The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l e a q u a

Empowering leadership: An examination of mediating mechanisms within a

hierarchical structure
Robert P. Vecchio a, Joseph E. Justin b, Craig L. Pearce b,⁎
a
University of Notre Dame, United States
b
Claremont Graduate University, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Drawing from recent theory and research on empowerment and resistance, data on leader
Leadership
behaviors and follower responses were collected from superior–subordinate dyads in 179
Empowerment
public high schools. Structural equation modeling revealed that empowering leadership was
Empowering leadership
Performance
associated with higher employee performance and satisfaction, as well as reduced
Satisfaction dysfunctional resistance. Also, employee dysfunctional resistance partially mediated the
Resistance relationship of empowering leadership with (a) employee performance and (b) employee
satisfaction. These results are interpreted as supportive of a perspective that endorses the
utility of empowering leadership at the dyadic level within a hierarchical power structure.
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Recent decades have witnessed the rise of employee empowerment (Lawler, Mohrman, & Benson, 2001; Spreitzer, in press).
This movement is based on the notion that employees who are given greater opportunities for self-direction will manifest superior
outcomes, such as higher levels of job performance and job satisfaction. Along with efforts to infuse empowerment through the
fundamental redesign of job attributes (i.e., by altering contextual features so as to provide for more self-pacing and independent
decision making, Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kirkman & Rosen, 1997; Spreitzer, 1996, in press; Stewart, 2006; Thomas & Velthouse,
1990), it has been argued that the redesign of leader–subordinate power-relations can also achieve workplace gains (Arnold, Arad,
Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Bennis & Townsend, 1997; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
Within the field of leadership, this movement is also partially manifested in such notions as “SuperLeadership” where superiors
are encouraged to “lead others to lead themselves” (Manz & Sims, 1990, 1995, 2001), and “shared leadership” where superiors are
encouraged to deliberately share or distribute responsibility among members of a workgroup (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Carson,
Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Pearce and Conger (2003, p. 1) define shared leadership as an interactive
influence process among a set of individuals that reflects a broad distribution of influence among the group members. As such,
shared leadership is arguably a matter of degree and can also be manifest in settings that are inherently hierarchical in nature.
Whether shared leadership is demonstrably related to superior workplace outcomes is, however, still very much open to question,
as (e.g.) there may be settings wherein shared leadership is not the optimal approach (Locke, 2003). As observed by Locke (p. 273–
276), successful organizational entities typically retain some elements of hierarchical control. Related research on “empowering
leadership” (Arnold et al., 2000; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006; Pearce et al., 2003; Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006) has
deliberately focused on teams and team environments. Yet, the content of scale items developed explicitly to measure
empowering leadership and shared leadership are also relevant to leader–subordinate relations in more traditional hierarchical
work settings (Arnold et al., 2000, pp. 268–269). And, as observed by Arnold et al. (2000, p. 351), considerable conceptual overlap
exists among various scales that have been developed to assess aspects of leader behavior that relate to aspects of empowerment.

⁎ Corresponding author. Present address: Institute for Innovative Leadership, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588 United States. Tel.: +1 402 472 0291.
E-mail address: craig.l.pearce@gmail.com (C.L. Pearce).

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.014
 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542 531

1. Empowering leadership and employee outcomes

As stated by Liu, Lepak, Takeuchi, and Sims (2003), empowering leadership is a style of leadership that targets employees to
develop self-control and to act on their own. Empowering leadership can be viewed, therefore, as essentially an approach that offers
prescriptions to leaders for arranging the distribution and exercise of power. The historical and theoretical underpinnings of this
approach are manifold. For example, one can identify notions of power sharing in behavioral self-management theory (Thorenson &
Mahoney, 1974; Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1989), situational leadership theory (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1969), distributed versus focused leadership (Gibb, 1954), leader–member exchange theory (Graen, 1976; Graen & Graen,
2006), the normative participation models of Vroom–Yetton–Jago (Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Vroom & Jago, 1995), Likert's systems of
participative management (Likert, 1961, 1967), and cognitive behavior modification research (Meichenbaum, 1977). A further
theoretical vein that relates to empowering employees can be identified in the “substitutes for leadership” notions of Kerr and Jermier
(1978), who argued that employees who subscribe to professional standards and values should have a reduced need for a supervisory
figure (as such employees are essentially self-managed). More recent statements of “shared leadership” (cf. Avolio, Jung, Murry, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims, 2000; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi,
2004) and “empowering leadership” (Arnold et al., 2000; Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005; Srivastava et al., 2006) posit the value of
fostering employee self-directedness. As noted by Spreitzer and Doneson (2008), these two research streams essentially complement
one another. In accord with the definitions offered by Carson et al. (2007, p. 1218) and Srivastava et al. (2006, p. 1240), we presently
define empowering leadership as behaviors that share power with subordinates. The sharing of power such that self-directedness is
enhanced should reasonably be expected to generate a higher level of subordinate performance. Also, greater self-directness resulting
from empowerment should be associated with superior subordinate attitudinal response (i.e., higher job satisfaction).
While there has been substantial prior research on various aspects of power sharing (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, &
Jennings, 1988; Ledford & Lawler, 1994; Spreitzer, 1995, 1996; Vandenberg, Richardson, & Eastman, 1999), empirical demonstrations
of the unique value of utilizing leader behaviors to foster empowerment within traditional work settings has been largely the focus of
more contemporary research. Often, studies of workgroups or student groups (e.g., Avolio et al., 1996; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Srivastava
et al., 2006) have reported the superiority of empowerment (either as a direct or indirect effect). However, short of creating genuine
team structures (where positive process gains can be shown, Kauffeld, 2006), the notion that superiors can work toward sharing
power through the encouragement of self-direction with specific employees has not been as often the focus of more recent empirical
research. In a pioneering study in this area, Manz and Sims (1987) provided some of the first evidence on specific leader behaviors that
were empowering in nature. However, the items in their measure of leader behavior (p. 127) asked respondents to describe the
behavior of their leader toward their entire group (i.e., in accordance with an average-leadership-style approach, cf. Dansereau, Graen,
& Haga, 1975; Dienesch & Liden, 1986) rather than toward each individual. Further important early research on work teams by Susan
Cohen and her associates (Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Cohen & Bailey, 1997) has laid the foundation for
examining empowering leadership within self-managed teams, as well as within more traditional workgroups. Also, good conceptual
arguments for an individual-level dynamic have been offered (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1989; Kirkman & Rosen, 1997, 1999;
Spreitzer, 1995, 1996). The presently suggested alternative approach, that focuses on the impact of developing leader–subordinate
relations at the dyadic level (rather than on the impact of introducing a team structure) is of some practical importance as many work
settings continue the tradition of relying on a hierarchical power structure and are not likely to move in the relatively radical direction
of creating a genuine self-managed team structure (i.e., where team leadership is rotated or elected, and job cross-training is
encouraged). For example, it is important to recall that (a) most private-sector employees in North America and Great Britain work in
small-business settings (Headd, 2000; National Federation of Independent Business, 2007; Royal Bank of Canada, 2005; Federation of
Small Businesses, 2006) where the owner/operators are likely to be reluctant to adopt more radical forms of power sharing, and (b)
employees in governmental positions are not likely to be offered opportunities to be a part of a team culture because of inherent
bureaucratic controls. Therefore, the study of power sharing within leader–subordinate dyads located within a traditional hierarchical
structure is of considerable practical interest and importance. More specifically, the present study sought to examine empirically
whether leader efforts directed toward employee empowerment within a traditional hierarchical structure are linked with individual
employee performance and satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1. Empowering leadership will exhibit a positive relationship with employee (a) performance and (b) job satisfaction.

The present study also examined the role of employee resistance to a leader in conjunction with empowering leadership. The
impact of empowerment on forms of employee resistance, be they dysfunctional or constructive in nature, represents a gap in the
domain of leadership research. Employee resistance may be defined as a set of responses to a supervisor's influence attempts that
includes degrees of both cooperativeness, i.e., constructive resistance, and opposition, i.e., dysfunctional resistance (cf. Tepper, Duffy, &
Shaw, 2001, p. 975). While it is initially anticipated that empowering leadership would facilitate performance and satisfaction, as well
as impact both forms of employee resistance, it is not altogether a certainty that empowering leadership will have uniformly positive
effects across a range of outcomes. Also, it is important to note that prior studies of employee resistance have generally focused on
negative features of leaders, where resistance is viewed as a likely response to aversive action by the leader (Ashforth, 1994; Pearce &
Giacalone, 2003). While the study of employee resistance to aversive leadership is of importance, it does not in itself provide especially
useful insights on how to manage employee resistance in a pro-active manner (beyond merely suggesting that a leader should be less
oppressive). An empowering style of leadership, where the leader seeks to develop the employee, has not been studied in connection
with employee resistance. As a result, it is also one of our intended contributions to determine whether an empowering style of
532 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

leadership can help manage employee resistance. Therefore, the present study also offers an original investigation of the potential
interplay of two contemporary streams of research: empowering leadership and employee resistance.

Hypothesis 2. Empowering leadership will be (a) positively related to functional employee resistance and (b) inversely related to
dysfunctional employee resistance.

2. Employee resistance as a mediating mechanism

Leadership in a hierarchical system involves, arguably, downward influence attempts that are intended to drive performance. While
employee responses to these attempts at social influence should ideally reflect greater commitment or at least compliance, they
sometimes reflect resistance (Barry & Watson, 1996; Yukl, Fu, & McDonald, 2003). As noted above, Tepper et al. (2001) have defined two
subdimensions of employee resistance: functional (or constructive) resistance that reflects efforts to open a dialogue with the supervisor
(by requesting clarification and negotiation), and dysfunctional resistance that reflects defiance (by acting as if one did not hear the
request or acting as if one has forgotten the request). Dysfunctional employee resistance is particularly challenging for supervisors as it
has the potential to disrupt work flow, create more work for the more cooperative subordinates, and takes time, energy, and attention
from other issues (see Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Constructive employee resistance is presumed to be a preferred employee response as it
offers the chance to maintain and improve working relations, while keeping the focus on work accomplishment.
As noted earlier, empowering leadership should have particular relevance to employee resistance in that supervisors who
foster greater subordinate self-direction should see less dysfunctional, and more constructive, responses from their subordinates.
Supervisors who encourage self-management should have employees who are more open to dialogue and negotiation as this is the
basis of social interaction for such leaders when dealing with their followers. Similarly, such leaders should have less dysfunctional
resistance as the increased empowerment of employees does not relieve the employees of their responsibility to be positive
contributors. As a further consequence, lower dysfunctional employee resistance and higher constructive employee resistance
should be positively related to employee performance and satisfaction. Although a number of correlates of employee resistance
have been identified (Tepper et al., 2001), the dependent variable of employee performance has not received substantial empirical
attention within this emerging literature (Tepper et al., 2006).
The predicted linkages between forms of employee resistance and such employee outcomes as performance and satisfaction,
however, may only reflect a portion of a larger social dynamic, one that is driven initially by power sharing. Stated another way,
empowering leader behavior will likely impact employee resistance (modifying both dysfunctional and constructive responses).
Resistance, in turn, will be manifested in an employee's work contributions and should, subsequently, be reflected in differences in
supervisor ratings or individual employee performance. We should, therefore, expect to find that the relationship of leadership and
employee performance is mediated by the nature of employee resistance. Similarly, resistance on the part of the employee should be
manifested in an employee's attitudes toward the job, as indexed by self-reports of satisfaction. Moreover, prior mediational research
on empowering leadership has reported partial (rather than full) mediation (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Srivastava et al., 2006). Hence, we
may reasonably anticipate that evidence of mediation will be partial, rather than full (i.e., empowering leadership will manifest direct
associations with performance and satisfaction, yet have a mediated impact on these outcomes via forms of employee resistance).

Hypothesis 3. The relationship between empowering leadership and employee performance will be partially mediated by (a)
functional employee resistance and (b) dysfunctional employee resistance.

Hypothesis 4. The relationship between empowering leadership and employee satisfaction will be partially mediated by (a)
functional employee resistance and (b) dysfunctional employee resistance.

3. Performance and satisfaction

Finally, there is good evidence that employee performance and satisfaction are linked, such that job performance more typically
drives job satisfaction (rather than vice versa). Porter and Lawler's (1968) model of employee behavior was perhaps the first clear
statement of how performance may influence employee satisfaction reactions. In their model, they make a strong case for how it is likely
that performance (via rewards) can more easily drive satisfaction responses, than employee satisfaction can drive performance. Although
a mechanism for performance being a function of satisfaction is still feasible, this alternative causal connection between these constructs
is more circuitous, and less likely to be evidenced, than as originally proposed. Given prior evidence in support of this proposed dynamic
(Greene, 1973; Kopelman, 1979; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984; Judge, Thoreson, Bono, & Patton, 2001),
the present study offers the further hypothesis that employee job satisfaction will be a function of employee job performance.

Hypothesis 5. Employee satisfaction will be a consequence of employee performance.

4. Method

4.1. Sample and procedure

Leadership within public high schools was selected for study, as such locations meet the criteria of offering opportunities for
leaders to empower employees as well as to be abusive (Blasé & Blasé, 2002). As argued by Liu et al. (2003), certain settings
 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542 533

(especially knowledge-based and professional in nature) may be more appropriate than others for revealing the true positive
potential of empowerment via leader behavior. In addition, a recent Academy of Management Journal Forum (2005) called for
greater research on public schools, with particular emphasis on the potential value of decentralizing authority within a
traditionally hierarchical power structure. Moreover, public high schools are representative of the types of organizations that are
neither capable of nor willing to (for a variety of reasons) transform themselves into a radical form of self-managed team structure,
but that could potentially benefit from greater power sharing within their traditional structure. In this regard, public high schools
are representative of many forms of work settings wherein power sharing is likely to be dyadic, but limited, in nature. While it is
recognized that teachers do perform some tasks in groups, their role is still fairly individualistic in nature, and the potential of
principals as leaders to provide a positive impact on teachers is of considerable interest in the education literature (Barnett,
McCormick, & Conners, 2001; Eden, 1998; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1997; Moye, Henkin, & Egley, 2005).
The specific method employed to conduct this research consisted of mailing questionnaires directly to high school principals
and to all department heads (a.k.a. “lead”) teachers at those schools whose principal returned a questionnaire.1 Starting randomly,
every 10th high school of the California high school system was selected for surveying (California Department of Education, 2001),
recycling through the list of schools until a minimum sample of 200 principals was attained. Of 491 questionnaire surveys that
were ultimately mailed to principals, 223 (45.4%) were returned. A total of 1060 confidential questionnaires were mailed to the
department head (lead) teachers for those principals who had confidentially responded (the average high school normally has five
lead positions). Of these, a total of 342 teachers responded (32.3%). As the present analyses were at the dyadic level of interaction
between a principal and a head/lead teacher, a sample of 179 principal–teacher dyads from 179 distinct schools was randomly
selected from dyads where complete data were available (via a sampling procedure based on a table of random numbers,
Lindquist, 1940).2 The average ages for the principals and teachers in these dyads were 52.18 and 48.17 years, respectively, with a
near equivalence of men and women among the teachers (51.4% male) and two-thirds of the principals being male (67.8% male).

4.2. Measures

The principal's questionnaire asked for ratings of the performance of each departmental head (or lead) teacher within the five
mandated instructional areas of English, History, Mathematics, Physical Education, and Science. Although the instructional areas of
the lead teachers differed, it was believed (after interviewing a sample of eight school system administrators, principals, and
teachers) that the overall job content and performance was sufficiently similar that a common metric could be used to assess
individual teacher performance. The specific items that were completed by the principal asked for ratings of each head/lead
teacher on three issues that measured overall employee performance, adapted from a scale developed by MacKenzie, Podsakoff,
and Fetter (1991) (“This person is one of my best teachers,” “All things considered, this teacher is outstanding,” and “All things
considered, this teacher performs his/her job the way I like to see it performed,” response options, 1 = Strongly Disagree,
2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree; Cronbach alpha = 0.93).
For each principal who responded to the survey, a separate personally-addressed questionnaire was subsequently mailed
directly to the department head/lead respondent. The questionnaire focused on the leadership style of the principal and the work
reactions of the teacher. A ten-item scale, using modified items described by Manz and Sims (1987, 1990, 1995) and previously
employed in empirical research on empowering leadership by Pearce and Sims (2002), provided a measure of the construct of
empowering leadership from an individualized (i.e., dyadic, Dansereau, 1995; Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000)
perspective (see Appendix A). These items were selected because they represent such critical and relevant elements as (a)
encouragement of independent employee behavior (sample item: “Encourages me to find solutions to my problems without his/
her direct input”), (b) the fostering of opportunistic thinking (sample item: “Urges me to think of problems as opportunities rather
than obstacles”), and (c) the promotion of cooperative action (sample item: “Urges me to work as a team with the other teachers
who work at the school”). Items for the leadership measure employed a 5-point response scale (1 = Strongly Disagree,
2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree; Cronbach alpha = 0.90).3
Questions pertaining to employee resistance were taken from published works by Tepper et al. (1998, 2001). Tepper,
Eisenbach, Kirby, and Porter (1998) reported supportive evidence of the construct validity of their measures of resistance (e.g.,
high internal reliability, a two-factor confirmatory factor structure). In the present study, the teachers were asked to report how
frequently they did not comply with what their principal had requested. This technique of self-reporting has been used
successfully in prior studies of incidences of resistance (Tepper et al., 2001). As mentioned earlier, employee resistance was

1
Lead teachers act as liaisons between the principals and the rank-and-file teachers, and typically oversee a broad range of assignments related to the
educational mission (e.g., curriculum development and delivery, and communication with students, parents, business partners, and other teachers). Commonly,
release time and a modest stipend are provided for handling these added responsibilities.
2
One leader–subordinate dyad was also selected from the set of respondents at each institution in order to avoid potential problems associated with
nonindependence of descriptions of a common leader. This sampling approach was employed because nested data structures can generate parameter estimates
that are incorrect (Bliese, 2000; Bliese & Hanges, 2004; Hofmann, 1997; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
3
As the items in the empowering leadership scale incorporated an individualized format (where each respondent described how the leader acted toward him/
her as an individual), it would not be expected that these responses would necessarily reflect a high degree of within-school agreement. To explore this issue,
average deviation (AD) values were calculated for the entire sample of respondents. Because other agreement indices, e.g. rwg, may not be optimal for evaluating
inter-rater agreement with very small numbers per group and as directly interpretable, AD values provide unique advantages (see Burke & Dunlap, 2002; Burke,
Finkelstein, & Dusig, 1999; Dunlap, Burke, & Smith-Crowe, 2003; Smith-Crowe & Burke, 2003). The resultant scale AD values, which are given in terms of the
original item metric, were 0.57 (for AD-means) and 0.48 (for AD-medians). These values suggest an acceptable, albeit not extremely high, level of within-school
agreement in the descriptions of each principal.
534 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among variables.

Variable Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Empowering leadership 37.94 6.18 (0.90)

2. Performance 12.59 2.78 0.33** (0.93)
3. Job satisfaction 13.44 2.06 0.28** 0.26** (0.78)
4. Dysfunctional resistance 8.71 3.34 −0.40** −0.27** −0.37** (0.83)
5. Functional resistance 12.25 3.82 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.09 (0.77)

Note: Internal reliabilities are listed on the primary diagonal.

**p b 0.01.

measured on two separate scales, a 6-item scale for dysfunctional resistance (sample items: “I ignore the person and do what I
want to do anyway,” “I act like I don't know about it;” Cronbach alpha = 0.83) and a 4-item scale for functional (or constructive)
resistance (sample items: “I explain that it should be done a different way,” and “I present logical reasons for doing the task
differently or at a different time;” Cronbach alpha = 0.77). Response options included: 1 = I cannot remember using this tactic,
2 = I very seldom use this tactic, 3 = I occasionally use this tactic, 4 = I use this tactic moderately often, and 5 = I use this tactic very
often.
All teachers were also asked to respond to a three-item measure of job satisfaction developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,
and Klesh (1983) (sample item: “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”). The response options for this measure were: 1 = Very
Inaccurate, 2 = Moderately Inaccurate, 3 = Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate, 4 = Moderately Accurate, 5 = Very Accurate
(Cronbach alpha = 0.78).
The factor structure of the empowering leadership scale was examined to determine whether a single factor underlies the ten
items (as, e.g., Ahearne et al., 2005, used a multi-dimensional measure of empowering leadership, but found that a single
underlying dimension was a more appropriate representation of the construct). For the present data, a principal axis factoring
analysis (using SPSS, version 14.0) yielded a single major factor, accounting for 47.43% of the variance. Parallel analysis (Horn,
1965; Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004) and a scree plot of the eigenvalues identified only a single factor. Therefore, a single
composite score was created for the construct of empowering leadership by summing over all items.
Because of Tepper et al.'s (2001) contention that resistance is essentially two-dimensional, a confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to test the proposed two-factor view of resistance. Specifically, the results for a single-factor model (in which all ten
resistance items loaded on a single, common factor) were contrasted with the results for a two-factor model (in which the six
designated dysfunctional resistance items loaded on one factor and the four functional resistance items loaded on a second factor).
The contrasting results (obtained via the AMOS package, Arbuckle and Wothke, 1999; Bryne, 2001) revealed a superior fit for the
two-factor model versus the single-factor model (Single-factor Model: χ2 = 385.88, p b 0.01, normed fit index = 0.89, relative fit
index = 0.83, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.85, comparative fit index = 0.90 , root mean square error of approximation = 0.24; Two-

Fig. 1. Initial hypothesized model relating empowering leadership, employee resistance, performance, and satisfaction (nine paths).
 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542 535

factor Model: χ2 = 72.69, p b 0.01, normed fit index = 0.98, relative fit index = 0.97, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.98, comparative fit
index = 0.99, rmsea = 0.08; Δ χ2 = 313.19, p b 0.01). Also, the lambda parameters for the two-factor model were all significant
(p b 0.01) and ranged from 0.40 to 0.87.

5. Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and internal reliabilities (Cronbach, 1951) for the variables of
interest. Significant correlations were identified for empowering leadership with leader ratings of employee performance
(r = 0.33, p b 0.01), job satisfaction (r = 0.28, p b 0.01), and dysfunctional resistance (r = − 0.40, p b 0.01). However, functional
resistance was not related to empowering leadership (r = 0.08, n.s.). Also, ratings of employee performance were significantly
correlated with reports of job satisfaction (r = 0.26, p b 0.01).
Structural equation modeling was used to test the model that is implicit in the five hypotheses. Specifically, nine pathways, or
links, were identified that connected: (1) empowering leadership to satisfaction; (2) empowering leadership to performance; (3)
empowering leadership to functional resistance; (4) empowering leadership to dysfunctional resistance; (5) functional resistance
to satisfaction; (6) functional resistance to performance; (7) dysfunctional resistance to satisfaction; (8) dysfunctional resistance
to performance; and (9) performance to satisfaction. These nine paths, which represent the full set of hypotheses, are portrayed in
Fig. 1. Fig. 1, therefore, may be labeled the initial hypothesized model.
Structural equation modeling is divided into two parts: the estimation of a measurement model and the estimation of a
structural model. The measurement model examines the relationships between the measured variables and the latent variables,
while the structural model examines the relationships among the latent variables. In the present study, the items of the respective
scales were taken as indicators of each latent variable. Following a successful demonstration that the items load on their respective
latent variable, the parameters of the pathways are tested for statistical significance, and the overall structural model is evaluated

Table 2
Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates, and significance levels for model in Fig. 1 (N = 179).

Pathways Structural model estimates

Unstandardized SE Standardized Critical ratio p≤

Empowering → satisfaction 0.075 0.028 0.073 2.641 0.008

Empowering → functional 0.060 0.043 0.060 1.417 0.156
Empowering → dysfunctional − 0.164 0.049 −0.162 − 3.349 0.001
Empowering → performance 0.196 0.057 0.189 3.466 0.001
Functional → satisfaction 0.025 0.022 0.025 1.160 0.246
Functional → performance 0.016 0.030 0.015 0.532 0.595
Dysfunctional → satisfaction − 0.103 0.035 −0.102 − 2.980 0.003
Dysfunctional → performance − 0.166 0.054 −0.162 − 3.073 0.002
Performance → satisfaction 0.109 0.040 0.111 2.696 0.007

Construct Items Measurement model estimates

Empowering leadership Emp. 1 1.000

Emp. 2 0.489 0.163 2.998 0.003
Emp. 3 1.008 0.238 4.239 0.001
Emp. 4 1.183 0.264 4.484 0.001
Emp. 5 1.194 0.252 4.734 0.001
Emp. 6 0.638 0.202 3.159 0.002
Emp. 7 0.952 0.228 4.176 0.001
Emp. 8 1.162 0.277 4.191 0.001
Emp. 9 0.615 0.193 3.186 0.001
Emp. 10 1.354 0.293 4.616 0.001
Dysfunctional resistance Dys. 1 1.000
Dys. 2 0.455 0.141 3.216 0.001
Dys. 3 0.937 0.164 5.722 0.001
Dys. 4 1.197 0.211 5.666 0.001
Dys. 5 0.456 0.145 3.142 0.002
Dys. 6 0.584 0.151 3.873 0.001
Functional resistance Funct. 1 1.000
Funct. 2 1.887 1.006 1.875 0.061
Funct. 3 − 0.107 0.600 − 0.178 0.086
Funct. 4 0.584 0.151 3.873 0.001
Performance Perf. 1 1.000
Perf. 2 0.727 0.099 7.333 0.001
Perf. 3 0.842 0.087 9.672 0.001
Satisfaction Sat. 1 1.000
Sat. 2 1.039 0.239 4.343 0.001
Sat. 3 1.517 0.303 5.010 0.001

Note: χ2 = 280.04, df = 223, p = 0.006; RMSEA = 0.038.

536 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

Fig. 2. Trimmed model with standardized parameter estimates: six paths (**denotes p b 0.01).

for degree of fit. Finally, modifications in the model may be made based on the available evidence of parameter significance and
degree of model fit.
The results of the test of the initial hypothesized model for the sample of 179 respondents are given in Table 2. As all of the
items were associated with their respective latent variables, the parameter estimates for the pathways were then examined. Of the
nine hypothesized links, six were statistically significant. All of the three non-significant pathways pertained to the functional
employee resistance variable as either an antecedent or outcome.
Because the latent variable of functional resistance did not demonstrate significant associations in the test of the initial model, a
trimmed model was then created and tested (see Fig. 2). In the trimmed model, six pathways were tested (along with the
measurement model for the relevant scales items, the results of which are not displayed here but are available upon request
author). The resulting parameter estimates are given in Table 3. For all six pathways, the parameter estimates were statistically
significant. Moreover, the model's fit was found to be somewhat improved (as indicated by a significant reduction in chi-square;
change in chi-square of = 280.04 − 172.60 = 107.44, exceeding the critical chi-square of 103.01 for degrees of freedom for the
difference = 223 − 142 = 81). Although there was a significant reduction in chi-square, it is important to note that the trimmed
model, like the initial model, also had a significant overall chi-square (suggesting poorness-of-fit, and that the initial model could
possibly be improved, Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The root mean square error of approximation for both the initial
and trimmed model were acceptable (RMSEA initial = 0.038, lower bound = 0.022, upper bound = 0.051; RMSEA
trimmed = 0.040, lower bound = 0.020, upper bound = 0.056). The normed fit index, the incremental fit index, and the
Tucker–Lewis fit index for both models similarly suggested acceptable fit (NFI, IFI, and TLI, initial = 0.980, 0.996, and 0.993;
trimmed = 0.985, 0.997, and 0.997). In sum, the SEM analysis indicated support for Hypothesis 1a (empowering leadership was
associated with satisfaction); Hypothesis 1b (empowering leadership was associated with performance); Hypothesis 2b
(empowering leadership was inversely associated with dysfunctional resistance); Hypothesis 3b (dysfunctional resistance was

Table 3
Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates and significance levels for trimmed model in Fig. 2 (N = 179).

Pathways Structural model estimates

Unstandardized SE Standardized Critical ratio p≤

Empowering → satisfaction 0.100 0.032 0.098 3.120 0.002

Empowering → dysfunctional − 0.220 0.050 − 0.215 − 4.374 0.001
Empowering → performance 0.255 0.055 0.243 4.632 0.001
Dysfunctional → satisfaction − 0.084 0.030 − 0.085 − 2.794 0.005
Dysfunctional → performance − 0.134 0.047 − 0.131 − 2.821 0.005
Performance → satisfaction 0.098 0.038 0.100 2.573 0.010

Note: χ2 = 172.60, df = 142, p = .012; RMSEA = .040.

 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542 537

Table 4
Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates and significance levels for model in Fig. 1 with hold-out sample (N = 110).

Pathways Structural model estimates

Unstandardized SE Standardized Critical ratio p≤

Empowering → satisfaction 0.230 0.061 0.219 3.786 0.001

Empowering → functional − 0.021 0.052 − 0.021 − 0.407 0.684
Empowering → dysfunctional − 0.373 0.083 − 0.349 − 4.495 0.001
Empowering → performance 0.214 0.077 0.209 2.785 0.005
Functional → satisfaction − 0.020 0.049 − 0.019 − 0.408 0.683
Functional → performance − 0.007 0.019 − 0.007 − 0.375 0.708
Dysfunctional → satisfaction − 0.100 0.048 − 0.101 − 2.093 0.036
Dysfunctional → performance 0.019 0.046 0.020 0.419 0.675
Performance → satisfaction 0.090 0.045 0.087 2.005 0.045

Note: χ2 = 274.30, df = 223, p = 0.011; RMSEA = 0.046.

inversely associated with performance); Hypothesis 4b (dysfunctional resistance was inversely associated with job satisfaction);
and Hypothesis 5 (job performance was associated with job satisfaction). Fig. 2 portrays the pathways of the trimmed model with
the obtained standardized parameters estimates.
As a further check on the reliability of the present findings, a hold-out sample was tested with the same structural equation
procedures. Specifically, 110 teacher-principal dyads were selected from among those not included in the initial analyses. These
110 dyads were again selected so as to be unique members of their respective institutions (i.e., each teacher was associated with a
single principal). The same initial hypothesized model, consisting of nine pathways, was again tested with a SEM approach (i.e.,
Fig. 1). Table 4 summarizes the results from the structural model estimation (the measurement model item estimates were again
all significant and associated with their respective scales). The pattern of significant parameter estimates essentially replicated
that found for the original sample, with the notable exception that the pathway from dysfunctional resistance to performance was
no longer significant. The overall model had reasonable fit, as indicated by a RMSEA of 0.046, with a lower bound of 0.023 and an
upper bound of 0.063. Plus, the NFI, IFI, and TLI were 0.968, 0.994, and 0.990, respectively. The overall chi-square was 274.28, with
df = 223, p = 0.011.
To test whether the results of the earlier trimmed model could be replicated, the hold-out sample was tested for fit with the six-
pathway model presented in Fig. 3. The results for a test of the trimmed model are given in Table 5. For this analysis, five of the six
pathways were found to be significant (with the pathway from dysfunctional resistance to performance being non-significant in
the hold-out sample, see Fig. 3 for a portrayal of the pathways and the obtained standardized estimates). The overall fit of this
trimmed model for the hold-out sample, however, was relatively superior. For example, the overall chi-square was no longer
statistically significant (chi-square = 167.99, df = 141, p = 0.060, indicating a good fit) and the RMSEA was .042 (lower

Fig. 3. Trimmed model with standardized parameter estimates for hold-out sample: six paths (*denotes p b 0.05, **denotes p b 0.01).
538 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

Table 5
Unstandardized and standardized parameter estimates and significance levels for trimmed model in Fig. 2 with hold-out sample (N = 110).

Pathways Structural model estimates

Unstandardized SE Standardized Critical ratio p≤

Empowering → satisfaction 0.234 0.062 0.233 3.787 0.001

Empowering → dysfunctional − 0.379 0.084 − 0.355 − 4.538 0.001
Empowering → performance 0.215 0.078 0.211 2.773 0.006
Dysfunctional → satisfaction − 0.106 0.050 − 0.108 − 2.141 0.032
Dysfunctional → performance 0.025 0.046 0.026 0.531 0.596
Performance → satisfaction 0.089 0.045 0.223 1.993 0.046

Note: χ2 = 167.99, df = 141, p = 0.060; RMSEA = 0.042.

bound = 0.000, upper bound = 0.064). Also, the NFI, IFI, and TLI were .977, .996, and .993, respectively. Further, the reduction in
chi-square from the initial model to the trimmed model was significant (274.28 − 167.99 = 106.29, exceeding the critical chi-
square value of 103.01 for df for the difference = 223 − 142 = 81). Hence, we can conclude that five of the six pathways identified
as significant in the test of the initial hypothesized model could be replicated with a hold-out sample.

6. Discussion

Locke et al. (2001) have argued that management is presently operating in an age of “groupism,” where the contemporary
focus on leadership and motivation endorses the value of group processes (with a concomitant reduced emphasis on the
importance of the individual). Similarly, Goncalo and Staw (2006) identified a widespread enthusiasm for collectivist
management techniques (versus individualistic techniques). Despite the popularity of this emerging perspective, many work
settings have not adopted a full-blown team structure, but instead have tried to incorporate power sharing in a manner that seeks
to motivate employees to strive for higher levels of accomplishment within a hierarchical system. Interestingly, Locke (2003) has
suggested that leaders should not totally abdicate their responsibility for providing vision and strategic direction, but instead
should develop a two-way social influence dynamic with their subordinates while also promoting greater subordinate-to-
subordinate sharing of job knowledge, power, resources, and information (Ilgen, 1995; Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1999).4 In
essence, Locke's “integrative model” reflects a hybrid view of leadership that incorporates both top-down and bottom-up social
influence processes, as well as lateral (team) influence. While Locke acknowledges the potential value of a pure lateral influence
model, this completely “flat” scheme may not truly represent leadership, per se, as it is a system composed of genuine equals.
Therefore, Locke's integrative model, further explicated in a theoretical letter exchange in Leadership Quarterly with Pearce and
Conger (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2007), more closely represents the circumstances of many modern workplaces, wherein a
nominal head is seeking to incorporate principles of shared leadership while still maintaining control within an essentially
hierarchical structure. The results of the present study are, as a consequence, particularly relevant and informative for these types
of work settings as they suggest important benefits of engaging in empowering leadership.
Evaluated in their totality, the present findings are supportive of the suggested value of empowering leadership in that leaders
who encouraged greater independence from authority and greater lateral cooperation had subordinates who reported higher
levels of satisfaction. This is not a trivial finding as other research on empowering leadership (using Arnold et al.'s Empowering
Leadership Questionnaire) has suggested that the association of empowering leadership and employee satisfaction may actually
be inverse in some settings (Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow, & Lawler, 2000). A further challenge, therefore, lies in the
specification of the situational attributes that invert this association. But of perhaps equal or greater importance is the present
finding that the performance of employees who experienced empowering leadership was also higher. Furthermore, employees
who experienced empowering leadership also reported engaging in less dysfunctional resistance. However, constructive (or
functional) resistance was not found to be associated with empowering leadership. Perhaps it is too simplistic to equate
constructive employee resistance with a positive, or supportive, demeanor. In the eyes of some leaders, constructive resistance is
still basically resistance. Also, for some leaders, constructive employee resistance may be viewed as a “cover” for a deeper desire to
not be cooperative (for either selfish reasons on the part of the employee or because of a masked desire to undermine the leader).
For some leaders, resistance of all types is seen as a potential source of problems, relative to the possibly preferred response of
simple compliance.
Further evidence that leaders may view all forms of resistance in negative terms is available in the present finding that leader
ratings of employee performance were inversely associated with subordinate reports of dysfunctional resistance. The near-zero
association of employee performance with constructive resistance suggests that some leaders may not be sure how to read their
subordinates’ behaviors (i.e., they may be suspicious as to the underlying motives of “functional” resistance). This raises an
interesting question for future research: Does a leader's interpretation of a subordinate's possible disloyalty and lack of motivation
influence whether the leader regards a constructive resistance response in positive or negative terms (i.e., perceived disloyalty or
perceived low motivation by a subordinate may moderate the association of employee constructive resistance and rated

4
Intriguingly, recent research by Goncalo and Staw (2006) also suggests further limits to a collectivist approach in that creativity has been found to be greater
in individualistically-oriented groups.
 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542 539

performance). From a practical standpoint, the present findings suggest that subordinates need to be cautious when using
constructive resistance, so as to avoid having their actions interpreted as being driven by disloyalty to the leader or lack of
motivation to perform. Further, the present findings, in conjunction with the findings in the literature on task-based conflict,
suggest that the relationship between constructive forms of disagreement and performance is highly complex (cf. De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003).
The results of the present analyses also offer some interesting insights in that the advocates of greater levels of empowering
leadership have sought to specify the mechanisms by which power sharing might impact employees. The present results are of
special interest because they also highlight dysfunctional social dynamics (a side of the social equation that is typically neglected
by research that focuses on the hoped-for positive dynamics of empowering leadership prompting social reciprocity and self-
efficacy motives). From the present analysis, it appears that both performance and satisfaction may be impacted by empowering
leadership through the potential linkage of reduced dysfunctional resistance. Satisfaction may also be influenced by empowering
leadership through the pathway of increased performance. Empowering leadership may help to overcome dysfunctional
resistance because it places greater responsibility on the employee and raises an employee's sense of self-worth through offering
greater personal and professional challenges.

6.1. Limitations and further questions

Because this study was essentially cross-sectional in nature and SEM-based results do not justify claims of causal direction, one
cannot easily invoke causal dynamics (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Spector, 1987,
2006). However, the independence of the sources of the key variables (i.e., the obtainment of employee performance ratings from
superiors, the obtainment of descriptions of leader behavior from subordinates, and the self-reporting by employees of their
resistance behaviors) is a positive feature of this study's design. Also, it seems unlikely that employee reports of their leader's
behavior drove leader evaluations of employee performance (although it is, of course, plausible that prior performance evaluations
could influence employee reports of their leader's behavior).5
Similarly, the identified linkage between empowering leadership and dysfunctional employee resistance offers a perspective
for further insights. While the demonstration of mediation of these relationships is valuable, we do not have a complete
understanding of how empowering leadership might be employed to overcome resistance, or what precise leader behaviors are
more likely to induce resistance. Does social reciprocity underlie the relationship between empowering leadership and lower
dysfunctional resistance, while an attempt to re-establish one's sense of social status underlies the relationship between employee
performance and greater dysfunctional resistance? Perhaps multiple perspectives for assessing employee resistance, as well as
replications in the for-profit sector, may further illuminate our understanding of employee response to leader behaviors. Certainly,
questions remain as to the generalizability of the observed effects of empowering leadership for other organizational settings. In
addition, it would be valuable to see future research on empowering leadership that spanned a fuller range of employee responses
(from greater commitment, which is presumed the target of empowering leadership, to mere compliance, to forms of resistance).
A further topic for future research pertains to determining whether empowering leadership might be especially valuable in
reducing rivalry among peers. Competition among coworkers in the workplace is often lamented as placing a brake on unit
performance and limiting unit morale. Empowering leadership, through the leader's active emphasis on mutual support among
unit members, may help to boost member contributions by spotlighting such forms of subtle resistance as the withholding of both
information and effort. Therefore, empowering leadership may be shown to have its beneficial impact through discouraging and
eliminating certain types of employee behavior that are tied to competitiveness among coworkers. One beneficial side-effect of
this social dynamic is that we should expect to find less employee envy (i.e., coworker resentment) in workgroups that have
leaders who engage in empowering leadership (Vecchio, 1995, 2007). Employee envy should be reduced as a result of a leader's
emphasis on coworker collaboration and cooperation. By having subordinates focus on superordinate goals and mutual support,
leaders should find less in-fighting among their subordinates.
It is important to note that the present study employed a measure of empowering leadership that was derived from the Manz
and Sims (1995) and Pearce and Sims (2002) stream of leadership research. Future research may be better informed by utilizing a
wider range of alternative measures of empowering leadership. For example, the Arnold et al. (2000) Empowering Leadership
Questionnaire (ELQ) offers a multi-dimensional measure of the empowering leadership construct. The factorial structure of the
ELQ could offer additional insights on the role of leader empowerment. Research that seeks to contrast and integrate alternative
indices of empowering leadership would be a welcome addition to this literature.

6.2. Summary

A common theme contained in recent efforts to connect empowerment and leadership is that key leader behaviors can enhance
an employee's job satisfaction (Arnold et al., 2000; Aryee & Chen, 2006; Carless, 2004; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999;
Kirkman & Rosen, 1999) and job performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Koberg et al., 1999; Spreitzer, 1995). However, the

5
It should be noted that although a pilot sample of administrators, principals, and teachers endorsed the performance scale items as relevant to the
performance appraisal task (i.e., the job descriptions for the lead teachers did not differ so greatly that a common metric could not be used), the present
performance results may be limited by additional uncontrolled variance. As a consequence, it should have been more difficult to identify significant associations
(as the present statistical tests were, therefore, relatively conservative or less likely to detect effects).
540 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

mediating mechanisms by which empowering leadership may be linked to employee attitudes and performance are not well
specified. The present study, while building on the original work of Tepper et al. (2001) on employee resistance, incorporated the
dependent variables of employee performance and satisfaction, and examined empowering leadership in an attempt to more fully
explain the possible connections among leader behavior, employee resistance, and employee performance and satisfaction. Of
special note, empowering leadership was found to be associated (inversely) with dysfunctional (but not associated with
functional) employee resistance. Moreover, it was found that the linkage between both performance and satisfaction with
empowering leadership involves the mediation of employee dysfunctional resistance. As noted by Stewart (2006), empowering
leadership has been identified as a factor that may help to improve workgroup dynamics. Because we expect that leaders may vary
the extent to which they empower individual subordinates, the present results further show that empowering leadership can also
be examined at the dyadic level within a traditional, hierarchical structure.

Appendix A

Empowering leadership
Independent action

1. Encourages me to find solutions to my problems without his/her direct input.

2. Urges me to assume responsibilities on my own.
3. Advises me to solve problems when they pop up without always getting a stamp of approval.
4. Encourages me to search for solutions without supervision.

Opportunistic thinking

5. Urges me to think of problems as opportunities rather than obstacles.

6. Advises me to look for the opportunities in the problems I face.
7. Encourages me to view unsuccessful performance as a chance to learn.

Cooperative action

8. Urges me to work as a team with the other teachers who work at the school.
9. Encourages me to work together with other teachers who work at the school.
10. Advises me to coordinate my efforts with the other teachers who work at the school.

References

Academy of Management Journal Public Affairs Forum (2005). Making public schools work: Management reform is the key. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
929−940.
Ahearne, J. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of influence of leadership
empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945−955.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Arnold, J., Arad, S., Rhoades, J., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring
leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249−269.
Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes.
Journal of Business Research, 59, 793−801.
Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755−777.
Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and
performance. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 3, 173−209.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175−1184.
Barnett, K., McCormick, J., & Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in schools—Panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39,
24−46.
Barry, B., & Watson, M. R. (1996). Communication aspects of dyadic social influence in organizations: A review and integration of conceptual and empirical
developments. In B. R. Burleson & A. W. Kunkel (Eds.), Communication yearbook, 19 (pp. 269−317). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Bennis, W. G., & Townsend, R. (1997). Reinventing leadership: Strategies to empower the organization. New York, NY: Morrow/Avon.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238−246.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (2002). The dark side of leadership: Teacher perspectives of principal mistreatment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 671−727.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Multilevel random coefficient modeling in organizational research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in
organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 401−445). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational
Research Methods, 7, 400−417.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136−162).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bryne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the Average Deviation Index: A user's guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5,
159−172.
Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating inter-rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49−68.
California Department of Education (2001). California public school directory 2001. Sacramento: CDE Press.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organization members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. Mirvis,
& C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change (pp. 71−138). New York, NY: Wiley.
Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment mediate the relationship between psychological climate and job satisfaction? Journal of Business and
Psychology, 18, 405−425.
 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542 541

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 1217−1234.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23,
239−290.
Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasiexperiment. Human Relations, 47, 13−43.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643−676.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471−482.
Cotton, J., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. I., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 8−22.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297−334.
Dansereau, F. (1995). A dyadic approach to leadership: Creating and nurturing this approach under fire. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 479−490.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the
role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46−78.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741−749.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11,
618−634.
Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2003). Accurate tests of statistical significance for Rwg and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 356−362.
Eden, D. (1998). The paradox of school leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 36, 249−261.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications
for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217−231.
Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638−653.
Federation of Small Businesses (2006). Small Business Stats. Available online http://www.fsb.org.uk/data/default.asp?id=64&loc=policy
Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 877−917). Reading, MA: Addeson-Wesley.
Goncalo, S. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96−109.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 1201−1245). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Graen, G. B., & Graen, J. A. (2006). Sharing network leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Greene, C. N. (1973). Causal connections among managers merit pay, job-satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 95−100.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research
Methods, 7, 191−205.
Headd, B. (2000). The characteristics of small-business employees. Monthly Labor Review, 123, 13−18.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training & Development Journal, 23, 26−34.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,
623−641.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 179−185.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job-satisfaction and job-performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251−273.
Ilgen, D. (1995). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129−139.
Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological
Bulletin, 127, 376−407.
Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 67, 85−92.
Kauffeld, S. (2006). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1−21.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375−403.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and
development (pp. 131−167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58−74.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry.
Group and Organization Management, 34, 71−91.
Kopelman, R. E. (1979). A causal-correlational test of the Porter and Lawler Framework. Human Relations, 32, 545−556.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333−375). New York, NY: Wiley.
Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for high performance: Employment involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the
Fortune 1000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ledford, G. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1994). Research on employee participation: Beating a dead horse. Academy of Management Review, 19, 633−636.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 498−518.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership: A replication. Journal of Educational Administration, 35,
312−331.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lindquist, E. F. (1940). Statistical analysis in educational research. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Liu, W., Lepak, D. P., Takeuchi, R., & Sims, H. P. (2003). Matching leadership styles with employment modes: Strategic HRM perspective. Human Management
Resource Review, 13, 127−152.
Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Sharing leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 271−284).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Locke, E. A., Tirauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham, M., & Welden, E. (2001). The importance of the individual in an age of groupism. In M. Turner (Ed.),
Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of
salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 1−28.
Mahoney, M., & Arnkoff, D. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. Garfield & A. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavioral change. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32,
106−128.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1990). Superleadership. New York, NY: Berkeley Books.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1995). Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader's companion (pp. 212−221). New York, NY:
Free Press.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356−376.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Mohrman, S., Cohen, S., & Mohrman, A. (1999). Designing team-based organizations: New forms of knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
542 R.P. Vecchio et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2010) 530–542

Moye, M. J., Henkin, A. B., & Egley, R. J. (2005). Teacher–principal relationships: Exploring linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of
Educational Administration, 43, 260−277.
Mumford, M. D., Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F. J. (2000). Followers, motivations, and levels of analysis on the case of individualized leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 313−340.
National Federation of Independent Business (2007). Small business facts. Available online www.nfib.com/object/smallBusinessFacts
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Sharing leadership: the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2007). Shared leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 281−288.
Pearce, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2003). Teams behaving badly: Counterproductive behavior at the team level of analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,
58−75.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Shared leadership: Toward a multi-level theory of leadership. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances
in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 115−139). Amsterdam: JAI.
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,
directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172−197.
Pearce, C. L., Sims, H. P., Cox, J. F., Ball, G., Schnell, E., Smith, K. A., et al. (2003). Transactors, transformers and beyond: A multi-method development of a theoretical
typology of leadership. Journal of Management Development, 22(4), 273−307.
Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In
R. E. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 180−203). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual job-satisfaction and individual-performance.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 712−721.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self reports in organization research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531−544.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879−903.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey Press.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robert, C., Probst, J. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and
India: Predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 643−658.
Royal Bank of Canada (2005). Current and future small business owners provide insights. Available online www.rbc.com/newsroom/20051003smallbus.html
Smith-Crowe, K., & Burke, M. J. (2003). Interpreting the statistical significance of observed AD interrater agreement values: Correction to Burke and Dunlap (2002).
Organizational Research Methods, 6, 129−131.
Spector, G. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72,
438−443.
Spector, G. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Myth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221−232.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442−1465.
Spreitzer, G. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483−504.
Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment. In C. Cooper, & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (pp. 54−72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spreitzer, G., & Doneson, D. (2008). Musings on the past and future of employee empowerment. In T. G. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organizational development
(pp. 311−324). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239−1251.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29−54.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' resistance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 974−983.
Tepper, B. J., Eisenbach, R. J., Kirby, S. L., & Porter, P. W. (1998). Test of a justice-based model of subordinates’ resistance to downward influence attempts. Group and
Organization Management, 23, 144−160.
Tepper, B. J., Uhl-Bien, M., Kohut, G. F., Rogelberg, S. G., Lockhart, D. E., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Subordinates’ resistance and managers’ evaluations of subordinates’
performance. Journal of Management, 32, 185−209.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 666−681.
Thorenson, E. E., & Mahoney, M. J. (1974). Behavioral self-control. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Vandenberg, R. J., Richardson, H. A., & Eastman, L. J. (1999). The impact of high involvement work processes upon organizational effectiveness: A 2nd-order latent
variable approach. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 300−339.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It's not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management
(pp. 201−244). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vecchio, R. P. (2007). Cinderella and Salieri in the workplace: The envied and the envier. In S. W. Gilliland, D. W. Steiner, & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social
issues in management (pp. 109−134). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1995). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader participation. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 169−181.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Yukl, G., Fu, P. P., & McDonald, R. (2003). Cross-cultural differences in perceived effectiveness of influence tactics for initiating or resisting change. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 52, 68−82.