinghad occurred) for job satisfaction (9%) and well-being—positive (10%), it did not increase theamount of variance for either the well-being—negative or turnover intentions (both 1%).While transformational behavior increased pre-diction of positive outcomes above thatexplained by transactional behavior it did not forthe negative outcomes. For the high organi-zational identification group the results sup-ported our hypotheses. Consistent with the low


257

Table 3. Summary of regression analyses predicting outcome variables

Organizational identification——————————————————————————————————————————

Low (n = 187) High (n = 252)————————————————————– —————————————————————–

Job Well-being Well-being Turnover Job Well-being Well-being TurnoverStep and predictor satisfaction (positive) (negative) intentions satisfaction (positive) (negative) intentions

Step 1Gender .13 –.02 .09 –.06 .12 –.08 .05 .15*Age –.06 –.14 .03 –.19 .01 –.01 .04 –.26***Organizational position .23** .09 .11 .04 .26*** .14* –.02 –.18**Organizational tenure –.02 –.07 –.08 –.01 .03 –.01 –.16 –.01Manager–employee contact .09 .05 –.03 –.07 .04 .08 .12 –.05R2 .12*** .05 .03 .04 .09*** .03 .03 .14***Step 2Transactional leadership .47*** .27*** .33*** –.22** .39*** .26*** .21** –.13*�R2 .18*** .06*** .09*** .04** .14*** .06*** .04** .02*Step 3Transformational leadership .38*** .41*** .08 –.09 .49*** .42*** .19* –.13*�R2 .09*** .10*** .01 .01 .16*** .12*** .02* .02*

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.Notes: The displayed coefficients are standardized beta weights at each step. Gender coded 1 = male, 2 = female;organizational position coded 1 = shopfloor, 2 = nonshopfloor.





organizational identification group, trans-actional behaviors predicted all the outcomevariables. However, the inclusion of transfor-mational behaviors significantly increased theamount of variance explained in all the outcomevariables (showing augmenting had occurred).

Discussion

The present study is one of the first attempts totest some of the theoretical propositions of theinformation-processing approach to leadership(Lord & Maher, 1993) in an organizationalcontext (see also Epitropaki & Martin, 2000).This approach acknowledges the important roleof followers’ cognitive and perceptual processesin the construction of leadership. Within thiscontext, this paper explored the effects oforganizational identification on the way leadersare perceived and, in turn, how this might affectpsychological reactions to work. In particular wewere concerned with three main research ques-tions concerning the potential effects oforganizational identification on (a) people’simplicit leadership theories (ILTs) of what con-stitutes an ‘ideal’ leader, (b) the way people usetheir ILTs to evaluate the behavior of theirleader, and (c) the relationship between leaderbehaviors and psychological reactions to work.

In answering the first question we can notethat the level of organizational identification didnot affect individuals’ prototype of what makesan ideal leader. Consistent with other research,prototypes of ILTs appear to be very reliablestereotypical descriptions which are consistentacross a range of organizational and demo-graphic groups (Epitropaki & Martin, 2000;Offerman et al., 1994) and across many cultures(House et al., 1999). However, as one mightexpect, the level of organizational identificationaffected the recognition of key leadership traitsin their manager. Employees with a highorganizational identification rated theirmanager higher on sensitivity, intelligence,motivation, and dynamism than those with a loworganizational identification. Interestingly,organizational identification did not affect per-ceptions of anti-prototype traits (i.e. tyranny).Consistent with prior research, high organiza-

tional identification was associated with positivepsychological reactions to work (Abrams et al.,1998; Lee, 1971; van Knippenberg & Van Schie,2000; Wan-Huggins et al., 1998).

The results in relation to our second researchquestion, between ILTs and perceptions ofleader behaviors, clearly supported our hypoth-eses. For those low in organizational identifi-cation, employees’ prototype of an ideal leaderpredicted their ratings of their actual leaderabove that explained by their evaluations of theleader. This shows that people low in organi-zational identification were using their proto-type of an ideal leader as a guide in judging theiractual leader (recall respondents completed thesame scales for both the ideal and actualmanager). We believe this occurs becausepeople low in organizational identification arepsychologically disengaged from the organiza-tion and interpreting their social worldthrough their personal identity (Lord et al.,1999; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Therefore, weexpect such people not to expand effort inevaluation their leader and rely upon theirleader prototypes to shape these judgments. Bycontrast, people high in organizational identifi-cation did not show an association between theirleader prototypes and leader behaviors. Insteadratings of leader behavior were determined bythe recognition of leadership traits in theleader. Consistent with our explanation, wewould argue that people high in organizationalidentification are motivated to evaluate theirsocial world through their work environmentand as a consequence will expand effort toevaluate their manager from the traits they per-ceive within him/her rather than relying upontheir prototypes.

The third research question concerns therelationship between perception of leadershipbehaviors and psychological reactions to work.According to Bass’s model of leadership (Bass,1985, 1997; Bass & Avolio, 1997) transforma-tional leadership augments transactional leader-ship in predicting work-related outcomes(Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Waldman et al., 1990). Weproposed that the augmenting process is mostlikely to occur for those employees with high,rather than low, organizational identification.


258





This is because individuals with low and highorganizational identification differ in the typesof leadership behavior which are suitable tomeet their needs. People with a low organi-zational identification tend to resist being‘pushed’ beyond the performance standards setby their work contract and if they are motivatedto work hard, it is usually to satisfy self-interestneeds rather than the collective good of theirwork-group or organization. Thus transactionalbehaviors exhibited by a leader are likely to besufficient to meet these needs and transforma-tional behaviors may well be rejected. By con-trast, people with a high organizationalidentification share similar goals to the organi-zation and are motivated to achieve them. Sincethe leader is typically the main source of contactfor the employee with the organizaion, andoften because they are prototypical groupmembers (Hogg, in press), the leader will beseen as not only embodying the same values andgoals as the employee but as the catalyst forachieving them. For these people, a leader’stransactional behavior alone would not be suf-ficient and they would respond favorably totransformational behaviors as these behaviorswould be important in helping employeesrealize their goals and enhance their social iden-tity. The results from this study give partialsupport for these hypotheses. For the loworganizational identification group, transforma-tional behaviors did not account for a significantamount of variance in two of the outcomemeasures (well-being—negative and turnoverintentions). Thus, for these measures, transfor-mational behaviors did not augment the trans-actional behaviors. For the high organizationalidentification group, as predicted, the leaders’transformational behaviors accounted for a sig-nificant increase in variance in the outcome vari-ables above that explained by transactionalbehaviors.

While the results of this study have generallysupported our hypotheses the methodologyemployed is not without criticism. The mainissue we would like to raise concerns the cross-sectional nature of the research, which does notallow an insight into the causal direction in theobserved relationships. Although we are unable

to test this issue within the current data set,theoretically we predict a causal ordering wherethe recognition of prototypical traits in theactual manager and leadership behaviors deter-mine psychological reactions. While it is possiblethat psychological reactions (like job satisfac-tion) may affect perceptions of leaders, andindeed sometimes do, we believe that the funda-mental process is the reverse (see Epitropaki,2000). Of course, this and other issues of causalordering are open to scientific inquiry andwould be best explored in future research usinglongtitudinal research designs.

The information processing perspectiveespoused in this paper argues that leadership isa perceptual process involving the matching ofthe recognition of leadership traits in the actualmanager with those of the person’s prototype ofan ideal leader. Variation in judgments inleaders is believed to be due to that fact thatpeople’s prototypes, their ability to recognizeleadership traits and to match this against theprototype are dependent upon many complexpsychological processes which can be affectedby a range of cognitive and motivational factors.However, such a perspective assumes that theleader is a constant given, the same thing to allpeople and across time, albeit perceived differ-ently. We suggest this is not true and that, in fact,leaders vary their behaviors to individual follow-ers over time, sometimes being transactionalsometimes being transformational. Thus effec-tive leaders are skilled tacticians who are able toadjust their behaviors to individual groupmembers and they do this based upon theirnaïve notions of what people want from theworkplace and how they think they wouldrespond to different leadership behaviors.While all effective leadership relationships needtransactional behaviors, the skilled tacticiandirects his or her transformational behaviors tothose he or she believes are most worthy and/orreceptive to them. Since leaders perceive thoselow in organizational identification are nothighly committed to the work, they judge thattransactional behaviors are sufficient and directtheir transformational behaviors to those whothey perceive are more committed, namelythose high in organizational identification.


259





Given that the acceptance of transformationalbehaviors by the followers is reinforcing to theleader (as the follower shares their vision andgoals), it is not surprising that such situationslead to high quality working relations (Gerstner& Day, 1997). Therefore within the workplace,as well as groups in other social situations, thereare people who want to be ‘managed’ and thosewho want to be ‘inspired’ and the choicebetween the two is a matter of ongoing negoti-ation between the follower and the leader. Toexamine one without the other can only give apartial view of the process.

ReferencesAbrams, D., Ando, K., & Hinkle, S. (1998).

Psychological attachment to the group: Cross-cultural differences in organizationalidentification and subjective norms as predictorsof workers’ turnover intentions. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1027–1039.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identitytheory and the organization. Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 20–39.

Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. J. (1989).Transformational leadership among midshipmen leadersat the United States Naval Academy (Technical report//ONR-TR6). Washington, DC: Office of NavalResearch.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M, & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformationaland transactional leadership using the MultifactorLeadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996).Effects of transformational leadership training onattitudinal and financial outcomes: A fieldexperiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,827–832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyondexpectations. New York: Harper.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the Transactional–-Transformational Leadership paradigm transcendorganizational and national boundaries? AmericanPsychologist, 52, 130–139.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadershipdevelopment: Manual for the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire. Redwood City, CA: MindGarden, Inc.

Bryman, A. (1987). The generalizability of ImplicitLeadership Theory. Journal of Social Psychology, 127,129–141.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership inorganizations. London: Sage.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper &Row.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995).Further assessments of Bass’s (1985)conceptualization of transactional andtransformational leadership. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 80, 468–478.

Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminantvalidity of transformational leader behaviour asmeasured by the MLQ. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 71, 353–358.

Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic andtransformational leadership in organizations: Aninsider’s perspective on these developing streamsof research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitudemeasures of trust, organizational commitment andpersonal need non-fulfillment. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.

Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects ofcategorization, attribution, and encodingprocesses on leadership perceptions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 97–106.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. L., & Koopman,P.L. (1997). Transactional versus transformationalleadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.

Duck, J. M., & Fielding, K. S. (1999). Leaders andsubgroups: One of us or one of them? GroupProcesses & Intergroup Relations, 2, 203–230.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V.(1994). Organizational images and memberidentification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39,239–263.

Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadershiptheories as a determinant of factor structureunderlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 60, 736–741.

Epitropaki, O. (2000). A ‘real world’ test of theinformation-processing approach to leadership: ImplicitLeadership Theories (ILTs), Leader Member Exchanges(LMX) and employee outcomes. Unpublished doctoralthesis, Cardiff University, Wales.

Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2000). ImplicitLeadership Theories in applied settings: Factorstructure, generalizability and stability over time.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Foti, R. J., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Prototypes andscripts: The effects of alternative methods ofprocessing information on rating accuracy.Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 39, 318–340.


260





Fraser, S. L., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Stimulusprototypicality and general leadership impressions:Their role in leadership and behavioral ratings.Journal of Psychology, 122, 291–303.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analyticreview of Leader–Member Exchange Theory:Correlates and construct issues. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 827–844.

Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1985). On avoidingthe influence of Implicit Leadership Theories inleader behavior descriptions. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 45, 217–232.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: Thesocial identity approach. London: Sage.

Haslam, S. A., McGarty, C., Brown, P. M., Eggins, R.A., Morrison, B. E., & Reynolds, K. J. (1998).Inspecting the emperor’s clothes: Evidence thatrandomly-selected leaders can enhance groupperformance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research andPractice, 2, 168–184.

Hogg, M. A. (in press). A social identity theory ofleadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review

Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998).Identification and leadership in small groups:Salience, frame of reference, and leaderstereotypically effects on leader evaluations. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248–1263.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity andself-categorization processes in organizationalcontexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (Eds.). (2001). Social identityprocesses in organizations. New York: Taylor &Francis.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quantilla, S. A.,Dorfan, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., Gupta, V.,& the GLOBE Co-ordinating Team (1999).Cultural influences on leadership andorganizations: Project GLOBE. In W. H. Mobley(Ed.), Advances in global leadership, (Vol. 1, pp.171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions oftechnological innovation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 35, 317–341.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismaticleadership’s transformation of the field: Anhistorical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 129–144.

Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999). From where wesit: An assessment of transformational andcharismatic leadership research. LeadershipQuarterly, 10, 335–343.

Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich,J. (1996). Implicit Leadership Theories: Definingleaders described as worthy of influence. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1128–1143.

Larson, J. R, Jr. (1982). Cognitive mechanismsmediating the impact of implicit theories of leaderbehavior on leader behavior ratings. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 29, 129–140.

Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis oforganizational identification. Academy ofManagement Journal, 14, 213–226.

Lord, R. G. (1977). Functional leadership behavior:Measurement and relation to social power andleadership perceptions. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 22, 114–133.

Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processingapproach to social perceptions, leadershipperceptions and behavioral measurement inorganizational settings. In B.M. Straw & L.L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol.7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lord, R. G., & Alliger, G. M. (1985). A comparison offour information processing models of leadershipand social perceptions. Human Relations, 38, 47–65.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999).Understanding the dynamics of leadership: Therole of follower self-concepts in theleader/follower relationship. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 167–203.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). Atest of leadership categorization theory: Internalstructure, information processing, and leadershipperceptions. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 34, 343–378.

Lord, R. C., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership andinformation processing. Linking perceptions andperformance. London: Routledge.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N.(1996). Effectiveness correlations oftransformational and transactional leadership: Ameta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7,385–391.

Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from dayone: Biodata, organizational identification, andturnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology,48, 309–333.

Mael, F. A., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifyingorganizational identification. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 52, 813–824.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979).The measurement of organizational commitment.Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 4, 224–247.

Nye, J. L., & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). The effects ofprototype-based biases on leadership appraisals: Atest of leadership categorization theory. SmallGroup Research, 22, 360–379.

Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr, & Wirtz, P. W.(1994). Implicit Leadership Theories: Content,


261





structure and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly,5, 43–58.

Phillips, J. S. (1984). The accuracy of leadershipratings: A cognitive categorization perspective.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33,125–138.

Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1981). Causal attributionsand perceptions of leadership. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 28, 143–163.

Platow, M., Reid, S., & Andrew, S. (1998). Leadershipendorsement: The role of distributive andprocedural behavior in interpersonal andintergroup contexts. Group Processes & IntergroupRelations, 1, 35–47.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H.(1996). Transformational leader behaviors andsubstitutes for leadership as determinants ofemployee satisfaction, commitment, trust, andorganizational citizenship behaviors. Journal ofManagement, 22, 259–298.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifyingmanagerial responses to multiple organizationalidentities. Academy of Management Review, 25, 18–42.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principle in categorization. In E.Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition andcategorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (1988). Leaderprototypes and prototype-contingent consensus inleader behavior descriptions. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 24, 88–104.

Rush, M. C., Thomas, J. C., & Lord, R. G. (1977).Implicit leadership theory: A potential threat tothe internal validity of leader behaviorquestionnaires. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 20, 93–110.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformationalleadership: Beyond initiation and consideration.Journal of Management, 16, 693–703.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrativetheory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S.Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergrouprelations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation andperformance: A social identity perspective. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 49, 357–371.

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2001).Editorial: Social identity processes inorganizations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,4, 185–189.

van Knippenberg, D., & Van Schie, E. C. M. (2000).Foci and correlates of organizationalidentification. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 73, 137–147.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J.(1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior:The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership.Group and Organization Studies, 15, 381–394.

Wan-Huggins, V. N., Riordan, C. M., & Griffeth, R.W. (1998). The development and longitudinal testof a model of organizational identification. Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 28, 724–749.

Warr, P. D. (1990). The measurement of well-beingand other aspects of mental health. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 63, 193–210.

Warr, P. D., Cook, J. D., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scalesfor the measurement of work attitudes and aspectsof psychological well-being. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 52, 129–148.

Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1981). Cognitivecomplexity and the structure of ImplicitLeadership Theories. Journal of Applied Psychology,66, 69–78.

Paper received 1 September 2000; revised version accepted18 December 2000.

Biographical notesR O B I N M A RT I N is associate professor of psychology

and director of the Center for OrganisationalPsychology at the University of Queensland,Brisbane, Australia. His research interests coversocial influence processes in groups, leadership,work motivation and job relocation.

O L G A E P I T R O PA K I is a research fellow at theInstitute of Work Psychology at the University ofSheffield, UK. Her research interests coverleadership processes, organizational effectivenessand innovation.


262





group processes intergroup relations 2001 martin 247 62

Documents