university of nebraska - lincoln digitalcommons@university of nebraska - lincoln faculty...

7/27/2019 University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Agricultura

1/16

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership,Education & Communication Department

Agricultural Leadership, Education &Communication Department

12-13-2005

Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, andTransformational Leadership: A Test of

AntecedentsJohn E. Barbuto Jr.University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub

Part of the Other Public Aairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons

is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department at

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education &

Communication Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Barbuto, John E. Jr., "Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of Antecedents" (2005).Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department. Paper 39.hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/39
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lec?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lec?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/403?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/39?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/39?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/403?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lec?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ag_lec?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Faglecfacpub%2F39&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/16

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2005, Volume 11,Number 4

Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic,and Transformational Leadership: A Test of

AntecedentsJohn E Barbuto Jr

Relationships between leaders' motivationand their use of charismatic, transactional, and /or transformational leadership were examinedin this study. One hundred eighty-six leadersand 759 direct reports from a variety oforganizations were sampled. Leaders wereadministered the Motivation Sources Inventory(MSO while followers reported leaders' fullrange leadership behaviors using the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-raterversion). Leaders were also administered theself-rating version of the Multi-factorLeadership Questionnaire (MLQ-rater version).The Motivation Sources Inventory subscales .subsequently signzjkantly correlated with leaderself-reports of inspirational motivation,idealized influence (behavior) andindividualized consideration (range, r = .10 to.29), as well as with raters' perceptions ofinspirational motivation, idealized influence(behavior) and individualized consideration(range, r = .18 to .19). The Motivation SourcesInventory subscales significantly correlated withleaders' self-reports of charisma, transactionaland laissez-faire leadership (range, r = .12 to.28), with rater-reports of the same variables(range, r = .16 to .29).

Antecedents of transformational behaviorhave been examined sparsely since the conceptwas first articulated and researched (Burns,1978; Bass, 1985). Those few studies that haveexamined the construct as a criterion variablehave included Avolio's (1994) examination oflife events and experiences, Bass's (1985)exploration of early career challenges, Howardand Bray's (1988) study of personality variables,Atwater and Yammarino's (1993) study ofpersonal attributes as precedents totransformational leader behaviors, and Barbuto,

Fritz, and Marx's (2000) study of workmotivation and transformational leadership.Results of these inquiries demonstrate thatdispositional variables play some role intransformational leadership, but much researchis necessary to ascertain which variables explainthe greatest variance in data. This study tests therelationship between leaders' sources ofmotivation and their use of transactional,charismatic, and transformational leadership.

Literature ReviewFull Range Model of Leadership

Transformational leadership theories grewfrom Bums's (1978) work in politicalleadership. Bums (1978) described thetransforming leader as one who is able to liftfollowers up from their petty preoccupations andrally around a common purpose to achievethings never thought possible. Bass (1985)developed a typology of leadership behaviorsfitting into the broad categories of transactionaland transformational leadership. Bass (1985)identified laissez-faire, management-by-exception, and contingent reward as the keytypes of transactional leadership. Mostconceptualizations of transactional leadership,however, exclude laissez-faire because itrepresents the absence of leadership.

Transformational leadership wasoperationalized at the time to include charisma,intellectual stimulation, and individualizedconsideration (see Avolio, Waldman & Einstein,1988; Bass, 1990). Through theory refinementsand research, a fourth component oftransformational leadership was identified -inspirational motivation. Later, after one of thekey components- charisma- eceived increasedscrutiny and criticism as potentially


3/16

A Test of Antecedents Volume 11, Number 4,2005 27

incompatible with transformational ideals (seeBarbuto, 1997; Hunt, 1999), the term 'charisma'in the full range leadership model waseventually changed to idealized influence. Thefull range leadership model describes thedistribution of leadership behaviors, rangingfrom completely inactive (laissez-faire) totransactional behaviors to transformationalbehaviors.Transactional Leadership

Bradford and Lippitt (1945) describedlaissez-faire leadership as a leader's disregard ofsupervisory duties and lack of guidance tosubordinates. Laissez-faire leaders offer littlesupport to their subordinates and are inattentiveto productivity or the necessary completion ofduties. Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) studiedboys' clubs in which adults were taught to leadeach group as either a laissez-faire leader or ademocratic leader. Laissez-faire leaders gavetheir groups complete freedom and offered littleguidance. These groups proved to be confusedand disorganized, and their work was lessefficient and of poorer quality than the work ofgroups whose leaders exhibited differentbehaviors. From the outset, laissez-faire hasdemonstrated itself to be the most inactive, leasteffective, and most frustrating leadership style.Katz, Macoby, Gurin, and Floor (1951) studiedrailroad section groups that were deemed to beunproductive. The leaders of these groups gavecomplete control to the group members and themembers did not respond to the challenge.Studies show that policies and practices thatreflect non-involvement of supervisors lead tolow productivity, resistance to change, and lowquality of work (Argyris, 1954; Berrien, 1961;Murnigham& Leung, 1976).

Management-by-exception has it roots incontingent reinforcement theories (Bass, 1990)whereby subordinates are rewarded or punishedfor a designated action. Leaders practicingmanagement-by-exception do not get involvedwith subordinates until failures or deviations inworkflow occur (Bass, 1985; 1990).Intervention by the leader occurs only when afailure takes place and punishment or correctiveaction is necessary. The leader sets up pre-determined actions for specific failures and

enforces the punishments when necessary.Passive leaders tend to get involved only whennecessary and refuse to set a plan of action.Such leaders expect only the status quo fromsubordinates, do not encourage exceptional work(Hater & Bass, 1988), and wait to be notified offailures. Active leaders, unlike their passivecounterparts, regularly search for failures anddevise systems that warn of impending failuresbefore they occur (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Leaders who practice management byexception routinely provide negative feedbackbecause they only initiate contact withsubordinates when failures occur. This actionstimulates subordinates to maintain the statusquo and strive for perfection at their job.However, the behavior does not encourage orfoster growth of the person or job performance.In a management-by-exception environment,any non-routine circumstances will requireleader intervention, because employees have notbeen encouraged to solve problems and have notbeen given the autonomy to develop confidenceor to learn fiom experiences (See Bass, 1985;1990).

Leaders and followers both participate in acontingent rewards approach to management,because it reflects behavior that is reciprocal innature (Howell & Avolio, 1993). Each partyagrees to a system of rewards and works to meetmutual expectations for certain achievements orbehaviors (Bass, 1990; Seltzer & Bass, 1990).This approach stems partly from reinforcementtheory and has been central to leadership theoryand practice for many years. Bass (1990)described many examples from early Greekmythology in which contingent rewards wereused by the gods. Kelman (1958) discussedinstrumental compliance and instrumentalinducements in early discussions of this type ofleadership. Blanchard and Johnson (1985)described transactional management as a simpleprocess of creating strong expectations withemployees, along with clear indications of whatthey will get in return for meeting theseexpectations. Most research has linkedcontingent rewards to positive organizationaloutcomes (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Lowe,Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).


4/16


5/16


impulsive (Loevinger, 1976; Kegan, 1982), and,to a lesser extent, pre-operational (Piaget,1972). Other need-based descriptors similar tointrinsic process include early existence needs(Alder er, 1969), intrinsic pleasure needs(Murray, 1964) and physiological needs(Maslow, 1954). Bandura (1986) describessensory intrinsic motivation and physiologicalintrinsic motivation in terms similar to thoseused to describe intrinsic process motivation.This motive also has been articulated as intrinsicmotivation to obtain task pleasure (Deci, 1975)and intrinsic task motivation devoid of externalcontrols or rewards (Staw, 1976).

Past researchers (Deci, 1975; Katz & Kahn,1978; Staw, 1976) have used the term intrinsicmotivation to represent personal satisfactionderived from achievement of goals or tasks.Intrinsic process motivation is distinct from theclassical interpretation of intrinsic motivationbecause the emphasis with the former is onimmediate enjoyment or pleasure during theactivity, rather than on the satisfaction thatresults from its achievement. The classicintrinsic motivation is better represented in thismotivation taxonomy as self-concept-internal, tobe explained in more detail in this paper.

Intrinsically motivated leaders findenjoyment and pleasure in the work they do(Barbuto, Fritz, & Mam, 2002). The leaders'enjoyment of their work environment couldinspire the followers to emulate the leaders'behavior and incorporate enjoyment with work(Avolio, Waldman, & Einstein, 1988).

Hypothesis 1: Leaders' intrinsic processmotivation will be positively related tocharismatic and transformational leadershipbehaviors.Instrumental Motivation

Instrumental rewards motivate individualswhen they perceive their behavior will lead tocertain extrinsic tangible outcomes, such as pay,promotions, bonuses, etc. (Kelman, 1958). Thissource of motivation integrates Etzioni's (196 1)alienative and calculative involvement,Barnard's (1938) exchange theory, and Katz andKahn's (1978) legal compliance and externalrewards. Developmental theorists have describeda similar motive as concrete operational (Piaget,

1972), instrumental (Kohlberg, 1976), imperial(Kegan, 1982), and opportunistic (Loevinger,1976). Similar instrumental motives have beendescribed by need theorists as a need for power(Murray, 1964; McClelland, 1961), a need forsafety (Maslow, 1954), or late stages ofexistence needs (Alderfer, 1969).

Instrumental motivation is different fromthe classic extrinsic or external motivation(Deci, 1975; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Staw, 1976) inthat this motive derives from tangible externalrewards, whereas the classic definition includessocial rewards and interpersonal exchanges (inthis typology, motivation that derives from theserewards is termed self-concept-external).Extrinsic motivation is further divided in thismeta-theory into two categories of motives:tangible (instrumental) and social (self-concept-external). This motivation is characterized byoptimizing self-interests, but with therecognition that every thing or want has itstangible price.

Instrumentally motivated leaders see thevalue in a reward system for employees(Barbuto, Fritz, & Mam, 2002). Similarly,transactional leaders work within a system ofreward/punishment for employees (Bass, 1990).We expect that leaders high in instrumentalmotivation will likely also be higher intransactional behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: Leaders' instrumentalmotivation will be positively related totransactional leadership behaviors.Self-Concept-External Motivation

This source of motivation tends to beexternally based when individuals are other-directed and seek affirmation of traits,competencies, and values from externalperceptions. The ideal self is adopted from therole expectations of reference groups, explainingwhy individuals high in self-concept-externalmotivation behave in ways that satisfy referencegroup members, first to gain acceptance, andafter achieving that, to gain status.

This source of motivation is similar toEtzioni's (196 1) social moral involvement,extrinsic interpersonal motivation described byDeci (1975) and Staw (1976), and Barnard's(1938) social inducements, conformity to group


6/16

30 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Barbuto, Jr.

attitudes, and communion. This source ofmotivation also resembles social identity theory,in which the focus is on establishing andmaintaining social reference and standing(Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Developmentaltheorists have described a similar motivationalstage as interpersonal (Kohlberg, 1976; Kegan,1982), early formal operational (Piaget, 1972),and conformist (Loevinger, 1976).

Other researchers have described similarmotivation as a need for affiliation (McClelland,1961; Murray, 1964), need for love, affection,and belonging (Maslow, 1954), and asrelatedness needs (Alderfer, 1969). Katz andKahn (1978) describe employees seeking"membership and seniority in organizations,""approval from leaders," and "approval fi-omgroups" in terms similar to those used todescribe self-concept-external motivation.Classic articulations of social rewards or socialexchanges are consistent in concept andmotivational explanation with self-concept-external motives.

Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) propose linksbetween interpersonal motivations and high-order transactions, described here in termssimilar to charismatic leadership. Barbuto andScholl(1999) examined the relationship betweenwork motivation and influence tactics used andfound significant correlations between self-concept-external motives and social tactics, suchas ingratiating and personal appeals. Barbuto etal. (2000) examined motivation andtransformational leadership and reportednegative relationships between self-concept-external motivation and transformationalleadership. We expect that self-concept-externalmotivation will share many characteristics withtransactional leadership, but also willdemonstrate some relationship with socialtransactions, such as those commonly describedin the referent influences of charismaticleadership.

Hypothesis 3: Leaders' self-conceptexternal motivation will be positively related toleaders' transactional and charismatic leadershipbehavior.Self-Concept-Internal Motivation

Self-concept-based motivation will beinternal when individuals are inner-directed. In

this type of motivation, the individuals setinternal standards for traits, competencies, andvalues that become the basis for their idealselves (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999).Persons are then motivated to engage inbehaviors that reinforce these standards and laterachieve higher levels of competency.

This source is similar to McClelland's(196 1) need for achievement, Deci's (1975)internal motivation to overcome challenges, andKatz and Kahn's (1978) ideal of internalizedmotivation derived from role performance.Bellah et al. (1985) describe individualism interms similar to those used to describe self-concept internal motivation. Developmentaltheorists have described a similar stage usingsuch terms as full formal operational (Piaget,1972), social system (Kohlberg, 1976),institutional (Kegan, 1982), and conscientious(Loevinger, 1976). Similar motives aredescribed as a need for achievement(McClelland, 1961 Murray, 1964), need foresteem (Maslow, 1954), motivating factors(Herzberg, 1968), and growth needs associatedwith developing one's potential (Alderfer,1969).

Bandura (1986) describes self-evaluativemechanisms, self-regulation, and personalstandards in terms similar to those used todescribe self-concept-internal motivation. Katzand Kahn (1978) describe a motive similar tointernalized motivation as "self-expressionderived from role performance." This motivealso has been described as "intrinsic motivationto overcome challenges" (Deci, 1975) and"intrinsic motivation to pursue personalachievement" (Staw, 1976).

A leader who is inspired by self-concept-internal motivation is likely to value individualemployees and the inherent strengths andcontributions each makes. This leader's use ofindividualized consideration is likely to inspirefollowers to see the goals of the leader as well asgoals for personal growth (Bass, 1985). Kuhnertand Lewis (1987) proposed relationshipsbetween Kegan's (1982) institutional stage ofego development, where the focus is on self-authorship and self-determination, andtransformational leadership. Barbuto and Scholl(1999) tested relationships between motivationand influence tactics and found some


7/16


relationships between self-concept-internalmotivation and inspirational appeals,consultation tactics, and rational persuasion. OfYukl's (1998) ten influence tactics, these threeseem to share the strongest behavioralsimilarities to transformational leadership.Barbuto et al. (2000) expected to findrelationships between self-concept-internal andtransformational leadership, but weren't able todemonstrate a relationship. We cautiouslyexpect a relationship to exist between thismotive and transformational leadershipbehaviors.

Hypothesis 4: Leaders' self-conceptinternal motivation will be positively related toleaders' charismatic and transformationalleadership behaviors.Goal Internalization Motivation

Behavior motivated by goal internalizationoccurs when individuals adopt attitudes andbehaviors congruent with their personal valuesystems. Strong ideals and beliefs areparamount in this motivational source (Barbuto& Scholl, 1998). Individuals motivated by goalinternalization believe in the cause and havedeveloped a strong sense of duty to work towardthe goal of the collective.

This source of motivation is similar toKelman's (1958) value system, Katz and Kahn's(1978) internalized values, Deci's internalvalence for outcome (1975), and Etzioni's(1961) pure moral involvement. Each of theseperspectives emphasizes a virtuous character anda desire not to compromise these virtues. Bellahet al. (1985) describe habits of the heart in termssimilar to goal internalization. Developmentaltheorists describe a similar motivational stage aspost-formal operational (Piaget, 1972)'principled orientation (Kohlberg, 1976), inter-individual (Kegan, 1982)' and autonomous(Loevinger, 1976). Need theorists describe asimilar motive as self-actualization (Maslow,1954).

Goal internalization is different from theprevious four sources of motivation because it isclearly marked by the absence of self-interest(Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). Motivation from thissource occurs when individuals believe in thecause. By contrast, individuals motivated by

intrinsic process need to enjoy the work beingperformed. Those with high levels ofinstrumental motivation are driven to performthe work because of an incentive or contingentreward. Individuals with high levels of self-concept-external motivation desire to enhancetheir reputation or image, while those with highlevels of self-concept-internal motivation arestimulated by personal challenge and self-regulation. All of these reflect some degree ofself-interest; on the other hand, those with highlevels of goal internalization motivation aredriven solely by a belief that the goals of theorganization are both worthwhile andachievable.

Transformational leader behaviors are mosttypically seen in persons who trust and believein the goal of the organization (Bass, 1985; Katz& Kahn, 1978), naturally expanding to belief inthe organization's cause. Barbuto and Scholl(1999) examined motivation's predictive valuefor influence tactics and found significantcorrelations between goal internalizationmotivation and both inspirational appeals andrational persuasion. From a transformationalleadership perspective, it is expected that goalinternalization will relate to inspirationalleadership and charismatic behaviors. Barbutoet al. (2000) found significant relationshipsbetween leaders' goal internalization and use oftransformational leadership behaviors. Weexpect similar findings in this study.

Hypothesis 5: Leaders' goal internalizationmotivation will be positively related to leaders'use of transformational leadership behaviors.Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

For the purpose of this study, we furtherdivided the five sources of motivation into twocategories: intrinsiclinternal (Deci, 1975; Staw,1976)' comprised of intrinsic process, self-concept-internal and goal internalization; andextrinsiclexternal (Deci, 1975; Staw, 1976),comprised of instrumental and self-concept-external. Intrinsiclinternal motivation embodiesthe person and his or her emotions,encompassing h,rust, and self-worth, all ofwhich are derived from internal influences.These qualities are similar to those needed fortransformational behaviors (Bass, 1985; Burns,


8/16


1978; Bass, 1990). An extrinsiclexternal Hypothesis 6: Leaders' intrinsiclinternalcombined process really derives from the motivation will be positively related tosurroundings of the person (Barbuto & Scholl, charismatic and transformational leadership1998). People influenced by an behaviors.intrinsiclexternal process are motivated by Hypothesis 7: Leaders' extrinsic/externalprestige, rewards and status, perhaps more motivation will be positively related tosuitable to transactional and charismatic transactional leadership behaviors.leadership (Hater& Bass, 1988; Bass, 1990).

Figure 1 Summ ary of HypothesesMotivation Sources Direction of Influence Leadership BehaviorsIntrinsic Process Positive Charismatic LeadershipMotivationInstrumental MotivationSelf-concept ExternalMotivationSelf-concept InternalMotivationGoal InternalizationIntrinsic/InternalMotivationExtrinsic/ExternalMotivation

Methods

PositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositive

SampleData from 186 leaders and their 759 raters

were collected. Leaders were employed in avariety of industries, governmental agencies, andeducational settings and in both rural and urbanareas. All leaders had participated in anextensive twelve-month leadership-trainingprogram. Raters were not provided any formaltraining. Fifty-seven percent of the leaders werefemale, with an average age of 44 years.Leaders had an average tenure of 7.9 years withtheir companies and many had either abachelor's (6 1%) or master's (15%) degree.Fifty-one percent of the raters were female, withan average age of 39 years. Raters had anaverage tenure of 5.8 years with their companiesand were generally as well educated as theirleaders (57% had earned a bachelor's degree;12% had earned a master's degree).

Measures

Transformational LeadershipTransactional LeadershipTransactional LeadershipCharismatic LeadershipCharismatic LeadershipTransformational LeadershipTransformational LeadershipCharismatic LeadershipTransformational LeadershipTransactional LeadershipCharismatic Leadership

passive and active), charismatic (idealizedinfluence, behavior, and attributed), andtransformational behaviors (inspirationalmotivation, individualized consideration, andintellectual stimulation) were measured usingthe Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ-short form) (Bass, 1985). Thesebehaviors were assessed by both leaders (self-report) and raters (rater form). Sample itemsand coefficient alphas for the items measured forthe h l l range of leadership were (leader self-report alpha appears first): laissez-faire ("Avoidsgetting involved when important issues arise," a= .89 & .76); contingent reward ("Provides mewith assistance in exchange for my efforts," a =.77 & .77); management by exception - passive("Fails to interfere until problems becomeserious," a = .73 & .72); management byexception - active ("Focuses attention onirregularities, mistakes, exceptions, anddeviations from standards," a = .70 & .71),charismatic - behavior ("Talks about their mostimportant values and beliefs," a = .78 & .71);attributed charisma ("Instills pride in me for

Leaders' Behavior being associated with himlher," a = .73 & .79);Leaders' laissez-faire, transactional inspirational motivation ("Talks optimistically

(contingent reward, management by exception- about the hture," a = .72 & .82); individualized


9/16


consideration (Spends time teaching andcoaching," a = .69 & .73); and intellectualstimulation ("Seeks differing perspectives whensolving problems," a = .76& .71) .Leaders' Motivation

Leaders' sources of motivation weremeasured using the Motivation SourcesInventory (MSI) (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). TheInventory contains 30 items, six for eachsubscale, measured on a six point Likert-typescale. Motivation scores were obtained bycalculating the mean response for each subscale.Sample items and coefficient alphas for the fivesources of motivation were: intrinsic process ("Iwould prefer to do things that are fun" a = .71);instrumental ("I like to be rewarded when I takeon additional responsibilities" a = .78); self-concept external ("It is important to me thatothers appreciate the work I do" a = 35); self-concept internal ("Decisions I make reflectstandards I've set for myself' a = 32); and goalinternalization ("I work hard for a company if Iagree with its mission" a = .73).

ProceduresLeaders completed and returned by mail tothe researchers the Motivation Sources

Inventory (MSI) and the Multi-factor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ) four weeks prior to theworkshop. Each leader also was provided therater version of the Multi-factor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ) to distribute to sixemployees. These instruments were coded andreturned by mail directly to the researchersbetween six and three weeks prior to therespective workshops.

All leaders participating in this study wereengaged in leadership development workshopsbeing offered through university extensionefforts. Leaders participating in the researchproject and workshop were provided with a two-day training session on both work motivationand full range leadership. The intact groups (+I-15 leaders) met for monthly follow-up sessionsin cohort support teams to address issues andchallenges they faced in the leadershipdevelopment process.

Participation was optional and both leadersand raters were given the opportunity towithdraw from the study at any time, even afterthe workshop(s). To date, nobody has requestedto be removed from the study. However, not allleaders had six raters return the forms, so fullparticipation was not achieved. Leaders hadbeen instructed to distribute the forms to thoseindividuals most capable of assessing behaviors,but also were urged to select a wide variety ofindividuals, to avoid selecting favorableemployees. An average of 4.1 usable rater formsper leader was returned to the researchers.

AnalysisResults of the study were analyzed using

the computer program SPSS. Analysis of theMulti-factor Leadership Questionnaire of bothraters' reports and leaders' self-reports began bycalculating subscales of the full range leadershipbehaviors. Several subscales also werecombined into broader categories oftransformational leadership (inspirationalmotivation, individualized consideration, andintellectual stimulation), transactional leadership(contingent reward, management by exception -active and management by exception-passive),charismatic leadership (idealized influence,attributed, and behavior) and laissez-faireleadership.

Analysis of the Motivation SourcesInventory included parceling the 30 motivationitems into five individual subscales and twoadditional subscales. The two additionalsubscales combined individual motivations for ageneric intrinsic (intrinsic process, self-concept-internal, and goal internalization) and extrinsic(self-concept -external and instrumental)classification to allow for emergence of broadtrends between internally driven and externallydriven motivation patterns (Deci, 1975). Simplestatistics and correlation analysis were used tointerpret the data and test the hypothesizedrelationships among leaders' motivations andtransformational, charismatic, transactional andlaissez-faire leadership.


10/16


ResultsSeveral significant findings emerged from

the analysis of the relationship between theMotivation Sources Inventory subscales(intrinsic, extrinsic, intrinsic process,instrumental, self-concept-external, self-concept-internal, and goal internalization) andleaders' transformational behavior subscales(individualized consideration, inspirational and

intellectual stimulation), charismatic leadership(idealized influence attributed and behavior),transactional leadership (contingent reward,management by exceptionactive and passive)and laissez-faire leadership. Simple statistics,reliability estimates, and Pearson (2-tailed)correlations were computed for the hypothesizedvariables (See Tables 1 ,2 and 3).

Table 1Motivation Subscales Inter-Correlations

DirectionalMotivation Meta-Theory ofMotivation Sources- - - - ---Motivation M SD Intrinsic Extrinsic 1nt.Proc Instrum SCE SCI GIIntrinsic/Internal 67.30 9.64 .91ExtrinsicIExternal 33.16 10.38 .43** .87Intrinsic Process 15.96 3.18 .20** .04 .71Instrumental 16.71 5.68 . .37** .89** .03 .78Self-concept External 16.46 6.05 .4 1** .90** .04 .60** .85Self-concept Internal 29.47 3.98 .67** .08 .18** .O1 .13* .82Goal Internalization 23.23 5.16 .81** .23** .13* .19** .23** .40** .73Note: N = 186, ** p < .O1 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed). 1nt.Proc= Intrinsic Process), Insrum = Instrumental, SCE =Self-ConceptExternal, SCI =Self-Concept Internal, GI=Goal Internalization. Coefficient alphas (a ) on diagonals.

Table 2Motivation Subscales and Leaders' Self-Reported Full Range Leadership

MotivationalDirection- - - - -Meta-Theory ofMotivation Sources

Leader MLQTransformational 2.9 1Inspir. MotivationIndiv. ConsiderationIntellect. StimulationCharismaAttributed CharismaCharismatic BehaviorTransactionalContingent RewardsMBEMBE PassiveMBE ActiveLaissez-Faire

M SD a Intrinsic Extrinsic0.41 .88 .18** -.082.90 0.61 .72 .17** .053.14 0.48 .69 .07 -.16**2.83 0.51 -76 .23** -.OO2.82 0.49 .76 .15* -.17**2.80 0.53 .73 .16** -.092.84 0.62 .78 . l l -.20**1.84 033 .68 .01 .18**2.84 0.53 .77 .12 -.021.31 0.48 .71 -.05 .19**1.22 0.59 .73 -.07 .16**1.39 0.66 .70 -.05 .12*0.78 0.46 .89 .O1 .16**

1nt.Proc. Instrum SCE.29** -.I1 -.05.29** -.01 .09.26** -.16** -.13*.lo* .01 -.01.24** -.19** -.I2.18** -.I2 -.05.24** -.20** -.17**.08 .14* .17**.31** -.01 .04-.07 .15* .19**-.03 .13* .16**-.08 .10 .ll-.07 .13* .16**

SCI.32**.27**.23**.27**.26**.27**.18**-.06-.28**-.18**-.23**-.05-.08

Note: N = 731, ** p < .O1 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed). MBE=Management-by-Exception, MBE Passive= Management-by-Exception Passive, MBE Active=Management-by-ExceptionActive, Int.Proc.= Intrinsic Process, Instrum = Instrumental, SCE = Self-Concept External, SCI = Self-concept Internal, GI= Goal Internalization


11/16


Table 3Motivation Subscales and Raters' ReportedFull Range LeadershipMotivationalDirection Meta-Theory ofMotivation

Rater MLQ M SD a Intrinsic Extrinsic 1nt.Proc Instrum SCE SCI GITransformational 2.95 0.60 .85 .06 -.I2 .16 -.09 -.I2 .04 -.04Inspir. MotivationIndiv. ConsiderationIntellect. StimulationCharismaAttributed CharismaCharismatic BehaviorTransactionalContingent RewardsMBEMBE P assiveMBE ActiveLaissez-FaireNote:N = 594, ** p < O1 (two-tailed), * p < .05 (two-tailed). MBE= Management-by-Exception,MBE Passive= Management-by-Exception Passive, MBE Active=Management-by-ExceptionActive, Int-Proc= Intrinsic Process, Instrum= Instrumental, SCE =SelfConcept External, SC I =Self Concept Internal, GI = Goal InternalizationMotivation as an Antecedent ofTransformational Leadership

Leaders' intrinsic process motivationsignificantly correlated with their self-reportedtransformational behaviors (r = .29; p < .01),inspirational motivation (r = .29; p< .01),individualized consideration (r = .26; p < .01),and intellectual stimulation (r = .lo; p< .05)(HI). Leaders' intrinsic process motivation alsodemonstrated several significant relationshipswith raters' perceptions of leader behaviors.Leaders' intrinsic process motivation alsoproved to be significantly related to inspirationalmotivation (r = .18; p < .05). Taken together,these results demonstrate several significantrelationships between leaders' intrinsic processmotivation and their use of transformationalleadership (H 1).

Leaders' instrumental motivation shared anegative relationship with their self-reportedindividualized consideration (r = -.16; p < .05).

Leaders' self-concept external motivationwas negatively related to their self-reportedindividualized consideration (r = -.13; p < .05and to raters' perceptions of leaders'individualized consideration (r = -.19; p < .01).There was no significant relationship between

self-concept-external motivation and charismaticleadership behaviors (H3).

Leaders' self-concept-internal motivationsignificantly correlated with their self-reportedtransformational behaviors (r = .32, p < .01),inspirational motivation (r = .27, p < .01),individualized consideration (r = .23, p < .01),and intellectual stimulation (r = .27, p < .01)(H4). However, there were no significantrelationships between self-concept-internalmotivation and raters' perceptions oftransformational leadership.

Goal internalization significantly correlatedwith leaders' self-reported intellectualstimulation (r = .15, p < .01) (H5). Leaders'combined intrinsic motivation significantlycorrelated with their self-reportedtransformational behaviors (r = .18, p < .01),inspirational motivation (r = .17, p < .01), andintellectual stimulation (r = .23, p < .01) (H6).Leader's combined extrinsic motivation wasnegatively related to their self-reportedindividualized consideration (r = -.16; p < .01)and rater-reported individualized consideration(r = -.19; p < .01).


12/16


Motivation as an Antecedent toCharismatic LeadershipRelationships also were found between

leaders' intrinsic process motivation and theirself-reports of each of the charismatic subscales:charisma (r = .24; p < .01), attributed charisma (r= .18; p < .01), and charismatic behavior (r =.24; p < .01) (HI). Intrinsic process motivationalso significantly correlated with attributedcharisma (r=.16; p


13/16


DiscussionThe leaders self-reports of

transformational leadership had a highercorrelation to the five sources of motivation thandid the raters' reports of full range leadership.Leaders' work motivation demonstrated somecorrelations with leadership behaviors, but therelationships generally accounted for less than5% variance. Other general trends noted werethat self-concept-internal motivation related totransformational behaviors, while self-concept-external motivation related more closely totransactional behaviors.

This study distinguished charismaticbehaviors fiom transformational ones ascriterion variables, but, in most cases, thosebehaviors that were significantly correlated withtransformational subscales also weresignificantly correlated with charismaticsubscales. This result may be explained by thenature of the measure itself, which was notdesigned to distinguish between inspirationaland charismatic influences. It may also reflectthe operational definitions used for charismaticleadership (idealized influence) in the originaldevelopment of the subscale (Bass, 1985). Bass(1990) reported that no empirical distinction hadyet been between inspirational and charismaticleadership subscales, which remain true in lightof this study.

Intrinsic process motivation correlated withtransformational behaviors, indicating thatleaders motivated by fun at work are more likelyto self-report an ideology consistent withtransformational and charismatic leadership.Intrinsic process motivation was related to raterperceptions of transactional leadership,indicating that those high in intrinsic processtend to view selves as more transformational,while those around them tend to view them asmore transactional.

Instrumental motivation correlated withtransactional behaviors, contingent rewards,management by exception, management byexception - active and laissez-faire leadership.This correlation may have been expected sinceprior work reported a similar result (Barbuto,Fritz & Mam, 2000). However, this same resultindicates that instrumental motivation shares

little variance with transformational leadershipbehaviors, consistent with propositionsdeveloped in the ego constructive developmentliterature (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Self-concept-external motivation correlated withsome charismatic behavior and transactionalbehavior, but didn't share significant variancewith transformational behaviors in the study.This result may have been expected, given thesocial rewards and interpersonal or referentnature of charismatic leadership behaviors andthe focus on interpersonal feedback attributed toself-concept external motivation. This resultalso moderately supports the premise thatcharismatic and transformational leadership maybe distinct constructs and necessitate differentmotives from leaders (See Barbuto, 1997).Since individuals with high self-concept-external motivation appear to exhibit morecharismatic behaviors, some support for Kegan's(1982) lens perspective is found, by whichleaders may naturally assume the extent towhich followers require self-concept externalmotives to be satisfied will be similar to theirown.

Overall, motivation has provided someevidence for promise as an antecedent to fullrange leadership. Most relationships proved tomove in the expected directions and the effectsizes compared favorably to previous antecedentresearch conducted in the area oftransformational leadership (Atwater &Yammarino, 1993; Avolio, 1994; Barbuto et al.,2000; Bass, 1985; Howard & Bray, 1988). Still,the relationships leave the field open to manymore questions of how to identify the bestantecedents of transformational leadership.Because motivation explains a small amount ofvariance in full range leadership, continuedsearch for other salient variables is necessary.Implications for Practice

The results of this study have someselection and leadership developmentimplications. If specific leadership styles (i.e.,transformational) are sought in organizations,some motivation profiling may prove conduciveto selecting individuals who have a greaterlikelihood of displaying these behaviors.However, we caution practitioners to be leery of


14/16


overestimating the relevance of leaders' sourcesof motivation to their leadership style, as theresults of this study showed a relatively smalleffect. The source of motivation may provideone of many pieces of information to considerwhen making recruiting and leadershipdevelopment decisions. Other important factors,such as academic preparation, job fit,experiences, and work philosophies - whichwere not tested in this study - may play a largerole in determining behaviors and likely willhave a role in recruiting leaders.

The result of this study is consistent withKegan's (1982) constructive developmentalview of human motivation and its role inleadership formation and development. The lensperspective offers a guideline for understandinglimitations of leaders, essentially that leaders seethe world through their own paradigm or "lens"and assume others share a similar lens. Kuhnertand Lewis (1987) advocate a similar perspectivein their conceptual work linking Kegan's (1982)levels of ego development with transactional andtransformational behaviors. However, strongereffect sizes would be necessary to generalizeKegan's work to this study.Opportunities for Future Research

The results of this study provide severalopportunities for future research. Therelationships between motivation and full rangeleadership were consistent, but also producedgenerally small effects. Studying humanmotivation in combination with other salientvariables may be necessary to glean the bestantecedents of full range leadership. It appearsthat motivation explains some variance in theconstruct, but greater explanation is possible.Greater attention is needed in testing otherdispositional variables and their relations totransformational leadership. Alternativemeasurement strategies for capturingcharismatic leadership may be developed todiscover charismatic effects distinct fromtransformational ones.

More rigorous procedures will also improveresearch in this area. The common datacollection method for antecedent research oftransformational leadership has been to useleaders and designated raters, chosen by leaders.This snowball effect produces a non-random

sample, which likely impacts response bias andconfounds results. More random rater selectionwill address this concern, as will the inclusion ofsocial desirability in the research design. Bycontrolling for and assessing response bias,antecedent research will have more functionalcredibility. Additionally, in instances whereresearch participation is part of a leadershipdevelopment initiative, the impact of suchtraining on the data collection processes andresponses needs to be planned and assessed.

Other antecedents of full range leadershipbehavior need to be tested to better understandthe construct. To date, early childhoodexperiences, locus of control, early careerchallenges, personality, and motivation all havebeen explored as dispositional antecedents offull range leadership with relatively small effectsizes. To explain greater variance, futureresearch may test other salient variables, such aspolitical skills, mental boundaries or flexibility,self-presentation, and other attitudinal constructsthat may provide valuable exploration into thefield of leadership antecedents. Additionally,other leadership frameworks need to beexamined to ascertain the dispositional role thatwork motivation plays as an antecedent toleadership. Motivation links with otherleadership perspectives, such as leader-memberexchange quality, servant leadership, authenticleadership, ideological leadership, politicalleadership, and others, may provide a rich testand contribution to the antecedent field. Webelieve that greater attention to the antecedentsof leadership will prove valuable to field.

ReferencesAlderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a newtheory of human needs. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.Argyris, C. (1954). Human relations in a bank.Haward Business Review, 32, 63-72.Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identitytheory and the organization. Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 20-39.


15/16

A Test of Antecedents Volume 1 1, Number 4,2005 39

Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1993).Personal attributes as predictors of superiors'and subordinates' perceptions of militaryacademy leadership. Human Relations, 46,645-668.Avolio, B. J. (1994). The "natural": Someantecedents to transformational leadership.International Journal of PublicAdministration, 17, 1559-1581.Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D.A., & Einstein, W.O.(1988). Transformational leadership in amanagement game simulation. Group &Organization Studies, 13 , 59-79.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughtand action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out oftransformational leadership. Journal ofSocial Behavior and Personality, 12, 689-697.Barbuto, J. E. (2000). Influence triggers: Aframework for understanding followercompliance. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 365-387.Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2000). Afield study of two measures of workmotivation for predicting leader'stransformational behaviors. PsychologicalReports, 86,295-300.Barbuto, J . E., Fritz, S. M., & Man, D. (2002). Afield study examining two measures of workmotivation for predicting leaders' influencetactics used. Journal of Social Psychology,I42(5), 601-616.Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1998). MotivationSources Inventory: Development andvalidation of new scales to measure anintegrative taxonomy of motivation.Psychological Reports, 82, 10 1 1022.Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Leaders'sources of motivation and perceptions offollowers' motivation as predictors ofleaders' influence tactics used. PsychologicalReports, 84, 1087- 1098.Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performancebeyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stodgill's handbookof leadership. New York Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developingtransformational leadership: 1992 andbeyond. Journal of European IndustrialTraining, 14,2 1-27.Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M.,Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habitsof the heart:Individualism and commitment in Americanlife. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.Berrien, F. K. (1961). Homeostasis theory ofgroups - implications for leadership. In L.Petrullo & B. Bass (Eds.), Leadership andinterpersonal behavior. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.

Blanchard, H., & Johnson, S. (1985). The one-minute manager. Berkeley, CA: BerkeleyPublishing Co.Bradford, L. P., & Lippitt, R. (1945). Building ademocratic work group. Personnel, 22(3),142-148.Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York:Harper & Row.Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. NewYork: Plenum Press.Deluga, R. J. (1988). Relationship oftransformational and transactional leadershipwith employeeinfluencing strategies. Group andOrganizational Studies, 13 , 456-467.Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis ofcomplex organizations. Glencoe, IL: FreePress.Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors'evaluations and subordinates' perceptions oftransformational and transactionalleadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,73(4), 695-702.Herzberg, F. W. (1968). One more time, how doyou motivate employees? Haward BusinessReview, 46(1), 53-62.House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J.(1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S.presidency: A psychological theory ofleadership effectiveness. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 36, 364-396.Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Manageriallives in transition: Advancing age andchanging times. New York: Guilford Press.


16/16

40 Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies Barbuto, Jr.Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993).Transformational leadership, transactionalleadership, locus of control, and support forinnovation: Key predictor of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.Howell, J., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratorystudy of charismatic leadership.Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 43,243-269.Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/charismaticleadership's transformation of the field: Anhistorical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2),129-144.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The socialpsychology of organizations. New York:Wiley.Katz, D., Macoby, N., Gurin, G., & Floor, L.(195 1). Productivity, supervision, and moraleamong railroad workers. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan, Institute for SocialResearch.Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving selJ: Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification,and internalization: Three processes ofattitude change. Journal of ConflictResolution, 2, 5 1 56.Kohlberg, L. (1976). Collected papers on m oraldevelopment and moral education.Cambridge, MA: Center for Moral Education.Kuhnert, K., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional&transformational leadership: A constructivedevelopmental analysis. Academy ofManagement Review. 12(4),-648-657.Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L L., & Scholl, R. W.(1999). Work motivation: The incorporationof self concept-based processes. HumanRelations, 52, 969-998.Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939).Patterns of aggressive behavior inexperimentally created social climates.Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 27 1-301.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam,N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates oftransformational leadership: A meta-analyticreview of the MLQ literature. LeadershipQuarterly, 7,385-425.Loevinger, J. (1 976). Ego development. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality.New York: Harper & Row.McClelland,D. C. (1961). The achieving society.Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Murnigham, J. K., & Leung, T. K. (1976). Theeffects of leadership involvement and theimportance of the task on subordinates'performance. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 17, 299-3 10.Murray, E. J. (1964). Motivation and emotion.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution fromadolescence to adulthood. HumanDevelopment, 15, 1 12.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Morrman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformationalleader behaviors and their effects onfollowers' trust in leader, satisfaction, andorganizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quarterly, 1,107-142.Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational

leadership: Beyond initiation andconsideration. Journal of Management,16(4), 693-703.Staw, B. M. (1976). Intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett.Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social andeconomic organizations. New York: FreePress.Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990).Transformational leadership and multiplelevels of analysis.Human Relations, 43, 975-995.Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations.New York: Prentice Hall.

university of nebraska - lincoln digitalcommons@university of nebraska - lincoln faculty...

Documents