JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY Vol. 14, No.

3, Spring 2000

A SHORT MEASURE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Sally A. Carless
Monash University, Caulfield, Australia

Alexander J. Wearing Leon Mann

University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

ABSTRACT: This study reports the development of a short measure of transformational leadership: the Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL). The study sample wAs 1,440 subordinates who assessed the leader behaviour of 695 branch managers in a large Australian financial organisation. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis showed that the GTL measured a single construct of leadership and had satisfactory reliability. Evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity is presented. We conclude that the GTL has a number of potential uses as an assessment and selection tool and in leadership research.

The issue of effective leadership in organisations has been raised by Conger and Kanungo (1994) in this journal. Leadership skills are taken into account in the selection, promotion and performance appraisals of employees (Atwater, Penn, & Rucker, 1991; Bass, 1990b; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Walderman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1993). In recognition of its importance, organisations typically assist and encourage the development of employees' leadership skills. Appraisal, evaluation and the development of leadership skills all require the assessment of leadership behaviour. Although measures of transformational leadership, such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995), the Conger-Kanungo scale (Conger & Kanungo, 1994) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes & Posner, 1990) assess a range of leader behaviours, these scales are relatively long and therefore time consuming to complete. It was the aim of this study to develop a short, practical
Address correspondence to Sally A. Carless, Department of Psychology, Monash University, PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Australia 3145; email: Sally.Carless@sci.monash.edu.au.

389

2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

390

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

instrument of transformational leadership which is easily administered and scored yet is also reliable and valid.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER BEHAVIOURS Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), following a review of the literature on transformational leadership, concluded that it can be summarised by six behaviours, i.e., identifying and articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, providing individualised support to staff and intellectual stimulation. We adapted their summary for this research. Specifically, we distinguished between the leader behaviours of providing support to staff (Podsakoff et al.) and encouraging their individual development. Hence, our list consisted of seven behaviours. We also preferred the broader concept of charisma in contrast to the narrower concept of "high performance expectations" (Podsakoff et al.). The latter is usually considered to be part of charismatic behaviour (Bass, 1985). Accordingly, we propose that the following behaviours encompass the concept of transformational leadership: (1) communicates a vision, (2) develops staff, (3) provides support, (4) empowers staff, (5) is innovative, (6) leads by example, and (7) is charismatic. 1. Vision A distinguishing feature of transformational theories of leadership is that effective leaders create a vision or ideal goal (Bryman, 1992; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Yukl, 1994). Transformational leaders develop an image of the future of their organisation and communicate this vision to their subordinates, often by frequent statements. Through the process of communicating a vision, the leader conveys a set of values which guide and motivate employees. At the practical level, a vision provides a common purpose for employees to work towards and promotes individual behaviour that is congruent with the leaders' values for the organisation (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Sashkin, 1988; Riechmann, 1992; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Among practising managers there is a widespread belief that a vision of the future is the greatest competitive advantage a company can have (Coulson-Thomas & Coe, 1991; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). Similar research has shown that many managers subscribe to the view that the ability to create and share a vision is a key quality of leaders (CoulsonThomas, Coe, 1991). Interviews with prominent business leaders for the Karpin Leadership Task Force Inquiry (Industry Task Force on Leader-

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

391

ship and Management Skills, 1995) indicated that Australian managers also share the view that vision is an essential quality of an ideal manager (Wawn, Green & others, Barraclough & Co., 1995).

2. Staff Development Effective leaders facilitate and encourage the personal development of their staff (Bass, 1985). They diagnose the needs and abilities of each staff member and advise and encourage individual development, usually on a one-to-one basis (Bass, 1985; Nadler & Tushman, 1990). Individual development includes delegating tasks and responsibilities to followers to facilitate the development of new skills and to provide challenging opportunities (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Through delegation a leader conveys confidence in the abilities of his or her staff to perform effectively (Nadler & Tushman, 1990).

3. Supportive Leadership Supportive leadership includes giving positive feedback to staff and recognising individual achievements. Through the use of supportive leadership, leaders express confidence in the abilities of their staff to perform effectively and to succeed in achieving challenging goals. It is especially important that the leader supports staff when difficult and challenging goals are set (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Supportive leadership is not only important for the individual, but also the team as a whole (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Kouzes and Posner (1987) maintain that successful leaders not only acknowledge individuals, but also provide recognition of team achievements and successes. Public recognition of team work provides evidence that the leader values and supports the work being undertaken. It also builds commitment to achieving the leader's vision and identification with the team. 4. Empowerment Effective leaders involve team members in decision making. Such leaders share power and information with their staff and encourage autonomy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988b; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Sashkin, 1990). They set up policies and procedures which involve staff in the problem-solving and decision making of the team. An effective leader empowers team members by ensuring they have the authority to implement policies and by supporting members' decisions. Empowerment also involves creating a climate of

392

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

trust, respect, open communication and cooperation which facilitates a cooperative, participative group climate (Conger & Kanungo, 1988b; Riechmann, 1992). 5. Innovative or Lateral Thinking Effective leaders use innovative, sometimes unconventional strategies to achieve their goals (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Sashkin, 1988, 1990; Tichy & Devanna, 1986). Such leaders are willing to take risks to achieve their vision and enjoy challenging opportunities. Similarly, transformational leaders encourage their staff to think laterally and regularly give them challenging tasks. Associated with the development of innovative behaviour is the acceptance by the leader that mistakes are seen as a learning opportunity. 6. Lead by Example Transformational leaders display consistency between the views they articulate and their behaviour. An effective leader clearly communicates his or her beliefs and values to staff. Leading by example is also referred to as role modelling (Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Leaders express self-confidence and set an example for staff that is congruent with the attitudes and values they espouse (Bass, 1985; Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes & Posner, 1987; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) summarised this behaviour as "the leader provides an ideal, a point of reference and focus for followers' emulation and vicarious learning" (p. 585). 7. Charismatic Leadership There exists considerable debate about whether charismatic leadership is a distinct and separate transformational leader behaviour. Bass (1985, 1992) proposed that the most important quality of a transformational leader is charismatic leadership. Charismatic leaders are perceived as trustworthy, highly competent and worthy of respect (Avolio & Bass, 1990). Through charismatic leadership, the follower is inspired to heightened levels of motivation and performance in support of the organisational goals. Bass and his colleagues posit that charisma is an essential transformational leader behaviour. An alternate view is that charisma is an attribute followers make of their leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1988a).1
It is acknowledged that the term charismatic leadership is also used by some authors as a generic term to describe a style of leadership, e.g., House, Woycke, and Fodor, 1988; Nadler and Tushman, 1990. In these instances the authors have used the term as an alternate to transformational leadership. Hence, we have assumed that use of the term in this context does not represent another approach to defining charismatic leadership.

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

393

Research by Bass and his colleagues indicated that charisma is the most important component of transformational leadership (Bass, 1992; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). The evidence suggests that charismatic leadership is an important predictor of leader effectiveness (Seltzer & Bass, 1990), work performance of managers (Hater & Bass, 1988) and business unit performance (Avolio & Howell, 1992; Howell & Avolio, 1993). Therefore, in this study charismatic leadership was included as a component of transformational leadership.

MEASUREMENT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP A brief, reliable and valid scale would have substantial utility value if a broad measure of transformational leadership was required for research or applied purposes. Based on the leader behaviours described above, items were written to capture each of the seven leader behaviours. These were: (1) Communicates a clear and positive vision of the future, (2) treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development, (3) gives encouragement and recognition to staff, (4) fosters trust, involvement and co-operation among team members, (5) encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions, (6) is clear about his/her values and practises what he/she preaches, and (7) instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent. It can be seen that some of the items use a single omnibus statement to represent quite complex behaviours. We took the approach of using broad statements because we were interested in developing a brief measure consistent with theoretical conceptualisations of transformational leadership. A number of the notionally distinct behaviours include a cluster of highly interrelated behaviours (e.g. Conger & Kanungo, 1988a; Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Together the seven items were named the Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL) as they were designed to represent a global measure of transformational leadership.

METHOD Participants and Procedure The subject sample was 695 branch managers of a retail bank in Australia. District Managers and subordinates of the branch managers were invited to rate their manager. Data were obtained from 1,440 subordinates (response rate: 54%) and 66 District Managers (response rate: 100%) who worked in Australia for an international banking organisation. Country and city branch employees in all Australian states were surveyed. The four most senior subordinates in a branch were sent a letter outlining

394

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

the purpose of the study and inviting them to participate. The most senior staff were selected on the assumption that they worked most closely with their manager. It was reasoned that subordinates who worked most closely with the branch manager would have the greatest number of opportunities to observe performance and would be more acquainted with his or her leadership behaviour. Participants were provided with a self-addressed envelope and asked to return their completed questionnaires direct to the researchers. Of the 695 branch managers in the study sample, 139 (20%) were female and 556 (80%) were male. The mean age of the branch managers was 41 years (SD = 7.81) and their ages ranged from 23 to 58. The mean length of time with the bank was 22 years (SD) = 9.14). The mean number of staff they managed was 11 and the range was from 2 to 54. On average, two subordinates per branch manager responded. The majority of subordinates were female (69%). The mean age of the subordinates was 31.2 years (SD = 7.92) and their ages ranged from 20 to 58 years. The average length of time the subordinate had worked for the bank was 9 years (SD = 6.61) and the average length of time that they had worked with their current branch manager was 1.7 years (SD = 1.53). District Managers are responsible for the effective operation of a cluster of branches, usually 10 to 25 branch outlets. The mean number of branches they managed was 16. A small proportion of District Managers were female (5%), the majority were male (95%). Their mean age was 46 years (SD = 6.17), the range was from 31 to 55 years. The average length of time with the bank was 26 years (SD = 10.36) and the mean length of time in their current position was 3 years (SD = 2.89). Measures Transformational Leadership. In addition to the GTL (seven items), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes & Posner, 1990), and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995) were administered to assess the leadership behaviour of the branch manager. The GTL was completed by the District Manager and the subordinates. The LPI and MLQ was completed only by the subordinates. The LPI (Kouzes & Posner, 1990) measures five leadership practices identified by Kouzes and Posner (1987): Challenging the Process (alpha = .81), Inspiring a Shared Vision (alpha = .90), Enabling Others to Act (alpha = .89), Modelling the Way (alpha = .86) and Encouraging the Heart (alpha = .94). Six items are used to measure each of the five scales, the total number of items is 30. The MLQ Form 5X assesses three dimensions of transformational leadership: Charismatic leadership (8 items), Individual Consideration (9 items), and Intellectual Stimulation (10 items). The MLQ has 27 items. The alpha coefficients were .91 for Charismatic leader-

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

395

ship, .93 for Individual Consideration, and .92 for Intellectual Stimulation. District Manager ratings of their branch managers on the GTL had an alpha coefficient of .90. The response format was standardised for the leadership instruments. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Rarely or never" to "Very frequently, if not always" was employed. This was slightly different from the original format for the MLQ ("not at all," to "frequently, if not always") but was necessary to ensure a standard response format for the items. Instructions to employees asked them to rate their branch manager "in terms of how frequently he or she engages in the behaviour described." The instructions asked raters to be realistic and answer in terms of how the manager typically behaves. Manager Performance. A work performance scale was devised by Carless (1995) to assess perceptions of the managers' quality of work, productivity and adaptability. Items were based on the conceptual work of Mott (1972). A sample item is "He or she produces high quality work." The response format was a five-point Likert scale ranging from "Rarely or Never" to "Very Frequently or Always." The items were summed for a score of Manager Performance. A high score indicated excellent performance. The alpha coefficients were .90 for the subordinates' ratings and .87 for the District Managers' ratings. The seven items were tested on a pilot sample of 77 respondents. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the items formed a single construct. The single factor structure found in the pilot sample was replicated in this study. Leader Effectiveness. A five item scale was used to measure subordinate perceptions of the effectiveness of their manager. The global items were devised by Ragins (1989) to measure "perceived leader effectiveness." A sample item is "My leader displays strong leadership abilities." A high score indicated a high level of perceptions of effective leadership. The response format was a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 "Strongly Disagree" to 7 "Strongly Agree." The coefficient alpha was .90. Ragins reported a strong correlation between the global Leader Effectiveness scale and 46 behaviourally based items of leader effectiveness (Ragins, 1989) suggesting that the scale provides a reasonable index of effective leader behaviour. Factor analysis confirmed the single factor structure reported by Ragins. Subordinate Extra Effort. This scale measures the motivation subordinates attribute to their leader. For example, "He/she motivates me to work hard on the job." Four items form the scale. One item was from the MLQ Form 5X (Bass & Avolio, 1990), while the other three items were from the manager effectiveness scale (Tjosvold, Andrews, & Struthers, 1991) and were slightly adapted. The extra effort scale is similar in mean-

396

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

ing to Bass's (1985) extra effort scale. However, the advantage of the present scale is that it more specifically measures effort as it relates to job performance. The response format was the same as for the leadership items, i.e., a 5-point Likert frequency response. Exploratory factor analysis indicated the items formed a single factor. The alpha coefficient of the scale was .86. RESULTS Factor Analysis Principal components factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the GTL. Cattell's scree test and Kaiser's criterion clearly showed that the items assessed one underlying dimension of leadership. The eigenvalue was 5.0 which explained 71% of the variance. The exploratory factor loadings are reported in Table 1. The factor loadings ranged from .78 to .88 with a mean of .84 (SD = .05). As there exists widespread debate about whether principal components or common factor analysis is the appropriate method of extraction (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
Table 1 Factor Loadings and Standardised Item Reliabilities Obtained from Exploratory (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the GTL Dimension of Leadership and Items 1. Vision communicates a clear and positive vision of the future 2. Staff Development treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development 3. Supportive Leadership gives encouragement and recognition to staff 4. Empowerment fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members 5. Innovative Thinking encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions 6. Lead by Example is clear about his/her values and practises what he/she preaches 7. Charisma instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent N =1432 Note: Decimal points omitted
EFA 78 88 84 89 80 80 89 CFA 72 87 82 88 74 75 88

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

397

1995) a second factor analysis was performed. A maximum likelihood extraction confirmed the finding of a single underlying factor. Exploratory factor analysis has traditionally been employed by leadership researchers as a tool to determine the number of underlying dimensions in a data set (e.g., Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Kouzes & Posner, 1990). However, this approach fails to take into account measurement error (Crocker & Algina, 1986; Cuttance, 1987; Rubio & Gillespie, 1995). Another approach is confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA: (a) provides a formal test of how well the observed data fits a theoretical model (Gerbing & Hamilton, 1996; Stevens, 1995); (b) measurement error is taken into account; and (c) competing models can be compared (Cuttance, 1987; Bollen, 1989; Griffin & Barlow, 1994; Judd, Jessor, & Donovan, 1986; Loehlin, 1992). Hence, following the recommendations of Gerbing and Hamilton (1996) that CFA should be used to evaluate a model identified by exploratory factor analysis, the next step in our analyses was to use CFA to confirm the single factor structure of the GTL. The computer program LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) used to analyse the seven GTL items. A covariance matrix was used as the input data (Cudeck, 1989) and the method of estimation was maximum likelihood. Although the likelihood ratio test statistic (reported here as a chi-square statistic) provides the only true parametric test of a model's fit (Cuttance & Ecob, 1987), this statistic is strongly influenced by sample size and departures from multivariate normality. Consequently, Browne and Cudeck (1993) argue that the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) provides a better indicator of fit. Recently, Gerbing and Anderson (1992) have argued that the relative noncentrality index (RNI) (McDonald and Marsh, 1990) provides the best incremental fit index. The RNI is unaffected by sample size and compares the model under investigation with a null model that assumes no relationship between the observed variables. The standardised root mean square residual (RMSQ) can be used to compare the relative fit of a model (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993b). The goodness-of-fit statistics for the GTL were: chi-square = 243, d.f. = 14, p = .001, RMSEA = .11, RMSR = .03 and RNI = .97. The findings indicate there is a good fit between the observed variance-covariance matrice and the tested model. The RNI exceeds the minimum acceptable value of .90 for acceptable models (Bagozzi & Heartherton, 1994). The standardised item loadings for the seven-item model are presented in Table 1. The loadings range from .72 to .88 and the mean is .81 (SD = .07). It can be seen that all items are reasonable to strong indicators of the construct. The items that share the most variance with the single factor and therefore define the factor are empowerment, staff development and charisma. Bagozzi and Heartherton (1994) recommend that in addition to the

398

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

goodness of fit statistics, the reliability and average amount of variance extracted (AVE) should be examined. Using the Bagozzi and Heartherton formula, the reliability of the GTL was calculated to be .93. Next, the parameter estimates were used to calculate the average variance extracted (AVE) by the single factor model (Bagozzi & Heartherton, 1995). Our calculations of AVE exceed the minimum acceptable value of .50 for a satisfactory measurement model (e.g., Fornell & Larker, 1981) (AVE = .67). These findings provide strong evidence that the seven-item GTL is highly reliable.

Convergent Validity Convergent validity of the GTL was examined by calculating correlations between the GTL and alternate measures of transformational leadership, i.e., the MLQ and the LPI. It was hypothesised that the GTL items should differentially correlate with the sub-scales of the MLQ and the LPI that were conceptually similar (Messick, 1989). The following is a list of the behaviours measured by the GTL and in parentheses are the sub-scales of the LPI and MLQ which are similar in meaning: (1) vision (LPI-Inspiring a Shared Vision), (2) staff development (MLQ-Individual Consideration), (3) supportive leadership (LPI-Encouraging the Heart), (4) empowerment (LPI-Enabling Others), (5) innovative and lateral thinking (LPI-Challenging the Process and MLQ-Intellectual Stimulation), (6) lead by example (LPI-Modelling the Way) and (7) charismatic leadership (MLQ-Charisma). Evidence of strong correlations with the GTL and the similar sub-scales of the LPI and MLQ and weaker correlations between the other sub-scales, will be taken to support the convergent validity of the GTL. Table 2 contains the correlations between the GTL items and these sub-scales. Underlining is used to indicate the correlation between an item and the construct it represents. It can be seen that for each item the strongest relationship is with the construct to which it is conceptually similar. The correlations range from .71 to .87. The exception to this pattern is our item 3, lead by example, which correlates equally with Modelling the Way (LPI) and Charisma (MLQ). Charismatic leadership has been defined as providing an ideal role model (Conger & Kanungo, 1988a) and worthy of respect (Bass, 1985). Thus, while item 3 was hypothesised to represent Modelling the Way, the findings suggest it has similar meaning to Charisma. The pattern of high correlations with the hypothesised constructs provides evidence that the GTL corresponds to other measures of transformational leadership. Table 2 also reports the correlations between total GTL score and scores on the LPI and MLQ (right hand column). The correlations range from .76 to .88 with a mean of .83 (SD = .04). The high correlations between

400

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

the GTL and the LPI and MLQ provide evidence that the GTL has strong convergent validity. The next step in the analyses was to examine the discriminant validity of the GTL. Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity was demonstrated by comparing groups of managers who would be expected to have different scores on the GTL (Allen & Yen, 1979; Cohen, Swerdlik, & Smith, 1992; Messick, 1989). Consistent with theories of transformational, it was hypothesised that scores on the GTL would be different for managers who varied in the extent to which they: (a) elicit extra effort from subordinates (i.e., they inspire subordinates to work harder than is normally expected of them), (b) show leader effectiveness, and (c) demonstrate high quality work performance. Following the criticism that leadership research has relied too heavily on singlesource data (normally the practice of relying on ratings from one group of people) (Bryman, 1992; Schaubroeck & Kuehn, 1992; Yukl, 1994), we obtained ratings from multiple sources: District Managers (superiors of the managers) and subordinates. T-tests were used to examine whether the GTL discriminates between contrasting groups. The following groups were created: high and low subordinate extra effort; high and weak performing managers; and, more effective versus less effective managers. The mean was used to split the sample into two contrasting groups ("high" and "low"). As it was not possible to split the groups evenly, the sample size of each group is included in Table 3 along with the results of the t-test analyses. In the analyses, subordinate ratings of the managers leadership behaviour were paired with District Manager ratings of manager performance, and District Manager ratings of the managers GTL were coupled with subordinate ratings of manager performance, leader effectiveness and subordinate extra effort. The t-test results show that the GTL discriminates significantly between all of the contrasted groups: (a) highly motivated subordinates compared with less motivated subordinates; (b) high and poor performing managers (based on District Manager and subordinate ratings); and (c) highly effective leaders compared with less effective leaders. These findings provide substantial evidence of the discriminant validity of the GTL. Descriptive Statistics and Alpha Coefficients

The possible range in scores on the GTL is 7 to 35. The mean score was 25.00 and the standard deviation was 6.76. These statistics indicate that there is adequate dispersion of scores on the GTL. Cronbach's alpha

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

401

Table 3 T-Test Results Comparing Managers' Scores on the GTL Managers' GTL Scores Dependent Variable and Group (rating source) Subordinate extra effort (Subordinate) Manager performance (District Managers) Manager performance (Subordinate) Leader effectiveness (Subordinate) High Low High Low High Low High Low

N
371 310 358 320 352 329 349 336

Mean (rating source)

SD
4.87 5.65 5.39 6.21 5.06 5.29 4.90 5.4

T-value 5.56*** 5.47*** 7.06*** 7.57***

26.31 (District Managers) 24.04 26.31 (Subordinate) 23.85 26.63 (District Managers) 23.82 26.75 (District Manager) 23.76

Note: ***p = <.001.

was calculated as .93. The high alpha coefficient further supports the conclusion that the GTL is a reliable measure of transformational leadership. DISCUSSION Evidence reported in this study has shown that the GTL has high reliability and assesses a single global construct of transformational leadership. Initial support was found for the convergent and discriminant validity of the GTL. Scores on the GTL provide an indication of the practise of transformational leadership, that is, the extent to which a manager is visionary, innovative, supportive, participative and worthy of respect. High scores suggest the manager makes extensive use of transformational leadership, low scores are associated with infrequent or rare use of transformational leadership. The GTL can be completed by either a subordinate or a direct superior. We found that total score on the GTL correlated strongly with the LPI and MLQ. In addition, the items of the GTL correlated differentially with the sub-scales of the LPI and MLQ, suggesting that the GTL provides an assessment of the seven hypothesised transformational leader behaviours. In contrast to the LPI, which measures five transformational leadership behaviours, and the MLQ which measures three, the GTL measures

402

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

a broader range of transformational leader behaviour. When a global assessment of leadership is required, the GTL is an alternate short measure of transformational leadership. An important feature of this study was the use of two sources of data to test the discriminant validity of the GTL. Scores on the GTL were shown to successfully discriminate between selected groups of managers, i.e., high and weak performing managers, effective and less effective managers, and highly motivating and less motivating managers. These preliminary findings suggest the GTL may be useful in a variety of situations. It could be used as an assessment tool to gather information for performance appraisal reviews. Although traditionally, superiors have been responsible for evaluating work performance, many organisations are starting to include subordinates in the process (Gome, 1994). The GTL could be used as a diagnostic tool, for example, to identify the development needs of a manager. As the GTL is quick and easy to administer, managers could use it to obtain feedback on their leadership behaviour from their staff. Preliminary findings indicate that feedback from subordinates is received positively by managers (Bernardin, Dahmus, & Redmon, 1993) and can result in improved performance (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthall, 1995; Hegarty, 1974; Smither et al., 1995). Based on the view that leadership skills should be taken into account when selecting and promoting managers, the GTL could be used as a selection tool. Preliminary findings indicate that the GTL discriminates between better performing and weaker performing managers. A substantial advantage of GTL is that it takes less than one minute to complete. Finally, the GTL could be used by researchers to provide a broad indication of leadership behaviour. The GTL provides a broad assessment of transformational leadership. It is a short scale that is easy to administer and score. Initial evidence indicates that it has satisfactory reliability and construct validity. The reported high correlations between the GTL and other measures of transformational leadership suggest that the GTL is an alternative short measure of transformational leadership with a broad range of potential.

REFERENCES
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Belmont, CA: Brooks/ Cole Publishing. Atwater, L., Penn, R., & Rucker, L. (1991). Personal qualities of charismatic leaders. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 12, 7-10. Atwater, L., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on selfand follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 35-59. Avolio, B., Bass, B., & Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technical report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind garden.

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

403

Avolio, B., & Howell, J. M. (1992). The impact of leadership behavior and leader-follower personality match on satisfaction and unit performance. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 225-236). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Bagozzi, R, P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modelling, 1, 35-67. Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. Bass, B. (1992). Assessing the charismatic leader. In M. Syrett & C. Hogg, (Eds.), Frontiers of leadership (pp. 414-418). Blackwell: Oxford, U.K. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Bernardin, H., Dahmus, S. A., & Redmon, G. (1993). Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward subordinate appraisals. Human Resource Management, 32, 315-324. Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (1992). Tests for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 123-131. Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London: Sage Publications. Carless, S. A. (1995). Transformational leadership and Australian bank managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Australia. Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith, D. K. (1992). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioural attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 439452. Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988a). Behavioural dimensions of charismatic leadership. In J. Conger, R. Kanungo, & Associates. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organisational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988b). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471482. Coulson-Thomas, C., & Coe, T. (1991). The flat organization: Philosophy and practice. Corby: BIM. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327. Cuttance, P. (1987). Issues and problems in the application of structural equation models. In P. Cuttance, & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modelling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research (pp. 241-279). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuttance, P., & Ecob, P. (1987). Introduction. In P. Cuttance, & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modelling by example: Applications in educational, sociological, and behavioral research (pp. 1-8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. Gerbing, D., & Anderson, J. (1992). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 132-160. Gerbing, D., & Hamilton, J. G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modelling, 3, 62-72. Gome, A. (1994,16 May). Breaking down the macho culture. Business Review Weekly, 42-45. Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430-445.

404

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hater, J., & Bass, B. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702. Hegarty, W. H. (1974). Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioural change in supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 764-766. Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University Bur. Business Res. Monograph No 88. Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-businessunit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902. Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of change: Identifying, understanding, and supporting champions of technological innovations. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 40-55. Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. Enterprising Nation Vol 1 and 2. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services. Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Co. Judd, C., Jessor, R., & Donovan, J. (1986). Structural equation models and personality research. Journal of Personality, 54, 149-198. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1990). Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI):A self-assessment and analysis. San Diego Pfeiffer & Co. Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Team-work: What must go right / what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variables models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement, (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: American Council on Education and Mcmillan Publishing Co. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1994). Psychological testing:Principles and applications (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and organisational change. California Management Review, 32, 77-97. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, S., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. Ragins, B. R. (1989). Power and gender congruency effects in evaluations of male and female managers. Journal of Management, 15, 65-76. Riechmann, D. (1992). High involvement, high performance teams in higher education: The impact of leadership. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership (pp. 257-268). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Rubio, D. M., & Gillespie, D. F. (1995). Problems with error in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modelling, 2, 367-378. Sashkin, M. (1988). Visionary leadership. In J. Conger, R. Kanungo & Associates. Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sashkin, M. (1990). The visionary leader trainer guide: Leader Behavior Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Pennsylvania: Organisation Development and Design. Schaubroeck, J., & Kuehn, K. (1992). Research design in industrial and organisational psychology. In C. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Volume 7 (pp. 99-121). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693-703. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.

S. A. CARLESS, A. J. WEARING, AND L. MANN

405

Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulous, Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., & Salvemini, N. (1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time. Personnel Psychology, 48, 1-34. Stevens, J. J. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Iowa tests of basic skills. Structural Equation Modelling, 2, 214-231. Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). Transformational leadership. New York: Wiley. Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I. R., & Struthers, J. (1991). Power and interdependence on work groups: Views of managers and employees. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 285-299. Walderman, D., Bass, B., & Yammarino, F. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and Organizational Studies, 15, 381-394. Wawn, T., Green, J., and others, Barraclough & Co. (1995). Experienced insights: Opinions of Australian managers, ideals, strengths & weaknesses. In Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills. Enterprising Nation Vol. 1 (pp. 521-586). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services. Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark, & M. B. Clark, (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 171-184). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organisations (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.