The Effect of Leadership Style on Performance Improvement on a Manufacturing Task

Author(s): Christine M. Shea

Source: The Journal of Business , Vol. 72, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 407-422
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209620

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of Business

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Christine M. Shea
University of New Hampshire

The Effect of Leadership Style

on Performance Improvement
on a Manufacturing Task

In spite of the considerable amount of empirical A three-factor, re-

work that has been conducted on leadership, peated-measures exper-
there has been no research published to date that iment tested the effect
of leadership style
has used an experimental methodology to investi- (charismatic, structur-
gate the effect of leadership style on followers’ ing, and considerate)
performance improvement on a manufacturing on performance im-
task over time. In view of the recent attention provement on a manu-
given to continuous improvement as a means of facturing task over
four trials. Findings
achieving improved competitiveness, it would be from a repeated-mea-
useful to explore the effect of leadership style on sures multivariate anal-
the improvement of follower performance over ysis of variance indi-
time. This article reports the results of a study cated that individuals
that investigates the effect of leadership style on exposed to considerate
leadership had superior
the qualitative and quantitative performance of a initial performance but
manufacturing task over a series of four trials. that this difference
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is used faded over time. Fur-
as a framework to develop a model that might ther analysis indicated
explain the psychological mechanism whereby that self-efficacy fully
mediated the relation-
leadership produces its effect on followers. ship between leader-
A growing amount of empirical evidence ship style and perfor-
points to the power of Bandura’s (1986) social mance.
cognitive theory in explaining behavior in orga-
nizations (Frayne and Latham 1987; Gist 1987;
Gist, Schwoerer, and Rosen 1989; Latham and
Frayne 1989; Wood and Bandura 1989; Bandura
and Jourden 1991; Saks 1995). According to
Bandura (1986, p. 12), ‘‘People are neither au-
tonomous agents nor mechanical conveyors of
animating environmental factors.’’ Instead, hu-
man behavior is best understood when viewed as
a reciprocal system of causality where personal
characteristics, environmental factors, and be-

( Journal of Business, 1999, vol. 72, no. 3)

 1999 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0021-9398/99/7203-0005$02.50

407

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
408 Journal of Business

havior operate through cognitive self-regulatory mechanisms as inter-

acting determinants of each other. The self-regulatory mechanism of
self-efficacy, or the individual’s belief that he or she can accomplish
a task, has been found to be affected by external factors such as training
and to be linked with work outcomes such as employee attendance
(Frayne and Latham 1987; Latham and Frayne 1989) and management
decision making (Bandura and Jourden 1991).
Among other sources of self-efficacy, Bandura (1986) advances the
notion that employees can be persuaded that they possess the ability
to accomplish tasks. According to Bandura, managers as well as super-
visors differ in their ability to persuade followers that they possess the
ability to accomplish tasks. This difference in the persuasive ability of
managers is often referred to as leadership ability or style. Hence, the
leadership style that a manager possesses is expected to affect the self-
efficacy of the manager’s followers and, therefore, the performance of
those followers.
In this study, charismatic leadership is compared with both structur-
ing and considerate leadership styles. The structuring leadership style
is one that focuses on the task at hand. It emphasizes such behaviors
as maintaining standards and meeting deadlines. Considerate leadership
involves exhibiting concern for the welfare of the other members of
the group by expressing appreciation for good work, stressing the im-
portance of job satisfaction, maintaining and strengthening the self-
esteem of subordinates by treating them as equals, and making special
efforts to help subordinates feel at ease (Bass 1990). Leaders who dis-
play charismatic leadership behaviors have been described as providing
followers with clear visions of the future, expressing high expectations
for follower performance, and displaying confidence in their followers’
ability to accomplish challenging tasks (House 1988).
Leadership research has consistently found a strong positive relation-
ship between charismatic leadership behaviors and follower perfor-
mance (House 1988; Bass 1990). Specifically, by articulating a compel-
ling vision of the future, communicating high expectations with respect
to followers’ performance, and displaying confidence in followers’
ability to meet these expectations, charismatic leaders have been found
to positively influence follower performance. These findings have been
supported in a variety of settings and using various research methodolo-
gies including laboratory experiments (e.g., Howell and Frost 1989;
Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996), field research (e.g., Smith 1982; Avolio,
Waldman, and Einstein 1988; Hater and Bass 1988; Howell and Avolio
1993), and archival studies (e.g., House, Spangler, and Woycke 1991).
Howell and Frost (1989), for example, found that individuals working
under an actor trained to display charismatic leadership behaviors had
higher qualitative and quantitative task performance, higher task satis-

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Leadership Style 409

faction, and lower role conflict and ambiguity in comparison to individ-

uals working under considerate leaders; they also had higher quantita-
tive task performance, greater task satisfaction, and less role conflict
than individuals working under structuring leaders. More recently, in
an experiment using 282 undergraduates carrying out a simulated pro-
duction assignment, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) found a positive re-
lationship between charismatic behaviors and performance, task satis-
faction, and attitude toward the leader. Both Howell and Frost’s and
Kirkpatrick’s studies found that individuals working under charis-
matic leaders reported that the task was more interesting, engaging,
and satisfying than individuals working under noncharismatic leaders;
this was so in spite of the fact that all individuals performed the identi-
cal task.
The above findings have been supported by the findings of studies
conducted in the field. For example, in a study of 30 charismatic and
30 noncharismatic leaders from a wide variety of organizations, Smith
(1982) found that charismatic leaders could be distinguished from non-
charismatic leaders based on their followers’ higher performances and
higher levels of self-assurance. Based on these reports of higher self-
assurance for followers of charismatic leaders, Smith postulated that
charismatic leaders may produce their effects on followers by enhanc-
ing their self-efficacy beliefs.
While the above empirical evidence supports the relationship be-
tween charismatic leadership behaviors and follower performance, the
effect of those behaviors on follower performance over time and the
role of self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between leader-
ship style and performance remain largely unexplored empirically. For
this reason, I draw on Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) and Bandura
(1997) for a theoretical explanation of the motivational effect of charis-
matic leadership behaviors and how they might enhance follower self-
efficacy and lead to greater sustained effort and performance over time.
According to Bandura (1997, p. 101), ‘‘People who are persuaded ver-
bally that they possess the capabilities to master given tasks are likely
to mobilize greater effort and sustain it than if they harbor self-doubts
and dwell on personal deficiencies when difficulties arise.’’ Drawing on
Bandura (1986), Shamir et al. (1993) propose that charismatic leaders’
expression of high expectations for follower performance and their
ability to persuade followers that they can meet those expectations
motivate followers to produce and sustain greater effort via the medi-
ation of self-efficacy. Further, they propose that, by articulating a
compelling vision, charismatic leaders produce in followers a level of
personal commitment whose behavioral manifestations produce a self-
reinforcing cycle that sustains itself over time. This motivational influ-
ence of charismatic leadership behaviors produces a positive deviation-

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
410 Journal of Business

amplifying loop or performance improvement spiral (Lindsley, Brass,

and Thomas 1995). Thus, while empirical evidence has demonstrated
the link between charismatic leadership and performance, theoretical
work points both to the sustainability of follower effort and perfor-
mance over time and to the mediating role of self-efficacy.
The above empirical evidence and theoretical arguments lead to the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. There will be a significant effect of leadership style
on individual task performance over time such that individuals exposed
to charismatic leaders achieve higher task performance than those ex-
posed to structuring or considerate leadership.
Hypothesis 2. The effect of leadership style on individual perfor-
mance will be mediated by individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs.

I. Methodology
An experiment was designed to test the effect of leadership style and
self-efficacy on individual performance improvement over four trials
of a manufacturing task. This section describes the sample, the experi-
mental task, and the leadership manipulations.
A. Sample
The voluntary participation of sixty-five undergraduate operations man-
agement students (52 males, 13 females) was obtained in exchange
for the cancellation of one of their classes. The students ranged in age
from 20 to 29 and were randomly assigned to one of three leadership
conditions. The random assignment procedure controlled for variations
in the students’ ability to perform the experimental task.
The selection of undergraduate students as the sample for the present
study constituted a compromise between internal and external validity.
Because of their homogeneity and lack of experience in carrying out
the type of work required by the experimental task, I hoped that the
use of undergraduate students would ensure control over extraneous
sources of variation in performance.
B. Experimental Task
The experimental task involved the assembly of a variation on the
design of a real electrical wiring harness used by a large U.S. aero-
space organization. The harness consists of wires that are cut to speci-
fied lengths and stripped of insulation at both ends (using tooling bor-
rowed from aerospace components manufacturers) and pinned and
dressed into connectors so that the harness can be plugged into a test
fixture for later testing. The harness design was altered to achieve a
level of difficulty such that only 10% (or fewer) of the participants
would be able to complete the first harness attempted, while 90% (or

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Leadership Style 411

more) of the participants would be able to complete the fourth harness

attempted. This was done to maximize the probability of participants
demonstrating improvement over time.
C. Leadership Manipulation
Scripts were written to demonstrate and professional actors were hired
and trained to portray charismatic, structuring, and considerate leader-
ship styles. All three actors were required to enact each of the three
leadership styles. The leadership style manipulations were based on
Howell (1986). The operationalizations of the three leadership styles
are shown in the appendix.
The three professional actors were recruited and hired based on their
physical similarities and on their ability to play the role of leader in a
manner that would be convincing to undergraduate business students.
A training program was developed that involved a series of readings
and videotapes aimed at conveying an understanding of the different
leadership styles. The actors were each required to learn three scripts—
reflecting charismatic, considerate, and structuring styles—and to re-
hearse the three roles in front of a video camera until I thought the
performances were acceptable.
To verify that the three actors were accurately portraying the differ-
ent leadership styles and were highly similar in these portrayals, 411
student judges, ignorant of the study’s purpose, rated videotapes of
each actor enacting the three styles. The judges completed a 37-item
leadership style questionnaire that measured the extent to which they
perceived the individual on the videotape to be displaying charismatic,
considerate, or structuring behaviors. Scale reliabilities were acceptable
with alphas exceeding .7 in all cases (Nunnally 1978). The coefficients
were .79 for the charismatic items, .86 for the structuring items, and
.92 for the considerate items. For the experimental manipulation to be
perceived as intended, a test of differences among the actors in their
portrayal of the same leadership style should be nonsignificant, while
a test of differences among the different leadership styles as portrayed
by the actors should be significant.
To test for similarities among the actors in their portrayal of the
leadership styles, Hotelling’s T 2 tests were computed for each actor on
the leadership style manipulation checks. None of the tests reached
statistical significance at the .05 level, indicating that the actors were
very similar in their portrayal of each of the three styles.
To test for differences between the three leadership styles, a series
of Hotelling’s T 2 tests were computed. The results revealed highly sig-
nificant statistical differences at the p ⬍ .0001 level between the struc-
turing, considerate, and charismatic styles on the leadership style ma-
nipulation checks. This suggests that there were clear differences in
the judges’ perceptions of the three leadership styles.

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
412 Journal of Business

D. Procedure
A cover story was devised such that participants believed that they
were working with a real firm and manufacturing a subassembly that
was to be used in a real product. The stated purpose of the study varied
depending on the leadership style being portrayed. For example, partic-
ipants exposed to charismatic leadership were told that they were an
integral part of an effort aimed at determining the factors that affect
product quality in the aerospace industry. Participants in the consider-
ate and structuring conditions were not provided with such a meaning-
ful purpose for the exercise. The participants were required to work
through a series of exercises involving both questionnaires and the as-
sembly of four wiring harnesses. The exercises were arranged in the
following order:

1. Leadership intervention (The leader enters the room and introduces

himself as being a district manager for a distributor of cables and
supplies for the aerospace and electronics industries. He introduces
the task and shows an instructional video to the participants.)
2. Viewing of instructional video
3. Questionnaire no. 1: Pretest measures of self-efficacy
4. Assembly of first wiring harness
5. Leadership intervention (The leader provides some background on
the project and explains the purpose of the exercise using the script
that has been prepared to reflect the particular leadership style he
is portraying.)
6. Questionnaire no. 2: Self-efficacy scales
7. Assembly of second wiring harness
8. Questionnaire no. 3: Self-efficacy scales
9. Assembly of third wiring harness
10. Questionnaire no. 4: Self-efficacy scales
11. Assembly of fourth wiring harness
12. Questionnaire no. 5: Manipulation check and demographics

Throughout the exercise, the leaders were instructed to maintain the

nonverbal behaviors and paralinguistic cues consistent with the leader-
ship role that they were portraying.

II. Measures
A. Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is a task-specific construct that measures the extent to
which individuals believe that they can achieve increasingly difficult

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Leadership Style 413

levels of performance with respect to a specific task. Two measures of

self-efficacy were developed based on previous work by Bandura and
his colleagues (Bandura, Adams, and Beyer 1977; Bandura, Adams,
Hardy, and Howells 1980; Bandura and Jourden 1991), Locke, Freder-
ick, Lee, and Bobko (1984) and Gist (1987): a measure of self-efficacy
with respect to quantitative performance and a measure of self-efficacy
with respect to qualitative performance. Participants indicated whether
or not they believed that they could execute the behaviors required to
achieve 10 increasingly difficult levels of quantity and quality. They
also rated their level of confidence in each of those beliefs on a 10-point
scale. Overall self-efficacy was calculated by summing the product of
the confidence scores for those levels of quantity and quality for
which they responded ‘‘yes’’ when asked to indicate whether they
believed that they could achieve the level of performance indicated.
B. Task Performance
Task performance was also divided into two categories: quality and
quantity. Performance quality was assessed by an inspection carried
out by a professional quality control inspector whose services were
retained for that purpose. For each harness, the inspector filled out an
inspection sheet that contained seven items. These items were devel-
oped based on the relevant dimensions of quality as developed by Gar-
vin (1984). Four items captured the extent to which the assembled wir-
ing harnesses ‘‘conformed’’ to the specification (i.e., lengths and solder
flow acceptability). Two items measured the extent to which the wiring
harnesses ‘‘performed’’ according to specification; that is, the wiring
harnesses were plugged into test boxes designed and manufactured for
that purpose. The number of lights activated was counted, and points
were assigned depending on the extent to which performance met spec-
ifications. In addition, a current leakage test was carried out by sending
current through the wiring harnesses and measuring leakage to the
shield to detect possible damage to the wires during assembly. An over-
all quality score was computed based on points assigned on these items.
The maximum possible score was 35 points.
The manufacturing process consisted of a total of 27 steps, and par-
ticipants were given a maximum of 15 minutes to manufacture each
harness. Performance quantity was computed by dividing the actual
time taken by the participants to do the steps completed into the total
standard time associated with those steps. Thus, if a participant com-
pleted a harness in exactly 15 minutes, performance quantity would
equal 15 divided by 15, or 1. If a participant completed the steps associ-
ated with half the harness, performance quantity would be 7.5/15 or
.5. Finally, if a participant completed the entire harness in half the time
allotted, performance quantity would be 15/7.5, or 2.

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
414 Journal of Business

III. Results
A. Manipulation Check
The experimental leadership manipulation was verified using the same
37-item leadership questionnaire that was used in the pretest. As in the
pretest, the questionnaire was administered at the end of the exercise.
Scale reliabilities were again acceptable with alpha coefficients of .81,
.81, and .86, respectively, for the vision, expectations and confidence
factors of the charismatic scale (the overall scale reliability ⫽ .90); .77
for the structuring items; and .93 for the considerate items. As in the
pretest, for the experimental manipulation to be perceived as intended,
a test of differences among the actors in their portrayal of the same
leadership style should be nonsignificant, while a test of differences
among the different leadership styles as portrayed by the actors should
be significant.
To evaluate the similarity of the three actors’ portrayal of the three
leadership styles in the study itself, Hotelling’s T 2 tests were computed
for each actor on the leadership style manipulation checks. The results
revealed that none of the tests were statistically significant at the .05
level, suggesting that the actors were very similar in their portrayal of
the three leadership styles.
To test for significant differences between the three leadership styles,
a series of Hotelling’s T 2 tests were computed. The results revealed
highly significant statistical differences at the p ⬍ .0001 level between
the structuring, considerate, and charismatic styles on the leadership
style manipulation checks. This suggests that there were clear differ-
ences in the participants’ perceptions of the three leadership styles.
B. Tests of Hypotheses
The cell means and standard deviations for the performance and self-
efficacy measures are presented in table 1. Repeated-measures multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis
of a significant effect of leadership style on task performance over time
(hypothesis 1). The results are summarized in table 2. The overall test
of the effect of leadership style on performance over a series of four
trials yielded a statistically significant effect at the p ⬍ .05 level for
both quantitative and qualitative performance (see table 2). As shown in
the table, leadership style explained 8% of the variance in performance
quantity and 9% of the variance in performance quality over time.
While the hypothesis stipulated that individuals exposed to charis-
matic leaders would achieve higher task performance than those ex-
posed to either structuring or considerate leaders, the results were not so
clear in supporting this. Examination of the dependent variable means
indicates that individuals exposed to structuring leaders did have con-
sistently lower performance quantity and quality over time as compared

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Leadership Style 415

TABLE 1 Cell Means and Standard Deviations for the Dependent Measures
by Leadership Style
Charismatic Structuring Considerate
Style Style Style
Dependent Measures Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Performance quantity:
Trial 1 .64 .14 .63 .20 .76 .22
Trial 2 .91 .25 .79 .30 1.08 .35
Trial 3 1.15 .35 1.02 .42 1.28 .35
Trial 4 1.29 .34 1.26 .46 1.41 .44
Performance quality:
Trial 1 9.59 6.93 7.95 5.12 14.05 9.24
Trial 2 17.00 7.86 11.14 8.33 19.36 11.28
Trial 3 20.18 9.61 16.09 9.00 21.86 9.68
Trial 4 22.32 8.71 18.95 9.88 22.27 11.74
Quantity self-efficacy:
Trial 1 2.35 1.53 2.42 1.45 3.55 1.37
Trial 2 2.46 1.72 2.47 1.73 3.44 1.72
Trial 3 3.80 1.75 3.37 1.90 4.34 1.62
Trial 4 4.76 1.01 4.09 1.95 4.74 1.40
Quality self-efficacy:
Trial 1 1.95 1.35 2.54 1.34 3.28 1.37
Trial 2 2.07 1.41 2.09 1.36 3.16 1.78
Trial 3 3.15 1.48 2.99 1.79 3.71 1.77
Trial 4 4.01 1.30 3.27 1.93 4.02 1.61

to individuals exposed to either considerate or charismatic leaders.

However, individuals exposed to considerate leaders outperformed
those in the charismatic leadership condition when performance quan-
tity was considered. With respect to performance quality, while individ-
uals in the considerate leadership condition achieved a higher level of
quality than those exposed to charismatic leaders in the first trial, this
difference in qualitative performance appears to decrease from trial to
trial. The data were plotted in figure 1 for both quantitative and qualita-
tive performance, and post hoc tests were conducted to illuminate this
finding further.
Figure 1 indicates that participants in the considerate condition
achieved higher quantitative and qualitative performance in the first
trial than did the subjects in either the charismatic condition or the
structuring leadership condition. However, the Student-Newman-Keuls
post hoc analysis results reported in table 3 indicate that significant
differences existed only during trials 1 and 2 between the considerate
and the charismatic and structuring conditions, and during trial 2 be-
tween the considerate and the structuring condition. For qualitative per-
formance, figure 1 shows that the performance of individuals in the
considerate leadership condition appears to level off in the third trial,
while the performance of participants in the charismatic leadership con-
dition seems to improve at a faster rate than those of participants in

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 416
TABLE 2 Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Dependent Measures
MANCOVA Results
(With Self-Efficacy
MANOVA Results as Covariate)
Mean
Dependent Measure and Source of Variation df Squared F η2 MS F η2
Performance quantity for trials 1–4:
Leadership style 2 .75 2.51* .08 .07 .70 .02
Trial 3 .76 17.83*** .23 .05 1.32 .02
Style by trial 6 .06 1.44 .05 .04 1.09 .04
Performance quality for trials 1–4:
Leadership style 2 738.25 3.06* .09 190.87 1.49 .05
Trial 3 164.65 6.33*** .10 106.65 4.01** .07
Style by trial 6 29.56 1.14 .04 22.80 .86 .03
Self-efficacy with respect to performance quantity for trials 1–4:
Leadership style 2 21.23 3.44* .11
Trial 3 2.98 2.68* .04
Style by trial 6 1.98 1.78 .06
Self-efficacy with respect to performance quality for trials 1–4:
Leadership style 2 18.66 3.18* .10
Trial 3 2.87 3.19 .05
Style by trial 6 2.28 2.54 .08
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.

This content downloaded from

*** p ⬍ .0001.

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Business
Leadership Style 417

b
Fig. 1.—Plots of the effect of leadership style on quantitative and qualitative
performance over four trials. a, The y-axis is performance quantity. b, The y-axis
is performance quality.

either of the other conditions. The results of the Student-Newman-

Keuls post hoc analyses of the qualitative performance measures (see
table 3) provide statistical support for these findings. Individuals ex-
posed to a considerate leader had significantly higher qualitative perfor-
mance at the .05 level than did individuals in the charismatic and struc-
turing conditions during the first trial. Individuals in the considerate and
charismatic conditions had significantly higher performance quality at
the .05 level than did individuals in the structuring condition in the
second trial. However, no two groups demonstrated statistically sig-
nificant differences in qualitative performance at the .05 level during
the third and fourth trials.
While the above results show that leadership style had a significant

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
418 Journal of Business

TABLE 3 Post Hoc Analysis Results

Analysis of
Variance Results
Source of Variance: Student-Newman-Keuls Test:
Leadership Style df MS F Significantly Different Pairs
Performance quantity
at trial:
1 2 .16 4.42* Considerate → Charismatic
Considerate → Structuring
2 2 .36 3.56* Considerate → Structuring
3 2 .23 1.54 None
4 2 .07 .37 None
Performance quality
at trial:
1 2 215.36 4.01* Considerate → Charismatic
Considerate → Structuring
2 2 382.89 4.43** Considerate → Structuring
Charismatic → Structuring
3 2 165.39 1.87 None
4 2 79.45 .76 None
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.

effect on performance improvement over time, individuals exposed to

charismatic leaders did not outperform those exposed to considerate
leaders in this experiment; thus hypothesis 1 is not supported.
C. Self-Efficacy as Mediator
In order to test the hypothesis that self-efficacy would mediate the rela-
tionship between leadership style and performance (hypothesis 2), it
was first necessary to determine whether leadership style had a sig-
nificant effect on self-efficacy. The results of the repeated-measures
multivariate analysis of variance (see table 2) reveal that there was a
significant effect of leadership style on quantitative and qualitative
performance self-efficacy over time (F ⫽ 3.44 and 3.18, respectively,
p ⬍ .05). The η2 values indicate that leadership style explained 11%
of the variance in quantitative performance self-efficacy and 10% of the
variance in qualitative performance self-efficacy. The effects of self-
efficacy on both quantitative task performance and qualitative task
performance were also significant. Analysis of variance indicates that
self-efficacy beliefs explained 9.3% of the variance in quantitative per-
formance and 7.8% of the variance in qualitative performance (e.g.,
F ⫽ 5.71 and 4.73, respectively, for self-efficacy at trial 4, p ⬍ .05).
To test for mediation, quantitative and qualitative performance self-
efficacy beliefs measured prior to trials 1, 2, 3, and 4 were added as
covariates to the MANOVA analyses. The results of the repeated-mea-
sures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), shown in the

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Leadership Style 419

last three columns of table 2, indicate support for the hypothesis. That
is, when self-efficacy was added to the analysis, the effect of leadership
style on both quantitative and qualitative performance became statisti-
cally nonsignificant (F ⫽ 0.70 and 1.49, respectively, p ⬎ .05).

IV. Discussion
This study supports Howell and Frost’s (1989) conclusion that leader-
ship styles can be isolated, identified, and distinguished from each other
and studied under controlled laboratory conditions; it also shows that
individuals can be trained to exhibit various leadership behaviors. With
respect to charismatic leadership, previous laboratory experiments
studied its effect on the performance of managerial (Howell and Frost
1989) and clerical (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996) tasks at one moment
in time. Thus, one major contribution of this study is that the effect
of charismatic leadership on the performance of a realistic, technical,
manufacturing task over a series of trials was examined.
The results of this study indicated that individuals working under
considerate leaders outperformed qualitatively individuals working un-
der charismatic and structuring leaders in the first trial; those working
under considerate leaders also outperformed qualitatively individuals
working under structuring leaders in the second trial. These results sug-
gest that by emphasizing the comfort and well-being of participants,
considerate leaders may reduce the stress and uncertainty associated
with a complex, unfamiliar manufacturing task. To speculate, the com-
munication of the importance of quality improvement by the charis-
matic leader may have made the participants more careful at the outset,
perhaps affecting their initial performance. By the second trial, after
another leadership intervention, individuals working under charismatic
leaders improved their qualitative performance substantially. A possi-
ble explanation is that the expression of confidence in individuals’ task
performance by the charismatic leader may encourage participants to
invest greater sustained effort toward improving the quality of their
performance over time. Finally, consistent with prior research, partici-
pants working under structuring leaders never outperformed those
working under considerate or charismatic leaders, and they performed
significantly worse at the outset.
Individuals exposed to considerate leaders had consistently higher
output quantity than those working under either structuring or charis-
matic leaders in the current study. This finding indicates that, by focus-
ing on the comfort and well-being of individuals, considerate leaders
may help them to relax and work faster than do structuring leaders who
emphasize the amount of work to be accomplished and the amount of
time allowed. In the charismatic leadership manipulation, the articu-
lated goal and communication of high-performance expectations fo-

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
420 Journal of Business

cused on the importance of achieving high-performance quality, not

quantity. Perhaps this quality focus influenced the participants to be
more careful about the quality of their work at the expense of speed.
This finding points to the importance of crafting vision statements that
encourage all of the desired behaviors.
This study supports the notion that leadership style does have an
effect on performance improvement over time. Although the consider-
ate leader appeared to be able to obtain superior performance from
individuals at the outset, the results support a cautious conclusion that
the charismatic leader was also able to sustain persistent individual
effort with respect to the quality of the work over time.
The present study also indicates that self-efficacy plays an important
mediating role in the relationship between leadership style and perfor-
mance quality. This supports Bandura’s (1986) suggestion that the per-
formance of individuals can be enhanced by persuading them that they
are capable of performing the task at hand. Further, this study suggests
that various leadership styles affect self-efficacy in different ways. For
example, considerate leadership appears to have had an immediate ef-
fect on the performance and self-efficacy of the participants of this
study, while charismatic leadership seems to have taken longer to have
an effect and structuring leadership appears to have had no effect.
While the findings with respect to the effect of leadership style on
task performance and self-efficacy support the notion that it is at least
in part because of their impact on individuals’ beliefs in their ability
to perform a task that certain leadership styles can influence individual
performance, more research is needed for a thorough understanding of
how these effects are transmitted.

V. Limitations and Future Research

The limitations of this study include those associated with experiments
in general. While steps were taken to enhance the realism of the experi-
ment, the limited number of trials, the use of undergraduate students,
and the contrived setting suggest caution with respect to the generaliz-
ability of its results. For example, the performance of individuals ex-
posed to charismatic leaders caught up with and slightly exceeded that
of individuals exposed to considerate leaders in the fourth and final
trial of this experiment. It is not possible in the context of this study
to anticipate what would have happened in subsequent trials or to draw
definite conclusions about the long-term effect of the three leader-
ship styles. To understand further the mechanisms whereby leaders
affect follower performance, repeated-measures experimental designs
of longer duration or longitudinal field studies are needed.

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Leadership Style 421

Appendix
Operationalization of the Three Leadership Styles
Charismatic-Style Operationalization
Verbal behaviors. The leader is trained to articulate an ideological goal re-
lating to the importance of quality improvement to maintain competitiveness,
communicate high performance expectations with respect to the quality improve-
ment achieved by participants over the four trials, and exhibit confidence in partic-
ipants’ ability to meet such expectations.
Nonverbal behaviors. The leader is trained to alternate between pacing and
sitting on the edge of the desk, lean toward participants, and maintain direct eye
contact, a relaxed posture, and animated facial expressions.
Interaction style. The leader projects a powerful, dynamic, confident image.
Paralinguistic cues. The leader demonstrates a high level of intonation: a
captivating, engaging voice tone.

Structuring-Style Operationalization
Verbal behaviors. The leader is trained to emphasize the meeting of deadlines
and quantity and quality of the work to be accomplished, schedule the work to
be done, and maintain standards of performance.
Nonverbal behaviors. The leader is trained to sit on the edge of the desk and
have periodic direct eye contact and neutral facial expressions.
Interaction style. The leader is neutral: neither warm nor cold.
Paralinguistic cues. The leader demonstrates some intonation: a businesslike,
factual voice tone.

Considerate-Style Operationalization
Verbal behaviors. The leader is trained to engage in participative two-way
conversation, express concern for the personal welfare of the participants, reas-
sure and relax the participants, and emphasize the comfort, well-being, and satis-
faction of the participants.
Nonverbal behaviors. The leader is trained to sit on the edge of the desk,
lean toward participants, maintain direct eye contact, and have a relaxed posture
and friendly facial expression (smiling).
Interaction style. The leader is friendly, approachable, responsive, apprecia-
tive, and willing to listen.
Paralinguistic cues. The leader demonstrates considerable intonation: a
warm, friendly voice tone.

References
Avolio, B. J.; Waldman, D. A.; and Einstein, W. O. 1988. Transformational leadership in
a management game simulation: Impacting the bottom line. Group and Organization
Studies 13:59–80.
Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
422 Journal of Business

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman &
Co.
Bandura, A.; Adams, N. E.; and Beyer, J. 1977. Cognitive processes mediating behavioral
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35:124–39.
Bandura, A.; Adams, N. E.; Hardy, A. B.; and Howells, G. N. 1980. Tests of the generality
of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research 4:39–66.
Bandura, A., and Jourden, F. J. 1991. Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact
of social comparison on complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 60:941–51.
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications. 3d ed. New York: Free Press.
Frayne, C. A., and Latham, G. P. 1987. The application of social learning theory to em-
ployee self-management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology 72:387–92.
Garvin, D. A. 1984. What does ‘‘product quality’’ really mean? Sloan Management Review
26:25–43.
Gist, M. E. 1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human re-
source management. Academy of Management Review 12:472–85.
Gist, M. E.; Schwoerer, C.; and Rosen, B. 1989. Effects of alternative training methods
on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 74:884–91.
Hater, J. J., and Bass, B. M. 1988. Supervisors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions
of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73:695–702.
House, R. J. 1988. Leadership research: Some forgotten, ignored, or overlooked findings.
In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. T. Dachler, and C. A. Schriesheim (eds.), Emerging
Leadership Vistas, pp. 246–60. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
House, R. J.; Spangler, W. D.; and Woycke, J. 1991. Personality and charisma in the
U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly 36:364–96.
Howell, J. M. 1986. Charismatic leadership: Effects of leadership style and group produc-
tivity on individual adjustment and performance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British
Columbia.
Howell, J. M., and Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leader-
ship, locus of control and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated business
unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 78:891–902.
Howell, J. M., and Frost, P. J. 1989. A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43:243–69.
Kirkpatrick, S., and Locke, E. A. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology
81:36–51.
Latham, G. P., and Frayne, C. A. 1989. Self-management training for increasing job atten-
dance: A follow-up and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology 74:411–16.
Lindsley, D. H.; Brass, D. J.; and Thomas, J. B. 1995. Efficacy-performance spirals: A
multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review 20:645–78.
Locke, E. A.; Frederick, E.; Lee, C.; and Bobko, P. 1984. Effect of self-efficacy, goals
and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 69:241–51.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saks, A. M. 1995. Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects
of self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment. Journal
of Applied Psychology 80:211–25.
Shamir, B.; House, R. J.; and Arthur, M. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4:1–17.
Smith, B. J. 1982. An initial test of a theory of charismatic leadership based on the re-
sponses of subordinates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.
Wood, R. E., and Bandura, A. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management.
Academy of Management Review 14:361–84.

This content downloaded from

202.56.183.21 on Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:03:29 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms