824529

research-article2019
JLOXXX10.1177/1548051818824529Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesFarahnak et al.

Article
Journal of Leadership &

The Influence of Transformational

Organizational Studies
1­–14
© The Authors 2019
Leadership and Leader Attitudes on Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Subordinate Attitudes and DOI: 10.1177/1548051818824529

https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818824529
journals.sagepub.com/home/jlo

Implementation Success

Lauren R. Farahnak1, Mark G. Ehrhart2, Elisa M. Torres3,

and Gregory A. Aarons4

Abstract
Recent literature has focused on identifying factors that facilitate or impede the implementation of innovation in organizations.
Attitudes toward change and transformational leadership are regarded as important determinants of implementation success.
This study tested a multilevel model of transformational leadership and leaders’ attitudes toward the innovation being
implemented as predictors of staff attitudes and implementation success. Participants were 565 service providers (n = 478)
and their supervisors (n = 87) working in mental health organizations currently implementing an evidence-based practice
(EBP). Results provided support for positive relationships between transformational leadership and staff attitudes toward
EBP, as well as staff attitudes toward EBP and implementation success. Moreover, results supported an indirect relationship
between transformational leadership and implementation success through employees’ attitudes toward EBP. The results
suggest that the leader’s behaviors are likely more critical to innovation implementation than the leader’s attitudes.

Keywords
transformational leadership, implementation, leader attitudes, subordinate attitudes

Literature on implementation of innovations has sought to
identify factors that facilitate and impede whether innova-
tions are successfully implemented and utilized by targeted
employees. A variety of factors have been considered across
the organizational, work group, and individual levels. For
example, organizational-level predictors of implementation
success include structure (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek,
1973), strategy (Nicholson, Rees, & Brooks-Rooney, 1990),
financial resources (Mohr, 1969), and organizational cul-
ture (Damanpour, 1991). Work group characteristics that
predict innovation adoption include team structure (Nemeth
& Wachtler, 1983), team climate (De Dreu & West, 2001),
and team member characteristics (Paulus, 2000). Individual-
level staff member characteristics that predict implementa-
tion include personality (Barron & Harrington, 1981),
motivation (West, 1987), cognitive ability (Wallach, 1985),
and job characteristics (Axtell et al., 2000).
The role of leadership has been a particular emphasis in
theories of implementation. For instance, the Leadership
Behaviors for Evidence-Based Practice Institutionalization
Framework (Stetler, Ritchie, Rycroft-Malone, & Charns,
2014) describes the dynamic nature of various observable
behaviors leaders at multiple levels can enact to enhance suc-
cessful implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP),
defined as those innovative practices that integrate the best
research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values
(Institute of Medicine, 2001). As another example, Aarons
and colleagues have stressed the importance of first-level
leaders in the implementation process. They proposed that
leaders who enact specific implementation leadership and
transformational leadership behaviors enhance the climate
that is conducive for implementation and sustainment
(Aarons, Ehrhart, Farahnak, & Sklar, 2014). The critical role
of leadership for implementation effectiveness has been sup-
ported by empirical research as well (Aarons, Ehrhart, &
Farahnak, 2014; McFadden, Stock, & Gowen, 2015;
Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010; O’Reilly, Caldwell,
Chatman, Lapiz, & Self, 2010).
1
Accenture Consulting, San Diego, CA, USA
2
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
3
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
4
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mark G. Ehrhart, Department of Psychology, University of Central
Florida, 4111 Pictor Lane, Orlando, FL 32816-1390, USA.
Email: mark.ehrhart@ucf.edu
2 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)
Despite this progress in understanding the role of leaders
in implementation effectiveness, there are gaps that remain.
For instance, although we know that leaders play a critical
role in the implementation process, as described above, and
that employee attitudes toward the innovation being imple-
mented can play a critical role in the success of the imple-
mentation (e.g., R. A. Jones, Jimmieson, & Griffiths, 2005;
Shum, Bove, & Auh, 2008), how leaders influence subordi-
nates attitudes toward the innovation has received less
attention. On one hand, transformational leadership research
and theory (Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1999)
suggests that leaders influence subordinates’ attitudes
through their leadership style, specifically through transfor-
mational leadership behaviors that encourage the accep-
tance of change and innovation. On the other hand, literature
on the social constructivist perspective (Calder, 1977;
Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), social learning theory (Bandura,
1977, 1986), and emotional contagion theory (Dasborough,
Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009; Hatfield, Cacioppo, &
Rapson, 1994) suggests that leaders’ own attitudes play an
important role in influencing attitudes of subordinates.
Although previous research has examined the relationship
between leaders’ attitudes and staff attitudes during change
(e.g., Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008), as well as the
mechanisms through which transformational leadership
affects change outcomes (e.g., Bass, Avolio, Jung, &
Berson, 2003; Carter, Armenakis, Feild, & Mossholder,
2013; Nemanich & Keller, 2007), it has not addressed
whether it is leaders’ behaviors or their attitudes that are
more critical for predicting employee attitudes toward an
innovation and implementation success.
The objective of this study was to extend our under-
standing of the role that leaders play in implementation
processes by examining the simultaneous influence of both
leadership behavior and leader attitudes through subordi-
nate attitudes on implementation success. The context for
the current study was mental health workers and the imple-
mentation of EBP. EBPs are usually more effective and
efficacious than services-as-usual, which are typically
based on individual or management preference (Hoagwood
& Olin, 2002). Mental health interventions receive the
label of being evidence-based after at least two rigorous
randomized controlled trials have found the practice to be
superior to a comparable practice or services as usual in
improving client outcomes (California Evidence-Based
Clearinghouse, 2010). Although common EBPs such as
cognitive behavior therapy have been around for many
years in mental health agencies throughout the United
States, EBPs are being implemented with exponential
growth as sponsors at the federal, state, and county level
add stipulations about the use of EBP to funding contracts
(Essock et al., 2003; National Institute of Mental Health,
1999, 2000, 2002). Such widespread implementation
efforts have raised numerous challenges about how to lead
such change efforts effectively. Thus, this
research contributes not only to the literature on the role of
leadership in implementing change but also to the public
health challenge of how to best implement EBP in mental
health settings. In what follows, we develop the back-
ground for proposing both leader behavior and leader atti-
tudes as avenues for the leader’s influence on their
subordinates and their particular relevance to the context of
implementation.
The Role of Leaders in Employees’
Attitudes Toward Change
Research on attitudes toward change has predominantly
focused on employee and leader opinions about change in
general. However, there are also examples of attitudes
toward a specific implementation being assessed in several
organizational contexts, including the implementation of a
manufacturing resource–planning package (Klein, Conn, &
Sorra, 2001), restructuring of a school district (Oreg &
Berson, 2011), changing management information systems
in decision support systems workers (Barki & Huff, 1985),
and the implementation of EBP in mental health teams
(Aarons, 2004). The present research examines the influ-
ence of attitudes toward a specific implementation: atti-
tudes toward adoption and use of EBP in mental health.
Specifically, we address the influence of both the leader’s
transformational leadership and the leader’s own attitudes
toward change on employee’s attitudes toward change.
Transformational Leadership and Employees’
Attitudes Toward Change
Transformational leadership is one of the most widely stud-
ied styles of leadership (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber,
2009) and has been recognized as an effective style to
address organizational tensions and aid in overall perfor-
mance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Specifically, the literature on
transformational leadership has demonstrated its positive
effects on a number of organizational outcomes, including
improved performance at the managerial (Hater & Bass,
1988; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 2011), staff (Zohar,
2002), and team (Bass et al., 2003; Howell & Avolio, 1993)
levels. Transformational leadership is also associated with
improved staff attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Walumbwa, Orwa, Wang, &
Lawler, 2005) and organizational commitment (Bycio,
Hackett, & Allen, 1995), as well as decreased negative out-
comes, such as turnover intentions (Bycio et al., 1995) and
burnout (Constable & Russell, 1986; Corrigan, Diwan,
Campion, & Rashid, 2002).
Theory on transformational leadership indicates that this
type of behavior is especially relevant during periods of
organizational change such as the implementation of an
innovative practice (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1999; Bass
& Riggio, 2006 ; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Transformational
Farahnak et al. 3
leaders are able to identify the necessity of change, moti-
vate their followers to transcend their self-interests for the
good of the team and organization (Bass, 1985, 1999), and
intrinsically motivate followers to achieve higher levels of
performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Waldman, Bass, &
Yammarino, 1990). Several studies have empirically exam-
ined the relationship between transformational leadership
and implementation of a change. For instance, Aarons,
Sommerfeld, and Willging (2011) found that transforma-
tional leadership was especially important in maintaining a
positive organizational climate in organizations enduring a
large-scale system change. As another example, Carter et al.
(2013) found that transformational leadership was associ-
ated with improved relationship quality with subordinates
during the implementation of organizational change, which
was then related to improved subordinate task performance
and citizenship behavior.
Specifically with regard to attitudes toward change,
transformational leaders influence employees’ attitudes
in a variety of ways. As noted by Bommer, Rich, and
Rubin (2005), “transformational leadership ‘trans-
forms’ individual employees to make them more recep-
tive to, and build capacity for, bringing about
organizational change” (p. 734). For instance, they may
use inspirational motivation to depict a positive vision
for how the organization and the employees will be
more effective as a result of implementing the change.
Intellectual stimulation behaviors may be utilized to
engage employees in dialogue about their concerns with
the innovation being implemented and to view those
concerns in a different light. Finally, individualized
consideration behaviors may be used to foster a sense of
trust and confidence in employees’ ability to implement
change. As a result, transformational leadership should
be associated with more positive employee attitudes
toward the change being implemented. Past empirical
research supports such a relationship. For instance,
transformational leader behaviors have been shown to
have positive effects on followers’ change commitment
and acceptance to a specific change initiative (Herold,
Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Tyler & De Cremer,
2005). Research has also found that transformational
leadership was negatively associated with employee
cynicism about organizational change in a longitudinal
study of three privately owned Midwestern companies
(Bommer et al., 2005) and in a sample of 469 employ-
ees from a large Chinese organization (Wu, Neubert, &
Yi, 2007). Perhaps most relevant for this study, Aarons
(2006) found that transformational leadership was posi-
tively associated with employees’ attitudes toward
EBPs being implemented in mental health teams. We
expect to see a similar pattern emerge in our model
focused on the implementation of EBP.
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership will be posi-
tively associated with employees’ attitudes toward EBP.
Leaders’ and Employees’ Attitudes Toward
Change
Separate from the leader’s general leadership behavior,
another potential predictor of implementation success is a
leader’s own attitude toward the change being implemented
within his or her team. Several psychological theories sup-
port the notion of leaders’ attitudes toward change influenc-
ing those of their staff members. The social constructivist
view suggests that employees’ organizational understand-
ings are developed based on their interactions with others
(Calder, 1977; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) and that leaders
are especially influential because they are prominent char-
acters in employees’ socially constructed perceptions about
work (Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai, 2011). Following this logic,
when service providers are informed about the impending
implementation of EBP, they will look to their proximal
team leader to guide their own understandings of the prac-
tice being implemented. This explanation is in line with
social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986), which sug-
gests that individuals will imitate the behaviors of others in
their workplace, particularly when those role models are
viewed as attractive and credible. The research literature
has supported the importance of leaders as role models
across a number of domains, including organizational citi-
zenship behavior (Yaffe & Kark, 2011), ethical leadership
(Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009),
and abusive supervision (Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne,
& Marinova, 2012). In the context of the current study, ser-
vice providers are likely to look to their immediate supervi-
sors as role models for how to respond to the change being
implemented. Thus, leaders’ attitudes toward the change
should have a direct relationship with employees’ attitudes
toward the change.
Last, emotional contagion is the tendency to automati-
cally mimic the cues of another person and subsequently
converge emotionally with the conveyer (Dasborough et al.,
2009; Hatfield et al., 1994). Leaders’ cues regarding an
organizational change may include communications regard-
ing an impending change and the amount of effort exerted
in preparation of the change. If employees emulate these
behaviors (e.g., using similar language or exhibiting extra
effort in implementing a change), they may come to have
the same emotional reactions about the change as their
supervisors. Since emotional contagion is a largely auto-
matic and unconscious process, staff may be influenced by
their leader’s attitudes without being aware of it.
Furthermore, emotional contagion may occur without the
leader having explicitly disclosed their feelings about the
change.
4 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)
In support of this line of reasoning, empirical research
has shown that leader openness to change (Oreg &
Berson, 2011), cynicism (Rubin, Dierdorff, Bommer, &
Baldwin, 2009), and commitment (Lofquist, Greve, &
Olsson, 2011) are associated with subordinate openness
to change, cynicism, and commitment, respectively.
Lofquist, Greve, and Olsson (2011) found that employee
perceptions of their leaders’ commitment to safety related
to their attitudes toward a large-scale organizational
change. Other research has indicated that leaders may be
more likely to exhibit negative attitudes toward change
than employees at other levels of the organization (L.
Jones et al., 2008; Svensen, Neset, & Eriksen, 2007),
which underscores the importance of research focusing
on the potential influence of leaders’ attitudes toward
change during implementation.
A top-down approach to implementation, in which
senior leadership makes the decision for the organization
or unit to adopt an innovative practice and does not involve
lower levels of employees, may mean that first-level lead-
ers are directed to implement a new practice in their work
groups without an effort on management’s part to obtain
buy-in from this important level in the organizational struc-
ture. The ability of leaders to influence their followers is
well documented, and it is important to consider the role
that immediate supervisors have in determining the atti-
tudes of their employees throughout the implementation
process. When leaders are supportive of an organizational
change being implemented in their work groups, they are
likely to positively influence their employees’ attitudes
toward change. However, if leaders do not agree with the
management’s decision to implement change, they may
directly and/or indirectly influence their employees’ atti-
tudes to be more negative regarding the impending organi-
zational change. Thus, we hypothesize the following with
regard to the study of the implementation of EBP in the
current study:
Hypothesis 2: Leaders’ attitudes toward EBP will be
positively associated with employees’ attitudes toward
EBP.
Attitudes Toward Change and
Implementation Success
Employees’ attitudes toward implementation of an innova-
tion are widely held to be an important component of the
implementation of innovation in organizations (Aarons,
2006; Gotham, 2004; Rogers, 1995). Implementation of an
innovative practice requires behavior change on the part of
frontline employees asked to implement the practice. For
example, successful implementation may require that
employees attend training sessions, seek out available
resources, and utilize the new practice with all eligible
clients. The theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975) suggests that attitudes toward the behavior and per-
ceived behavioral control influence a person’s intention to
complete the behavior, which predicts whether the person
enacts the behavior. Following this logic, an employee with
more positive attitudes toward the practice they are asked to
implement will have more intention to enact implementation
behaviors, which will lead to more success in implementing
the innovative practice. Several studies suggest the impor-
tance of staff attitudes toward change in predicting organiza-
tional outcomes such as turnover (Wanberg & Banas, 2000),
organizational citizenship behavior (Shapiro & Kirkman,
1999), job satisfaction (Axtell et al., 2002), and psychologi-
cal well-being (Amiot, Terry, Jimmieson, & Callan, 2006;
Axtell et al., 2002). However, organizational change research
has largely neglected to assess the role of the attitudes toward
change in predicting actual success of an implementation
effort (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; George & Jones, 2001;
Oreg & Berson, 2011).
Research in the field of information technology has
found that employees’ “acceptance” of the innovation
(Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002) was significantly related
to intentions to implement the Internet at work (Agarwal &
Prasad, 1998), success of the implementation at the organi-
zational level (Kraut, Rice, Cool, & Fish, 1998), and inten-
tion to implement (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Additional
studies outside the field of information technology support
the relationship between attitudes toward change and
implementation-related outcomes. For example, Weber and
Manning (2001) found that employees whose perceptions
of change were similar to those of change agents were more
engaged in the change process. Bartunek, Rousseau,
Rudolph, and DePalma (2006) reported that positive staff
interpretations of a change were associated with organiza-
tional gains from the change initiative. Last, Fedor,
Caldwell, and Herold (2006) found that the degree of favor-
ableness, perceived extent of the change, and predicted
impact of the change were associated with employees’ indi-
vidual commitment to implementation.
The attitudes of frontline employees may be overlooked
by management when rolling out implementation efforts,
yet it is often the case that these employees are required to
make the most radical change in their work as a result of
implementation because they are the ones performing the
day-to-day operations of the organization. If employees
perceive the implementation to be beneficial, they may be
more likely to implement the innovation to the best of their
abilities. Even required trainings on implementation may
not have the desired effect if employees have negative atti-
tudes and are not engaged in the training process. This study
will empirically test whether employees’ evaluations of
EBP are related to the success with which an employee
implements the new EBP, as rated by their immediate
supervisor.
Farahnak et al. 5
Figure 1.  Hypothesized multilevel model of the simultaneous effects of transformational leadership and leaders’ attitudes toward
evidence-based practice (EBP) on EBP implementation success, as mediated by employees’ attitudes toward EBP.
Hypothesis 3: Employees’ attitudes toward change will
be positively associated with EBP implementation
success.
Although there is support in the literature for the rela-
tionship between leadership and attitudes toward change,
as well as attitudes toward change and implementation,
less is known about the potential mediating role of atti-
tudes toward change in the relationships among leader-
ship, leader attitudes, and implementation success. A
review of the literature uncovered only two studies related
to this relationship. In the first, Lam and Schaubroeck
(2000) found that bank tellers whose supervisors were
considered to be opinion leaders for service quality
showed greater improvements in service effectiveness
than a control condition during the implementation of a
service quality program, and that tellers’ beliefs about the
program being implemented mediated the relationship
between the type of leadership (opinion leader or not) and
service effectiveness (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000).
Although this research focused on opinion leaders and did
not assess leadership ability, transformational leaders may
be considered opinion leaders due to their ability to per-
suade and influence others. More recently, Seo et al.
(2012) found that transformational leadership was signifi-
cantly associated with positive and negative employee
affect, which were subsequently associated with behaviors
that support implementation.
These studies align with the idea that transformational
leaders, through their behaviors, influence their employees
by engaging them in the change effort and are able to earn
the trust of their followers and positively influence their
attitudes toward change. Employees who hold more posi-
tive attitudes are then likely to enact implementation behav-
iors that are important for implementation success.
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ attitudes toward EBP will
mediate the relationship between transformational lead-
ership and the extent to which employees successfully
implement EBP.
In addition to leader behaviors, leaders’ attitudes toward
change may influence their staff attitudes and thus influence
the success of an implementation. Frontline leaders are typ-
ically the ones who initiate communication of the impend-
ing change to their staff. Therefore, the various verbal cues
the leader provides, whether they are negative or positive,
could result in emotional contagion occurring. It may also
be that while the leader does not directly make comments or
openly express their attitudes toward the specific change
being implemented, staff make inferences based on the
leader’s past change comments. Therefore, staff may be
influenced by their leader’s cues, and may come to have
similar emotional reactions to the change. This unconscious
process may influence the extent to which staff put forth the
effort to successfully implement the change being
undertaken.
Hypothesis 5: Employees’ attitudes toward EBP will
mediate the relationship between leaders’ attitudes
toward change and the extent to which employees suc-
cessfully implement EBP.
Hypothesized Model
In the model tested in the present study, the relationship
between transformational leadership and leader’s attitude
toward EBP and the extent to which change is successfully
implemented is mediated by followers’ attitudes toward
EBP. The conceptual model is depicted in Figure 1.
6 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)
Method
Implementation Change Context
This study was as part of a larger study of EBP implementa-
tion (e.g., innovation implementation) in mental health
agencies located in Southern California. All of the partici-
pating agencies were implementing at least one EBP at the
time of the data collection; examples of the EBPs being
implemented included Motivational Interviewing® and
cognitive behavioral therapy.
Sample
A total of 783 mental health practitioners (i.e., frontline
employees) and their supervisors were initially recruited
from 11 mental health agencies in Southern California. Of
the 783 recruited individuals, 644 participated (82.2%
response rate; 92 supervisors and 552 service providers). Of
those participants who were supervisors (n = 87), 75.9%
were female and 24.1% were male. The average age of
supervisors was 46.1 years (SD = 10.0; range = 30-72
years). The supervisor sample was 72.1% Caucasian, 10.5%
Asian American or Pacific Islander, 10.5% Other, 4.7%
Black or African American, and 2.3% Native American.
The majority did not identify as being Hispanic/Latino
(88.4%). The highest level of education attained for the
majority of supervisors was 86.2% master’s degree, fol-
lowed by PhD or equivalent at 6.9%, college graduate
(2.3%), some college (3.4%), and some graduate work
(1.1%). The majority of supervisors (83.9%) were licensed
service care providers.
Similar to supervisors, of those participants who were
service providers (n = 549), 76.7% were female and 23.3%
were male. The average age of participants was 38.5 (SD =
9.7; range = 20-72). The provider sample was 43.6%
Caucasian, 33.3% Other, 16.5% Black or African American,
5.7% Asian American or Pacific Islander, and 0.9% Native
American. A little more than half of the service providers
did not identify as Hispanic/Latino (57.7%). The highest
level of education attained was 57.4% master’s degree,
22.2% college graduate, 6.9% some graduate work, 9.3%
some college, 2.3% high school diploma or GED, and 1.6%
PhD or equivalent. Almost half of providers (47.0%) were
interns or trainees.
The final analytic sample used for this study consisted of
565 participants, consisting of 87 supervisors and 478 ser-
vice providers. The reduction in service providers (n = 71)
was due to supervisor not completing the survey, thus miss-
ing on supervisor attitudes toward EBP. Note that total
number of responses per variable differed due to respondent
missing data. Mean team size was 5.49 service providers
(range = 2-20 employees per work group).
Procedure
Data were collected using online surveys and paper-and-
pencil surveys. For online data collection, each participant
was e-mailed a unique username and password along with a
link to the web survey. Participants were required to agree
to participate in order to access the survey questions. Once
participants logged in to the online survey, they were able to
answer questions from their personal or work computer and
could pause and resume at any time. In-person data collec-
tion occurred for those work groups for which online data
collection was not practical (e.g., poor Internet access) or
successful. In most cases, the research team reserved an
hour for data collection during a regular team meeting.
Research staff handed out surveys to all eligible participants
and ensured completion before providing an incentive. Both
the online and paper-and-pencil surveys took approximately
20 to 30 minutes to complete.
Measures
Attitudes Toward Organizational Change. The Evidence-
Based Practice Attitude Scale (Aarons, 2004) was used to
measure both supervisor and staff attitudes toward the
innovations being implemented in their organizations. The
measure consists four reliable dimensions for both subordi-
nates (presented first) and supervisors (presented second)
levels: Appeal (α = .80, .68; four items), Requirements (α
= .94, .94; three items), Openness (α = .81, .76; four
items), and Divergence (α = .66, .73; four items). A sam-
ple item for the appeal dimension is “How likely would
you be to adopt the EBP if it was intuitively appealing?”
For the requirements dimension, a sample item included
“How likely would you be to adopt the EBP if it was
required by your agency?” Sample items for openness and
divergence dimensions were “I would try EBPs even if it
were very different from what I am used to” and “I know
better than academic researchers how to care for my cli-
ents.” These analyses focused on the total score (α = .75
for subordinates; α = .67 for supervisors) consistent with
our theoretical focus on global attitudes toward the change
being implemented.
Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership
was assessed using the Multifactor Leadership Question-
naire (Bass & Avolio, 1995). The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire 5x utilized in this study has good psychomet-
ric properties and internal consistencies. Transformational
leadership is measured with four subscales: Idealized Influ-
ence (α = .91, eight items), Inspirational Motivation (α =
.90, four items), Intellectual Stimulation (α = .91, four
items), and Individualized Consideration (α = .90, four
items). Consistent with past research, the four subscales
Farahnak et al. 7
within transformational leadership had significant, large
correlations (r = .85-.91, p < .001) in this study, and thus
transformational leadership was treated as a single scale.
The alpha reliability for the overall scale was .98. The
Level-2 transformational leadership variable was based on
employee ratings of their leaders in the employee survey;
the aggregate score from all staff in the same work group
was used to create the Level-2 scores.
Implementation Success.  The success of an implementation
effort was measured using a scale developed for this study
because no general measures of employees’ implementa-
tion effectiveness or success could be identified. Based on
the literature on the implementation of EBP in mental
health settings, the research team developed items to assess
supervisors’ general perceptions of their subordinate’s
preparation, competence, fidelity, and overall success in
implementing EBP (α = .96, four items). Because the
timeline for implementation was not the same for all work
groups participating in the present research, we define
implementation success as the extent to which an employee
was utilizing the practice at the time of data collection,
regardless of how long after the initial implementation
effort was initiated within their work groups. A sample
item is “To what extent does [subordinate] implement evi-
dence-based practice with fidelity?”
Analyses
Multilevel modeling was used to statistically analyze the
hypothesized model in which employees (Level 1) were
nested within supervisors (Level 2). The hypothesized mul-
tilevel model was tested in Mplus utilizing full information
maximum likelihood estimation (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-
2017), and thus all available data were utilized in the analy-
ses. Of interest was the extent to which transformational
leadership (Level-2 predictor), leader attitudes toward
change (Level-2 predictor) and employees’ attitudes toward
change (Level-1 mediator variable) were related to employ-
ees’ implementation success (Level-1 criterion variable).
We followed the Zhang, Zyphur, and Preacher (2009)
CWC(M) (centered within context with reintroduction of
the subtracted means) approach to test a 2-1-1 multilevel
mediation model. This approach addresses the potential
conflation of the within and between portions of the model
by group-mean centering the predictor and mediator vari-
ables at the individual level and reintroducing the mean val-
ues of each by reintroducing them at the between level.
Because a Level-2 predictor can only predict between-level
variance in the mediator and outcome, the 2-1-1 mediation
is assessed by examining the between-level relationships
among these variables, although the within-level relation-
ships are also modeled and can be interpreted as well (Zhang
et al., 2009). To test the multilevel mediation hypothesis,
the covariances among the Level-1 random effects were
included in order to estimate random indirect effects and
corresponding standard errors (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil,
2006). The Monte Carlo method was used to estimate
confidence intervals for the hypothesized multilevel
mediated relationship to determine its significance. The
strength of the indirect effects was tested using RMediation
(MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007; Tofighi
& MacKinnon, 2011), which corrects for the nonnormal
distribution of the indirect effect.
Results
Preliminary Statistical Analyses
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the
variables of interest are provided in Table 1. As mentioned
above, values for the Level-2 variable of transformational
leadership were aggregated to the work group level. The
intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC(1) = 0.26, and
within-group agreement index using a uniform null distri-
bution (average rwg(j) = .80) confirmed the theoretical ratio-
nale for treating transformational leadership as a Level-2
variable (Biemann, Cole, & Voelpel, 2012; Lance, Butts, &
Michels, 2006). The Level-2 variable of supervisors’ atti-
tudes toward change was created by assigning each supervi-
sor’s self-rating to his or her work group.
Model Testing
In conjunction with the proposed model, we tested two
models that included the direct effect of transformational
leadership at Level 2 or at Level 1 on implementation suc-
cess, as well as the direct effect between leaders’ attitudes
toward EBP and implementation success. The Satorra–
Bentler scaled chi-square difference test was used to com-
pare this model with the originally hypothesized model
(Satorra, 2000). The Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square dif-
ference tests in both cases were not significant, SBΔχ2(1) =
.42, p = .52 and SBΔχ2(2) = 1.52, p = .47, respectively.
Thus, the more parsimonious model (the originally hypoth-
esized model) was retained, supporting full mediation ver-
sus partial mediation. Using the formulas provided by
Snijders and Bosker (1999), we estimated that the model
explained 3.68% of the Level-1 variance in implementation
success and 5.43% of the Level-2 variance in implementa-
tion success.
Model Interpretation
Results for the multilevel analysis can be found in Table
2. Two of the three direct relationships hypothesized were
8 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variable n M SD 1 2 3 4
Team level
  1. Transformational leadership ratings 87 2.82 0.69 .75  
  2. Leaders’ attitudes toward EBP 87 3.00 0.43 −.06 .98  
Individual level
  3. Employees’ attitudes toward EBP 472 2.82 0.49 .12** .05 .75  
  4. Employees’ EBP implementation success ratings 392 2.55 1.12 −.001 .16** .14** .96

Note. EBP = evidence-based practice. Correlation between individual-level and group-level variables are cross-level when the values for the group-level
variable were disaggregated to each individual in the same group. The values on the diagonal shown in bold are the internal reliabilities.
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

Table 2.  Results of Multilevel Analysis Predicting Staff Implementation Success.

Employee attitudes toward change Implementation success

Relationship Estimate (B) SE p value Estimate (B) SE p value

Within level
  Transformational leadership ratings 0.081 0.028 .004  
  Employees’ attitudes toward change 0.235 0.093 .012
  Residual variance 0.168 0.013 .000 0.608 0.071 .000
Between level
 Intercept 2.215 0.253 .000 0.299 1.048 .775
  Transformational leadership ratings 0.108 0.040 .007  
  Leaders’ attitudes toward change 0.099 0.066 .129  
  Employees’ attitudes toward change 0.795 0.369 .031
  Residual variance 0.095 0.022 .000 0.622 0.128 .000

supported. Hypothesis 1 was supported in that the
between-level relationships between transformational
leadership employees’ attitudes toward EBP was positive
and significant (Β = 0.108, p = .007). Note that the
within-level relationship between transformational lead-
ership and employees’ attitudes toward EBP was also
positive and significant (Β = 0.081, p = .004); we will
return to this finding in the Discussion section. Hypothesis
2 was not supported in that leaders’ attitude toward EBP
was not significantly associated with employees’ attitudes
toward EBP (Β = 0.099, p = .129). Hypothesis 3 was
supported in that the individual-level relationship between
employees’ attitudes toward EBP and EBP implementa-
tion success was significant and positive (Β = 0.235, p =
.012). Note that the between-level relationship between
employees’ attitudes toward EBP and implementation
success was also significant and positive (Β = 0.795, p =
.031).
Hypothesis 4 predicted that employees’ attitudes toward
EBP would mediate the relationship between transforma-
tional leadership and EBP implementation success. The
strength of the indirect effect of transformational leader-
ship on implementation success through employees’
attitudes toward EBP was tested using RMediation
(Tofighi & MacKinnon, 2011), which corrects for the non-
normal distribution of the indirect effect. This program
provides a confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect,
which allows significance testing of a multilevel mediated
relationship. If the interval provided by RMediation does
not contain a value of the opposite sign, significance is
indicated. As noted previously, the 2-1-1 indirect effect is
tested by examining the relationships among the variables
at the between level. Based on the 95% CI, the indirect
effect was significant (indirect effect = .086, 95% CI
[0.003, 0.209]), providing support for Hypothesis 4.
Because the within effects of transformational leadership
were also included in the model, we could also test the
indirect effect at that level. The indirect effect for the
within-group relationships was also significant (indirect
effect = .019, 95% CI [0.003, 0.042]). Hypothesis 5,
which predicted employees’ attitudes toward EBP would
mediate the relationship between leader’s attitudes toward
EBP and EBP implementation success, was similarly
tested. The Hypothesis 5 test resulted in a nonsignificant
indirect path (indirect effect = .081; 95% CI [−0.022,
0.252]).
Farahnak et al. 9
Discussion
The primary purpose of this article was to evaluate mecha-
nisms through which leadership behaviors and attitudes influ-
ence the success of an implementation effort in the workplace.
Specifically, supervisor and subordinate survey data were uti-
lized to test the hypothesized multilevel model in which staff
attitudes toward the change being implemented (EBP) medi-
ated the relationship between both transformational leadership
and leaders’ attitudes toward the change being implemented
and implementation success. An additional model was tested
and compared with the hypothesized model to evaluate the
direct effects of transformational leadership and leaders’ atti-
tudes toward EBP on implementation success.
The findings supported an indirect relationship of trans-
formational leadership on implementation success through
employees’ attitudes toward EBP and bolsters the limited
previous research investigating this relationship (Lam &
Schaubroeck, 2000; Seo et al., 2012). This suggests that
developing employees’ attitudes toward the practice being
implemented is an important mechanism through which
transformational leaders influence the success of an imple-
mentation effort. Literature on implementation suggests
that employees’ attitudes are a key component to success-
ful implementation (Aarons, 2006; Balogun & Johnson,
2004; George & Jones, 2001; Gotham, 2004; Oreg &
Berson, 2011; Rogers, 1995) and this article supports pre-
vious findings that leadership is an important precursor to
this relationship. Thus, in attempting to improve employ-
ees’ attitudes toward the change they are asked to imple-
ment, organizations should focus on developing the
transformational leadership behaviors of their direct
supervisors.
The original model was conceptualized as a 2-1-1
mediation model, such that transformational leadership
was conceptualized as a group-level variable that was
related to individual-level subordinate attitudes and
implementation success. However, because a Level-2
predictor can only be related to between-group variance
in the mediator and outcome, the multilevel modeling
procedures ensure the within and between effects are
unconflated by accounting for the effects at both levels.
Thus, even though it was not the primary focus of this
article, the results revealed that transformational leader-
ship had effects on attitudes and implementation success
between groups and within groups. Thus, in addition to
groups with more transformational leaders having better
attitudes and higher implementation success, individuals
within groups who perceived their leaders as more trans-
formational tended to have more positive attitudes and
better implementation outcomes than their coworkers
who had more negative perceptions of their shared leader.
Such differences could suggest that the leaders treat their
subordinates differently within the group (in line with
leader–member exchange; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), or
that individual subordinates perceive or react to the lead-
er’s behavior differently (e.g., Ehrhart & Klein, 2001;
Felfe & Schyns, 2010). Whatever the case, the results
suggest that transformational leadership can have positive
implications for subordinates relative to their peers in the
same work group and to workers in other groups. This
study also investigated employees’ attitudes toward EBP
as a mediator of the relationship between leaders’ atti-
tudes toward EBP and implementation success. The indi-
rect relationship was found to be nonsignificant, such
that leaders’ attitudes toward EBP did not have a signifi-
cant effect on implementation success through their
influence on employees’ attitudes toward EBP. Although
the lack of support for this relationship could be due to
power issues because there were only 87 work groups in
the analysis, there are also other, more substantive expla-
nations. One is that supervisors’ attitudes toward EBP
tended to be very positive (M = 3.00 on a scale of 0-4, SD
= 0.43). Thus, it may be difficult to find effects for leader
attitudes when all leaders are reporting that they are on
board with the change. Additionally, it could be that the
leader’s attitudes have more of an effect when they are
negative. Thus, future research should examine these
issues in a sample with a broader range of values in leader
attitudes, perhaps looking at curvilinear relationships that
would reveal whether the effects of leader attitudes
change across levels from negative to neutral to positive.
The support for the effects of leader’s transformational
leadership over his or her own attitudes is intriguing.
Although these findings may suggest that subordinates are
not aware of the leader’s attitudes or even that the leader
may actively conceal his or her attitudes from subordinates,
there are also theoretical reasons to believe that transforma-
tional leaders have employees with more positive attitudes
toward change regardless of the leaders’ own attitudes
toward change. For instance, intellectual stimulation
encourages employees to think about efficiency and new
ways of doing things are likely, so these employees may be
more open to innovation in general, regardless of their lead-
ers’ opinion of the practice being implemented. Second,
individualized consideration may foster a sense of safety
and trust that would allow individual employees to feel
comfortable in having a different opinion than their leader.
Inspirational motivation encourages employees to consider
the end goal of their work, which in this study was improv-
ing client well-being. It is likely that employees saw the
innovation being implemented in this study (i.e., EBP), as
important to achieving this goal, regardless of their leaders’
attitudes toward the change being implemented. Last, ideal-
ized influence is related to ethical decision making, and the
argument can be made that EBPs are more ethical than ser-
vices-as-usual in that they provide a better chance for cli-
ents to have positive outcomes as a result of receiving
10 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)
services. Thus, regardless of the leader’s attitudes toward
the specific practice being implemented, his or her follow-
ers may have learned to demonstrate ethical behavior and
thus have more positive attitudes toward innovations that
hold promise to improve client positive outcomes.
Limitations and Future Directions for Research
These findings suggest several directions for future research
on leadership, attitudes toward change, and implementation
success. First, the attitudes measure used in this study
assessed employees’ attitudes toward EBPs in general rather
than toward one specific EBP. Although this approach
increased generalizability to EBPs for mental health care in
general, it may miss out on important individual differences
with regard to specific EBPs. There are many different types
of EBPs that vary based on intended client population and
health problem, as well as practice characteristics (e.g., com-
plexity, structure). Thus, future research should take into
account variability in attitudes toward different practices
being implemented in these work groups. Conversely, there
may be concerns with generalizability of the results of this
research to the implementation of innovations across indus-
tries. Although data were collected from 10 different agen-
cies, they are all in the field of behavioral health care and are
implementing a single type of change. It is important to con-
sider the type of practice or technology being implemented
as well as the context of employees’ work when determining
the applicability of the results of this article.
This study utilized data collected from work groups in dif-
ferent stages of implementation. As employees and leaders
gain experience utilizing an innovative practice, their atti-
tudes toward the new practice may become more positive as
initial concerns are alleviated and new employees come into
the work groups. Thus, it may be that the case that there
would be more variance in leaders’ and employees’ attitudes
toward change when implementation is new, which might
improve the ability to detect multilevel effects. Future
research should explore the relationships proposed in this
study in work groups that are newly implementing EBPs.
There are also statistical concerns whenever research is
conducted utilizing survey data. As the data are cross-sec-
tional, the design does not allow for strong claims regarding
causality. Nevertheless, the order of causality was in line
with past theory and research, providing at least some sup-
port for the hypothesized causal direction (Mathieu,
DeShon, & Bergh, 2008). Future studies should utilize lon-
gitudinal data to assess the influence of attitudes toward
change on the success of an implementation effort.
Other directions for future research include the consider-
ation of the relationships addressed here in a sample of
middle- or lower-level supervisors. Although frontline
employees are most commonly studied as organizational
change recipients, the factors that influence manager’s
attitudes toward innovations being implemented are critical
to understand as well. Future research should also address
the role of other contextual predictors of attitudes toward
EBP that could also affect implementation success. For
example, legislation imposed on mental health organiza-
tions to adopt specific EBPs may have an impact on both
attitudes toward EBP and subsequent practice success. In
addition, there may be contextual factors that influence
when leader attitudes have a stronger impact on employee
attitudes; future research should investigate when such a
relationship is most likely to emerge.
Practical Implications
The findings of this research have important implications
for improving the success of implementation efforts in the
workplace, which is important as a majority of implementa-
tion efforts fail within organizations (Balas & Boren, 2000).
The strongest relationship found in the analyses was
between employees’ attitudes toward the specific change
being implemented in their work groups and the success
with which they implement the change. Organizations
ought to focus on ensuring that those employees being
asked to implement have positive attitudes toward the inno-
vation being implemented. Based on the results of this
study, one approach could be to develop transformational
skills within these first-level leaders (Aarons, Ehrhart,
Farahnak, & Hurlburt, 2015), as this study found a signifi-
cant, positive relationship between transformational leader-
ship and employees’ attitudes toward EBP.
Similar steps can be taken by change agents to develop
employees’ and leaders’ attitudes toward the innovation
being implemented. Research in the field of developing
organizational readiness for change suggests several ways
in which organizations can develop positive attitudes
toward a change being implemented in their work groups.
One approach that organizations may take is being candid
about the rationale that the organization used to make the
decision to implement. The decision-making process for
implementation likely included the consideration of fund-
ing, customer needs, and external trends, as well as organi-
zational climate, values, goals, and leadership (Aarons,
Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011). Sharing this information with
team leaders and employees would include a discussion of
the personal benefits for employees implementing the
change (e.g., decreased time required to complete work) as
well as the potential consequences should the implementa-
tion effort fail (e.g., decreased competitiveness for contin-
ued funding). This type of information is important in
developing a sense of the change being worthwhile for
employees and leaders on a personal level (Armenakis &
Harris, 2009; Bandura, 1982; Weiner, 2009).
Second, organizations should ensure that employees feel
supported during implementation through the designation of
Farahnak et al. 11
resources such as training and printed or online materials.
This improves employees’ and leaders’ confidence in their
ability to effectively implement the change, which is an
important component of attitudes toward change (Armenakis,
Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Another important resource is
the designation of personnel who are knowledgeable about
the practice being implemented to be available to answer
employees’ questions and alleviate concerns that they may
have about implementing the new practice.
Third, organizational change agents should engage
employees and leaders in discussions about the implemen-
tation plan. Employees may have important suggestions
and concerns that the organization has not yet addressed.
Additionally, employees may have more positive attitudes
toward the change being implemented if they feel as though
organizational leaders understand the potential challenges
but have confidence that employees can overcome them
and successfully implement the practice. In fact, including
employees in change efforts has been shown to have a posi-
tive relationship with motivation for organizational change
(Coch & French, 1965).
Conclusion
This article tested a multilevel model of how leadership
and attitude variables facilitate the successful implemen-
tation of a practice within organizations. The findings
contribute to the literature by lending empirical support to
the indirect relationship between transformational leader-
ship and implementation success through employees’ atti-
tudes toward the change being implemented. These
findings suggest that employees with positive attitudes
toward the change are more likely to successfully imple-
ment the change in their work and that attitudes can be
improved by developing transformational leadership
behaviors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grants
R21MH098124 (PI: Ehrhart) and R01MH072961 (PI: Aarons) and
the National Institute on Drug Abuse grant R01DA038466 (PI:
Aarons).
References
Aarons, G. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward
adoption of evidence-based practice: The Evidence-Based
Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Mental Health Services
Research, 6, 61-74.
Aarons, G. A. (2006). Transformational and transactional leader-
ship: Association with attitudes toward evidence-based prac-
tice. Psychiatric Services, 57, 1162-1169.
Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., & Farahnak, L. R. (2014). The
Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS): Development of
a brief measure of unit level implementation leadership.
Implementation Science, 9(1), 45. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-
45
Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., & Hurlburt, M.
S. (2015). Leadership and organizational change for imple-
mentation (LOCI): A randomized mixed method pilot study
of a leadership and organization development intervention
for evidence-based practice implementation. Implementation
Science, 10(1), 11. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0192-y
Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., & Sklar,
M. (2014). The role of leadership in creating a strategic
climate for evidence-based practice implementation and
sustainment in systems and organizations. Frontiers in Public
Health Services and Systems Research, 3(4), 3. doi:10.13023/
FPHSSR.0304.03
Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing
a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementa-
tion in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in
Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38,
4-23.
Aarons, G. A., Sommerfeld, D. H., & Willging, C. E. (2011). The
soft underbelly of system change: The role of leadership and
organizational climate in turnover during statewide behav-
ioral health reform. Psychological Services, 8, 269-281.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). The antecedents and conse-
quences of user perceptions in information technology adop-
tion. Decision Support Systems, 22, 15-29.
Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J.
(2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes
during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and
organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32,
552-574.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our jour-
ney in organizational change research and practice. Journal of
Change Management, 9, 127-142.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993).
Creating readiness for organizational change. Human
Relations, 46, 681-704.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range of leadership
development: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton,
NY: Bass, Avolio, & Associates.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009).
Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Axtell, C. M., Homan, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D.,
Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor innova-
tion: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,
265-285.
Axtell, C. M., Wall, T., Stride, C., Pepper, K., Clegg, C., Gardner,
P., & Bolden, R. (2002). Familiarity breeds context: The
impact of exposure to change on employee openness and
well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 217-231.
12 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)
Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge
for healthcare improvements. In J. Bemmel & A. T. McCray
(Eds.), Yearbook of medical informatics 2000: Patient-
centered systems (pp. 65-70). Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring
and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 523-549.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.
American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:
A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Barki, H., & Huff, S. L. (1985). Change, attitude to change, and
decision support system success. Information & Management,
9, 261-268.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence,
and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J.
A. (2006). On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and
assessments of an organizational change initiated by others.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 182-206.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expecta-
tions. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ: Multifactor leadership
questionnaire (Technical report). Binghamton University,
NY: Center for Leadership Studies.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Training full range leader-
ship. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 207-218.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing
and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation
in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163.
Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group
agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J)
in leadership research and some best practice guidelines.
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 66-80.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Pillai, R. (2011). Romancing lead-
ership: Past, present, and future. Leadership Quarterly, 22,
1058-1077.
Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing atti-
tudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational
leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733-753.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assess-
ments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and
transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 468-478.
Calder, B. J. (1977). New directions in organizational behavior.
Indianapolis, IN: St. Clair Press.
California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse. (2010). The California
evidence-based clearinghouse for child welfare. Retrieved
from http://www.cebc4cw.org/
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K.
W. (2013). Transformational leadership, relationship quality,
and employee performance during continuous incremental
organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
34, 942-958.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1965). Overcoming resistance to
change. In W. W. Burke, D. G. Lake, & J. W. Paine (Eds.),
Organization change: A comprehensive reader (pp. 341-363).
Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Constable, J. F., & Russell, D. W. (1986). The effect of social sup-
port and the work environment upon burnout among nurses.
Journal of Human Stress, 12, 20-26.
Corrigan, P. W., Diwan, S., Campion, J., & Rashid, F. (2002).
Transformational leadership and the mental health team.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 30, 97-108.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-anal-
ysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 555-590.
Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, H. H.
M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level
negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine orga-
nizational attitudes toward leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 20,
571-585.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and
team innovation: The importance of participation in decision
making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting followers’ pref-
erences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower
values and personality. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 153-179.
Essock, S. M., Goldman, H. H., Van Tosh, L., Anthony, W. A.,
Appell, C. R., Bond, G. R., . . . Drake, R. E. (2003). Evidence-
based practices: Setting the context and responding to con-
cerns. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 26, 919-938.
Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of
organizational changes on employee commitment: A multi-
level investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59, 1-29.
Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers’ personality and the per-
ception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for
the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21,
393-410.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational inno-
vation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants
and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business
Research, 55, 163-176.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2001). Towards a process model
of individual change in organizations. Human Relations, 54,
419-444.
Gotham, H. J. (2004). Diffusion of mental health and substance
abuse treatments: Development, dissemination, and imple-
mentation. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 11,
161-176.
Farahnak et al. 13
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach
to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange
(LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-
level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219-247.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and sub-
ordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional
contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The
effects of transformational and change leadership on employ-
ees’ commitment to a change a multilevel study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 346-357.
Hoagwood, K., & Olin, S. S. (2002). The NIMH blueprint for
change report: Research priorities in child and adolescent
mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 760-767.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leader-
ship, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support
for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891-902.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new
health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Jones, L., Watson, B., Hobman, E., Bordia, P., Gallois, C., &
Callan, V. J. (2008). Employee perceptions of organiza-
tional change: Impact of hierarchical level. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 29, 294-316.
Jones, R. A., Jimmieson, N. L., & Griffiths, A. (2005). The impact
of organizational culture and reshaping capabilities on change
implementation success: The mediating role of readiness for
change. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 361-386.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and trans-
actional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing com-
puterized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 811-824.
Kraut, R. E., Rice, R. E., Cool, C., & Fish, R. S. (1998). Varieties
of social influence: The role of utility and norms in the suc-
cess of a new communication medium. Organization Science,
9, 437-453.
Lam, S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). A field experiment testing
frontline opinion leaders as change agents. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 987-995.
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The source
of four commonly reported cutoff criteria. Organizational
Research Methods, 9, 202-220.
Lofquist, E. A., Greve, A., & Olsson, U. H. (2011). Modeling
attitudes and perceptions as predictors for changing safety
margins during organizational change. Safety Science, 49,
531-541.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C.
M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for
the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 384-389.
Mathieu, J. E., DeShon, R. P., & Bergh, D. D. (2008). Mediational
inferences in organizational research: Then, now, and beyond.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, 203-223.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., &
Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive
supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325-357.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., &
Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership
flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1-13.
McFadden, K. L., Stock, G. N., & Gowen, C. R., III. (2015).
Leadership, safety climate, and continuous quality improve-
ment: Impact on process quality and patient safety. Health
Care Management Review, 40, 24-34.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Shedding
light on followers’ innovation implementation behavior: The
role of transformational leadership, commitment to change,
and climate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
25, 408-429.
Mohr, L. B. (1969). Determinants of innovation in organizations.
American Political Science Review, 63, 111-126.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide
(8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Institute of Mental Health. (1999). Bridging science and
service. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2000). Translating behav-
ioral science into action: Report of the national advisory men-
tal health council behavioral science workgroup. Bethesda,
MD: National Institutes of Health.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2002). What do we know
about implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) and
where can we go from here? Baltimore, MD: Author.
Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leader-
ship in an acquisition: A field study of employees. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 49-68.
Nemeth, C. J., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem-solving as
a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.
Nicholson, N., Rees, A., & Brooks-Rooney, A. (1990). Strategy,
innovation, and performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 27, 511-534.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., Lapiz, M., &
Self, W. (2010). How leadership matters: The effects of
leaders’ alignment on strategy implementation. Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 104-113.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reac-
tions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and
transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64,
627-659. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative
potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49,
237-262.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implica-
tions of contextual influences on transformational leadership:
A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review,
22, 80-109.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996).
Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leader-
ship as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Management, 22, 259-298.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Free Press.
14 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 00(0)
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., Bommer, W. H., & Baldwin, T. T.
(2009). Do leaders reap what they sow? Leader and employee
outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change.
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 680-688.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information process-
ing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Satorra, A. (2000). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-
sample analysis of moment structures. In R. D. H. Heijmans,
D. S. G. Pollock, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Innovations in
Multivariate Statistical Analysis (pp. 233-247). London,
England: Kluwer Academic.
Seo, M., Taylor, M., Hill, N., Zhang, X., Tesluk, P. E., & Lorinkova,
N. M. (2012). The role of affect and leadership during organi-
zational change. Personnel Psychology, 65, 121-165.
Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (1999). Employees’ reaction to
the change to work teams: The influence of “anticipatory”
injustice. Journal of Change Management, 12, 51-67.
Shum, P., Bove, L., & Auh, S. (2008). Employees’ affective com-
mitment to change: The key to successful CRM implementa-
tion. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 1346-1371.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis:
An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stetler, C. B., Ritchie, J. A., Rycroft-Malone, J., & Charns, M. P.
(2014). Leadership for evidence-based practice: Strategic and
functional behaviors for institutionalizing EBP. Worldviews
on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11, 219-226.
Svensen, E., Neset, G., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). Factors associ-
ated with a positive attitude towards change among employees
during the early phase of a downsizing process. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 48, 153-159.
Tofighi, D., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). RMediation: An R pack-
age for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior
Research Methods, 43, 692-700.
Tyler, T. R., & De Cremer, D. (2005). Process-based leader-
ship: Fair procedures and reactions to organizational change.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 529-545.
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts
and resistance to organisational change: The role of leader–
member exchange, development climate, and change process
characteristics. Applied Psychology, 57, 313-334.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension
of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field
studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (2011). Leadership
and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 60, 177-186.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding
to contingent-reward behavior: The augmenting effect of
charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15,
381-394.
Wallach, M. A. (1985). Creativity testing and giftedness. In F.
D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented:
Developmental perspectives (pp. 99-123). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005).
Transformational leadership, organizational commitment,
and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S.
financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16,
235-256.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes
of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.
Weber, P. S., & Manning, M. R. (2001). Cause maps, sensemak-
ing, and planned organizational change. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 37, 227-251.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for
change. Implementation Science, 4, 67. doi:10.1186/1748-
5908-4-67
West, M. A. (1987). Role innovation in the world of work. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 305-315.
Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational
leadership, cohesion perceptions, and employee cynicism
about organizational change: The mediating role of justice
perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43,
327-351.
Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of
leader OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 806-826.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and
Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing mul-
tilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems
and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695-
719.
Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve sub-
unit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 156-163.
Author Biographies
Lauren R. Farahnak is a Talent and Organization senior manager
at Accenture Strategy. She has an MS in industrial/organizational
psychology from San Diego State University. Her work focuses on
talent strategy, leadership, culture, and digital transformation.
Mark G. Ehrhart is a professor in the Industrial/Organizational
Psychology Program at the University of Central Florida. His
research interests include organizational climate and culture, orga-
nizational citizenship behavior, and leadership, and the applica-
tion of these topics across levels of analysis and in health and
social service organizations.
Elisa M. Torres is a doctoral student at George Mason University
in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program. She has an
MS in Organizational Psychology from San Diego State
University. Her work focuses on leadership, organizational cli-
mate, and understanding complex teaming arrangements (i.e.,
multiteam systems).
Gregory A. Aarons is a clinical and organizational psychologist,
professor of Psychiatry at UC San Diego, and director of the Child
and Adolescent Services Research Center (CASRC). His research
is funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, National
Institute on Drug Abuse, Centers for Disease Control, and the W.T.
Grant Foundation and focuses on improving system and organiza-
tional factors that support implementation and sustainment of evi-
dence-based practice, use of research evidence, and quality of care
in health and public sector allied health care settings.