Transformational and transactional leadership styles of female managers and relationships to subordinate effectiveness and performance were investigated in the current study. In a sales organization, 38 subordinates (males and females) rated their 19 female managers on transformational, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership. In turn, the managers rated their subordinates on five dimensions of effectiveness and performance. Results of analyses of multiple-source data indicated that transformational and contingent reward leadership were similarly and positively related to the dimensions of effectiveness and performance, while laissez-faire leadership was negatively related to the criteria. As a set, the four leadership styles were predictive of each of the effectiveness and performance dimensions, but transformational leadership did not account for any variance in the criteria beyond contingent reward leadership.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Avolio, B., & Bass, B. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond . In J.G. Hunt, H.R. Baliga, H.P. Drachler & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas. Lexington, MA: Heath.
2.
Avolio, B., & Howell, J. (1992). The impact of leadership behavior and leader-follower personality match on satisfaction and unit performance. In K.E. Clark, M.B. Clark, & D.P. Campbell (Eds.), The impact of leadership. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
3.
Bagozzi, R. (1980). Performance and satisfaction in an industrial sales force: An examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. Journal of Marketing,44, 65-77.
4.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York: Free Press.
5.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stodgill's handbook of leadership, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.
6.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1990). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
7.
Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques . In Chemmers, M., & Ammons, R. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. (1993). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women according to the men and women they lead (CLS 1993-1 Technical Report). Binghamton, NY: State University of New York at Binghamton, Center for Leadership Studies.
9.
Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. (in press). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women, Applied Psychology: An International Review.
10.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harpur Row.
11.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley.
12.
Comer, J., & Dubinsky, A. (1985). Managing the successful sales force. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
13.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J., & Yammarino, F. (1984). Theory testing in organizational behavior: The varient approach. NewJersey: Prentice-Hall .
14.
Downtown, J. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. New York: Free Press.
15.
Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,108, 233-256.
16.
Graen, G.G., & Scandura, T.A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 121-173.
17.
Greene, C. (1976). A longitudinal investigation of performance and reinforcing behaviors and subordinate satisfaction and performance. Proceedings, Midwest Academy of Management, St. Louis, MO: 157-185.
18.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.
19.
Komives, S. (1991). The relationship of same and cross-gender work pairs to staff performance and supervisor leadership in residence hall units . Sex Roles,24, 355-363.
20.
Kushell, E., & Newton, R. (1986). Gender, leadership style and subordinate satisfaction: An experiment. Sex Roles,14, 203-209.
21.
Phillips, J., & Lord, R. (1986). Notes on the practical and theoretical consequences of implicit leadership theories for the future of leadership measurement. Journal of Management, 12, 31-41.
22.
Russell, T., Rush, M., & Herd, A. (1988). An exploration of women's expectations of effective male and female leadership. Sex Roles,18, 279-287.
23.
Sims, H. (1977). The leader as manager of reinforcement contingencies: An empirical example and model. In J.G. Hunt, & L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
Szilagyi, A. (1980). Causal inference between leader reward behaviors and subordinate performance, absenteeism and work satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 195-204.
25.
Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Einstein, W. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 177-186.
26.
Waldman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & OraanizationStudies, 15, 381-394.
27.
Yammarino, F., & Dubinsky, A. (1990). Salesperson performance and managerially controllable factors: An investigation of individual and work group effects. Journal of Management, 16, 87-106.
