Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 23

Journal of Organizational Change Management

Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and


performance
Rajnandini Pillai Ethlyn A. Williams

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Rajnandini Pillai Ethlyn A. Williams, (2004),"Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness,
commitment, and performance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 144 159
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530584
Downloaded on: 04 October 2015, At: 20:50 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10243 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:


Shelley D. Dionne, Francis J. Yammarino, Leanne E. Atwater, William D. Spangler,
(2004),"Transformational leadership and team performance", Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 177-193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530601
Regina Eisenbach, Kathleen Watson, Rajnandini Pillai, (1999),"Transformational leadership in the context
of organizational change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 Iss 2 pp. 80-89 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534819910263631
Nurdan zaralli, (2003),"Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team
effectiveness", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 6 pp. 335-344 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730310494301

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com


Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at


www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

JOCM
17,2

144

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

Received September
2002
Revised September 2003
Accepted December 2003

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Transformational leadership,
self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment,
and performance
Rajnandini Pillai
Department of Management, College of Business,
California State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, California, USA

Ethlyn A. Williams
Department of Management, International Business and
Entrepreneurship, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Keywords Transformational leadership, Self development, Fire services,
Autonomous work groups
Abstract We tested a model proposing that transformational leaders build committed and high
performing work groups by enhancing employee self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Questionnaires
were completed by 303 fire department personnel following preliminary in-depth interviews with
fire rescue personnel. After accounting for missing data, 271 responses were included in our data
analysis. Results indicated support for the theoretical model in comparison to three alternative
models that were considered. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.

Journal of Organizational Change


Management
Vol. 17 No. 2, 2004
pp. 144-159
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/09534810410530584

The attacks of 11 September 2001 brought into sharp focus the role of
firefighters in times of crisis. Perceptions of firefighter heroism were magnified
as people witnessed several acts of self-less leadership by firemen and women
in New York and Washington. Some have suggested that one of the biggest
challenges that the fire service faces in the 21st century is effective leadership
aimed at retaining fire service men and women (Murphy, 1999). Others have
examined the importance of leadership interventions to train fire department
leaders who are then perceived as role models by the fire fighters and who
work to reduce stress in one of the most stressful jobs in America (Beaton et al.,
2001). Leadership researchers in recent years have accumulated a large body of
evidence in support of leadership models such as transformational and
charismatic leadership (House and Shamir, 1993). However, few of these studies
have explored or tested the many networks of linkages proposed to explain
how the transformational leadership process works and this has been
particularly disappointing to researchers of this promising leadership
paradigm (Bass, 1995). Some exceptions in this regard are work by Shamir
et al. (1993) who proposed a linkage between charismatic leadership and

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

followers self-efficacy and self-concept and others who have shown a linkage
Leadership,
between transformational leadership and justice, trust and collective self-efficacy and
self-efficacy (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Podsakoff et al.,
cohesiveness
1990).
This study focuses on the processes that may explain how transformational
leadership affects outcomes in the context of a fire department. We propose
145
that perceptions of follower self-efficacy and work group cohesion play an
important role in the relationship between transformational leadership and
outcomes such as commitment and performance. Earlier research has shown
that leader-subordinate and peer-peer relationships play an important role in
the development of burnout among fire-fighters which, in turn, affects their
ability to deliver effective services in life-threatening situations (Reichel, 1996).
We argue, in this study, that when transformational leaders emerge in such
contexts or appointed leaders are trained to engage in transformational
leadership interventions, they will motivate their subordinates to higher levels
of service and commitment. Our conceptualization of transformational
leadership is consistent with the prevalent literature that transformational
leaders influence followers to higher levels of commitment and performance by
articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals and developing
individual group members to reach their highest potential (Podsakoff et al.,
1996). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of transformational
leadership in a fire service organization. In the following paragraphs, we
develop arguments in support of our proposed model.
Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, performance and
commitment
Bandura (1997, p. 2) has defined perceived self-efficacy as . . .beliefs in ones
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in managing
prospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel,
motivate themselves, and act. Several studies have demonstrated the
importance of self-efficacy for improving performance in the organizational
context (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Originally conceived of as a task-specific
variable, support has been shown for general self-efficacy which is a
disposition predicting individual behavior across situations (Lennings, 1994).
Among the determinants of self-efficacy are enactive mastery (personal
attainment), vicarious experience (modeling), verbal persuasion and
physiological arousal; all of which serve to increase self-efficacy perceptions
(Gist and Mitchell, 1992).
Schunk (1983) noted that self-efficacy is particularly salient in a crisis
situation. The conceptualization of self-efficacy as a stable characteristic that
individuals possess describes it as . . .ones overall estimate of ones ability to
effect requisite performances in achievement situations (Eden and Zuk, 1995,
p. 629). Ones past experiences will create a general set of expectancies that get

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

146

carried over into new situations. In the context of fire-rescue operations the
situations faced are often critical and unique in many ways and we expect that
these generalized expectancies will . . .influence the individuals expectations
of mastery in the new situations (Sherer et al., 1982, p. 664).
House and Shamir (1993) have suggested that the primary motivational
mechanism through which transformational and charismatic (or outstanding)
leaders influence their followers is by enhancing followers self-efficacy and
self-worth. Transformational leadership behaviors and its effects, especially
role modeling, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal appear to parallel
the determinants of self-efficacy. Podsakoff et al. (1990) suggested that
transformational leaders influence followers by role modeling the appropriate
behaviors. Followers identify with role models who are then perceived in a
positive light (Bandura, 1986), this serves to empower them to achieve the
leaders vision through the development of self-efficacy and self-confidence
(Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Yukl, 1998). Eden (1992) argued that leadership
was the mechanism through which managers raised performance expectations
and enhanced self-efficacy which, in turn, increased performance.
Frost et al. (1983) showed that in both military combat and fire-fighting
situations, the leader who set an example by personal risk-taking was judged to
be the most effective. Redmond et al. (1993) also showed that leader behaviour
aimed at increasing follower self-efficacy resulted in higher levels of
subordinate creativity in problem-solving situations. It would, therefore, be
important for transformational leaders to enhance followers beliefs, which
together they would be able to find a solution for the problem at hand. Once
self-efficacy is established, followers will begin to trust the leader which will
increase their commitment to the leader and the organization (Yukl, 1998).
Thus, we hypothesize that transformational leaders enhance followers
self-efficacy, which in turn, results in higher performance and commitment.
Transformational leadership, cohesiveness, performance and
commitment
Festinger (1950, p. 274) described group cohesiveness as the resultant forces
which are acting on the members to stay in a group. This definition has been
widely accepted by researchers on group cohesion. Other researchers describe
cohesiveness as the degree to which group members are attracted to and
motivated to stay with a group (Zaccaro et al., 1995). Earlier research has
shown that leaders who show consideration for their followers cause them to
become more attached to the group (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Such leaders may
thus draw the group closer together towards the attainment of group goals.
The collectivistic focus of groups led by transformational leaders where
there is a consensual sharing of meaning (Bass, 1985) may be a catalyst in
eliciting higher levels of commitment and performance especially given the
need for fire fighters and other emergency personnel to work in closely

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

coordinated teams in the face of great personal danger. By using the strategies
Leadership,
of visioning, setting high performance expectations for the group and self-efficacy and
participation in group goal setting, transformational leaders may be successful
cohesiveness
in motivating group members to remain attracted to the group, make personal
sacrifices and work towards a common goal. Thus, by internalizing the values
of the leader, followers of transformational leaders identify the vision
147
and become committed to collective interests (Yukl, 1998) which can bring
about the desired organizational change. It therefore, appears that a
transformational leader is capable of facilitating the formation of a cohesive
group which performs at higher levels and is committed to the group and
the organization.
In our theoretical model shown in Figure 1 and consistent with the
arguments presented above, direct relationships are specified from leadership
to self-efficacy, cohesiveness, performance and commitment. In the presence of
transformational leadership, cohesive groups with members who have high
levels of self-efficacy are motivated in turn, to perform at higher levels and be
highly committed to the organization. We therefore hypothesize the following.
H1. There will be a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and both cohesiveness and self-efficacy.
H2. There will be a positive relationship between both cohesiveness and
self-efficacy and the outcome variables of commitment and
performance.

Figure 1.

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

148

H3. There will be a positive relationship between transformational leadership


and both commitment and performance.
H4. The relationship between transformational leadership and the
outcomes of both commitment and performance will be partially
mediated by cohesiveness and self-efficacy. Thus, transformational
leadership will have both direct and indirect effects through
cohesiveness and self-efficacy in predicting commitment and
performance.
We compare four models to give a more rigorous test of our hypotheses (Platt,
1964).
(1) A theoretical model (Figure 1) in which transformational leadership
predicts cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unit
performance while cohesiveness and self-efficacy also predict
commitment and perceptions of unit performance (this reflects partial
mediation since direct and indirect effects of leadership on commitment
and perceptions of unit performance are predicted).
(2) An unconstrained model in which commitment and perceptions of unit
performance are correlated, transformational leadership predicts
cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unit
performance, while cohesiveness and self-efficacy predict commitment
and perceptions of unit performance (this is a less restricted model than
the theoretical model since it contains more paths).
(3) A direct model in which transformational leadership predicts
cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unit
performance.
(4) An indirect model in which transformational leadership predicts
cohesiveness and self-efficacy and in which cohesiveness and
self-efficacy in turn predict commitment and perceptions of unit
performance.
The research context
We contacted the local fire department and visited several local fire-stations
and the fire department headquarters for extensive interviews in order to gain a
fuller understanding of the research context. We also obtained permission to
ride on the fire-trucks to observe on the first hand, how teams from various
fire-stations handled emergencies. Our interviews with the fire-fighters,
captains, lieutenants, battalion chiefs and also the Fire Chief established the
pivotal role played by the unit leader in motivating fire-fighters, setting a
heroic personal example and building a close-knit team. In fact, they told us
that motivation suffers and stress levels increase if they are not part of a group
that functions like a family: when they are on duty, they live together, eat

together, interact for long hours within the close confines of the station and
Leadership,
have to depend on each other when they are out handling emergency situations. self-efficacy and
Several of them observed that they were likely to respect and emulate their
cohesiveness
leaders only if they had proved themselves in action. We felt that the kinds of
situations they faced (e.g. warehouse blazes, aircraft accidents) called for
exceptional leadership and teamwork.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

149

Method
Sample and procedure
Three hundred and three fire rescue employees in active service (working in the
field) completed a survey questionnaire. Respondents were employed at a fire
department in the southeastern United States and completed questionnaires
while on duty at their respective fire stations. The authors were available on
site to answer any questions. The Fire Chief sent out memos encouraging
employees to participate, but no incentives were offered. The response rate was
over 95 percent. The fire stations that participated in the earlier interviews
were not included in the study. After accounting for missing data, 271
responses were used for our data analysis.
The sample was 85.5 percent male with an average age of 40.2 years.
Fifty-eight percent were white, 13.3 percent were black, and 25.2 percent were
Hispanic. Average tenure in the fire service was 13 years and 9.3 years in their
current jobs. Each station received approximately 13 emergency calls per day
and had an average group size of four (fire rescue personnel on each shift at
each station). Thirty-one percent of respondents had a high school education,
56.7 percent had bachelors degrees and 4.2 percent had masters degrees.
All fire rescue employees had received professional emergency management
training. Over 56 percent of the respondents were firefighters, 8.5 percent were
paramedics, 21.5 percent were lieutenants, 11.9 percent were fire captains and
1.5 percent were battalion chiefs. Thus, we were able to tap various levels of
leadership. Each respondent indicated who they considered as their immediate
supervisor and used this individual as their referent in ratings of
transformational leadership: 36.3 percent indicated that they considered their
lieutenant to be their supervisor, 29.8 considered the fire captain to be their
supervisor and 24.2 percent considered the battalion chief to be their supervisor
(9.7 percent indicated other). A reason for this is that we surveyed firefighters
at different levels in the organization, but we also observed that for some
people, the referent was the fire station rather than the immediate group by
virtue of the fact that they worked in different shifts and had different leaders
on their assignments. Thus, in order to preserve these distinctions and
maintain consistency with our conceptualization and earlier research that
examines individual perceptions, all variables were measured and analyzed at
the individual level.

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

150

Measures
Transformational leadership. The twenty-three item measure developed by
Podsakoff et al. (1990) was employed to measure the transformational
leadership. Respondents were asked to describe the behaviors of their
supervisors in their current work situation using a seven-point scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The six key leader behaviors
identified by Podsakoff et al. (1990) are (examples of behavior in parentheses):
identifying and articulating a vision(e.g. inspires others with his/her plans for
the future), providing an appropriate model for employees (e.g. leads by
example), fostering the acceptance of group goals (e.g. encourages employees
to be team players), high performance expectations (e.g. will not settle for
second best), providing individualized support (e.g. shows respect for my
personal feelings), and intellectual stimulation (e.g. challenges me to think
about old problems in new ways). The coefficient a of reliability for these
subscales were 0.85, 0.88, 0.93, 0.71, 0.85 and 0.85, respectively. In accordance
with the earlier research on this scale, the composite of these scales was created
by combining them to obtain a global measure of transformational leadership
(Pillai and Williams, 1998) which is used in the analyses. The coefficient a of
reliability for this composite was 0.95.
Group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness was measured as individual
perceptions of cohesiveness using the six-item scale presented in the study by
Podsakoff et al. (1993) in a manner consistent with our conceptualization and its
use in the earlier study. Respondents were asked to use a seven-point scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to report on the perceived
level of trust and cooperation among group members. (e.g. the members of my
work group know that they can depend on each other).
Self-efficacy. General self-efficacy was measured using the seventeen-item
scale developed by Sherer et al. (1982). Respondents used a seven-point scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to describe how they feel
about their ability to achieve their goals (e.g. if I cant do a job the first time,
I keep trying until I can and when I make plans I am certain I can make them
work).
Organizational commitment. Employee commitment refers to the
psychological attachment of workers to their workplaces and was measured
using the scale developed by OReilly and Chatman (1986). Some research has
indicated an inability of this measure to separate the two components of
identification and internalization (Caldwell et al., 1990). We found that in our
sample the correlation between identification and internalization was high
r 0:68: However, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis on the
measure supported treating them as independent dimensions (the chi-square
change between a single-factor and a two-factor model was significant at 78.94
for a change in 1 degree of freedom). The two-factor model produced a
goodness of fit index (GFI) of 0.91 and normed fit index (NFI) of 0.91.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

We employ the internalization dimension of commitment in this research using


Leadership,
the five-items found in OReilly and Chatman (1986) since they assert that self-efficacy and
internalization represents strong attachment, value similarity and extrarole
cohesiveness
behavior. This is consistent with Beckers presentation of internalization:
Internalization occurs when people adopt attitudes and behaviors because
their content is congruent with the individuals value systems (Becker, 1992,
151
p. 232). Given that we are interested in the effects of transformational
leadership behaviors, internalization appears to provide a stronger reflection of
an individuals affiliation with the organization and its leaders (Caldwell et al.,
1990). Respondents used a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree to describe how attached they feel toward the organization
(e.g. what this organization stands for is important to me).
Perceptions of unit performance. Respondents rated the performance of their
group using the measure developed by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980). It is
important to note here that there were no objective measures of performance in
existence. Respondents rated their unit over the previous year in relation to
other comparable organizational units. Asking respondents to rate unit
performance rather than individual performance is less likely to result in
socially desirable responses. A five-point scale ranging from far below
average to far above average was utilized (e.g. efficiency of unit
operations).
Data analysis
The statistical significance of paths specified in the models was tested using
structural equation modeling with the LISREL 8 program. LISREL allows for
the testing of the goodness of fit of the model to the data using indices which
are not dependent on sample size (Medsker et al., 1994). A covariance matrix
was generated using Prelis through the LISREL 8 program (Joreskog and
Sorbom, 1993). Our model was tested by comparing nested models: theoretical
and alternative models (Bentler and Bonnett, 1980). The change in chi-square
difference is used as an indicator of comparative model fit, a significant
chi-square difference suggests that the less restricted model (the model with
more paths specified) is a better fit. The error variance was set equal to the
variance of the scale value multiplied by one minus the coefficient a of
reliability (Hayduk, 1987).
Results
Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities of the variables in the
study are presented in Table I. The zero-order correlations among the key
variables were positive and statistically significant p , 0:01; yet sufficiently
low to indicate construct independence.
Scale reliabilities were above the recommended level (Nunally and
Bernstein, 1994) at 0.80 or above. Model comparisons and GFIs are presented

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

152

in Table II. The chi-square, root-mean-square-residual (RMSR), GFI,


comparative fit index (CFI) and NFI are reported. The recommended value
for a good fit is 0.90 while the RMSR should fall below 0.05. The results of the
theoretical model indicate a good fit RMSR 0:047; GFI 0:98; CFI 0:92;
NFI 0:92: The theoretical model is compared to the alternative models to
ensure that all plausible relationships are examined.
As shown in Table II, the indirect and direct models provided poorer fits in
comparison to the theoretical model, with fit indices lower than those for the
theoretical model ( Widaman, 1985). The differences in chi-square in
comparison to the theoretical model were also significant. Further evidence
in support of the theoretical model over the alternative models is provided
when compared to the unconstrained model. The fit indices were very close;
however, there was no significant change in chi-square between the theoretical
and unconstrained models. The additional path over the theoretical model,
which specified the correlation between the perceptions of unit performance
and commitment, was not significant. Based on our results, we should not
reject the theoretical model in favor of the model which estimates more paths.
When the chi-square difference is not significant, including the additional path
in the model does not significantly add to its explanation of the construct
covariances (Anderson and Gerbing, 1998). Thus, our results reveal strong
support for the fit of the theoretical model to the data.
For the theoretical model the squared multiple correlations were 0.19 for the
prediction of group cohesiveness, 0.03 for self-efficacy, 0.17 for commitment,

Variables

Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
intercorrelations

Mean

N 271
Transformational leadership
4.81
Cohesiveness
5.56
Self-efficacy
5.66
Commitment (internalization)
4.58
Perceptions of unit performance
3.78
Notes: Reliabilities appear in bold along the

Model

Table II.
Results of model
comparisons

Theoretical model (partial mediation model)


Unconstrained model
Direct model
Indirect model (full mediation model)
Note: The Dx 2 reported is in relation to the

SD

1.01 0.95
1.07
0.42* 0.93
0.70
0.14*
0.27*
1.13
0.26*
0.35*
0.65
0.36*
0.47*
diagonal; *p , 0.01.

0.83
0.33*
0.28*

0.81
0.35*

0.86

Dx 2

RMSR

GFI

CFI

NFI

2
19.01

1
15.35
3.66
6 105.69 86.68
4
32.57 13.56
theoretical model.

0.047
0.044
0.110
0.061

0.98
0.98
0.86
0.96

0.92
0.94
0.55
0.87

0.92
0.93
0.55
0.86

df

x2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

and 0.34 for perceptions of unit performance. These results indicate that the
Leadership,
paths specified explain significant variance for each variable. Figure 2 shows self-efficacy and
the parameter estimates from a standardized solution. All paths specified in the
cohesiveness
theoretical model were statistically significant p , 0:05: H1 and H3 are
supported with direct effects of transformational leadership on cohesiveness,
self efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unit performance. H2 is supported
153
with direct effects of cohesiveness and self-efficacy on commitment and
perceptions of unit performance. H4 is supported with transformational
leadership having both direct and indirect effects on commitment and
perceptions of unit performance, with cohesiveness and self-efficacy serving as
partial mediating variables.
The conditions for partial mediation are present based on the following three
conditions specified by Baron and Kenny (1986).
(1) The independent variables are significantly related to the dependent
variables and mediators (H1 and H3).
(2) The mediator variables are significantly related to the dependent
variables (H2)
(3) When the independent variables and the mediators are considered
simultaneously, the direct relationship between the independent and
dependent variables decreases by a magnitude that is statistically
significant ( p of 0.05) (H4).

Figure 2.

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

154

Full mediation requires that in the presence of the mediators the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables are no longer significant.
In the direct model, the parameter estimates of the paths from
transformational leadership to cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and
perceptions of unit performance were 0.45 p , 0:001; 0.18 p , 0:01; 0.27
p , 0:001; and 0.41 p , 0:001; respectively. Figure 2 shows that in the
presence of the mediators the parameter estimates of the paths from
transformational leadership to commitment and perceptions of unit
performance were 0.15 p , 0:05 and 0.18 p , 0:05; respectively.
Discussion
Overall, the results of the study provide support for the model we proposed.
Transformational leadership was related to perceptions of unit performance
and commitment through self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Transformational
leadership also influenced commitment and perceptions of unit performance
directly, consistent with the earlier research (Bass, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
The importance of self-efficacy and cohesiveness as partial mediating variables
was established by the fact that the data did not provide a good fit to the direct
model in which we showed all paths leading directly from transformational
leadership to self-efficacy, cohesiveness, commitment and perceptions of unit
performance. The current study extends existing knowledge by testing the role
of self-efficacy and group cohesiveness in the transformational leadership
process. We believe that this is one of the first such studies carried out in the
US. The study also shows that transformational leadership is effective in yet
another unique setting, namely, a fire rescue organization, one that faces a
constantly changing environment, especially in a post 11 September world
with heightened fears with respect to terrorism and requiring innovative
responses, in which there is a great need for outstanding leadership.
Emergency situations such as those often faced by military combat units,
police patrols, and fire-fighting units may provide a context in which the
effectiveness of transformational leadership is influenced by variables such as
group cohesiveness and self-efficacy.
Future research must explore the relationship between leadership and
cohesive groups over a period of time. Transformational leaders may be able to
inspire group members with their vision for the future in the initial stages of
group formation, but what if the vision fails? Does the cohesive group lose faith
in and turn against the leader? The fact that we used generalized self-efficacy
rather than task-specific self-efficacy may have influenced the relationship
between self-efficacy and transformational leadership. The correlation was
weaker than that between transformational leadership and group cohesion.
Future studies should explore the role of task specific self-efficacy in
facilitating the impact of transformational leadership on individual and
organizational outcomes.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

We also tested the possible moderator effect of cohesiveness on the


Leadership,
relationship between leadership and perceptions of unit performance and self-efficacy and
commitment because Podsakoff et al. (1996) have suggested that there might be
cohesiveness
such an effect although their recent research (Podsakoff and McKenzie, 1997)
did not demonstrate it. In our sample, we did not find a significant interaction
effect. However, the results of this research supported the importance of the
155
inclusion of variables that potentially complement leadership variables in
leadership models since our finding of partial mediation supports the argument
that transformational leadership behaviors influence subordinates both
directly and indirectly.
Leaders of fire rescue units could be trained to vary the level of their
transformational behaviors depending on the nature of the situation. Routine
situations may call for development-oriented transformational leadership
behaviors where subordinates are provided with learning opportunities,
whereas emergency situations may call for a display of more heroic leadership
behaviors to motivate subordinates to emulate their leaders and perform at
higher levels. This could be conducted as part of a leadership intervention
designed to bring about positive work outcomes and also to change the culture
of emergency service departments. Beaton et al. (2001) designed and
implemented just such an intervention in a fire department in Washington
State using the Leader-Match model. They found positive results on ratings of
immediate supervisors performance and stress-related symptoms 3 months
after the intervention.
There are a number of limitations with the current investigation. The first
and most important is that the data are cross-sectional and causality cannot be
inferred, although this type of data collection is one of the major research
methods used in organizational behavior since it is a useful tool in exploratory
studies (Spector, 1994). Although we analyzed the data using sophisticated
structural equation modeling techniques, causal inferences must await a
longitudinal or experimental design.
While our findings reveal some interesting potential relationships among
our variables of interest, this research is based on self-reports which limit the
conclusions that can be drawn due to the potential influence of common method
variance in producing inflated correlations. However, the nature of the
variables was such that it seemed appropriate to obtain ratings from the same
individuals. Perceptions of cohesiveness, self-efficacy, and commitment are
unique to the individual who is therefore the best source for obtaining
information on these variables. Regarding the leadership ratings of unit leaders
at the fire station, we felt that the individuals who worked with these leaders in
the field and were in direct contact with them would be in the best position to
assess their leadership ability (Podsakoff et al., 1996). We employed the
Harman one-factor test which revealed that there was no single general factor
that best represented these data (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). This supports

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

156

the examination of the study variables as distinct concepts. Future research


should focus on multiple data sources to further our understanding of the
relationships among the study variables.
In order to further assess the severity of common method variance we also
conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on competing models
(containing all the items measuring our five variables of interest) that
increase in complexity (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). If a general factor appears
to best represent the data, then common method variance poses a problem in
the model. In order to examine the competing models, a single factor model was
compared with more complex models (increasing the number of factors).
Results revealed that the fit of the more complex models was improved over the
simpler models (fewer factors). For example, the chi-square change between the
single factor and the improved five-factor model was significant (69.17, with
change in degrees of freedom equal to 14) indicating that that method variance
is not a significant problem.
Unfortunately, we were unable to collect objective measures of performance.
We used a self-report measure of work group performance because the fire
rescue organization did not have an objective measure of individual or group
performance. We did however, employ an established measure of performance.
Since respondent reports were confidential, we expected respondents to be less
biased than if they were being identified (reports on the performance variable
ranged from 1.71 to 5). The lack of objective performance measures, it appears,
is an important concern in the fire service in general as evidenced by the
following comment by a 30 year veteran (Crapo, 1998): When I first began
taking fire science courses in the early 70s, I can remember discussing the
problems inherent in rating a departments performance in the fireground.
Today, there is still no such performance measure. We simply go to a fire and,
regardless of the outcome, pat ourselves on the back for doing a good job. This
may change in future studies.
Among the strengths of this study are the fact that we were able to conduct
extensive interviews with individuals at all levels within the organization and
also that we were given permission to personally administer the
questionnaires, ensuring a high rate of response. Furthermore, we conducted
this study in a setting in which, to the best of our knowledge, transformational
leadership has never been examined. This setting is particularly suited to the
emergence of transformational leadership and presents opportunities for
responding to dynamic situations: leaders are called upon to role model heroic
behaviors and build cohesive teams that are capable of responding in real time
with innovative solutions to life-threatening situations.
In summary, results of the current investigation point to the importance of
examining the role of mediating variables such as cohesiveness and
self-efficacy in the transformational leadership process especially in contexts
that call for extraordinary leadership. We hope this research has laid the

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

foundation for a more complete understanding of the transformational


Leadership,
leadership process and that it will motivate further research into other self-efficacy and
contexts that might facilitate or retard such leadership. The results of this
cohesiveness
investigation also point to the need for developing transformational leadership
in fire service departments, possibly through a structured leadership
intervention designed to bring about a positive change in employee
157
confidence, attitudes and performance in order to meet one of the critical
challenges of the 21st century.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1998), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive View,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies, in
Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 1-45.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator mediator variable distinction in social
psychological-research conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1995), Theory of transformational leadership redux, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 463-78.
Beaton, R., Johnson, L.C., Infield, S., Ollis, T. and Bond, G. (2001), Outcomes of a leadership
intervention for a metropolitan fire department, Psychological Reports, Vol. 88 No. 3,
pp. 1049-66.
Becker, T.E. (1992), Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinctions worth making?,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 232-44.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.G. (1980), Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A. and OReilly, C.A. (1990), Building organizational commitment: a
multi-firm study, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 245-61.
Crapo, W.F. (1998), Time for a change, Fire Engineering, Vol. 151 No. 7, pp. 55-60.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.
Eden, D. (1992), Leadership and expectations: pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling
prophecies in organizations, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 271-305.
Eden, D. and Zuk, Y. (1995), Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: raising self-efficacy to
boost performance at sea, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 628-35.
Festinger, L. (1950), Informal social communication, Psychological Review, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 271-82.
Frost, D.E., Fiedler, F.E. and Anderson, J.W. (1983), The role of personal risk-taking in effective
leadership, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Gist, M. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.

JOCM
17,2

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

158

Hayduk, L.A. (1987), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD.
House, R.J. and Shamir, B. (1993), Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
Research: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, pp. 81-103.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide, Scientific Software,
Chicago, IL.
Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002), Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance,
Small Group Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 313-36.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), Building commitment, attachment,
and trust in strategic decision making teams: the role of procedural justice, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-84.
Lennings, C.J. (1994), An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 745-50.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), A review of current practice for evaluating
causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research,
Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.
Murphy, J. (1999), Building bridges to the 21st century, Fire Engineering, Vol. 152 No. 2,
pp. 8-10.
Nunally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
OReilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosaic behavior, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Pillai, R. and Williams, E.A. (1998), Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter
perceptions of candidates transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 US
Presidential vote, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 283-302.
Platt, J.R. (1964), Strong inference, Science, Vol. 146 No. 364, pp. 347-53.
Podsakoff, P.M. and McKenzie, S.B. (1997), Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership model:
background, empirical assessment, and suggestions for future research, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-33.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self reports in organizational leader reward and
punishment behavior and research: problems and prospects, Journal of Management,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 259-98.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, S.B. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.
Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Williams, M.L. (1993), Do substitutes for
leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermiers

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

situational leadership model, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,


Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-44.
Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R. (1993), Putting creativity to work: effects of
leader behavior on subordinate creativity, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 120-51.
Reichel, D. (1996), The roots of burnout, Emergency, Vol. 28, pp. 30-3.
Schunk, D.H. (1983), Progress self-monitoring: effects on childrens self-efficacy and
achievement, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 89-93.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M. (1993), The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
a self-concept based theory, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-94.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R. (1982),
The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation, Psychological Reports, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 663-71.
Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of a
controversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Ferry, D.L. (1980), Measuring and Assessing Organizations, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Widaman, K.F. (1985), Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait
multimethod data, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Zaccaro, S.J., Blair, V., Peterson, C. and Zazanis, M. (1995), Collective efficacy, in Maddux, J.E.
(Ed.), Self Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application,
Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 305-28.

Leadership,
self-efficacy and
cohesiveness
159

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:


1. Toby Hopp, Valerie Barker, Amy Schmitz Weiss. 2015. Interdependent Self-Construal, Self-Efficacy,
and Community Involvement as Predictors of Perceived Knowledge Gain Among MMORPG Players.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 18, 468-473. [CrossRef]
2. Kyujin Jung, Jesus N. Valero. 2015. Understanding and Meeting the Needs of Those Whom They Lead.
Public Administration Review n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
3. Xiangli Gu, Tao Zhang, Kayla Smith. 2015. PSYCHOSOCIAL PREDICTORS OF FEMALE
COLLEGE STUDENTS' MOTIVATIONAL RESPONSES: A PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS 1.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 120, 700-713. [CrossRef]
4. Kimberley D. Curtin, Krista J. Munroe-Chandler, Todd M. Loughead. 2015. Athletes imagery use from
a team-level perspective and team cohesion. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 1-17.
[CrossRef]
5. Jesus N. Valero, Kyujin Jung, Simon A. Andrew. 2015. Does transformational leadership build resilient
public and nonprofit organizations?. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal 24:1,
4-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Jae-Pil Ha, Jaehyun Ha. 2015. Organizational justiceaffective commitment relationship in a team sport
setting: The moderating effect of group cohesion. Journal of Management & Organization 21, 107-124.
[CrossRef]
7. Jana Mesterova, Jakub Prochazka, Martin Vaculik, Petr Smutny. 2015. Relationship between Self-Efficacy,
Transformational Leadership and Leader Effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Management Science 109-122.
[CrossRef]
8. Auli Airila, Jari J. Hakanen, Ritva Luukkonen, Sirpa Lusa, Anne Punakallio, Pivi Leino-Arjas. 2014.
Developmental trajectories of multisite musculoskeletal pain and depressive symptoms: The effects of job
demands and resources and individual factors. Psychology & Health 29, 1421-1441. [CrossRef]
9. Natashia Josephine Scully. 2014. Leadership in nursing: The importance of recognising inherent values
and attributes to secure a positive future for the profession. Collegian . [CrossRef]
10. Ilhami Yucel, Amy McMillan, Orlando C. Richard. 2014. Does CEO transformational leadership influence
top executive normative commitment?. Journal of Business Research 67, 1170-1177. [CrossRef]
11. Laura Sophie Fruhen, Nina Keith. 2014. Team cohesion and error culture in risky work environments.
Safety Science 65, 20-27. [CrossRef]
12. Adi Indrayanto, John Burgess, Kandy Dayaram, . 2014. A case study of transformational leadership and
para-police performance in Indonesia. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
37:2, 373-388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Ying-Pin Yeh. 2014. Exploring the impacts of employee advocacy on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: Case of Taiwanese airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 36, 94-100. [CrossRef]
14. Anne Lise Holm, Elisabeth Severinsson. 2014. Effective nursing leadership of older persons in the
community - a systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management 22:10.1111/jonm.2014.22.issue-2,
211-224. [CrossRef]
15. T. Cockcroft. 2014. Police Culture and Transformational Leadership: Outlining the Contours of a
Troubled Relationship. Policing 8, 5-13. [CrossRef]
16. Paul Michael Young, Alan St Clair Gibson, Elizabeth Partington, Sarah Partington, Mark Wetherell.
2013. Anxiety, stress, and perceived workload during the command and control of computer-simulated

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

fire service training environments. International Journal of Emergency Services 2:2, 119-130. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
17. Joseph A. Schafer. 2013. The role of trust and transparency in the pursuit of procedural and organisational
justice. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 8, 131-143. [CrossRef]
18. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Heiner Evanschitzky, John Rudd. 2013. Aligning employee service recovery
performance with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. Journal of Marketing Management
29, 981-1006. [CrossRef]
19. Karina Nielsen, Johan Simonsen Abildgaard. 2013. Organizational interventions: A research-based
framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work & Stress 27, 278-297. [CrossRef]
20. Julia E. Hoch. 2013. Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee
Integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology 28, 159-174. [CrossRef]
21. Daan van Knippenberg, Sim B. Sitkin. 2013. A Critical Assessment of CharismaticTransformational
Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?. The Academy of Management Annals 7, 1-60.
[CrossRef]
22. Julia E. Hoch, James H. Dulebohn. 2013. Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and
human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review 23, 114-125.
[CrossRef]
23. Silke Astrid Eisenbei, Sabine Boerner. 2013. A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and
Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management 24:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-1, 54-68. [CrossRef]
24. Beverly Alimo-MetcalfeA Critical Review of Leadership Theory 13-47. [CrossRef]
25. Torsten J. Holstad, Thomas Rigotti, Kathleen Otto. 2013. Prozedurale Fairness als Mediator zwischen
transformationaler Fhrung und psychischer Beanspruchung am Arbeitsplatz. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie A&O 57, 163-176. [CrossRef]
26. Minkyun Kim, Raj Sharman, Catherine P. Cook-Cottone, H. Raghav Rao, Shambhu J. Upadhyaya. 2012.
Assessing roles of people, technology and structure in emergency management systems: a public sector
perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology 31, 1147-1160. [CrossRef]
27. Auli Airila, Jari Hakanen, Anne Punakallio, Sirpa Lusa, Ritva Luukkonen. 2012. Is work engagement
related to work ability beyond working conditions and lifestyle factors?. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health 85, 915-925. [CrossRef]
28. Xavier Dumay, Benot Galand. 2012. The multilevel impact of transformational leadership on teacher
commitment: cognitive and motivational pathways. British Educational Research Journal 38, 703-729.
[CrossRef]
29. Jong-Seok Lee, Tae-Hyung Kim, Yong-John Shin. 2012. The Impact of Communication and Conflict
on Group Cohesiveness and Organization Effectiveness in Ship Organization. Journal of Korean navigation
and port research 36, 489-499. [CrossRef]
30. BaekKyoo (Brian) Joo, Hea Jun Yoon, ChangWook Jeung. 2012. The effects of core selfevaluations
and transformational leadership on organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 33:6, 564-582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Jun Ishikawa. 2012. Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles of norm for
maintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management
29, 265-283. [CrossRef]
32. Karina Nielsen, Kevin Daniels. 2012. Does shared and differentiated transformational leadership predict
followers' working conditions and well-being?. The Leadership Quarterly 23, 383-397. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

33. Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans. 2012. How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of
a consensus model. Human Resource Management 51:10.1002/hrm.v51.3, 361-385. [CrossRef]
34. Marco A. de Oliveira, Osmar Possamai, Luiz V.O. Dalla Valentina, Carlos A. Flesch. 2012. Applying
Bayesian networks to performance forecast of innovation projects: A case study of transformational
leadership influence in organizations oriented by projects. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 5061-5070.
[CrossRef]
35. Jun Ishikawa. 2012. Leadership and performance in Japanese R&D teams. Asia Pacific Business Review
18, 241-258. [CrossRef]
36. CHIN-YI CHEN, CHIN-YUAN YANG, CHUN-I LI. 2012. Spiritual Leadership, Follower Mediators,
and Organizational Outcomes: Evidence From Three Industries Across Two Major Chinese Societies1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42:10.1111/jasp.2012.42.issue-4, 890-938. [CrossRef]
37. Trker Kurt, Ibrahim Duyar, Temel alik. 2011. Are we legitimate yet?. Journal of Management
Development 31:1, 71-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Kyle Ehrhardt, Janice S. Miller, Sarah J. Freeman, Peter W. Hom. 2011. An examination of the
relationship between training comprehensiveness and organizational commitment: Further exploration
of training perceptions and employee attitudes. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22:10.1002/
hrdq.v22.4, 459-489. [CrossRef]
39. Marisa Salanova, Laura Lorente, Maria J. Chambel, Isabel M. Martnez. 2011. Linking transformational
leadership to nurses extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 67:10.1111/jan.2011.67.issue-10, 2256-2266. [CrossRef]
40. Jun Ishikawa. 2011. Leadership and performance in Japanese R&D teams. Asia Pacific Business Review
1-18. [CrossRef]
41. , Shin Hong Chul. 2011. A study on the Relationship among Hotel Employees' Personality
Type, Emotional Intelligence, Psychological Well-being and Job Performance. Jounal of Korea Service
Management Society 12, 57-86. [CrossRef]
42. Payyazhi Jayashree, Syed Jamal Hussain. 2011. Aligning change deployment: a Balanced Scorecard
approach. Measuring Business Excellence 15:3, 63-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Laura Illia, Marino Bonaiuto, Erica Pugliese, Johan van Rekom. 2011. Managing membership threats
through collective efficacy. Journal of Business Research 64, 631-639. [CrossRef]
44. Anyi Chung, IHeng Chen, Amber YunPing Lee, Hsien Chun Chen, Yingtzu Lin. 2011. Charismatic
leadership and selfleadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:3, 299-313. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
45. Rose Utley, Rachel Anderson, Jan Atwell. 2011. Implementing Transformational Leadership in LongTerm Care. Geriatric Nursing 32, 212-219. [CrossRef]
46. Manuel Carlos Vallejo. 2011. A model to study the organizational culture of the family firm. Small Business
Economics 36, 47-64. [CrossRef]
47. Mareen Sturm, Stephanie Reiher, Kathrin Heinitz, Renate Soellner. 2011. Transformationale,
transaktionale und passiv-vermeidende Fhrung. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O
55, 88-104. [CrossRef]
48. Jiayan Liu, Oi-Ling Siu, Kan Shi. 2010. Transformational Leadership and Employee Well-Being:
The Mediating Role of Trust in the Leader and Self-Efficacy. Applied Psychology 59:10.1111/
apps.2010.59.issue-3, 454-479. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

49. Laura Borgogni, Laura Petitta, Andrea Mastrorilli. 2010. Correlates of Collective Efficacy in the Italian
Air Force. Applied Psychology 59:10.1111/apps.2010.59.issue-3, 515-537. [CrossRef]
50. Sabine Korek, Jrg Felfe, Ute Zaepernick-Rothe. 2010. Transformational leadership and commitment:
A multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating processes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 19, 364-387. [CrossRef]
51. F. K. Marsh. 2010. High Performance Team: Building a Business Program With Part- and Full-Time
Faculty. Journal of Education for Business 85, 187-194. [CrossRef]
52. Karina Nielsen, Joanna Yarker, Raymond Randall, Fehmidah Munir. 2009. The mediating effects of
team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International
Journal of Nursing Studies 46, 1236-1244. [CrossRef]
53. Nikolaos Panagopoulos, Sergios Dimitriadis. 2009. Transformational leadership as a mediator of the
relationship between behaviorbased control and salespeople's key outcomes. European Journal of
Marketing 43:7/8, 1008-1031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Milly Casey-Campbell, Martin L. Martens. 2009. Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of
the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 11:10.1111/
ijmr.2009.11.issue-2, 223-246. [CrossRef]
55. Simon A. Moss, Nicki Dowling, John Callanan. 2009. Towards an integrated model of leadership and self
regulation. The Leadership Quarterly 20, 162-176. [CrossRef]
56. Laura Borgogni, Silvia Dello Russo, Laura Petitta, Gary P. Latham. 2009. Collective Efficacy and
Organizational Commitment in an Italian City Hall. European Psychologist 14, 363-371. [CrossRef]
57. Sean T. Hannah, Bruce J. Avolio, Fred Luthans, P.D. Harms. 2008. Leadership efficacy: Review and
future directions. The Leadership Quarterly 19, 669-692. [CrossRef]
58. Karina Nielsen, Joanna Yarker, Sten-Olof Brenner, Raymond Randall, Vilhelm Borg. 2008. The
importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees working with older
people. Journal of Advanced Nursing 63:10.1111/jan.2008.63.issue-5, 465-475. [CrossRef]
59. Manuel Carlos Vallejo. 2008. Is the Culture of Family Firms Really Different? A Value-based Model for
Its Survival through Generations. Journal of Business Ethics 81, 261-279. [CrossRef]
60. Esther Lpez-Zafra, Rocio Garcia-Retamero, Jos M. Augusto Landa. 2008. The role of transformational
leadership, emotional intelligence, and group cohesiveness on leadership emergence. Journal of Leadership
Studies 2:10.1002/jls.v2:3, 37-49. [CrossRef]
61. Masuma Bahora, Sonya Hanafi, Victoria H. Chien, Michael T. Compton. 2008. Preliminary Evidence
of Effects of Crisis Intervention Team Training on Self-Efficacy and Social Distance. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 35, 159-167. [CrossRef]
62. Robin F. Goodman, Elissa J. Brown. 2008. Service and Science in Times of Crisis: Developing, Planning,
and Implementing a Clinical Research Program for Children Traumatically Bereaved After 9/11. Death
Studies 32, 154-180. [CrossRef]
63. Lavinia Cicero, Antonio Pierro. 2007. Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating
role of employees' workgroup identification. International Journal of Psychology 42, 297-306. [CrossRef]
64. John W. Whiteoak. 2007. The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and
Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups. Journal of Business and Psychology 22, 11-20. [CrossRef]
65. G. Maxwell, S. Ogden. 2006. Career development of female managers in retailing: Inhibitors and enablers.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 111-120. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 20:50 04 October 2015 (PT)

66. Olugbenga Jelil Ladebo. 2006. PERCEPTIONS OF TRUST AND EMPLOYEES ATTITUDES:
A LOOK AT NIGERIAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORKERS. Journal of Business and
Psychology 20, 409-427. [CrossRef]
67. Hettie A. Richardson, Robert J. Vandenberg. 2005. Integrating managerial perceptions and
transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26:10.1002/job.v26:5, 561-589. [CrossRef]

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi