Content uploaded by Venkat R. Krishnan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Venkat R. Krishnan
Content may be subject to copyright.
Impact of transformational
leadership on followe rs ’
in uence strategies
Venkat R. Krishnan
Xavier Labour Relations Institute, Jamshedpur, India
K e yw or d s T ransf ormational leadership, E xchange, V alue, In uen ce
A b st r a c t Eff ects of leader-member exchange, transf ormational leadership, and perceived value
syst em congr uence between leader and follower o n f ollower’s six u pward in u ence
strategies-assertiveness, bargaining, coalition, friendliness, higher authority, and reasoning
were st udied using a sam ple of 281 managers working in various organ izations in India.Results
show that transformational leadership mediates t he relationship between L MX and congruence.
Both LMX and transformational leadership are related positively to friendliness an d reasoning,
and negatively to higher authority. Congruence is not related to in uence strategies.
T ransf ormational leadership is the best pr edictor of f riendliness, an d n either LMX nor
congruence explains signi cant additional variance in friendliness. S imilarly, LMX is the best
predictor of reasoning, an d neither t ransf ormational leadership nor congru ence explains
signi cant additional variance in reasoning. Controlling for tran sformational leadership makes
the relationship between LMX and higher authority non-signicant and controlling for LMX
m akes t he r elationship between t ransf orm ational leadership an d higher a uthorit y non -signi cant.
The essence of managerial work is in uencing. Studies have looked at
in uence strategies that managers use to get things done from their bosses,
peers, and subordinates. Choice of in uence strategies would depend on a
variety of factors, the foremost among which would be the nature of target of
in uence and the quality of relationship the in uencing agent has with the
target. T he role of target in choice of in uence strategy would be particularly
important when managers attempt to get things done from their bosses. Choice
of upward in uence strategy would be primarily affected by the leadership
characteristics of the boss. Rapid technological advancements and the resulting
constant change that has become a part of life for many organizations highlight
the increasing importance of transformational leadership. However, not much
attention has been given to studying the impact of target’s transformational
leadership on agent’s upward in uence strategies. Even the few studies that
have looked at the relationship between transformational leadership and
follower’s in uence strategies did not simultaneously measure constructs
closely rela ted to tra nsformational leadership. This study aims at
understanding the unique impact of transformational lea dership on
followers’ upwa rd in uen ce str at egies by includ ing the qu ality of
leader-member exchange and perceived value system congruence between
leader and follower as additional variables.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
ww w .e me ral din s igh t.c om/ re s e arch reg is t er ww w .e me ra ldin s igh t. com /0 1 4 3 -7 7 3 9 .h tm
LODJ
25,1
58
Received April 2003
Accepted June 2003
The Leaders hip & Or ganization
Development Journal
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2004
pp. 58-72
Emerald Gr oup Pu blishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730410512778
Theory and hy pothes e s
Burns (1978) de ned leadership as a relationship that induces followers to
pursue joint purposes that represent the motivations of both leaders and
followers. Addressing the motivations of both leaders and followers could be
handled in two ways-transactional and transformational. Transactional
leadership, involves an exchange of bene ts, and it is based on current
values and motivations of both leaders and followers. T ransformational
leadership, on the other hand, does not take the current values and motivations
to be xed, but rather seeks to change them.
T ransf orm ational leadership
Transformational leadership occurs when leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of values and motivations (Burns, 1978, p. 4).
According to Burns, “the result of transforming leadership is a relationship of
mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may
convert leaders into moral agents”, thus resulting in a transforming effect on
both lead ers and followers. Bass (1985) de ned a transformational leader a s one
who motivates followers to do more than they originally expected to do.
Transformational leaders broaden and change the interests of their followers,
and generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the
group. T hey stir their followers to look beyond their self-interest for the good of
the group. T ransformational leadership consists of four factors-charisma or
idealized in uence, inspirational leadership or motivation, intellectu al
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Though Bass considered
charisma to be a factor of transformat ional leadership, authors have
generally used the terms tr ansformational leadership and charismatic
leadership interchangeably.
Superior performance is possible only by transforming followers’ values,
attitudes, and motives from a lower to a higher plane of arousal and maturity.
Boehnke et al. (2003)even found support for the claim that the main dimensions
of leadership for extraordinary performance are universal. Studies have found
signi cant and positive relationships between transformational leadership and
the amount of effort followers are willing to exert, satisfaction with the leader,
ratings of job performance, and perceived effectiveness of leader (Bass, 1985).
Leader’s vision and vision implementation through task cues affects
performance and many attitudes of subordinates (Kirkpatrick and Locke,
1996). Shamir et al. (1998) foun d t hat a leader ’s emph asis on collective ident ity
was related to subordinate’s level of identi cation with the leader. Cremer and
Knippenberg (2002) showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and
procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on
the sense of group belongingness. Transformational leadership could be
potentially effective across a variety of situations, though certain contextual
Impact of
transformational
leadership
5 9
factors like structure of the organization could facilitate the emergence and
impact of transformational leadership (Shamir and Howell, 1999).
Leader-member exchange (LMX)
Gerstner and Day (1997) argued that transformational leadership seems
conceptually similar to the process of developing a unique exchange
relationship that is central to leader-member exchange (LMX). According to
LMX theory, leaders and followers develop dyadic relationships and leaders
treat individual followers differently, resulting in two groups of followers-an
in-group and an out-group. The in-group consists of a small number of trusted
followers with whom the leader usually establishes a special higher quality
exchange relationship. The out-group includes the remaining followers with
whom the relationship of the leader remains more formal. These varying social
exchange relationships are relatively enduring and they develop owing to the
leader’s limited time and energy, and inability to give equal attention to all
followers (Gerstner and Day, 1997).
Quality of leader-member exchange has been found to be positively related
to follower’s satisfaction, organizational commitment, role clarity, performance
ratings given by leaders, and objective performance, and negatively related to
role con ict an d turnover intentions (Gerstner a nd Day, 1997; Schriesh eim et al.,
1999). Overall, results of studies suggest that having a high-quality
relationship with one’s leader can affect the entire work experience in a
positive manner, including performance and affective outcomes. T he
development of relationships in a leader-follower dyad can also be looked at
in terms of a life-cycle model with three possible stages (Graen and Uhl-Bien,
1991). The relationship begins with an initial testing phase and remains at the
out-group level if it does not proceed to the next stage. If the relationship
proceeds to the second stage, mutual trust, loyalty, and respect are developed.
Some relationships proceed to a third stage, wherein self-interest gives way to
mutual commitment to the mission. According to Graen and Uhl-Bien (1991),
this nal stage corresponds to transformational leadership.
LMX and transform ational leadership. LMX is conceptually described as an
exchan ge process, ma king it app ear to be a transactiona l leadersh ip model, but
it is not usually measured this way. Members of the in-group are not told what
is expected in return for the rewards they are given as part of a high-quality
exchan ge. Since leaders do n ot make exp licit dema nds on in-gr oup members in
the form of harder work for these rewards, the relationship might be better
charact erized as trans formation al. Palmer et al. (2001) found tha t
transformational leadership was positively related to the ability to monitor
and manage emotions in oneself and others. To the extent that LMX measures
tap mutual respect, trust, and the overall quality of the working relationship,
LMX is oriented toward transformational leadership. There is emerging
support for the claim that LMX may be transformationa l, at least at certain
LODJ
25,1
60
times a nd un der certa in cond itions (Gerstn er a nd Da y, 1997). T herefore, LMX is
likely to be positively related to transformational leadership.
Value system congruence
Rokeach (1973, p. 5) de ned a value as “an enduring belief that a speci c mode
of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an
opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence”. Values can be
conceptualized in two distinct ways – ipsative in which values are
rank-ordered, and non-ipsative – in which various values are measured
independent of one another. A set of rank-ordered values is called a value
system. Only the ipsative (rank-ordering) measurement model can capture the
unique value con guration of an individual.
Schwartz (1992)identi ed ten common value types that form the underlying
dimensions of various values. The ten value types are: Achievement (personal
success, capable, ambitious, intelligent); benevolence (helpful, honest,
forgiving, loyal, responsible, true friendship); conformity (polite, obedient,
self-discipline, honoring parents an d elders); hedonism (pleasu re, enjoying life);
power (authority, w ealth, preserving public image, social r ecognition or status);
security (safety, family or national security, social order, clean, healthy);
self-direction (freedom, independent thought and action, choosing own goals);
stimulation (daring, challenging life, novelty, varied life, exciting life); tradition
(respect for the customs that traditional culture or religion provides); and
univer salism (broadminded , social justice, equ ality , protecting the
environment). These ten value types have been found to be distinct from one
another, universal in content, recognized across cultures and used to express
value priorities (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1990; Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995). T his
ten-value framework was used in this study.
Value system congruence between leader and follower could be de ned as
the extent of agreement between the leader’s value system and the follower’s
value system. Value congruence between employees and their supervisors has
been found to be signi cantly related to employee satisfaction and commitment
(Meglino et al., 1989). Posner (1992)found that perceived v alue congruence was
directly related to positive work attitudes.
T ran sforma tiona l leadership and value system congru ence. Burns (1978)held
that transformational leadership is based on the role of conscious purpose
drawn from values. Transformational leadership involves the uncovering of
contradictions among values and between values and practice, and the
realigning of values in followers. Transformational leadership is a relationship
wherein leaders’ and followers’ purposes, which might have started out as
separate but related, become fused, leading to greater leader-follower
congruence in value hierarchies. Congruence in values between leader and
follower forms the strateg ic and moral foundation of a uthentic
transformational leadership (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). T he vision that a
Impact of
transformational
leadership
6 1
transformational leader has serves as a unifying force that facilitates the
convergence of leader’s and follower’s thoughts, beliefs and values (Kirkpatrick
and Locke, 1996; Shamir et al., 1998). Krishnan (2002) found that
transformational leadership was positively related to leader-follower value
sys tem cong ruence in th e case of t erminal v alues. Jung and Av olio (2000)fou nd
that transformational leadership was positively related to value congruence
between leader and follower. T hey measured value congruence as the extent to
which followers agreed with leaders’ values. T herefore, transformational
leadersh ip is likely to b e p ositively r elat ed to va lue sy stem congr uence b etw een
leader and follower.
LMX, transformational leadership, and value system congruence. Erdogan
et al. (2002) demonstrated t he complementary nature of LMX and
person-organization t in explaining job and career satisfaction. An
important difference between LMX and transformational leadership is the
fusion of goals of leader and follower. Burns (1978) considered the fusion of
goals between leader and follower to be an essential component of
transformational leadership. LMX, on the other hand, even when it is a high
quality exchange relationship or has reached the nal stage of mature
relationship, does not address the question of changing the goals or value
sys tems of followers. A high q uality relations hip is not necessar ily a n eng aging
relationship that would result in a transforming effect on both leader and
follower. High quality exchange relationship simply presupposes a clear
mutual understanding of one another’s value systems and goals, and does not
imply similarity in value sy stems. LMX would therefore have no direct
relationship with value system congruence, and any relationship between the
two could only be because of the mediating effect of transformational
leadership. Hence, I hypothesized:
H1. T ransformational leadership would mediate the relationship between
LMX and leader-follower value system congruence.
Upward in uence strategies
In uence is the effect, either intended or unintended, of one party (the agent) on
another person’s (the target’s) attitudes, perceptions, behavior, or some
combination of these outcomes (Yukl, 2001). Most people however, do not
in u ence for t he sh eer joy of ch angin g other peoples’ behavior. T hey d o so w ith
speci c reasons in mind. In uence could be used for such personal reasons as
securing better work assignments, or for such organizational reasons as
introducing new work procedures, the latter being more common (Yukl and
Tracey, 1992). Attempts have been made to classify in uence tactics into
categories like rational persuasion and ingratiation (Kipnis and Schmidt, 1988;
Yukl et al., 1996). Kipnis et al. (1980) identi ed and classi ed examples of
behavioral tactics used to in uence superiors, peers, and subordinates. An
LODJ
25,1
62
inductive method was used based on responses from organization members,
and the tactics used to in uence superiors were grouped into the six categories
of assertiveness, bargaining, coalition, friendliness, higher authority, and
reasoning. Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990) examined the Kipnis et al. upward
in uence subscales in four studies and found support for the dimensionality of
the subscales.
Choice of in uence strategies could be affected by several variables.
Kipnis et al. (1984) showed that people vary their in uence strategies in
relation to their objectives. People tend to use different in uence strategies
depending on whether their goals are personal or organizational, and
depending on the organizational climate (Schmidt and Kipnis, 1984). Blickle
(2000) found that work values predicted the frequency of use of in uence
strategies measured one year later. Similarly, the characteristics of the
target person also affect the choice of in uence strategies. Transactional
leadership is more strongly related to subordinate upward in uencing
behavior than transformational leadership (Deluga, 1988a). Followers use
reasoning strategy more frequently to in uence transformational rather
than transactional leaders (Deluga and Souza, 1991), and participative
rather than autocratic leaders (Ansari and Kapoor, 1987); they also use less
of bargaining and higher authority to in uence people-centered leaders
rather than task-centered leaders (Deluga, 1988b). Deluga and Perry (1991)
found that higher quality LMX was negatively related to the use of higher
authority, coalition, and assertiveness upward in uence strategies. Fu et al.
(2001), in a study of managers from India, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand,
USA, and Hong Kong, found that rational persuasion, collaboration, and
consultation were universally effective in uence tactics, while gifts,
preliminary socializing, and pressure were least effective in all cultures.
In u ence strategy and transform ational leadership. The distinguishing
feature of transformational leaders is that they are held in high regard and
respected by their followers. Dvir et al. (2002) found that transformational
leadership enhanced direct followers’ development and indirect followers’
performance. The shared perspective of the transformational leader’s
idealized vision and its potential for satisfying followers’ needs make the
leader likable. The personalized relationship between transformational leader
and followers creates an environment in which the followers would feel
comfortable to reason and argue with the leader. The transformational leader
is an ideal or a role model for the follower, and hence the follower would not
be inclined to take any issue to those in the hierarchy who are at a higher
level than the transformational leader. Yukl et al. (1996) found that referent
power, which is based on personal attraction, was negatively related to
pressure tactics. Followers will not be inclined to appeal to higher authority,
because they have a personal relationship with their leader and they trust
their leader. Therefore:
Impact of
transformational
leadership
6 3
H2. T ransformational leadership would be positively related to frequency
of use of friendliness and reasoning, and negatively related to higher
authority strategy.
H3. T r ansfor mational leaders hip would be a better pred ictor of
friendliness, reasoning, and higher authority strategies, than LMX
and value system congruence.
Method
I collected data for this study from 281 managers working at different levels in
various organizations in India. Of those 281 managers, 66 were junior and
middle level managers from two public sector (government owned) banks in
southern and eastern India, 48 were senior of cers from a government
department in charge of natural resources in western India, and 48 were junior
managers from a large private sector engineering and locomotive rm in
eastern India. The rest of the sample consisted of junior and middle level
fulltime managers attending evening MBA, executive MBA, and executive
development programs at a prominent business school in eastern India. Of the
229 who reported their gender, 222 were males and seven were females.
Respondents were not asked to give any form of identi cation. All responses
were thus anonymous, and this was made clear to every respondent. The
questionnaires measured LMX, respondents’ value systems, transformational
leadership of their immediate supervisors, the value systems of their
supervisors as perceived by them, and the frequency of their usage of different
upward in uence strategies. A majority of respondents surveyed were at least
39 years old, and they had been working with the supervisor they were rating,
for at least three years.
LMX and transform ational leadership
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was developed to measure
the factors in transactional and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).
Several studies have revealed high validity for the MLQ (Bass, 1998). I used
MLQ Form 6S of Bass and Avolio (1992) to measure transformational
leadership of respondent’s supervisor. It had 12 items to measure the four
factors of transformational leadership – three items each for idealized
in uence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized
consideration. Respondents were requested to answer the MLQ by rating how
frequently their current immediate supervisor had displayed the behaviors
described, using a ve-point scale (1 Not at all; 2 Once in a while;
3 sometimes; 4 Fairly often; 5 Frequently, if not always). T he mean
rating on the three items comprising a factor was taken as the score for that
factor. The mean of the scores for the four factors was taken as the score for
transformational leadership. The seven-item scale developed by Graen et al.
LODJ
25,1
64
(1982) was used for measuring LMX. This scale appears to provide the
sound est psychometr ic pr operties of all available LMX measu res (Gerstn er and
Day, 1997). A ve-point Likert scale was used for this study.
Value system congruence
I used the ten value types identi ed by Schwartz (1992) to measure value
systems of leaders and followers. Respondents were provided a list of the ten
value types, with the individual values associated with each value type being
mentioned within parenthesis. Respondents were rst requested to rank the ten
value types in order of importance to themselves in their life, thus measuring
value systems of followers. They were then requested to rank the same ten
value types in order of importance to their immediate supervisor, thus
measuring value systems of leaders as perceived by followers. Similarity
between two pro les can be calculated by treating the two sets of observations
as two vectors. The index of similarity would then be given by the cosine of the
angle between the two vectors, which is the same as the Pearson
product-moment correlation between the vectors. The correlation between
perceived rank ordering of leader and follower’s rank ordering was calculated
for each leader-follower pair. The correlation coef cient was increased by one
unit and the sum then divided by two to get the index of congruence between
the value systems of leader and follower. T his adjustment was done to get rid
of the negative correlation coef cients. It was perceived value system
congruence that was measured, since followers (respondents) ranked the ten
value types on behalf of both themselves and their leader. Perceived
congruence is more relevant than latent congruence for power and in uence
(Enz, 1988).
In uence strat egies
I u sed pr o les of orga nizational in u ence str ategies (POIS)F orm M (Kipn is a nd
Schmidt, 1982) consisting of 27 items, to measure the frequency with which
subordinates (respondents) used the six strategies-assertiveness (six items),
bargaining ( ve items), coalition (two items), friendliness (six items), higher
authority (four items), and reasoning (four items) – to in uence their
immediate supervisors. Each item represented an in uence tactic, and
respondents were asked to indicate on a ve-point scale (1 never;
2 seldom; 3 occasionally; 4 frequently; 5 almost always), how often
they generally use each of the 27 tactics. The mean score on the tactics
comprising a particular strategy was taken as the measure of that strategy.
Re s ults
Table I presents the means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and
correlations between all variables in the study. LMX was signi cantly
positively related to transformational leadership and perceived value system
congruence, and transformational leadership was signi cantly positively
Impact of
transformational
leadership
6 5
(Nvaries from 251 to 281) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. LMX 3.79 0.59 (0.77)
2. Transformational leadership 3.49 0.72 ****0.62 (0.88)
3. Value system congruence 0.70 0.20 **0.14 ****0.29
4. Assertiveness 2.30 0.68 0.08 0.07 0.01 (0.65)
5. Bargaining 2.42 0.88 0.01 0.05 0.10 ****0.46 (0.72)
6. Coalition 2.98 1.05 0.03 0.06 0.09 ****0.35 ****0.35 (0.59)
7. Friendliness 3.26 0.64 ***0.16 ***0.19 0.01 **0.12 ****0.30 ****0.22 (0.53)
8. Higher authority 2.01 0.67 ** 0.15 ** 0.12 0.04 ****0.51 ****0.41 ****0.30 ***0.19 (0.56)
9. Reasoning 3.99 0.67 ****0.31 ****0.21 0.01 ****0.28 *0.11 ***0.19 ****0.24 0.06 (0.59)
Not es :
a
Cronbach alpha is in parentheses along diagonal.
*= p0.10. **= p0.05. ***= p0.01. ****= p0.001
Table I.
Means, st andard
deviat ions, Cronba ch
alphas, an d corr elations
among va riables
studied
a
LODJ
25,1
66
related to perceived value system congruence. I followed the procedure
suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test my Hypothesis 1 that
transformational leadership would mediate the relationship between LMX and
leader-follower value system congruence. Transformational leadership was
rst r egressed on LMX; the model was signi cant a t 0.001 level
(R-Square 0.38) and the parameter estimate of LMX was 0.75 (t13.13,
p0.001). Perceived value system congruence was then regressed on LMX;
the model was signi cant at 0.05 level (R-Square 0.02) and the parameter
estimate of LMX was 0.05 (t2.28, p0.05). Finally, congruence was
regressed on both LMX and transformational leadership; the model was
signi cant at 0.001 level (R-Square 0.09) and the parameter estimate of
transformational leadership was 0.09 (t4.28, p0.001). Thus, all the three
conditions of mediation were satis ed. The parameter estimate of LMX in the
third regression equation was -0.02 (t-0.90, non-signi cant). T he effect of
LMX on congruence was less in the third regression equation than in the
second. In addition, LMX had a signi cant effect on congruence in the second
model, while it had no signi cant effect on congruence in the third model that
included transformational leadersh ip as another independent variable.
Therefore, transformational leadership fully mediated the effect of LMX on
congruence, thus supporting Hypothesis 1.
Coming to in uence str ategies, t ransfor ma tiona l leader sh ip was
signi cantly positively related to frequency of use of friendliness and
reasoning, and signi cantly negatively related to higher authority. Hypothesis
2was thus supported. Like in the case of transformational leadership, LMX
was also signi cantly positively related to friendliness and reasoning, and
signi cantly negatively related to higher authority. Neither transformational
leadership nor LMX was signi cantly related to the remaining three
strategies-assertiveness, bargaining, and coalition. Perceived value system
congruence was not signi cantly related to any of the six strategies.
I tested Hypothesis 3by using regression analysis with the forward-selection
technique (Judge et al., 1985). The forward-selection technique begins with no
variables in the model. For each independent variable, it calculates F-statistics
that re ect the variable’s contribution to the model if it is included. The
variable that would produce the largest Fstatistic is added to the model. The
evaluation process is repeated with the variables remaining outside the model.
Once a variable is entered into the model, it stays. T hus, variables are added
one by one to the model until no remaining variable produces a signi cant
F-statistic. I modeled each in uence strategy against transformational
leadership, LMX, and value system congruence, using the forward option.
The results are given in T able II.
Hypothesis 3 was supported only in the case of friendliness and not in the
case of reasoning and higher authority. Transformational leadership was the
best predictor of friendliness and therefore entered the model in step one.
Impact of
transformational
leadership
6 7
Neither LMX nor perceived value system congruence explained signi cant
amount of additional variance in friendliness. A p artial correlation analysis
also revealed that the signi cant and positive correlation between LMX and
friendliness (zero order r0.16, p0.01 from T able I) became non-existent
(partial r0.01, non-signi cant) after controlling for transformational
leadership.
LMX, and not transformational leadership as hypothesized, was the best
pr edictor in th e case of reasonin g a nd high er authorit y. Neith er
transformational leadership nor congruence added signi cant amount of
additional variance in reasoning and higher authority. A partial correlation
analysis also revealed that the positive correlation between transformational
leadership and reasoning (zero order r0.21, p0.001 from Table I) became
non-signi cant (partial r0.06, non-signi cant) after controlling for LMX.
Controlling for transformational leadership resulted in the relationship
between LMX and higher authority becoming non-signi cant (partial
r-0.07), and controlling for LMX resulted in the relationship between
transformational leadership and higher authority becoming non-signi cant
(partial r-0.05).
Di s cus s io n
A signi cant n ding of this st udy is t hat perceived value system congru ence is
affected by transformational leadership but not by LMX directly. Congruence
of value systems between follower and leader could be the uniqueness of the
construct of transformational leadership. This study supports the claim of
Dependent variable Step
Independent variable
entered
Parameter
estimate FModel R
2
Model F
Friendliness 1 Trans formational 0.20 ***14.00 0.05 ***14.00
2 Trans formational 0.23 ***15.86
Congruence -0.29 1.86 0.06 ***7.95
3 Trans formational 0.22 **9.38
Congruence -0.29 1.84
LMX 0.01 0.00 0.06 **5.28
Higher aut hority 1 LMX -0.16 *4.95 0.02 *4.95
Reasoning 1 LMX 0.31 ***22.48 0.08 ***22.48
2 LMX 0.25 **9.08
Trans formational 0.07 1.05 0.09 ***11.77
3 LMX 0.25 **8.75
Trans formational 0.09 1.46
Congruence -0.17 0.70 0.09 ***8.07
Not es :
a
Para meter est imates ar e r eported only if ov erall model was sig ni cant at 0.05 level.
*= p0.05. **= p0.01. ***= p0.001.
Table II.
Regression analysis for
predicting in uence
strategies
LODJ
25,1
68
Burns (1978) that fusion of goals between leader and follower is the ultimate
yardstick of transformational leadership. Since transformational leadership
fully mediates the relationship between LMX and value system congruence, a
high quality exchange relationship cannot result directly in a fusion of value
hierarchies. LMX, even w hen it r eaches the th ird and nal mature stage (Graen
and Uhl-Bien, 1991), cannot probably lead to alignment of goals and values of
followers directly.
Transformational leadership has a unique and signi cant impact on
friendliness. Burns (1978) claimed that transformational leadership is leading
people upward, to some higher values, purpose, or form of self-ful llment. T he
relationship between leader and follower binds them together in a mutual and
continuing pursuit of a higher purpose. The followers of transformational
leaders experience a total and unquali ed belief in and identi cation with the
leaders and their mission. T hus, transformational leaders are seen as helpful
and friendly, and therefore followers would use friendliness strategy more
frequently.
Among the three independent variables, LMX has the strongest and unique
effect on reasoning strategy. T his is probably because followers would want to
reason out and convince their leaders only if they have a high quality exchange
relationship with their leader, or in other words, only if they are a part of their
leader’s in-group. Higher quality LMX with in-group members involves
mutually supportive leader-follower relationships. T hese transactions exhibit
considerable interpersonal attraction, mutual trust, strong loyalty, comfortable
communication, and bi-directional in uence, which make it conducive for the
followers to reason with their leaders.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Both transformational leadership and in uence strategies were measured by
sur veying th e subordinate. Th e same source being used for measuring both th e
variables could have caused some measurement error. In addition, the
Cronbach alpha for four in uence strategies is less than 0.60, which makes
their relationship with other variables less reliable. The scales need to be
expanded or reconstructed to enhance reliability.
Fut ure research migh t bene t from extending this st udy to include measur es
of in uence outcomes. Outcomes could capture success of in uence strategies,
and the impact the strategies have on the transformational leader. The use of
correlation design does not answer the question of causality. Longitudinal
research is also needed to assess the extent to which transformational leaders
themselves are actually transformed because of th e in uence attempts made by
followers. More studies are needed that look at both LMX and transformational
leadership and not just one of them, since part of the effects attributed to
transformational leadership could actually be on account of LMX.
Impact of
transformational
leadership
6 9
Conc lusion
The multiple changes occurring in society and the business world have created
a greater need for transformational leadership. T his study addresses the
relationship between transformational leadership, LMX, and value system
congruence of subordinates with leader, and the impact of all the three on
sub ordinates’ upward in uence strategies. Tr ansformational leadership is not
only positively related to value system congruence, but also mediates the
relationship between LMX and value system congruence. The results of the
study make it p ossible to conclude that some beha vioral tactics ar e more likely
to be used to in uence transformational leaders. Transformational leadership
enhances the use of friendliness, while LMX enhances the use of reasoning and
reduces the use of higher authority. As further research provides greater
support, our understanding of transformational leadership as a reciprocal
in uence process will be enriched.
Reference s
Ansa ri, M.A. and Kapoor, A. (1987), “Orga nizational context and up ward in uence tactics”,
Organizational Behavior an d Hum an Decision Processes, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp . 39-49.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variab le distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and S ocial Psychology
, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Lead ership an d Performan ce Beyond Expectation s
, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Tra nsformat ional Leaders hip: Indus trial, M ilitary, and Edu cational Im pact,
Lawrence Er lbaum Ass ociat es, Mah wah, NJ.
Bass, B.M. a nd Avolio, B.J. (1992), Mu lt ifactor Leadership Questionn aire–S hort Form 6S , Center
for Leadership Stud ies, Stat e Univers ity of New York, Bingh amton, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leaders hip behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
Blickle, G. (2000), “Do work va lues pr edict th e us e of in traorganizational in uence strategies?”,
Journa l of A pplied Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 196-205.
Boehnke, K., Bontis, N., DiStefan o, J.J. an d DiStefano, A.C. (2003), “Tra nsforma tional lead ers hip:
an exa mination of cr oss-n ational d ifferences an d similar ities”, L eadership & Organizat ion
Development Journal
, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp . 5-15.
Burns , J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Cremer, D.D. a nd Knippenb erg, D.V. (2002), “How d o lead ers p romote cooper ation ?T he effects of
char isma and pr ocedur alfairness ”, Journ alof A pplied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp . 858-66.
Deluga, R.J. (1988a), “Relationship of transformational and transa ctional leadership with
employee in uencing strategies”, Group and Organ ization Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 456-67.
Deluga, R.J. (1988b), “The p olitics of lead ersh ip: the relat ionsh ip bet ween t ask -people leaders hip
and subordinate in uence”, Jou rnal of Organizationa lBehavior, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 359-66.
Deluga, R.J. and Perr y, J.T. (1991), “The relationship of subordinate upward in uencing
beha viour , satisfaction an d per ceived superior effectiveness with leader-member
exchan ges”, Jou rnal of Occupat ional Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 239-52.
LODJ
25,1
70
Deluga, R.J. and Souza, J. (1991), “Th e effects of transformational and transactional leaders hip
sty les on t he in uencing beh aviour of s ubord inate police of cers ”, Journalof Occupational
Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 49-55.
Dvir, T ., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. a nd Shamir , B. (2002), “Impa ct of tr ansforma tiona l leaders hip on
follower development and performance: a eld experiment”, A cademy of Management
Journal
, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp . 735-44.
Enz, C. (1988), “T he role of value congr uity in int raorga nizational power”, Ad minist rative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 284-304.
Erdogan, B., Kr aimer, M.L. a nd Liden, R.C. (2002), “Person-organization t and work attitudes:
the moderating role of leader-member exchange”, A cademy of Man agement Proceedings,
pp. F1-F6.
Fu, P.P., Yukl, G., Kennedy, J., Sriniva s, E.S., Cheosakul, A., Peng, T .K. and Tata, J. (2001),
“Exploring managerial in uence behaviors that cross borders: a preliminar y report”,
paper presented at the annu al meeting of the Academy of Management,Washington,DC.
Gerstner, C.R. an d Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-analy tic review of leader-member exchange theory :
correlat es and construct iss ues”, Jour nal of A pplied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 827-44.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1991), “The tra nsformation of work group professionals into
self-mana gin g an d partially s elf-des ign ing contribu tor s: towa rd a t heory of
leaders hip-making”, Journal of Man agement Systems, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 33-48.
Graen, G.B., Novak, M.A. and Sommerkamp , P. (1982), “The effects of lead er-member excha nge
and job design on productivity and sat isfaction: testing a du al attachment model”,
OrganizationalBehavior and Human Perform ance, Vol. 30, pp. 109-31.
Jud ge,G.G., Grif th s, W.E., Hill, R.C., Lutk epohl,H. a nd Lee, T .C.(1985), T he T heory and Practice
of Econometrics, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Jung, D.I. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), “Opening t he bla ck box : an exp erimental inv estigation of th e
mediating effects of trust and value congru ence on transformational and trans actional
leaders hip”, Journ al of Organizat ional Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp . 949-64.
Kipnis, D. and Schmidt , S.M. (1982), Pr o les of Organizat ional In uence S trategies (Form M ),
Univers ity As sociates, San Diego, CA.
Kipnis, D. and Schmidt , S.M. (1988), “Upwar d-in uence st yles: relationship with performa nce
evalu ations, salary ,and st ress”, A dministrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol.33 No. 4, pp. 528-42.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M. and Wilkinson, I. (1980), “Intraorga nizational in uence tactics:
explora tions in getting one’s way ”, Journal of A pplied Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 440-52.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt , S.M., Swaf n-Smith, C. and Wilkinson, I. (1984), “Patterns of managerial
in uence: shot gun manag ers, ta cticians, an d bystanders”, Organizational Dynam ics,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 58-67.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leaders hip components on performance and attitud es”, Journ al of A pplied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Krish nan, V.R. (2002), “Tra nsformat ional lead ersh ip a nd va lue s ys tem congruence”,
Intern ational Jour nal of V alue-based Man agement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C. and Ad kins, C.L. (1989), “A work values approach to corporate
culture: a eld test of the va lue congruence p rocess and its relat ionship to individ ual
outcomes”, Journ al of A pplied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 424-32.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. and Stough, C. (2001), “Emotional intelligence and effective
leaders hip”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal
, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Impact of
transformational
leadership
7 1
Posner, B.Z. (1992), “Person-or ganization values cong ruence: no support for in dividu al
differences a s a moderating in uence”, Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 351-61.
Rokeach, M. (1973), T he Nat ure of Hum an V alues, Free Press, New York, NY.
Schmidt, S.M. and Kipnis, D. (1984),“Manager’s pu rsuit of individual and organizat ional goals”,
Human Relations, Vol. 37, pp. 781-94.
Schriesheim, C.A. a nd Hinkin , T.R. (1990),“In uen ce tact ics u sed by sub ordina tes: a th eoretical
and empirical analysis and re nement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkins on subscales”,
Journa l of A pplied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 246-57.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L. and Cogliser, C.C. (1999), “Leader-member exchange (LMX)
resear ch: a comprehensive review of t heory, mea surement , and dat a-a nalytic practices”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 63-113.
Schwart z, S.H. (1992), “Universa ls in the cont ent and st ructure of values : theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advan ces in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 1-65.
Schwart z, S.H. a nd Bilsky, W. (1990), “Toward a theory of universal content an d str ucture of
values: extensions and cross-cultur al replications”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 878-91.
Schwart z, S.H. and Sagiv, L. (1995), “Identifying cultu re-s peci cs in the content and structure of
values”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp . 92-116.
Shamir, B. and Howell, J.M. (1999), “Or gan izationa l and cont extua l in uences on t he emergence
and effectiveness of charismatic leaders hip”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 257-83.
Shamir, B., Zak ay, E., Breinin, E. and Popp er, M. (1998), “Correlates of char ismatic leader
behavior in military units: s ubordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’
appraisa ls of leader performa nce”, A cademy of M anagement Jour nal
, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 387-409.
Yukl, G. (2001), Leadership in Organization s
, 5t h ed ., Pears on Edu cation, Upper Sad dle River, NJ.
Yukl, G. and Tra cey, J.B. (1992), “Consequences of in uence tactics us ed with su bordinates,
peers, a nd t he boss”, Journal of A pplied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 525-35.
Yukl, G., Kim, H. and Fa lbe, C.M. (1996), “Anteced ents of in uence out comes”, Journa lof A pplied
Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 309-17.
LODJ
25,1
72
