Etapa instructoria o de decidir creerle al silencio del agresor

H. HETLAND

and G. SANDAL

Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway

Introduction

To keep a stable workforce, a leader's ability to inspire, motivate and create commitment to shared goals is crucial. Charismatic/transformational leadership implies motivating people by inspiring, questioning old assumptions, and giving special attention to individual needs, as opposed to transactional leadership, consisting of exchange of re- wards (Bass, 1985, Burns, 1978, House, 1977).

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of transformational leadership on several layers of the organ- izational structure. Outcome ratings of transformational leadership give insight into how transformational leaders affect their surroundings. Subordinates’ evaluations of transformational leadership are commonly used in research (Alimo- Metcalfe, 1998). Transformational leaders are, however, also thought to facilitate communication upward in the organi- zation, and therefore influence their own superiors as seen in Judge & Bono (2000). In the study reported in this presen- tation we also include the latter perspective, to gain further knowledge of how transformational leaders are evaluated by their surroundings.

Increasing our knowledge about ratings from multiple sources is important, as several raters are thought to of- fer greater objectivity, a fairer and possibly less biased view of the leaders being rated. Including both subordinates’ and superiors’ evaluation of transformational behaviour gives room for comparison of different viewpoints and discov- ering possible differences in rating patterns. Outcomes of transformational leadership in a Norwegian setting will be examined when controlling for laissez-faire and transactional leadership, to see whether transformational leadership augments these behaviours as hypothesized (Howell & Avolio, 1993).

Hypothesis: Transformational leadership rated by both subordinates and superiors is related to the outcome rat-

ings of satisfaction, effectiveness and work motivation, and adds to explaining these variables beyond that the effects of transactional and laissez-faire leadership.

Method

A sample of 200 subordinates and 100 superiors rated the leadership behaviour and outcomes of 100 middle- level Norwegian managers employed in five different companies, using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, con- taining 45 items describing behaviour to be rated on a 5-point scales (0=seldom, 4=to a large extent). The scales include transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviours and the outcome scales describe satisfaction with the leader, leader effectiveness and work motivation. Internal consistencies of the scales ranged from Cronbach's alpha .62 to.85.

The study reported here employed a Norwegian translation of the MLQ5X (Form 5x-Short), obtained by trans- lating the original questionnaire to Norwegian and then back to English by two bilingual translators, in accordance with the procedure suggested by Berry, Poortinga, Segall,& Dasen (1995).

Results

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses (see tables 1 and 2) showed that transformational leadership pre- dicted the outcome measures in both subordinates’ and superiors’ ratings above transactional and laissez-faire leader- ship, supporting the augmentation hypothesis (Bass, 1985).

Table 1. Summary of hierarchical multiple regression analyses based on Transformational Leadership with ratings of

satisfaction with leader, effectiveness of leader and work motivation as dependent variables (N = 95 for subordinates, N = 75 for superiors)

Satisfaction Effectiveness Work motivation

Subordinates

Step1. B seB Beta B seB Beta B SeB Beta

Gender -.02 .10 -.02 -.17 .08 -.13* .08 .12 .05 Organization -.01 .03 -.03 .01 .03 .03 .03 .04 .06 Step 2. _∆R2 _{.04 ∆R}2 _{.09** ∆R}2 _.02 Laissez faire Leadership -.43 .08 -.37** -.20 .06 -.22** -.17 .09 -.15 Transactional Leadership -.01 .04 -.02 .04 .03 .10 .02 .05 .03 Step3. _∆R2 _{.41** ∆R}2 _{.32** ∆R}2 _.25** Transformational Leadership .22 .03 .61** .17 .02 . 62** .24 .03 .67** ∆R2 _{.24** R}2 _{.69 ∆R}2 _{.25** R}2 _{.66 ∆R}2 _{.30** R}2 _.56

Table 2. Summary of hierarchical multiple regression analyses based on Transformational Leadership with ratings of

satisfaction with leader, effectiveness of leader and work motivation as dependent variables (N = 95 for subordinates, N = 75 for superiors)

Satisfaction Effectiveness Work motivation

Superiors

Step1. B seB Beta B seB Beta B SeB Beta

Gender -.09 .11 -.07 .02 .08 .02 .04 .08 -.03 Organization .01 .03 .02 .05 .03 .13 -.05 .03 -.09 Step 2. _∆R2 _{.02 ∆R}2 _{.02 ∆R}2 _.02 Laissez faire Leadership -.39 .08 -.40** -.31 .06 -.40** -.30 .06 -.32** Transactional Leadership .03 .04 .07 .13 .03 .33** .14 .03 .30** Step3. _∆R2 _{.38** ∆R}2 _{.40** ∆R}2 _.40** Transformational Leadership .17 .03 . 48** .05 .04 .20** .21 .02 . 65** ∆R2 _{.17** R}2 _{.58 ∆R}2 _{.18** R}2 _{.61 ∆ R}2 _{.32** R}2 _.73 Note: *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

Discussion and Conclusion

The results indicate that increased satisfaction with the leader, effectiveness ratings and own work motivation are associated with transformational leadership in both subordinates' and superiors' ratings.

Overall, similar judgments by subordinates and superiors about transformational leaders and their behaviours indicate that leaders actually do influence several levels of their environment in positive ways, resulting in an increas- ingly motivated and satisfied workforce. These are all important aspects of empowerment.

References

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998). 360 Degree Feedback and Leadership Development. International

Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 35-44.

Bass, B, M. (1985). Leadership beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1995). Transformational Leadership Development. Manual for

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Berry. J.W., Poortinga, Y.H, Segall, M.H., og Dasen. P.R. (1992). Cross-cultural

Psychology. Research and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

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

Howell, J.& Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus

of control and support for innovation: Key predictors consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 78, 891-902.

House, R. J. (1977). A theory of charismatic leadership, in J. G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (eds),

Leadership : The Cutting Edge. Carbondale, IL. Southern Illinois University Press.

Judge, T.A., & Bono, J. (2000). Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership. Journal of Applied psychology, 85(5), 751-765.

E-mail address for correspondence: [email protected]

Development of a job specific model of occupational stress: extending