UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http
s
://dare.uva.nl)
UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
Transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders'
personality and performance
Deinert, A.; Homan, A.C.; Boer, D.; Voelpel, S.C.; Gutermann, D.
DOI
10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.001
Publication date
2015
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
The Leadership Quarterly
License
Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., Boer, D., Voelpel, S. C., & Gutermann, D. (2015). Transformational
leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders' personality and performance.
The
Leadership Quarterly
,
26
(6), 1095-1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.001
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.
Download date:10 Aug 2022
Transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their link to
leaders' personality and performance
Anika Deinert
a,
⁎
, Astrid C. Homan
b,1
,DianaBoer
c,2
, Sven C. Voelpel
a,3
, Daniela Gutermann
a,4
a
Jacobs University Bremen, Campus Ring, 1, Bremen, Germany
b
University of Amsterdam, Weesperplein, 4, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c
University Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstraße 1, 56070 Koblenz, Germany
article info abstract
Article history:
Received 12 February 2014
Received in revised form 22 April 2015
Accepted 3 August 2015
Available online 21 October 2015
Handling Editor: Kevin Lowe
The multi-dimensionality of the transformational leadership construct has been under debate in
the last decades. To shed more light on this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 58 studies),
examining the transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their links to leader personality
and performance in order to gather empirical evidence of the multi-dimensionality of transforma-
tional leadership. First, the results showed that the Big 5 personality traits are directly linked to
transformational leadership sub-dimensions and to the overall measure, and are indirectly linked
to leader performance. Interestingly, however, different combinations of the personality traits are
differentially related to the transformational leadership behaviors. For instance, whereas inspira-
tional motivation is related to all personality traits, only openness to experience and agreeable-
ness affect individualized consideration. These findings emphasize the importance of examining
the transformational leadership sub-dimensions separately to gain a deeper understanding of
the nature and the antecedents of these leadership behaviors.
© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Personality traits
Transformational leadership
Leader performance
Introduction
There is strong empirical evidence that transformational leadership, more than any other leadership style, is highly effective (see
meta-analyses of Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Transfor-
mational leadership's potential to address issues that are relevant in the modern, changing, and uncertain work environment is the
main reason for its positive influence (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). Interestingly, however, regardless of transformational leadership's
strong impact on research and practice (Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Berson, 2003; De Groot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Gong, Huang, & Farh,
2009; Grant, 2012; Jansen, Vera, & Crossan, 2009; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Yammarino & Bass, 1990), transformational leadership theory
still suffers from inconsistent results regarding the four-factor structure of its construct (e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1993).
Originally, Bass (1985) and Burns (1978) introduced transformational leadership as part of the full-range leadership theory. This
theory includes three leadership styles encompassing transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Transactional
leadership is composed of three dimensions: contingent reward, active management-by-exception, and passive management-by-
exception. Although laissez-faire leadership has some features in common with passive management-by-exception, it has been
The Leadership Quarterly 26 (2015) 1095–1120
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 152 538 29923.
E-mail addresses: ani-deinert@gmx.de (A. Deinert), ac.homan@uva.nl (A.C. Homan), boer@uni-koblenz.de (D. Boer), voelpel@jacobs-university.de (S.C. Voelpel),
d.gutermann@jacobs-university.de (D. Gutermann).
1
Tel.: +31 20 525 4389.
2
Tel.: +49 261 287 1920.
3
Tel.: +49 421 200 3467.
4
Tel.: +49 151 236 58110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.001
1048-9843/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
argued that laiss ez-faire leadership should be treated as separate fro m transactional leadership, as it represents the absence of
leadership (Bass, 1998; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The original idea behind transformational leadership was that leaders can appeal to
followers' moral values in order to achieve (reforming) goals (Burns, 1978)andinfluence followers to transcend their self-interest
for the larger good of their team and organization in order to realize optimal performance levels (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Building
on this concept, Bass (1985) proposed that the transformational leadership construct comprises four sub-dimensions: idealized influ-
ence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (see also Avolio & Bass, 2004; Yukl, 2013).
Although both transactional and transformational leadership thus comprise different sub-dimensions, only transactional leadership
research shows a systematic examination of the separate components (e.g., Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008; Yammarino, Spangler, &
Bass, 1993). A possible explanation for this difference in focus may be that, in terms of transactional leadership, the different sub-
dimensions have differential effects on outcomes, such that contingent reward is labeled relatively positive and management-by-
exception (both active and passive) is labeled relatively negative. However, as all transformationa l leadership sub-dimensions
seem to be associated with positive outcomes, and are often found to be highly interrelated, researchers frequently collapse the
four sub-dimensions into one overarching transformational leadership construct (e.g., DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey,
2011; Epitropaki & Martin, 2013; Ewen et al., 2013; Føllesdal & Hagtvet, 2013). Recently, however, the usefulness of the concept's
four-factor structure has been called into question (e.g., van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). As such, we set out to examine the
multi-dimensionality of transformational leadership by examining personality traits as antecedents and performance as an outcome
of transformational leadership's four sub-dimensions.
On the one hand, it has proven difficult to replicate the proposed four-factor structure (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Carless, 1998;
Hinkin & Tracey, 1999; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001; Tepper & Percy, 1994). Consequently, many empirical tests of transformational
leadership operationalize it as a unitary construct (DeRue et al., 2011; Epit ropaki & Martin, 2013; Ewen et al., 2013; Føllesdal &
Hagtvet, 2013). For example, we carefully reviewed recent papers in the Leadership Quarterly and found that seven out of ten papers
on transformational leadership published in 2013 and 2014 used its unitary operationalization.
5
Two broad sets of arguments have
been put forward in support of transformational leadership as a unitary construct (Bycio et al., 1995; Carless, 1998; Tejeda et al.,
2001; Tepper & Percy, 1994). First, researchers have stated that the transformational leadership sub-dimensions are often highly
inter-correlated and should therefore not be distinguished conceptually (Yukl, 2013). Second, it has been argued that, although the
dimensions may have theoretical merit, they do not have adequate discriminant validity for a separate examination (Bycio et al.,
1995; Carless, 1998; Tejeda et al., 2001; Tepper & Percy, 1994).
On the other hand, another group of researchers has emphasized the importance of examining the transformational leadership
sub-dimensions individually (e.g., Sutton & Staw, 1995; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), which sparked recent empirical examina-
tions following this advice (e.g., Antonakis & House, 2014; Parr et al., 2013). van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) explicitly discourage
examining the transformational sub-dimensions as an overall construct. They argue that no theory indicates whether researchers
should apply an additive – that is, the sub-dimensions are summed to create an overall transformational leadership measure – or
an interactive approach – that is, any transformational leadership dimension becomes more effective the more a leader conveys
other transformational leadership sub-dimensions – when combining the sub-dimensions into an overall construct. Furthermore,
these scholars propose that it is likely that different transformational leadership sub-dimensions influence different outcomes via
different mediators and in dif ferent ways, and thus require diff erent theoretical argumentation to account for transformational
leadership's multi-dimensional nature. A study by Parr et al. (2013) supports this idea by showing that the transformationa l
leadership sub-dimensio ns influence organizational commitment via anxiety in different ways. That is, they find that idealized
influence and individualized consideration have an indirect and positive effect on organizational commitment through anxiety,
that inspirational motivation has an indirect and negative effect on organizational commitment through anxiety, and that intellectual
stimulation has no indirect effect on organizational commitment.
We conducted a meta-analysis with the intention of advancing the field in terms of the transformational leadership construct's
uni-dimensional, or multi-dimensionality, puzzle. Like van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013), we argue that the different transforma-
tional leadership sub-dimensions should be distinguished, because they are likely to have different origins; that is, different person-
ality antecedents. For instance, it is reasonable to assume that personality traits that stimulate followers to think out of the box – such
as openness to experience – are more strongly related to a sub-dimension like intellectual stimulation, whereas traits that promote
leaders' caring behavior – such as agreeableness – are likely to predict individualized consideration more strongly. Assuming that
transformational leadership is a multi-dimensional construct, we investigate the assumption that its sub-dimensions have different
antecedents by linking these to the Big 5 personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990). In doing so, we provide the
first meta-analytic test examining all of the transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their links to the Big 5 personality traits.
Thereby, we update the meta-analysis by Bono and Judge (2004) and address one limitation of their study — the combination of
idealized influence and inspirational motivation into one charismatic leadership measure. Furthermore, we extend their work by ex-
amining the transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their links to leader performance and whether these sub-dimensions
influence outcomes differently, which would support the multi-dimensionality of the transformational leadership construct.
We not only argue that the transformational leadership sub-dimensions are differently linked to the Big 5 personality traits (Costa
&McCrae,1992), but also that the personality traits affect effective leader performance indirectly via their differential effects on dif-
ferent leadership behaviors (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Cavazotte, Moreno, & Hickmann, 2012; DeRue et al., 2011; Hetland & Sandal,
5
LQ papers in 2013/2014 that used the unitary-approach: Epitropaki and Martin (2013), Ewen et al. (2013), Føllesdal and Hagtvet (2013), Tse, Huang, and Lam
(2013), Zhang, Wang, and Pearce (2014),andZhu, Newman, Miao, and Hooke (2013).
LQ papers in 2013/2014 that used the separation-approach: Antonakis and House (2014), Parr, Hunter, and Ligon (2013),andPeus, Braun, and Frey (2013).
1096 A. Deinert et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 26 (2015) 1095–1120
2003; Rubin, Dierdorff, Bommer, & Baldwin, 2009). Previous studies investigating the mediating role of transformational leadership
have failed to distinguish between the different transformational leadership sub-dimensions (e.g., Cavazotte et al., 2012; DeRue
et al., 2011). We contribute to this literature by testing a comprehensive model pertaining to the mediating role of the transformation-
al leadership sub-dimensions separately, rather than the overarching charismatic or transformational leadership construct.
Transformational leadership
Burns (1978) and Bass (1985, 1990, 1998) introduced transformational leadership, which is described a s a meaningful and
creative exchange between leaders and their followers to induce a vision-driven change in followers (Bass, 1985). Transformational
leadership comprises the following four sub-dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. Idealized influence implies role modeling behavior, identification with the leader, and the internaliza-
tion of the leader's vision, values, and missions through the charismatic leader's emotional impact (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Inspirational
motivation involves motivating behaviors, which give followers' tasks meaning, thus fostering optimism through leader behavior, and
inspiri ng followers through symbolic actions (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Intellectual stimulation comprises behaviors that stimulate
followers by reframing problems, by pushing them to develop creative and innovative ideas, and by approaching old situations in
new ways (Bass et al., 2003). Individualized consideration covers leader behavior that includes providing a supportive climate and
new learning opportunities (e.g., coaching; Bass et al., 2003).
Many researchers have investigated the transformational leadership construct by using the multifactor leadership questionnaire
(Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995, 1999; Den Hartog, van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997; Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 2001; Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 2008; Kanste, Miettunen, & Kyngäs, 2007). Numerous meta-analyses and studies have gathered evidence supporting
the transformatio nal leadership paradi gm across different situations and settings (Bass, 1997; Bass et al., 2003; De Groot et al.,
2000; Gong et al., 2009; Grant, 2012; Jansen et al., 2009; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Moreover, research has
shown that, although transformational leaders can be more or less effective in different contexts (e.g., Antonakis, Avolio, &
Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Kearney & Gebert, 2009) and in different samples (e.g., women and men, or younger and older leaders;
Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Kearney, 2008), specific aspects of transformational leadership are strongly and
universally endorsed across cultures (Den Hartog, House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintanilla, & Dorfman, 1999).
Personality and transformational leadership
Research has shown that personality traits have a profound influence on people's motivations, behaviors, and perceptions, includ-
ing their values, (anti)social behavior, and organizational citizenship behavior (Eysenck, 1970; Fischer & Boer, 2014; Krueger et al.,
2002; Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Marcus, Ashton, & Lee, 2013; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007; Organ & Ryan,
1995). This research clearly points to a potential link between personality and leadership behavior. However, given that transforma-
tional leadership comprises different sub-dimensions (Bass, 1985), it is important to examine whether certain personality traits affect
these sub-dimensions equally. We utilize the Five Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990) to explore
these ideas, since it is a useful structure for organizing personality (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). This theoretical model offers
a five-factor structure of personality (also called the Five-Factor Model-FFM, or Big 5) containing the factors neuroticism, extraversion,
openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990).
Based on current considerations in the transformational leadership literature, we adopt the idea that the transformationa l leadership
sub-dimensions specify and pertain to different leadership be haviors (Sutton & Staw, 1995; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). This im-
plies that leaders who focus on idealized influence show ro le modeling behavior, those who show inspirational motivation try to moti -
vate people to perform beyond expectations, those who provide intellectual stimulation challenge their followers to be creative and
innovative, and those who focus on individualiz ed consideration care about their followers' needs (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Acknowledging
the differences between the behaviors associated with the sub-dimensions, we argue that these transformational leadership sub-
behaviors might also have diffe rent antecedents, which may be found in the leader's personality characteristics.
Within the present meta-analysis, we will update and extend Bono and Judge's (2004) most recent and extensive meta-analysis in
this field. They investigated the relationships between the Big 5 and the transformational (and transactional) leadership sub-
dimensions. Within their analysis, they combined idealized in
fluence and inspirational motivation into one charismatic leadership
measure. As stated above, recent theoretical work has called for the separate investigation of all the transformational leadership
sub-dimensions (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). As such, we will extend Bono and Judge's (2004) analysis by examining all the
transformational leadership sub-dimensions separately. Below, we present theoretical arguments for the differential relationships
between the five personality traits and the four sub-dimensions of transformational leadership.
Neuroticism
Neuroticism and its opposite pole, emotional stability, reflect the tendency towards emotional adjustment. Individuals who score
higher on neuroticism have a strong predisposition to experience emotional instability, including feelings of fear, sadness, defense,
insecurity, and guilt, whereas emotionally stable people are relaxed and even-tempered (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae & Costa,
1991). We argue that neuroticism might be negatively related to leadership behaviors, including all of the transformational leadership
sub-dimensions. Research has shown that neuroticism is strongly related to low self-esteem and self-efficacy (Bono & Judge, 2004;
Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). In this respect, Northouse (1997) argues that self-confidence is a prerequisite for leadership
behavior. Therefore, individuals who are highly neurotic probably avoid leadership responsibilities (Bono & Judge, 2004) and are
1097A. Deinert et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 26 (2015) 1095–1120
less likely to “involve themselves in their followers' effort” and needs, which are characteristics of individualized consideration (Bass,
1985, p. 173). Additionally, we assume that these individuals do not show idealized influence, inspirational motivation, or intellectual
stimulation, since they are unlikely to be perceived as a role model due to their uncertainty, are too insecure to provide followers with
a vision, and are too fearful to undertake chan ge efforts (Bono & Judge, 2004). Bono and Judge's (2004) findings support our
arguments regarding the negative relationships between neuroticism and the transformational leadership sub-dimensions, even
though they combined idealized influence and inspirational motivation into one charismatic leadership dimension.
Extraversion
Extraversion reflects the tendency to be outgoing, active, talkative, and optimistic (Costa & McCrae, 1992), with enthusiasm and
assertiveness regarded as the two most important aspects of this personality trait (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Similar to
Bono and Judge (2004), we propose that extraversion might be positively linked to idealized influence and inspirational motivation.
Extraverted leaders are socially domineering (Depue & Collins, 1999) and highly expressive in their social interactions (McCrae &
Costa, 1987). People who are more extraverted are thus likely to be comfortable with setting a direction and, as a result, are more like-
ly to be considered a role model, which is a characteristic of idealized influence (House & Howell, 1992; Watson & Clark, 1997), as well
as create inspirational motivation via emotionality (e.g., Watson & Clark, 1997). Moreover, extraversion might be positively linked to
intellectual stimulation, since extraverted people enjoy change (Bono & Judge, 2004). Although not hypothesized by Bono and Judge
(2004), the relationship between extraversion and individualized consideration is an interesting one. Extraversion is characterized by
both dominance and positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Depue & Collins, 1999), which might differentially influence the
degree to which individualized consideration is displayed. A stronger focus on dominance might lead extraverted people to care
less about others and to be less interested in fostering good relationships (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; Emmons, 1984;
Raskin & Hall, 1981). However, positive emotionality is said to be related to appreciating affiliation with others and valuing personal
contact (Depue & Collins, 1999). As such, extraversion might sometimes be positively and sometimes negatively related to individu-
alized consideration, depending on which of the two characteristics of extraversion is more dominant. Given these considerations, we
do not expect to find a relationship between extraversion and individualized consideration.
Openness to experience
People who are open to experience can be described as creative, autonomous, unconventional, curious, flexible, and thoughtful
(McCrae, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Having an open mindset might allow individuals to see more individual differences between
other people (Homan, Greer, Jehn, & Koning, 2010) and treat them with less limitations and prejudice (Flynn, 2005). Therefore,
partially extending Bono and Judge's (2004) arguments, we predict that leaders who score higher on openness will be concerned
about their followers individually (i.e., show in dividualized consideration ), and will thus be more liked and accepted as a role
model (i.e., exhibit idealized influence). Furthermore, open and creative people are good at developing and articulating an attractive
vision, because they are imaginative and creative (i.e., show inspirational motivation; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1987).
Finally, we argue that openness to experience will be particularly associated with intellectual stimulation. Owing to their resourceful-
ness and flexibility (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae, 1994), people who score high in openness are likely to cope with organizational
change, might see new approaches to problem solving, and might think outside the box, all of which are characteristics of intellectual
stimulation. Furthermore, research on openness and creativity has supported the relationship between openness and intellectual
stimulation. This research has shown that openness to experience is positively linked to divergent thinking and creativity
(e.g., George & Zhou, 2001; Schilpzand, Herold, & Shalley, 2011), which are facets of intellectual stimulation.
Agreeableness
Agreeableness reflects the tendency to be warm, generous, kind, and gentle (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1987),
to be trusting and modest, and to avoid conflicts (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). We thus propose
that agreeableness is likely to be positively related to individualized consideration. Agreeable leaders are friendly, kind, and want the
best for their followers. They are, therefore, likely to be concerned with others' needs and interests, which is a characteristic of indi-
vidualized consideration. Research by Bowling, Beehr, and Swader (2005) supports the proposed positive relationship between agree-
ableness and individua lized consideration by showing that more agreeable individuals pr ovide more social support. Si milarly,
Sörensen, Duberstein, Chapman, Lyness, and Pinquart (2008) found that higher levels of agreeableness are associated with greater
awareness of care needs. Moreover, in line with Bono and Judge (2004), we argue that agreeableness might be positively related to
idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Research on referent power sho ws that people who are liked by others due to
their friendliness, similarities, or kindness have a greater influence on their followers than people who are not seen as friendly,
kind, or similar (Busch & Wilson, 1976; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989; Martin, 1978). Agreeable leaders show these “positive” charac-
teristics, and it is thus likely that followers feel more attracted to these leaders and are more likely to accept them as role models
(i.e., idealized influence). Furthermore, highly agree able people might express posi tive visions due to their kindness
(i.e., show inspirational motivation; Bono & Judge, 2004). Additionally, extending the theorizing, and contrary to Bono and
Judge's (2004) fi ndings, we argue that agreeableness might be negatively related to intellectual stimulation. Agreeable leaders
value harm ony, prefer cooperation, and avoid arguments and conflicts (Graziano et al., 1996; Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, & van
Kni ppenberg , 201 0), whereas exhibiting intellectual stimulat ion requires provoking arguments, exchanging different perspec-
tives, a nd pushing people to do things differently (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Agreeable leaders may thus be more likely to stress the
importance of conformity and cohesion, which might instigate a low divergence of ideas and inhibit out of the box thinking
(i.e., less intellectual stimulation).
1098 A. Deinert et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 26 (2015) 1095–1120
