774552

research-article2018
JLOXXX10.1177/1548051818774552Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesTafvelin et al.

Article
Journal of Leadership &

Are Formal Leaders the Only Ones

Organizational Studies
2019, Vol. 26(1) 32­–43
© The Authors 2018
Benefitting From Leadership Training? Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

A Shared Leadership Perspective DOI: 10.1177/1548051818774552

https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051818774552
journals.sagepub.com/home/jlo

Susanne Tafvelin1,2, Henna Hasson1,3, Stefan Holmström2,

and Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz1,4

Abstract
Leadership training most often involves training of formal leaders, and little is known about the potential benefits of
leadership training for other members of an organization. Using theories of shared leadership, the current study examined
outcomes of transformational leadership training that targets both formal and informal leaders (i.e., both vertical and shared
leadership). The training was set in a Swedish paper pulp factory and involved formal and informal leaders participating in 20
days of training over a period of 16 months. Based on employee survey data collected both pre- and postintervention our
analyses revealed that both formal and informal leaders significantly improved their transformational leadership behaviors.
Interestingly, the improvement in transformational leadership behaviors of formal and informal leaders tended to predict
employee efficiency and well-being in different ways. Improvements in formal leaders’ transformational leadership were
related to employee well-being, while informal leaders’ increases in transformational leadership were associated with
efficiency. The results point toward the benefit of a shared leadership perspective on leadership training and indicate
that improvements in transformational leadership may affect employees differently depending on who in the organization
displays them.

Keywords
shared leadership, transformational leadership, leadership training, efficiency, well-being

By tradition, leadership theory has been centered on the
study of a singular, formal leader and focused on under-
standing how the behaviors or qualities of formal leaders
affect followers and the organization (Bass, 2008). Recent
approaches to the study of leadership have questioned this
narrow focus on what has been labelled vertical leadership
and argue that, as organizations have turned to team-based
structures, it is important to understand leadership within
teams as well (Nicolaides et al., 2014). Informal leader-
ship provided by team members may also contribute to
team outcomes, complementing the top-down influence of
vertical leadership (D. Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014).
This approach, with leadership seen as originating not
only from the designated leaders but also from team mem-
bers themselves, has become known as shared leadership
(Pearce, 2004).
Studies using theories of shared leadership have become
increasingly popular during the past decade, and two recent
meta-analyses suggest that shared leadership is positively
related to team performance (Nicolaides et al., 2014) and
team effectiveness (Wang et al., 2014). Also, meta-analytic
evidence suggests that shared leadership explains unique
variance over and above that of vertical leadership
(Nicolaides et al., 2014). For example, in a study of new
venture top management teams, leadership behaviors of
team members positively predicted firm growth, controlling
for vertical leadership (Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006).
In a study of product development teams, shared leadership
was more effective than purely vertical leadership for
teams’ level of innovative behavior (Hoch, 2013). These
findings may be explained by the fact that in many team
contexts, vertical leaders may lack the human capital or the
temporal resources needed to help their teams achieve their
goals. In such contexts, shared leadership processes can
provide support to vertical leadership efforts (Cohen &
1
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
2
Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
3
Centre for Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden
4
Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden
Corresponding Author:
Susanne Tafvelin, Department of Psychology, Umeå University, 90187
Umeå, Sweden.
Email: susanne.tafvelin@umu.se
Tafvelin et al. 33
Bailey, 1997; Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Perry, Pearce, & Sims,
1999). Translating these findings into implications for lead-
ership training, it could be argued that leadership training
may be beneficial and important, not only for formal lead-
ers but also for other team members (e.g., informal leaders).
However, prior studies of leadership training have focused
on the training of vertical leadership (e.g., Avolio, Reichard,
Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009), and less is known
about whether leadership training for team members is
worthwhile and how the training of team members affects
followers in comparison to the training of vertical leaders.
The purpose of the present study was to examine
employee-rated outcomes of transformational leadership
training, which targeted both formal and informal leaders
(i.e., both vertical and shared leadership). We make two
important contributions to the literature on leadership train-
ing and shared leadership. First, we examine whether or not
leadership training targeting both formal and informal lead-
ers increases team members’ perception of their transforma-
tional leadership behaviors. This answers the call from
Avolio et al. (2009) for further research on for whom and
under what circumstances leadership training matters. Our
study sheds light on whether leadership training of informal
leaders can increase their leadership behavior toward their
team members as much as leadership training of formal
leaders can. Second, the study contributes to the literature
by examining whether or not increased transformational
leadership behaviors of informal leaders affects followers’
well-being and performance to the same extent as it does for
formal leaders. This is important to understanding whether
increased transformational leadership behavior of informal
leaders actually affects team members. In addition, our
study makes a general contribution to the leadership train-
ing literature by including follower outcomes, a naturalistic
setting, and performance outcomes, all of which have been
called for (Avolio et al., 2009).
Shared Leadership and the Importance of
Informal Leadership
Interest in shared leadership and how team members’ lead-
ership influence each other emerged as a consequence of
the increased implementation of empowered teams and
organizations with flatter structures (D. Wang et al., 2014).
Shared leadership is based on the notion that leadership can
be enacted by more than one member of a team (Morgeson,
DeRue, & Karam, 2010). Conger and Pearce (2003) defined
shared leadership as an ongoing, mutual influential process
that involves peer, lateral, upward, or downward influences
of team members. In comparison to vertical leadership,
which involves the downward influence on subordinates by
a formal leader (Conger & Pearce, 2003), shared leadership
emphasizes social interaction among team members and
is seen as a complement to traditional, singular forms of
vertical leadership. Shared leadership, as an influence pro-
cess, involves interacting with other members within the
team and is manifested in behaviors such as communicat-
ing, influencing, making suggestions, and holding people
accountable (Aime, Humphrey, DeRue, & Paul, 2014).
These behaviors are an informal means of addressing the
core leadership function typically addressed by formal lead-
ers (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014). Hence, shared leadership
may be viewed as an emergent property of a team in which
leadership roles and influence are distributed among team
members (D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016;
Drescher, Korsgaard, Welpe, Picot, & Wigand, 2014)
The social identity theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001)
has been used to explain why shared leadership is related to
positive employee outcomes (e.g., performance). From a
social identity theoretical standpoint, the most effective
leader does not always have to be a formal leader; it can be
other team members who better fit the actual in-group pro-
totype of how a leader should act and behave (Hogg, 2001;
Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012). The concept of
shared leadership extends the prototypicality of leadership
when team members are able to take on a leadership role
and, over time, more leader behavior in line with the in-
group prototype should be associated with members acting
in a manner that will be best for the group in both the short
and long run (Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al., 2012).
As with vertical leadership, shared leadership can take
on a number of different forms. Consistent with the notion
that shared leadership includes the distribution of leader-
ship functions among team members, a number of studies
have focused on shared leadership in relation to different
leadership functions, such as information search and struc-
turing, information use in problem solving, and managing
personnel and material resources (e.g., Drescher et al.,
2014). Another common approach to conceptualizing
shared leadership is to assess the extent to which traditional
leadership behaviors are performed by team members. For
example, Pearce (2004) differentiated between four basic
types of shared leadership that can be demonstrated by the
members of a team: directional, empowering, transactional,
and transformational. Using Pearce’s model, a team mem-
ber could demonstrate shared directive leadership by
assigning responsibilities to other team members or clarify-
ing exchanges needed to gain group decisions. Shared
empowering leadership could be displayed by the peer-
based encouragement of self-leadership in others. Shared
transactional leadership involves one or more team mem-
bers recognizing and rewarding the efforts, contributions,
or collaboration of others in the team. In a team, this could
be done by collegial appraisal for achievements. Another
way to reward people is to give colleagues the opportunity
to recommend individuals or teams for different kinds of
recognition when they reach different targets or goals
(Gockel & Werth, 2011; Pearce, 2004). Shared transactional
34 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
leadership, with focus on recognition and reward, is there-
fore a broader construct than vertical transactional leader-
ship described by Bass (see, e.g., Bass & Riggio, 2006),
where focus has been on transactions and exchanges and on
material rewards.
Shared transformational leadership, which is the focus of
this study, can be demonstrated by peer-based inspiration or
the articulation of a unifying vision. Recent studies have
demonstrated that vision formation is indeed more often a
collective process involving multiple individuals, rather
than the work of a formal leader (Ensley et al., 2006; Pearce
& Ensley, 2004). Team members may also display other
transformational behaviors, such as intellectual stimulation
in terms of questioning assumptions and individual consid-
eration by listening attentively to their colleagues’ prob-
lems. While transformational leaders (i.e., vertical
leadership) inspire and challenge team members to build
their confidence, shared transformational leadership
involves team members having influence over each other.
Consequently, shared leadership is about accepting one
another as leaders as opposed to being, for example, self-
empowered by a single leader. Thus, a formal leader may be
transformational but retain most of the authority and influ-
ence (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). In line with
empirical studies on the effectiveness of vertical transfor-
mational leadership, studies of shared transformational
leadership suggest that team members’ display of transfor-
mational leadership behaviors are positively related to team
effectiveness (Wang et al., 2014), new venture growth
(Ensley et al., 2006), trust, and team potency (Boies, Lvina,
& Martens, 2010). Given that research so far has provided
evidence that shared transformational leadership can have a
potential effect on group behavior, attitudes, cognition, and
performance (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2008), the next
important step would be to investigate whether shared
transformational leadership can be trained.
Transformational Leadership Training of Formal
and Informal Leaders
Leadership training has been suggested to be an effective
way to develop leadership skills and improve organizations.
A recent meta-analysis suggests that the effort and financial
resources that are invested in leadership training are worth-
while. Avolio et al. (2009) found that leaders who participate
in leadership training have a higher probability of improved
leadership compared to leaders who do not participate in
training, demonstrating that leadership training in general is
useful. In relation to transformational leadership theory, a
number of intervention studies have focused on the effects
of transformational leadership training, indicating that trans-
formational leadership behavior is both trainable and can
positively affect employee outcomes. To our knowledge, five
field-based interventions have examined the effectiveness of
transformational leadership training: Barling, Weber, and
Kelloway (1996), Hardy et al. (2010), Kelloway, Barling,
and Helleur (2000), Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir (2002),
and Popper, Landau, and Gluskinos (1992). For example,
Barling et al. (1996) conducted a randomized field experi-
ment including 20 managers in the Canadian financial sec-
tor. The training included 1 day of training followed by four
individual booster sessions where managers received feed-
back on their transformational leadership behavior and
developed action plans for improving their leadership. The
analyses demonstrated that the transformational leadership
training positively enhanced followers’ perception of their
leaders’ transformational behaviors, as well as follower
commitment and performance. In a similar study, Dvir et al.
(2002) demonstrated that transformational leadership train-
ing in the Israeli army positively affected followers’ percep-
tion of their leaders’ behaviors and increased follower
self-efficacy, critical independent approach, collectivistic
orientation, and work performance.
To sum up, prior intervention studies suggest that trans-
formational leadership training positively affects followers’
perception of their leaders’ transformational leadership
behaviors and followers’ attitudes and performance. Given
that transformational leadership from team members has
been proven to affect employees over and above that of the
formal leader (Nicolaides et al., 2014), it is of interest to
investigate whether transformational leadership training of
others besides formal leaders, such as individual team
members, would be equally effective. To the best of our
knowledge, no studies have determined whether transfor-
mational leadership training of informal leaders or team
members may be an important complement to the training
of formal leaders.
The Present Study
The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of
an 18-month long leadership training program in the forest
industry with a focus on transformational leadership
between a group of formal leaders and a group of informal
leaders who worked as technical engineers embedded in the
work teams. The technical engineers had no formal leader-
ship role, but they were responsible for machines and pro-
duction and worked embedded in the work teams.
The present study seeks to contribute both to the leader-
ship training literature in general and the understanding of
the shared transformational leadership training in specific.
Based on our review of shared leadership theory and previ-
ous research on leadership training, we propose that the
leadership training will improve transformational leader-
ship behaviors in terms of idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration for both formal and informal leaders who par-
ticipate in the training.
Tafvelin et al. 35
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership training
will increase followers’ perception of the transforma-
tional leadership of formal leaders.
Hypothesis 1b: Transformational leadership training
will increase followers’ perception of the transforma-
tional leadership of informal leaders.
Based on transformational leadership theory, we also
expect that increases in transformational leadership will affect
more distal outcomes related to employee well-being and per-
formance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership
behaviors may influence employee well-being in a number of
ways, for example, if leaders reframe stressful situations into
developmental opportunities (intellectual stimulation), replace
feelings of isolation with a sense of belonging (idealized influ-
ence), or listen carefully to the personal needs of their follow-
ers (individualized influence; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Empirical
studies have supported a positive relationship between trans-
formational leadership and employee well-being (e.g.,
DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Harms, Credé, Tynan, Leon,
& Jeung, 2017), including job satisfaction (Braun, Peus,
Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013) and negative relationship between
transformational leadership and sick leave (Nielsen & Daniels,
2016). We therefore propose:
Hypothesis 2a: Increases in transformational leadership
after training will be positively related to job satisfaction
among the followers of formal leaders.
Hypothesis 2b: Increases in transformational leadership
after training will be positively related to job satisfaction
among the followers of informal leaders.
Hypothesis 3a: Increases in transformational leadership
after training will be negatively related to sick leave
among the followers of formal leaders.
Hypothesis 3b: Increases in transformational leadership
after training will be negatively related to sick leave
among the followers of informal leaders.
Transformational leadership behaviors are also expected to
increase employee performance. By communicating a com-
pelling vision of the future (inspirational motivation), follow-
ers view their work as more meaningful and significant and
thus increase their intrinsic motivation. Transformational
leaders instill a belief that goals can be achieved while provid-
ing the support and coaching that followers need to accom-
plish their jobs (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Meta-analyses have
confirmed a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and employee performance (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996; G. Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert,
2011). We therefore propose:
Hypothesis 4a: Increases in transformational leadership
after training will be positively related to efficiency
among the followers of formal leaders.
Hypothesis 4b: Increases in transformational leadership
after training will be positively related to efficiency
among the followers of informal leaders.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The study was set in a Swedish forest industry company
with approximately 800 employees. All of the company’s
formal leaders participated in the leadership training. Formal
leaders were defined as the management level that is directly
above nonmanagerial workers with responsibility for
employee and work environment issues. The company also
decided to send all technical engineers to training, who in
this study constituted our group of informal leaders.
Technical engineers worked embedded in the teams and
were responsible for machines and production. Although
they had no formal leadership responsibility, the company
saw the group of technical engineers as key team members
who, given their knowledge and skills, might find them-
selves in situations where they could take on a leadership
role. They could thereby face a difficult balancing act with
the possibility of influencing team members but without a
formal mandate, hence leadership training might be helpful.
Out of the 101 formal and informal leaders, 74 com-
pleted both the pre- and postintervention questionnaires,
which were administered 1 month before and after training,
respectively, and gave informed consent for the data to be
used in research (response rate 73%). Of these leaders, 47
were formal and 27 were informal. Among the formal lead-
ers, 76% were men, and the mean age was 47 years (SD =
8.2); they had an average of 6 years of working in their cur-
rent position (SD = 6.3) and 20 years (SD = 11.1) in the
organization. In the group of informal leaders, 76% were
men, the mean age was 45 years (SD = 9.7), and they had
worked for 6 years in their current position (SD = 5.0) and
18 years (SD = 12.2) in the organization. An independent
samples t test revealed no significant differences between
the group of formal and informal leaders on these demo-
graphic variables.
In the second step of recruitment, the leaders were asked
to invite five of their team members to complete the evalu-
ation questionnaire. They were instructed to invite both
team members to whom they felt close and those whom
they perceived as more distant. This procedure was used
since the intervention included multisource (360-degree)
feedback on the leaders’ leadership. A total of 290 team
members were invited, 237 of whom answered the ques-
tionnaire (response rate of 90%) and gave informed consent
for use of the data in research. The final employee sample
consisted of 211 individuals after those who did not provide
sufficient data on the questionnaire items were eliminated.
In the final sample, 82% were men, the mean age was 46
36 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
years (SD = 8.9), and they had worked within the organiza-
tion for a mean of 23 years (9.9 years). Given that the infor-
mal leaders had no employees of their own but rather were
embedded in the work teams, some employees were, by
necessity, invited by both their formal and informal leaders;
in the end, 56 of the 211 employees rated both their formal
and informal leaders.
Measures
Transformational Leadership.  We measured transformational
leadership as rated by employees with the Multifactor Lead-
ership Questionnaire (MLQ-Form 5X; Avolio & Bass,
2004). Twenty items represented the four subcomponents
of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspira-
tional motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual-
ized consideration. A 5-point response scale ranging from 1
(never) to 5 (frequently, if not always) was used. An exam-
ple of an item is “My supervisor articulates a compelling
vision of the future.” The internal consistency of the MLQ
subscales at baseline ranged between .70 and .83.
Efficiency.  Self-rated efficiency was measured with the work
efficiency subscale from the Health and Work Question-
naire (Shikiar, Halpern, Rentz, & Khan, 2004). For each
subscale, the respondent was asked to make ratings from
three different perspectives. Efficiency was measured with
the item “How would you and the following persons
describe your work efficiency during the last week?” and
there were separate response alternatives for ratings from
the perspective of the respondent and of his/her supervisor
and coworkers. The response alternatives were measured on
a 10-point Likert-type scale with from my worst ever and
my best ever as endpoints, and the scale reliability was .88.
Well-Being.  We used two indicators of employee well-being:
job satisfaction and self-rated sick leave. Job satisfaction
was evaluated with a single item, “I am satisfied with my
job” (Hellgren, Sjöberg, & Sverke, 1997). A 4-point response
scale ranging from 1 (does not agree) to 5 (fully agree) was
used. Sick leave was measured by employees’ rating of the
total number of days absent from work due to their own ill-
ness during the past 6 months (Allvin et al., 1999). Five cat-
egories were presented: not absent due to illness, 1 to 7 days,
8 to 30 days, 31 to 90 days, and more than 90 days.
The Leadership Training
The leadership training ran over a period of 16 months
(December 2011 to March 2013). Each participant received
20 days of training in cross-departmental groups of about 20
leaders. Following recommendations for effective leadership
training (Cacioppe, 1998), multiple training methodologies
were employed. The training was based on transformational
leadership theory combined with applied behavioral anal-
ysis (ABA; Skinner, 1963) to equip managers with knowl-
edge about how they may influence employee behavior.
The training began with individual feedback on the
360-degree evaluation of the participating leaders’ leader-
ship behaviors and action planning based on this feedback
assessment. Thereafter, the training consisted of two blocks
of training: one theoretical and one practical. The theoreti-
cal block included 12 full days and 4 half days of training
from December 2011 to June 2012. It was organized into six
2-day sessions with different themes, with half-day follow-
up practical sessions conducted between them. The first
session included exercises to increase participants’ motiva-
tion to change, lectures on transformational leadership and
ABA, and exercises and discussions about their ideal leader
in relation to a transformational leader. The following half
day consisted of discussions about the 360-degree assess-
ment for which they worked in pairs to coach each other.
The second session focused on behavior and included lec-
tures, exercises, and a group discussion on how ABA could
help them understand leadership and employee behavior.
The following half day included group exercises and dis-
cussions about changing behaviors. The third session
focused on breaking down the company’s overall vision
into the different transformational leadership behaviors that
the leaders could display in their daily work. It also included
exercises on communication and on how to give feedback.
The fourth session included connecting transformational
leadership to productivity and safety, two important goals
for the company. It included both lectures and exercises.
During the following half day, the format of the action plans
was introduced, and during the fifth session and the follow-
ing half day the leaders worked on their individual action
plans. The last session, Session 6, was devoted to summa-
rizing the program and what they had learned as well as
celebrating successes.
The practical block ran between August 2012 and March
2013 and included 6 full days of training. The leaders each
identified an area for improvement that they wanted to
work through on site, together with their work groups,
while applying what they had learned from the theoretical
block. Examples of improvement areas that leaders chose
included transformational leadership, collaboration and
information-sharing in the team, and safety management.
The leaders received feedback and support on their
improvement projects, which they worked on between ses-
sions. In addition, the practical block included the estab-
lishment of internal follow-up routines in the organization
in an effort to make sure that the improvement projects
were followed up with and coordinated internally. The
leadership training was developed and carried out by the
participating organization’s local occupational health ser-
vice. The researchers designed the outcome evaluation and
the data collection.
Tafvelin et al. 37
Analysis
The employee data collected before and after the training
were first analyzed using separate, two-factor Group ×
Time analyses of variance with repeated measures on the
second factor. Given that multiple ANOVAs increase the
chances of making a Type 1 error by capitalizing on chance,
it may be sensible to control for this by either running pre-
liminary MANOVAs or by using Bonferroni to correct the
significance level that is used. However, in line with Hardy
et al. (2010), we took neither of these courses of action for
three reasons: (a) There was a risk that our main and inter-
action effects could be “washed out” in a MANOVA by the
nonsignificant variables in each effect. (b) Clear directional
a priori hypotheses had been specified for our variables. If
our patterns of effects were repeatedly obtained for our
hypothesized variables, then they clearly could not have
been obtained by chance, as chance effects would be ran-
dom in direction. (c) There were no hypotheses about the
combined linear effects of transformational leadership
behaviors. It is only appropriate to use MANOVA if genu-
inely multidimensional hypotheses have been formulated.
Prior to our multiple group latent difference score (LDS)
analysis, a longitudinal multiple-group CFA model was
estimated with the four subscales included as indicators of
the two latent variables—employees’ perception of trans-
formational leadership before and after the intervention. In
line with current recommendations (Little, 2013; Widaman,
Ferrer, & Conger, 2010), configural, metric (factor load-
ings), and scalar (factor loadings and intercepts) invariance
was tested across group and time in the measurement model.
We used change in the comparative fit index (ΔCFI) as the
goodness of fit index when comparing the models. A
decrease equal to or greater than −.01 in CFI is considered
as an indication of noninvariance (Cheung & Rensvold,
2002). If metric, but not scalar, invariance is reached, partial
measurement invariance can be established (Steenkamp &
Baumgartner, 1998). As long as there are at least two load-
ings and intercepts that are constrained as equal across
groups and time, we can make valid inferences about the
differences between latent factor means in the model
(Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989).
We then specified a multiple group LDS model (e.g.,
McArdle, 2009; McArdle & Nesselroade, 1994; Selig &
Preacher, 2009; Wu, Selig, & Little, 2013). The LDS model
explicitly estimates interindividual differences in true intra-
individual change in the targeted variables (Selig &
Preacher, 2009; Wu et al., 2013). In our two-wave LDS
model, a latent difference variable represents the difference
between transformational leadership at Time 1 and transfor-
mational leadership at Time 2 corrected for measurement
error. The latent difference variable is specified by regress-
ing the variable score at Time 2 on the same variable at
Time 1 and fixing the unstandardized path to 1. In addition,
the variable score at Time 2 is regressed on the latent differ-
ence variable and fixing the unstandardized path to 1. The
initial level at Time 1 and the latent difference variable are
allowed to covary. The multiple group latent changes score
analyses were carried out with Mplus Version 7.31 (Muthén
& Muthén, 2012) with maximum likelihood estimation.
To evaluate the model fit, we used conventional fit indi-
ces including the CFI, the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the
standardized root mean residual (SRMR), and the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). Traditional cutoff
criteria (CFI and TLI >.90, SRMR and RMSEA < .08) were
used to indicate acceptable fit (Kline, 2010; Marsh, 2007),
and Hu and Bentler’s (1999) more restrictive criteria (CFI
and TLI > .95, SRMR and RMSEA < .06) were used to
indicate very good fit.
Results
The descriptive results for the two intervention groups at
baseline and follow-up based on employee ratings are dis-
played in Table 1. There was a trend for scores of transfor-
mational leadership to increase across the period of the
study for both groups. Furthermore, the mean scores across
the two groups tended to be similar.
The Group × Time ANOVAs indicated that the Time
effects mentioned above were significant for all four trans-
formational leadership behavior scales (see Table 1). The
largest effects were obtained for individualized consider-
ation, F(1, 267) = 57.33, p < .001, and intellectual stimula-
tion, F(1, 267) = 52.22, p < .001, but idealized influence
and inspirational motivation also increased significantly.
Also, notably, there were no significant main effects for
Group nor any interaction effects of Group and Time on any
of the transformational leadership behaviors. This suggests
that there were no differences in mean scores between the
two groups and that the positive effects of the leadership
training measured from the perspective of employees did
not differ between the formal and informal leaders, support-
ing Hypotheses 1a and 1b.
Next, a multiple group latent change score model that
compared whether or not change in leadership behaviors
affected employees differently if the trainee was a formal or
informal leader was estimated. Prior to estimating the mod-
els, longitudinal measurement invariance was examined to
make sure that our measures were stable over time and
across groups (Little, 2013; Widaman et al., 2010). As pre-
sented in Table 2, increasingly restricted models were esti-
mated, the first without any equality constraints (configural
invariance), the second with equality constraints on the fac-
tor loadings (metric invariance), and the third with equality
constraints on factor loadings and intercepts (scalar invari-
ance; Little, 2013). Given that metric, but not scalar, invari-
ance was supported, partial measurement invariance was
examined with two items with invariant loadings and
38 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)

Table 1.  Descriptives and F Values for the 2 × 2 Mixed Model ANOVAs (Group × Time) of Leadership Behaviors.

Formal leaders Informal leaders

Pretest, Posttest, Pretest, Posttest,

  M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F for Group F for Time F for Interaction
Leadership behavior
  Idealized influence 2.29 (0.70) 2.45 (0.71) 2.24 (0.58) 2.41 (0.66) 0.30 23.06*** 0.00
  Inspirational motivation 2.33 (0.81) 2.50 (0.80) 2.27 (0.66) 2.37 (0.72) 1.23 10.91** 0.68
  Intellectual stimulation 2.25 (0.68) 2.57 (0.69) 2.39 (0.58) 2.63 (0.59) 2.00 52.22*** 1.02
  Individualized consideration 2.12 (0.84) 2.46 (0.71) 2.24 (0.70) 2.53 (0.64) 1.53 57.33*** 0.47

Note. ANOVAs = analyses of variance. Formal leaders n = 47 (157 employee ratings); informal leaders n = 27 (110 employee ratings).
*p < .05. **p < .001. ***p < .0001.

Table 2.  Longitudinal Measurement Invariance Across Groups Discussion

(N = 267).
This study set out to examine for whom and under what
90% CI circumstances leadership training matters by comparing the
Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA Lower Upper training outcomes of formal and informal leaders sent to
training. Our analysis shows improvements in employees’
Configural 42.827 26 .989 .069 .028 .105 ratings for both formal and informal leaders’ transforma-
Metric 53.050 35 .988 .062 .022 .094 tional leadership over time as the leaders participated in
Scalar 105.307 44 .959 .102 .077 .127 leadership training. There were no differences between how
Partial 69.356 42 .982 .070 .038 .098 the formal and informal leaders developed in transforma-
Note. df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = tional leadership behaviors in any of the transformational
root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval. leadership subscales from the employees’ perspective. The
hypothesis that changes in transformational leadership
intercepts on each factor. To establish partial measurement would be related to improvement in employee distal out-
invariance, the intercepts of intellectual stimulation and comes was partially supported. Among formal leaders,
individualized consideration over time were released. increase in transformational leadership behaviors was
Following the establishment of measurement invariance, related to improved employee job satisfaction but not effi-
the latent change score model was estimated in both groups, ciency, and vice versa for informal leaders. Changes in
now including three employee-rated outcomes: job satisfac- transformational leadership behaviors were not related to
tion, sick leave, and efficiency measured at Time 2. The sickness absence in either group. In the following section,
estimated model demonstrated an acceptable fit: χ2 (85) = we discuss the findings relating each of the hypotheses and
145.54, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, SRMR = .10, then the practical implications of the findings.
RMSEA = .07, 90% confidence interval [CI] [.05, .09]. As In line with the shared leadership theory (Conger &
presented in Figure 1, change in transformational leader- Pearce, 2003; Pearce, 2004), we found support for our first
ship among formal leaders was positively associated with hypothesis: Transformational leadership training increased
Time 2 employee job satisfaction (β = .27, p < .05), support- followers’ perception of transformational leadership of both
ing Hypothesis 2a, but unrelated to employee self-rated sick formal and informal leaders. The empirical support for the
leave and efficiency, contradicting Hypotheses 3a and 4a. shared leadership theory is primarily based on correlational
For informal leaders, change in transformational leadership studies, however (e.g., Wang et al., 2014). Our intervention
was positively related to Time 2 employee efficiency (β = study confirms those findings and extends previous research
.23, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 4b, but unrelated to by demonstrating that transformational leadership can be
employee job satisfaction or self-rated sick leave, thereby experienced in others besides formal leaders.
contradicting Hypotheses 2b and 3b. To assess whether the Also, both formal and informal leaders can develop their
differences in parameters between the two groups were sig- transformational leadership behaviors, such that changes in
nificant, Wald’s test of parameter constraints was employed transformational leadership among formal and informal
to compare the estimates of job satisfaction, self-rated sick leaders alike can be detected by employees. The fact that
leave, and efficiency. The results revealed that although the the transformational leadership measures demonstrated
parameters in the groups differed, these differences were strong measurement invariance across groups (but only par-
not significant. tial measurement invariance over time) supports this, thus
Tafvelin et al. 39

Figure 1.  Multiple group latent change score model of change in transformational leadership after leadership training and associations
with employee outcomes.
Note. Note that the first parameter displays estimates in the group of formal leaders and the second parameter represents the results from the group
of informal leaders. TL = transformational leadership; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

implying that employees rated the transformational leader-
ship behavior of both formal and informal leaders in a simi-
lar way. It also suggests that employees may perceive and
detect leadership behaviors in others besides formal leaders
in a reliable matter. This indicates that training in transfor-
mational leadership is related to improvements in transfor-
mational leadership that are as strong among informal
leaders as formal ones.
Previous research has shown that transformational lead-
ership training is positively related to employee outcomes
(e.g., Barling et al., 1996; Hardy et al., 2010; Kelloway
et al., 2000). The results from this study add to this knowl-
edge by lending some, but not unequivocal, support to the
relationship between transformational leadership training
and employee outcomes. Change in transformational leader-
ship was unrelated to employee self-rated sick leave in both
groups, contradicting Hypothesis 3. For Hypotheses 2 and 4,
which stated that changes in transformational leadership
were expected to be related to improvements in employee
job satisfaction and efficacy, the results seem to indicate a
differential pattern for formal and informal managers.
Whereas an increase in formal leaders’ transformational
leadership was related to employee job satisfaction (support-
ing Hypothesis 2a and contradicting Hypothesis 4a), an
increase in informal leaders’ transformational leadership
was related to employee efficiency (contradicting Hypothesis
2b and supporting Hypothesis 4b).
Yet the parameters were not statistically significantly
different. Therefore, more research is needed to determine
whether the difference in pattern represents a true differ-
ence in how transformational leadership training relates to
employee outcomes among formal and informal leaders.
Nevertheless, the pattern of results does have some face
validity given the leaders’ respective responsibilities and
tasks. The formal leaders have personnel responsibilities. In
Sweden, where this study was set, this includes formal
responsibility for the physical and psychosocial work envi-
ronment, such as striving for employee well-being in a
broad sense, of which job satisfaction is an indicator. The
informal leaders in this specific setting had responsibilities
for daily operations that were closely related to efficiency.
Therefore, one interpretation of the results is that transfor-
mational leadership may be directed toward influencing
certain outcomes, depending on the targets of the leader.
This ties in to the current discourse on general versus spe-
cific transformational leadership, which shows that for out-
comes such as safety, transformational-specific leadership
may be more important than general transformational lead-
ership (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002). Although
this study was not set up to test general versus specific lead-
ership, it does indicate that, for leaders with different
responsibilities, transformational leadership may be related
to different types of employee outcomes. Overall, the results
indicate that some of the improvements in employee distal
outcomes following from increased transformational lead-
ership hold up for informal leaders in addition to formal
ones. Future studies are needed to illuminate this further
and to examine whether other groups of employees may
also benefit from leadership training.
Practical Implications
The present study offers a number of practical implications
for organizations to consider in relation to leadership
40 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
training. In line with transformational leadership theory
(Bass & Riggio, 2006) and the few previous studies of
transformational leadership training (e.g., Hardy et al.,
2010; Barling et al., 1996), our study demonstrates that
transformational leadership can be trained and that improve-
ment in transformational leadership is related to positive
employee outcomes. Our findings suggest that transforma-
tional leadership training is an efficient intervention for
improving important employee outcomes that may offer an
alternative to large-scale organizational interventions to
improve, for example, employee health and well-being. In
this respect, our study answers the call from Kelloway and
Barling (2010) to examine leadership training as a potential
occupational health intervention.
Furthermore, in line with shared leadership theory
(Conger & Pearce, 2003; Pearce, 2004), our study suggests
that it may be fruitful for organizations to send not only
formal leaders to training but also others, such as those with
responsibility for production. By tradition, most organiza-
tions send only formal leaders to training, thus putting a
heavy burden on their shoulders to take on the sole leader-
ship responsibility for their teams. Building on shared lead-
ership theory (Conger & Pearce, 2003; Pearce, 2004) and
the results from our study, we encourage organizations to
reconsider this narrow, hierarchical view of leadership and
instead expand their view to see the full leadership potential
in their organizations by allowing leadership responsibili-
ties to be shared among group members. By carefully ana-
lyzing which employees or groups of employees may have
the highest potential to influence their fellow coworkers,
organizations can identify additional leadership potential in
employees who may also benefit from leadership training.
In addition, opening up the possibility for other employees
besides the formal leader to attend leadership training sends
a message to workers that others are also welcome to take
on leadership roles and responsibilities in the organization
and that everyone is expected to help lead the organization
in its envisioned direction. Although our leadership training
focused on individual leaders and their development, our
findings suggest that others besides the formal leader also
contribute to the leadership process. This indicates that it
may be worthwhile for organizations to broaden their view
of leadership development beyond the training of individu-
als by focusing on the whole leadership process, as sug-
gested by Day, Fleenor, Atwater, Sturm, and McKee (2014).
Limitations
There are some important limitations that merit consider-
ation in appraising the findings of the present study. First,
there no comparison group that did not participate in the
leadership training. The design with data collected both pre-
and postintervention with two active groups (formal and
informal leaders) does allow for the detection of changes
over time, as well as between the two groups, but without
randomization and a control group, causal inferences can-
not be made (Shannon, Robson, & Guastello, 1999).
Establishing an appropriate control group, in addition to
using randomization, is a common challenge in organiza-
tional intervention research where the design of the study is
a result of a negotiation with the participating organization
and limited by practical constraints. In this case, all formal
and informal leaders participated in the study, limiting the
possibility for establishing a control group.
We took the following steps to offset the disadvantages
with the noncontrolled design. First, we mitigated the influ-
ence that participation in itself may have had on outcomes
by using ratings from persons who did not participate in the
intervention (the leaders participated and employees rated
them). Second, we used a priori hypotheses relating a cer-
tain change (i.e., in transformational leadership behavior) to
employee outcomes. The fact that change in transforma-
tional leadership was significantly related to changes in
some employee outcomes offers some, but not conclusive,
evidence that changes in leadership behavior are related to
changes in employee behavior. Yet the difficulty in estab-
lishing with certainty why that change occurred persists. As
mentioned above, this study included all formal and infor-
mal leaders in the organization. This, in combination with a
high participation rate among leaders and leaders who
agreed to participate in research, means that the conclusions
are based on a quite unique sample representing a full range
of leaders in an organization, not only those who volun-
teered to participate in a leadership training. This means
that if anything, the impact of the leadership training is
underestimated. Another limitation is the use of a single
item to measure job satisfaction, as the reliability cannot be
established. Yet single items of job satisfaction have proven
to have sound psychometric properties (Fisher, Matthews,
& Gibbons, 2016), offsetting some of the drawbacks of
using a single item.
Conclusions
Even with these noted limitations, our study makes two
important contributions to the literature. First, by using a
shared leadership perspective on leadership training, we
demonstrate that other personnel besides formal leaders
may benefit from leadership training, as our group of infor-
mal leaders working as engineers also increased their trans-
formational leadership behavior during the training they
received. Second, the present study opens up the possibility
that improvements in transformational leadership may
affect employees differently, depending on who in the orga-
nization displays them. This calls for a new avenue of
research examining how leaders and employees in different
positions may use transformational leadership behaviors to
enhance the efficiency and well-being of employees.
Tafvelin et al. 41
Future research may examine if improvement in other
types of shared leadership behaviors, including directional,
empowering, and transactional leadership, also affect
employees differently depending on who displays them.
Finally, given the focus on teams in theories of shared lead-
ership, it may be fruitful to also explore other types of train-
ing methods to increase shared leadership, such as team
training.
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 a postdoc grant to Susanne Tafvelin from
FORTE (Grant No. 2014-0739) and a personal grant to Ulrica von
Thiele Schwarz through a fellowship in Improvement Science
from Vinnvård (Grant No. VF13-008).
References
Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The
riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 327-352.
Allvin, M., Aronsson, G., Hagström, T., Hansson, M., Johansson,
G., Lundberg, C., & Skärstrand, E. (1999). Frågeformuläret
STEM. Gränslöst arbete eller arbetets nya gränser [The STEM
questionnaire. Boundaryless work or the new boundaries of
work]. Stockholm, Sweden: Arbetslivsinstitutet [National
Institute for Working Life].
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). MLQ: Multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O.,
& Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership
impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental stud-
ies. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764-784.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development
and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational
leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 488-496.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of trans-
formational leadership training on attitudinal and financial
outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 827-832.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,
research and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Boies, K., Lvina, E., & Martens, M. L. (2010). Shared leader-
ship and team performance in a business strategy simulation.
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 195-202.
Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013).
Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team
performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust.
Leadership Quarterly, 24, 270-283.
Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for
the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures:
The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
Cacioppe, R. (1998) Leaders developing leaders: An effective way
to enhance leadership development programs. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 19, 194-198.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared lead-
ership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-
of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research form the shop floor to the executive
suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
Conger, J. A., & Pearce, C. L. (2003). Shared leadership:
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee,
R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership develop-
ment: A review of 25years of research and theory. Leadership
Quarterly, 25, 63-82.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A
meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team per-
formance relations. Journal of Management, 42, 1964-1991.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis
to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic lead-
ership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356-
371.
Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., &
Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership:
Building trust and enhancing performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99, 771-783.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact
of transformational leadership on follower development and
performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 735-744.
Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The
importance of vertical and shared leadership within new ven-
ture top management teams: Implications for the performance
of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217-231.
Fisher, G. G., Matthews, R. A., & Gibbons, A. M. (2016).
Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures
in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 21, 3-23.
Gockel, C., & Werth, L. (2011). Measuring and modeling shared
leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 172-180.
Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., Jones, G., Shariff, A., Munnoch, K., Isaacs,
I., & Allsopp, A. J. (2010). The relationship between transfor-
mational leadership behaviors, psychological, and training
outcomes in elite military recruits. Leadership Quarterly, 21,
20-32.
Harms, P. D., Credé, M., Tynan, M., Leon, M., & Jeung, W.
(2017). Leadership and stress: A meta-analytic review.
Leadership Quarterly, 28, 178-194.
42 Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26(1)
Hellgren, J., Sjöberg, A., & Sverke, M. (1997). Intention to quit:
Effects of job satisfaction and job perceptions. In F. Avallone,
J. Arnold, & K. de Witte (Eds.), Feelings work in Europe (pp.
415-423). Milano, Italy: Guerini.
Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of
vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 28, 159-174.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams:
Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 390-403.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.
Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III. (2012).
The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins,
research findings, and conceptual developments. European
Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258-304.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as
an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work &
Stress, 24, 260-279.
Kelloway, K. E., Barling, J., & Helleur, J. (2000). Enhancing
transformational leadership: The roles of training and feed-
back. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21,
145-149.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their
meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.
Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.
Marsh, H. W. (2007). Application of confirmatory factor analysis
and structural equation modeling in sport/exercise psychol-
ogy. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of
sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 774-798). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McArdle, J. J. (2009). Latent variable modeling of differences and
changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology,
60, 577-605.
McArdle, J. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1994). Using multivariate
data to structure developmental change. In S. H. Cohen &
H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology:
Methodological contributions (pp. 223-267). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership
in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership
structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide.
Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J.,
Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared
leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and
moderating relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 923-942.
Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2016). The relationship between trans-
formational leadership and follower sickness absence: The
role of presenteeism. Work & Stress, 30, 193-208.
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining ver-
tical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work.
Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57.
Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2008). Shared leader-
ship theory. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 622-628.
Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and lon-
gitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The cen-
tral role of shared vision in product and process innovation
teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
259-278.
Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1999). Empowered
selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to sell-
ing team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 19(3), 35-51.
Popper, M., Landau, O., & Gluskinos, U. M. (1992). The Israeli
defense forces: An example of transformational leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13, 3-8.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for lon-
gitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human
Development, 6, 144-164.
Shannon, H. S., Robson, L. S., & Guastello, S. J. (1999).
Methodological criteria for evaluating occupational safety
intervention research. Safety Science, 31, 161-179.
Shikiar, R., Halpern, M., Rentz, A., & Khan, Z. (2004).
Development of the Health and Work Questionnaire (HWQ):
An instrument for assessing workplace productivity in relation
to worker health. Work, 22, 219-229.
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist,
18(8), 503.
Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing mea-
surement invariance in cross-national consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90.
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-anal-
ysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 181-198.
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011).
Transformational leadership and performance across criteria
and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270.
Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial
invariance within longitudinal structural equation models:
Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development
Perspectives, 4(1), 10-18.
Wu, W., Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal data
analysis. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quan-
titative methods in psychology (Vol. 2., pp. 387-410). Oxford,
England: University Press.
Author Biographies
Susanne Tafvelin is an associate professor at the Department of
Psychology at Umeå University, Sweden. Her present research
interests include transfer of leadership training, the implementation
of occupational health interventions in organizations and the rela-
tionship between leadership and employee health.
Tafvelin et al. 43
Henna Hasson is an associate professor at Karolinska Institutet,
and head of the Unit for Implementation at the Centrum for
Epidemiology and Community Medicine at the Stockholm County
Council, Sweden. Her research focus on the implementation of
occupational health interventions.
Stefan Holmström is a senior lecturer at the Department of
Psychology at Umeå University. His present research interests
include well-being and performance both at work and within
sports.
Ulrica von Thiele Schwarz is a professor at Mälardalen University
and associate professor at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. Her
research focuses on improvement in organizations with a special
interest in organizational level interventions to improve employee
health.