VU Research Portal
Transactional versus transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ
den Hartog, D.N.; van Muijen, J.J.; Koopman, P.L.
published in
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
1997
DOI (link to publisher)
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x
document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)
den Hartog, D. N., van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership:
an analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1), 19-34.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
E-mail address:
vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl
Download date: 10. Aug. 2022
Journal (if
Occii[iattonal
and Organizational
Psychology
(1997), 70, 19-34 Printed in Great Britain 19
© 1997 The British Psychological Society
Transactional versus transformational leadership:
An analysis of the MLQ
Deanne N. Den Hartog*, Jaap J. Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman
Department
of
Work
and Organizational
Psychology,
van der
Boechorststraat
I.
1081 BT
Amsterdam.
The Netherlands
A questionnaire used often to measure transformational, transactional and laissez-faire
leadership is che Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass (Bass &
Avolio, 1989). This study aims to test the factor structure of the MLQ as developed by
Bass & Avolio. The MLQ-8Y was analysed using data collected in Dutch organizations.
Seven hundred employees from eight organizations rated their leader's behaviour with
the MLQ. First, an indication of the internal consistency of the scales developed by Bass
is reported. The results of subsequent factor analyses show that the three types of
leadership can be found in the data; however, the scales found here are slightly different
from Bass' scales. Especially, the transactional and laissez-faire scales have been altered
on theoretical and empirical grounds. The adapted version of the MLQ covers the
domain with fewer items.
Leadership has been an important topic in the social sciences for many decades. Recently
there has been a renewed interest in leadership. Meindl (1990) notes that this recent resur-
gence of interest in studying the topic of leadership appears to be accompanied by an
acceptance of the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, with
an emphasis on the latter. Quinn (1988) compares transactional and transformational
leadership with other differentiations in leadership such as relations oriented-task ori-
ented leadership (Fiedler, 1967), consideration-initiating structure (Korman, 1966), and
directive-participative or autocratic-democratic leadership (Heller & Yukl, 1969). Bass
(1990/;) claims that the transactional-transformational model is a new paradigm, neither
replacing nor explained by other models such as the relations oriented-task oriented lead-
ership model. Some authors describe concepts similar to transformational leadership as
charismatic, inspirational or visionary leadership (Bryman, 1992). Although the termi-
nology used by these authors is different, more similarities than differences seem to exist
between these views of the phenomenon of leadership. Bass inspired and is still one of the
major contributors to this approach that Bryman (1992) calls 'the New leadership'. 'The
New leadership' approach revived leadership as a topic of theory and research, after many
lost interest and faith in this concept (see, for instance. Miner, 1975). 'The New leader-
ship'
integrates ideas from trait, style and contingency approaches of leadership and also
incorporates and builds on work of sociologists such as Weber (1947) and political scien-
tists such as Burns (1978).
•Requests for reprints.
20
Deanne
N, Den
Hartog,
JaapJ,
Van Muijen and Paul L,
Koopman
Transactional leadership
A better understanding of transformational leadership can follow from contrasting it with
transactional leadership. Burns (1978) argues that transactional leadership entails an
exchange between leader and follower. Followers receive certain valued outcomes (e.g.
wages, prestige) when they act according to their leader's wishes. Taking Burns as his
starting point Bass (1985) notes that leadership in research has generally been conceptu-
alized as a transactional or cost-benefit exchange process. Transactional leadership theo-
ries are all founded on the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of
exchanges or implicit bargains between leaders and followers. The general notion is
that, when the job and the environment of the follower fail to provide the necessary moti-
vation, direction and satisfaction, the leader, through his or her behaviour, will be effec-
tive by compensating for the deficiencies. The leader clarifies the performance criteria, in
other words whar is expected from subordinates, and what they receive in return (House,
Woycke & Fodor, 1988). Several transactional theories have been tested extensively. Some
have received considerable empirical support. Examples are path-goal theory (House,
1971;
House & Mitchell, 1974; Indvink, 1986) and vertical dyad theory (Graen &
Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987).
Transformational leadership
While the transactional leader motivates subordinates to perform as expected, the trans-
formational leader typically inspires followers to do more than originally expected.
Transformational leadership theories predict followers' emotional attachment to the
leader and emotional and motivational arousal of followers as a consequence of the leader's
behaviour (House
et
al..,
1988). Hater & Bass (1988) state: 'The dynamics of transforma-
tional leadership involve strong personal identification with the leader, joining in a shared
vision of the future, or going beyond the self-interest exchange of rewards for compliance'
(p.
695). Transformational leaders broaden and elevate the interests of followers, generate
awareness and acceptance among the followers of the purposes and mission of the group
and motivate followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990; see also Burns, 1978). Yammarino & Bass (1990) also note 'the
transformational leader articulates a realistic vision of the future that can be shared, stim-
ulates subordinates intellectually, and pays attention to the differences among the subor-
dinates' (p. 151). Tichy & Devanna (1990) highlight the transforming effect these leaders
can have on organizations as well as on individuals. By defining the need for change, cre-
ating new visions, mobilizing commitment to these visions, leaders can ultimately trans-
form the organization. According to Bass (1985) this transformation of followers can be
achieved by raising the awareness of the importance and value of designed outcomes, get-
ting followers to transcend their own self-interests and altering or expanding followers'
needs.
Relations between transformational and transactional leadership
As Hater & Bass (1988) point out, contrasting transactional and transformational leader-
ship does not imply that the models are unrelated. Burns (1978) thought of the two types
of leadership
_as
being at opposite ends of
a
continuum. Bass (1985) however views them
Transactional
vs.
transformational leadership
21
as separate dimensions, this means a leader can be both transactional and transformational
(Bryman, 1992). Bass (1985) argues that transformational leadership builds on transac-
tional leadership but not vice versa. Transformational leadership can be viewed as a spe-
cial case of transactional leadership, inasmuch as both approaches are linked to the
achievement of some goal or objective. The models differ on tht
process
by which the leader
motivates subordinates and on the
type
of
goals
set (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Laissez-faire leadership
Both transformational and transactional leaders are active leaders. They actively intervene
and try to prevent problems. When researching these two active forms of leadership, they
are often contrasted with extremely passive laissez-faire leadership (see, for example,
Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino, Spangler & Bass, 1993). The laissez-faire leader
avoids decision making and supervisory responsibility. This type of leader is inactive,
rather than reactive or proactive. In a sense this extremely passive type of leadership indi-
cates the absence of
leadership.
Bass (1990^?) reports laissez-faire leadership usually corre-
lates negatively
( — .3
to ~.6) with other, more active leadership styles. Bass (1990^7)
concludes that there is a negative association between laissez-faire leadership and a vari-
ety of subordinate performance, effort and attitudinal indicators. This implies that
laissez-faire leadership is always an inappropriate way to lead. When by 'laissez-faire' it is
meant that the leader is not sufficiently motivated or adequately skilled to perform super-
visory duties, this observation seems correct. However, one could probably define situa-
tions in which highly active leadership is not necessary and maybe not even desirable. For
instance, in their substitutes for leadership theory Kerr
&
Jermier (1978) propose several
subordinate, task, and, organization characteristics that could reduce the importance of
leadership. A less active role of leaders could also lead to 'empowerment' of followers
which could even make for a useful component of transformational leadership.
Bass and the MLQ
Bass'
framework and programme of research has made an important contribution to the
development of the concept of transformational leadership. Central to his research is the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), developed to measure the transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership concepts described above. The MLQ has been
revised several times and is now widely used. Respondents rate the behaviour of the
leader, usually their superior, by filling out the MLQ (see Method). Bass and associates
define both transactional and transformational leadership as comprising several dimen-
sions.
The dimensions vary slightly in different studies. In describing Bass' transforma-
tional and transactional leadership the basis will be the eight dimensions the MLQ-8Y
form distinguishes, as this is the form used in the current study.
Bass' transformational leadership has four dimensions
The first dimension is
charisma.
The charismatic leader provides vision and a sense of mis-
sion, instills pride, gains respect and trust, and increases optimism (Bass & Avolio, 1989;
Bass,
1985). Charismatic leaders excite, arouse and inspire their subordinates (Yammarino
&Bass, 1990).
22
Deanne
N. Den
Hartog,
JaapJ.
Van Muijen and Paul L.
Koopman
The second dimension of transformational leadership is
inspiration.
This dimension is
concerned with the capacity of the leader to act as a model for subordinates, the commu-
nication of
a
vision and the use of symbols to focus efforts. In Bass (1985) inspiration and
charisma formed a single factor but different behaviours were implied. Charisma required
identification with the leader, inspiration did not.
The third dimension is individual
consideration.
While a leader's charisma may attract
subordinates to a vision or mission, the leader's use of individualized consideration also
significantly contributes to individual subordinates achieving their fullest potential
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Individual consideration is in part coaching and mentoring,
it provides for continuous feedback and links the individual's current needs to the orga-
nization's mission (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Individualized consideration is sim-
ilar to the Ohio State notion of consideration (Bryman, 1992). The last dimension of
transformational leadership is
intellectual
stimulation.
An intellectually stimulating leader
provides subordinates with a flow of challenging new ideas that are supposed to stimu-
late rethinking of old ways of doing things (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). It arouses
an awareness of problems, of their own thoughts and imagination, and a recognition of
their beliefs and values in subordinates. Intellectual stimulation is evidenced by subordi-
nates'
conceptualization, comprehension, and analysis of the problems they face and the
solutions they generate (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).
Bass' transactional leadership has three dimensions
The first dimension of transactional leadership is
contingent reinforcement
or
contingent
reward.
The leader rewards followers for attaining the specified performance levels.
Reward is contingent on effort expended and performance level achieved. There is con-
siderable research and literature on the association between this kind of leader behaviour
and subordinate performance and satisfaction (see Bass, 1990i2 or Yukl, 1994 for a sum-
mary of such research). The second and third dimension of transactional leadership are
two types of
management-by-exception.
When practising
management-by-exception
a leader
only takes action when things go wrong and standards are not met (Bass & Avolio, 1989).
Leaders avoid giving directions if the old ways work and allow followers to continue doing
their jobs as always if performance goals are met (Hater & Bass, 1988). There are two
types of management-by-exception, active and
passive.
The active form characterizes a
leader who actively seeks deviations from standard procedures and takes action when
irregularities occur. The passive form characterizes leaders who only take action after devi-
ations and irregularities have occurred. The difference between the two is that in the
active form the leader searches for deviations, whereas in the passive form the leader waits
for problems to materialize (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Laissez-faire leadership is also measured by the MLQ. In a sense it indicates the absence
of leadership. It is described as the most extreme form of passive leadership or even non-
leadership. Laissez-faire usually correlates negatively with more active leadership styles
(Bass,
1990^).
Problems investigated in this study
Transformational leaders when compared to transactional and laissez-faire leaders were
shown to have subordinates who report greater satisfaction and more often exert extra