Transactional vs, transformational

Transactional vs, transformational leadership 31

Table 6. Loadings and item-total correlations of the items on Factor 3 (passive leader-ship, a = .72) and scale statistics

Item Factor Item-rest number loading correlation

21 as long as work meets minimal standards, he/she avoids trying

to make improvements . . .

22 avoids getting involved when important issues arise . . .

27 problems have to be chronic before he/she will take action . . .

4 things have to go wrong for him/her to take action . . . 26 avoids making decisions . . .

15 ifl don't bother him/her, he/she doesn't bother me ...

13 shows he/she is a firm believer in 'If it ain't broken, don't fix it.' . . . .47 .28

III Passive leadership:

1 items a = .74

Mean = 2.40

SD = .43

average inter-item correlation .30 (variance = .01) range of item—total correlations .25 to .57

actional leadership (.47). The reason for the lower correlation between those two is that the measure for passive management-by-exception, which correlates negatively with the other transactional and transformational subdimensions, is parr of the measure of trans-actional leadership. This lowers the correlation. When Bass' transformational scale is cor-related with rational-objective leadership (similar to transactional leadership not including passive management-by-exception) the correlation is .66, which is slightly higher than the correlation between inspirational and rational—objective leadership. The correlation of .62 between inspirational and rational-objective leadership is high but still leaves 64 per cent of the variance unexplained. The correlation between inspirational and transformational leadership (.99) is very high, as expected since the measures are very much alike. The correlations between rational and transactional and between laissez-faire and passive are somewhat lower (.84 and .76). This was to be expected since these scales were altered more than the transformational scale was.

Table 7. Correlations between the theoretical leadership scales and the leadership scales found in this study

TRF TRA

LF

INSP

RATIO PASS

TRF

1.00

.47** -.17**

C)C)**

66** -.36**

TRA

1.00

.18** .43**

.84** 26**

LF

1.00

-.18**

-.07*

76**

INSP

1.00

62** -.37**

RATIO

1.00

-.23**

PASS

1.00

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Key. TRF = transformational leadership; TRA = transactional leadership; LF — Laissez-faire leadership; tional leadership; RATIO = rational-objective leadership; PASS = passive leadership.

INSP = inspira-

32 Deanne N, Den Hartog, Jaap J, Van Muifen and Paul L. Koopman

Discussion

Three questions were addressed in this study. The first is whether the three main leader-ship concepts as defined by Bass (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) can be found in the data collected with the Dutch version of the MLQ. To answer this question, first, the scales as developed by Bass were analysed. The analysis of these scales suggested that it was desirable to increase the internal consistency of the scales, especially the trans-actional and laissez-faire scales.

Two or three factors ?

An exploratory factor analysis was done to see whether the factor structure as found by

Bass would again appear in these data. One could argue that the only real distinction that can be found in leadership research is the distinction between the presence and the absence of leadership. Distinguishing between transactional and transformational leader-ship would then be an artifact. If a two-factor solution is forced on the data in this study, this pattern is indeed found, an active and a passive factor. However, more non-trivial fac-tors can be found in the data. The three-factor solution yields a separate transactional and transformational factor within the active factor and a passive factor. These three factors were well interpretable from Bass' theoretical viewpoint, the Bass' framework is indeed found in the data, even through exploratory analyses.

The most important reasons to use the three-factor solution, rather than the mere active—passive leadership distinctions, are, first, the theoretical importance of the three factors and, second, the differential effects of the two active types of leadership (transfor-mational and transactional) which have been found in many studies (see Bryman, 1992).

Can eight separate leadership dimensions be distinguished?

The second question addressed in this study is whether the four transformational and three transactional dimensions can be distinguished separately. Besides the two- and three-factor solution only the four-factor solution was interpretable within the Bass framework. The four-factor solution yields the inspirational, the passive and two transac-tional factors, namely contingent reward and active management-by-exception. The sub-dimensions of tranformational leadership as defined by Bass were not found in the data through exploratory factor analysis, transformational items group together differently.

Although the three-factor solution provides a useful research solution, distinguishing between different components of transformational leadership may remain useful, partic-ularly for training purposes. One can use colourful and simple language to be more inspi-rational without being seen as individually considerate and vice versa. Thus, in certain circumstances, treating the components separately may be useful even though these behaviours tend to be correlated.

One factor for passive leadership ?

The third question was whether the data support combining passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership in one factor for passive leadership. The data give no reason to distinguish between the subdimensions laissez-faire and passive management-

Transactional vs. transformational leadership 33

by-exception. The expected grouping of passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire items is clear from the data, the passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire items are all in the passive factor. Also Bass' dimensions of laissez-faire and passive man-agement-by-exception correlate positively with each other and negatively with all other subdimensions of transactional and transformational leadership (see Table 3). The theo-retical distinction between laissez-faire and passive management-by-exception, made by Hater & Bass (1988), is thus not found empirically in this data set. The same correlation pattern between passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership found in this study has been found in the United States (see Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Therefore, even if the theoretical distinction is of importance, it either cannot be measured clearly with the MLQ, or respondents do not perceive the difference. The two types of leadership are not only empirically but also theoretically related, as they are both extremely passive

in nature, this opposed to all other measured dimensions that are active in nature.

Conclusion

Bass' framework for examining transformational and transactional leadership has pro-duced an impressive array of findings over the last decade. Transformational leadership has been shown to play an important part in many of the outcomes that have tradition-ally been of interest to organizational researchers as well as practitioners. Central to Bass' measurement-based framework is the widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire analysed in this study. From the results of this study it can be concluded that the Bass' framework distinguishing a transformational, a transactional and a laissez-faire factor is also found through exploratory analysis on a Dutch data set. In this study the internal consistency of two of the three scales of the MLQ as defined by Bass was not sufficient. We feel this is a result of the assumption in Bass' framework that passive management-by-exception belongs in the transactional and not in the laissez-faire factor. This assump-tion is not supported by the data. The question remains, can and should new items be written to distinguish between management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership? According to Bass they refer to different components of leader behaviour, however, dis-criminating among them may call for preparing new items.

The three scales found in this study improve the internal consistency, first and foremost by combining passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire in one passive factor. The separate dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership were not found. The adapted instrument covers the same domain with fewer items.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990*). Editorial: Toward a meeting of minds. Leadership Quarterly, 1.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

34 Deanne N. Den Hartog, JaapJ. Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for indi-vidual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231-272. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma andl-eadership in Organizations. London: Sage.

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

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and ippica.tion%. Joumal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297—334.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Graen, G. & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in

Results (Thai) 1:

ทรานแซคชัน vs ภาวะผู้นำ 31ตาราง 6 การ Loadings และความสัมพันธ์รวมสินค้าของสินค้าที่อยู่บนปัจจัย 3 (ผู้นำแฝงเรือ การ =.72) และตั้งมาตราส่วนสถิติสินค้าตัวสินค้าเหลือจำนวนการโหลดความสัมพันธ์ตราบเท่าที่งานตรงตามมาตรฐานต่ำสุด 21 เขาหลีกเลี่ยงพยายามต้องปรับปรุง...22 หลีกเลี่ยงการเกี่ยวข้องเมื่อเกิดปัญหาที่สำคัญ...ปัญหา 27 ต้องเรื้อรังก่อนที่เขาจะดำเนิน...กิจกรรมที่ 4 ต้องไปผิดเขาให้เธอดำเนินการ... 26 หลีกเลี่ยงการตัดสินใจ...15 ifl แหล่งทราบถึงรายละเอียด เขาไม่รำคาญฉัน...แสดง 13 จะมุยืนยันใน 'ถ้ามัน ain't เสีย ไม่สามารถแก้ไข ' ... 47 .28นำแฝง III:สินค้า 1 ตัว =.74หมายความว่า = 2.40SD =.43เฉลี่ยความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างสินค้า.30 (ผลต่าง =.01) ของสินค้าโดยรวมสัมพันธ์.25-.57นำ actional (. 47) เหตุผลสำหรับความสัมพันธ์ที่ต่ำกว่าระหว่างสองคนคือ ว่าวัดสำหรับแฝงบริหารโดยข้อยกเว้น ซึ่งคู่ส่งกับที่อื่น ๆ ทรานแซคชัน และภาวะ subdimensions พารร์วัดความเป็นผู้นำธุรกรรม actional นี้ออกสหสัมพันธ์ ระดับภาวะของเบสจะประกอบ ที่เกี่ยวข้องกับเหตุผลวัตถุประสงค์ผู้นำ (คล้ายการนำธุรกรรมที่ไม่รวมแฝงบริหารโดยข้อยกเว้น) สหสัมพันธ์เป็น.66 ซึ่งเป็นเล็กน้อยสูงกว่าความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างเหตุผล และแรงบันดาลใจ โดยนำวัตถุประสงค์ ความสัมพันธ์ของ.62 ระหว่างภาวะผู้นำที่สร้างแรงบันดาลใจ และเหตุผลวัตถุประสงค์สูง แต่ยังคง ทิ้งร้อยละ 64 ของความแปรปรวนที่ไม่คาดหมาย ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างแรงบันดาลใจ และภาวะผู้นำ (99) ความสูงมาก เนื่องจากการวัดมีมากเหมือนกัน ความสัมพันธ์ ระหว่างเหตุผล และทรานแซคชัน และ ระหว่าง laissez-faire และแฝงอยู่ค่อนข้างต่ำ (.84 และ.76). นี้คือการคาดหวังเนื่องจากปรับขนาดเหล่านี้ถูกเปลี่ยนแปลงไปมากกว่าที่มีอัตราภาวะตาราง 7 การ ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างระดับความเป็นผู้นำทฤษฎีและระดับผู้นำที่พบในการศึกษานี้ตราเมธีLFINSPอัตราการส่งผ่านเมธี1.0047 ** -. 17 **C C)) **66 ** -36 **ตรา1.0018 ** 43 **84 ** 26 **LF1.00-18 **-07 *76 **INSP1.0062 ** -37 **อัตราส่วน1.00-23 **ผ่าน1.00* p <. 05 ** p < .01 (สองหาง)Key. TRF = transformational leadership; TRA = transactional leadership; LF — Laissez-faire leadership; tional leadership; RATIO = rational-objective leadership; PASS = passive leadership.INSP = inspira-32 Deanne N, Den Hartog, Jaap J, Van Muifen and Paul L. KoopmanDiscussionThree questions were addressed in this study. The first is whether the three main leader-ship concepts as defined by Bass (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) can be found in the data collected with the Dutch version of the MLQ. To answer this question, first, the scales as developed by Bass were analysed. The analysis of these scales suggested that it was desirable to increase the internal consistency of the scales, especially the trans-actional and laissez-faire scales.Two or three factors ?An exploratory factor analysis was done to see whether the factor structure as found byBass would again appear in these data. One could argue that the only real distinction that can be found in leadership research is the distinction between the presence and the absence of leadership. Distinguishing between transactional and transformational leader-ship would then be an artifact. If a two-factor solution is forced on the data in this study, this pattern is indeed found, an active and a passive factor. However, more non-trivial fac-tors can be found in the data. The three-factor solution yields a separate transactional and transformational factor within the active factor and a passive factor. These three factors were well interpretable from Bass' theoretical viewpoint, the Bass' framework is indeed found in the data, even through exploratory analyses.The most important reasons to use the three-factor solution, rather than the mere active—passive leadership distinctions, are, first, the theoretical importance of the three factors and, second, the differential effects of the two active types of leadership (transfor-mational and transactional) which have been found in many studies (see Bryman, 1992).Can eight separate leadership dimensions be distinguished?The second question addressed in this study is whether the four transformational and three transactional dimensions can be distinguished separately. Besides the two- and three-factor solution only the four-factor solution was interpretable within the Bass framework. The four-factor solution yields the inspirational, the passive and two transac-tional factors, namely contingent reward and active management-by-exception. The sub-dimensions of tranformational leadership as defined by Bass were not found in the data through exploratory factor analysis, transformational items group together differently.Although the three-factor solution provides a useful research solution, distinguishing between different components of transformational leadership may remain useful, partic-ularly for training purposes. One can use colourful and simple language to be more inspi-rational without being seen as individually considerate and vice versa. Thus, in certain circumstances, treating the components separately may be useful even though these behaviours tend to be correlated.One factor for passive leadership ?The third question was whether the data support combining passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership in one factor for passive leadership. The data give no reason to distinguish between the subdimensions laissez-faire and passive management-Transactional vs. transformational leadership 33by-exception. The expected grouping of passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire items is clear from the data, the passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire items are all in the passive factor. Also Bass' dimensions of laissez-faire and passive man-agement-by-exception correlate positively with each other and negatively with all other subdimensions of transactional and transformational leadership (see Table 3). The theo-retical distinction between laissez-faire and passive management-by-exception, made by Hater & Bass (1988), is thus not found empirically in this data set. The same correlation pattern between passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership found in this study has been found in the United States (see Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Therefore, even if the theoretical distinction is of importance, it either cannot be measured clearly with the MLQ, or respondents do not perceive the difference. The two types of leadership are not only empirically but also theoretically related, as they are both extremely passivein nature, this opposed to all other measured dimensions that are active in nature.ConclusionBass' framework for examining transformational and transactional leadership has pro-duced an impressive array of findings over the last decade. Transformational leadership has been shown to play an important part in many of the outcomes that have tradition-ally been of interest to organizational researchers as well as practitioners. Central to Bass' measurement-based framework is the widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire analysed in this study. From the results of this study it can be concluded that the Bass' framework distinguishing a transformational, a transactional and a laissez-faire factor is also found through exploratory analysis on a Dutch data set. In this study the internal consistency of two of the three scales of the MLQ as defined by Bass was not sufficient. We feel this is a result of the assumption in Bass' framework that passive management-by-exception belongs in the transactional and not in the laissez-faire factor. This assump-tion is not supported by the data. The question remains, can and should new items be written to distinguish between management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership? According to Bass they refer to different components of leader behaviour, however, dis-criminating among them may call for preparing new items.
The three scales found in this study improve the internal consistency, first and foremost by combining passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire in one passive factor. The separate dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership were not found. The adapted instrument covers the same domain with fewer items.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990*). Editorial: Toward a meeting of minds. Leadership Quarterly, 1.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

34 Deanne N. Den Hartog, JaapJ. Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for indi-vidual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4, 231-272. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma andl-eadership in Organizations. London: Sage.

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

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and ippica.tion%. Joumal of Applied

Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297—334.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Graen, G. & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in

Results (Thai) 3:

การแลกเปลี่ยนและภาวะผู้นำการเปลี่ยนแปลงตาราง , 31

6 ครอบคลุมรายการทั้งหมดของรายการและความสัมพันธ์กับปัจจัย 3 ( เรื่อยๆหัวหน้าจัดส่ง , = . 72 ) และระดับสถิติ

รายการสินค้าที่เหลือจำนวนปัจจัยโหลดค่า

21 ตราบใดที่งานตรงตามมาตรฐานน้อยที่สุด เขา / เธอจะหลีกเลี่ยงพยายาม

เพื่อให้ปรับปรุง . . . . . . .

22 หลีกเลี่ยงการมีส่วนร่วม เมื่อปัญหาเกิดขึ้น . . . . . . .

27 ปัญหาจะเรื้อรัง ก่อนที่เขาจะลงมือ . . . . . . .

4 สิ่งที่ต้องเกิดขึ้นกับเขา / เธอเอง . . . . . . . 26 หลีกเลี่ยงการตัดสินใจ . . . . . . .

15 ถ้าผมไม่รำคาญเขา / เธอ , เขา / เธอไม่ได้รำคาญฉัน . . . . . . .

13 แสดงให้เขา / เธอจะเชื่อมั่นใน ' ถ้ามันไม่หัก ไม่ซ่อมมัน . ' . . . . . . . 47 . 28

3 เรื่อยๆภาวะผู้นำ :

1 รายการ = 74

หมายถึง = 2.40

SD = . 43

เฉลี่ยระหว่างรายการความสัมพันธ์ 30 ( ( = . 01 ) ช่วงของรายการทั้งหมด 6 . 25 ถึง . 57

ผู้นำ actional ( 47 ) เหตุผลสำหรับการลดความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างสองคนนั่นก็คือวัดสำหรับการบริหารจัดการเรื่อยๆโดยข้อยกเว้น ซึ่งมีความสัมพันธ์ในเชิงลบ กับอื่น ๆและการเปลี่ยนแปลง subdimensions , พาร์ของทรานส์ actional วัดภาวะผู้นำนี้ลดความสัมพันธ์ เมื่อเบส ' การเปลี่ยนแปลงขนาดมีครที่เกี่ยวข้องกับวัตถุประสงค์ ภาวะผู้นำ เหตุผล ( คล้ายกับการเป็นผู้นำไม่ได้ รวมทั้งการจัดการเรื่อยๆโดยข้อยกเว้น ) = . 66 ซึ่งเป็นเล็กน้อยสูงกว่าความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างผู้นำสร้างแรงบันดาลใจและเหตุผล วัตถุประสงค์ ความสัมพันธ์ของ