Transformational Leadership and LMX

THE INFLUENCE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIPS AND JOB PERFORMANCE

Chung-Kai Li and Chia-hung hung Ling Tung University, Taiwan, ROC

Social-identity and social-exchange theory are employed to examine the role of leader-member relationships (LMX) and coworker relationships (CWR) in explaining the relationship between transformational leadership and task performance/organizational citizenship behavior. These relationships remain unclear in the current organizational literature. Survey data were collected from 1,040 teachers in 52 elementary schools in Taiwan. Results indicate that all 4 dimensions of transformational leadership have positive effects on LMX, whereas only individualized consideration and inspirational motivation positively affect CWR. It was also found that LMX is a more efficacious predictor of task performance than is CWR, whereas CWR, rather than LMX, is the better predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, coworker relationships, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior.

Transformational leadership theory has emerged as one of the most popular approaches to understanding leader effectiveness in the past two decades (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Indeed, the positive association between transfor- mational leadership and follower attitudes, behaviors, and performance is well documented (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). However, some researchers have argued that in research on transformational leadership the important mediating path that links leadership style to performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003) has not yet been fully examined. Therefore, one purpose of this study was to propose

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2009, 37(8), 1129-1142 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) DOI 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.8.1129

1129

Chung-Kai Li, Associate Professor, Department of International Business, and Chia-Hung Hung, Assistant Professor, Department of Tourism and Leisure Management, Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers. Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Chia-Hung Hung, Ling Tung University, No. 1 Road, Ling Tung City, Taichung 400, Taiwan, ROC. Phone: +886-4-2224-5808; Fax: +886-4- 2220-9087; Email: [email protected]

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1130

a different mechanism for integrating and extending research into the effect of transformational leadership on job performance, by using relationship-based variables instead of individual attitudinal or job characteristics variables (Judge & Piccolo; Piccolo & Colquitt).

We set out to examine two important relationship-based variables, namely leader-member relationships and coworker relationships. These variables have been found to be related to leadership style and/or job performance but have not been examined in relation to the link between transformational leadership and job performance. In the present study we also examined whether or not all four dimensions of transformational leadership have different influences on relationship-based variables. Some researchers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999) have pointed out that the empirical linkages of how leader behaviors and leader-member relationships are related to each other are currently relatively unexplored. Furthermore, the empirical results on how the four dimensions of transformational leadership predict leader-member or coworker relationships are inconsistent and limited (Basu & Green, 1997; Deluga, 1992).

The relationships that employees form at their workplace with their supervisors and coworkers represent social-exchange relationships that are especially salient with respect to task and citizenship performance. It is interesting to note that in previous research the focus has been almost exclusively on understanding how leader-member relationships relate to various outcomes, while there has been relatively little research on understanding how much coworkers’ lateral relationships matter (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008), despite the fact that coworker relationships have been suggested to be an alternative influence on employees’ work attitudes and performance (Seers, 1989). Indeed, some researchers have indicated that investigating relationships among coworkers is more important than focusing just on relationships between leaders and members (Sherony & Green, 2002). Research that is simultaneously an examination of leader-member and coworker relationships and the impact of these on employee task and citizenship performance has rarely been carried out (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). Moreover, whether, and how, leader-member relationships and coworker relationships are related to citizenship behavior remains unclear and inconsistent in the organizational literature (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000). Therefore, a second purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which, and how, leader-member and coworker relationships are related to task performance and organizational citizenship behavior.

In sum, we examined how employees experience and perceive their leader’s transformational behavior as influencing the quality of leader-member relationships and coworker relationships, which in turn implies that these relationships will enhance task performance and promote organizational citizenship behavior.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE 1131

TransformaTional leadership and Workplace relaTionships Four types of leader behavior are identified in transformational leadership

theory. Individualized consideration is the degree to which leaders attend to followers’ needs, act as mentors or coaches, and listen to followers’ concerns. Inspirational motivation is the degree to which leaders articulate visions for the future that appeal to followers. Idealized influence is the degree to which leaders behave in such a charismatic way that followers identify with them. Intellectual stimulation is the degree to which leaders challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit followers’ ideas (Bass et al., 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). In previous research it has been demonstrated that transformational leadership is important in shaping followers’ attitudes and behaviors and achieving desirable organization outcomes (Ilies et al., 2007; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

According to social-identity theory, people tend to classify themselves and others into various social categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and the two primary social relationships in the workplace are leader-member relationships and coworker relationships (Sias, 2005). Tse, Dasborough, and Ashkanasy (2008) further note that interpersonal relationships between leaders, subordinates, and coworkers constitute an interconnected social system that operates in organizations. The leader-member relationship is indicative of a worker’s social-exchange relationship with his or her supervisor, and is most commonly expressed by leader-member exchange quality (LMX). The basic principle of LMX is that leaders develop different types of exchange relationships with their members and high quality leader-member relationships are characterized by high levels of mutual trust, respect, loyalty, and obligation among the relationship partners (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Ilies et al., 2007; Sias, 2005). Members in a transformational leadership context interact more frequently with their leaders and have their leaders’ support, confidence, encouragement, and consideration, and hence are more satisfied with their leader, identify with the leader, trust in the leader, and, by extension, are more willing to form and maintain a high quality relationship with their leader. Zohar and Tenne- Gazit (2008) noted that a transformational leader will foster closer relationships with subordinates, characterized by small power distance and individualized consideration of members’ needs and capabilities. In previous empirical research it has been reported that transformational leadership behaviors have a significant effect on fostering high-quality leader-member exchange (Deluga, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005).

Apart from the studies discussed above, the social-identity process provides another backdrop for understanding how identification with leader behaviors guides the leader-member relationship, thus we contended that transformational leaders have a direct influence on the development and maintenance of leader- member exchange relationships by emphasizing similar characteristics, values,

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1132

beliefs (idealized influence), visions (inspirational motivation), and positive dyad-level influence (intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration). Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses: Hypotheses 1a-1d: Transformational leadership, including individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation, will positively relate to leader-member exchange relationships.

Coworker relationships are indicative of a worker’s social-exchange relationships with his or her same-status coworkers. Coworker relationships (CWR) are relationships in which the individuals involved have no formal authority over one another, where the relationship is derived from mutual liking, similarity of attitudes, or personal choice and initiative. Coworkers are the most likely, and most important, source of emotional and instrumental support for employees (Sias, 2005). Sias and Cahill (1998) found that CWR were influenced by individual and contextual factors. In particular, individual factors included personality and similarity, and contextual factors included shared tasks, physical work proximity, work-related problems, and slack time. In previous research it was found that transformational leadership creates more frequent interaction, and a communication context among employees, thus increasing the level of coworker cohesion, interdependence, and support (Bass et al., 2003; Sias, Smith, & Avdeyeva, 2003; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007).

Moreover, according to balance theory (Heider, 1958), a system of triadic relationships between two persons and an object will ultimately move toward a balanced state. That is, if an employee’s attitude toward his/her leader is similar to another employee’s attitude toward the leader, then in the employee-employee relationships activities are likely to occur to lead the system to a balanced state. Coworkers who experience their leader’s positive transformational behaviors may well perceive themselves to be similar to each other and thus form closer relationships.

In sum, based on the theoretical background and the literature review presented above, we proposed that transformational leadership comprises four kinds of leader behaviors which directly influence the development and maintenance of coworker relationships as follows: Hypotheses 2a-2d: Transformational leadership, including individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, idealized influence, and intellectual stimulation, will positively relate to coworkers’ relationships.

Workplace relaTionships and Job performance Because transformational leadership is capable of eliciting extraordinary levels

of motivation and performance beyond expectation (Bass, 1985), in this study we focused on two types of performance: task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). Task performance is defined as behavior that is

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE 1133

recognized by formal reward systems and is part of the requirements described in job descriptions; citizenship behavior is defined as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and which, in aggregate, promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2005). Williams and Anderson (1991) further identified two kinds of OCB: individual-targeted citizenship behaviors (OCBI) that directly benefit the coworkers, and organizational-targeted citizenship behaviors (OCBO) that directly benefit the organization.

Relationships between the leader and the followers are important because these have perceptual, motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral consequences. In research LMX has been linked to a number of important outcome variables. Indeed, empirical evidence has consistently supported the fact that in the context of high-quality LMX relationships, leaders show influence and support beyond that specified in formal descriptions, and the followers are given more autonomy and responsibility, thereby shaping employees’ work attitudes and behaviors such as overall job satisfaction, organization commitment, well-being, task performance, OCB, role conflict, role clarity, and turnover intention (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002).

Researchers examining LMX have drawn on social-exchange theory, which suggests that there is a perceived obligation for followers to reciprocate high- quality relationships, thus, the subordinate worker is likely to go beyond required formal job duties and engage in citizenship-type behaviors in order to maintain an equitable social exchange with the leader (Ilies et al., 2007). This perspective has received strong empirical support in previous studies where researchers have found significant and positive effects of LMX on employee task performance while LMX also encouraged OCB (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2005; Wayne et al., 2002).

There have been fewer studies in which the effects of CWR on employee attitudes and behaviors have been examined (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). In reviews of empirical research drawn from social-exchange theory and social-learning theory it has been suggested that employees who are in high-quality coworker relationships are more willing to assist each other and to share information, emotional support, and appropriate feedback (Liden et al., 2000; Seers, 1989; Sherony & Green, 2002), and these work attributes are, in turn, related positively to job satisfaction, job involvement, organization commitment, job performance (Liden et al., 2000) and helping others (Anderson & Williams, 1996). Such a situation then helps reduce employee stress, job dissatisfaction, and turnover (Sias et al., 2003). Moreover, Wang and Walumbwa (2007) asserted that supportive coworkers are more motivated to help their colleagues in personal affairs and to absorb the extra work. Given that high-quality CWR involve exchange of resources and support, these can benefit both the individual and the organization.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1134

However, as the exchange partners differ in LMX and CWR, the attitudes and behaviors that instill a sense of obligation in these exchange relationships tend to be different (Wayne et al., 2002). As noted above, interpretations of both LMX and CWR are based on social-exchange theory, which is built on the principle of reciprocity, in that when individuals are in a high-quality relationship, they will behave in ways that will benefit their exchange partner, insomuch as each party brings to the relationship different kinds of resources for exchange. Thus, in LMX relationships, employees receive different exchange sources from supervisors, such as tangible and intangible rewards, empowerment, valuable and timing resources, work-related information, and psychological support, which, in turn, generate more effort in return for high work performance than do extra benefits. Consequently we expected to see a stronger effect on task performance than on citizenship behaviors. On the other hand, in CWR, employees receive caring, helping, information sharing, and affective support from coworkers, which is less work-related. Moreover, in almost every organization, employees are likely to interact more frequently with their coworkers than with their leaders, and the positive intensive reciprocity generated by coworkers leads to a spillover effect for the organization as a whole (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Consequently we expected to see a stronger effect on individual-targeted and organizational- targeted citizenship behavior than on task performance. In sum, relationships with leaders are associated more strongly with outcomes relevant to task performance, while relationships with coworkers are associated more strongly with outcomes relevant to coworkers and the organization. Following the theoretical arguments and literature review presented above, we proposed that workplace relationships are related to task performance and citizenship behavior as follows: Hypothesis 3: LMX will have a stronger positive relationship with task performance than will coworker relationships. Hypothesis 4: LMX will have a weaker positive relationship with individual- targeted citizenship behavior than will coworker relationships. Hypothesis 5: LMX will have a weaker positive relationship with organizational- targeted citizenship behavior than will coworker relationships.

METHOD

sample and daTa collecTion Data for this study were obtained by means of questionnaires given to

teachers employed full-time in 52 elementary schools in Taiwan. Twenty questionnaires were distributed to each school. In total 1,040 questionnaires were sent out and 622 were returned. Of the questionnaires that were returned, only 570 were usable, giving us a response rate of 54.68%. As for the sample’s demographic characteristics, 57.2% of the respondents were women, the majority

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE 1135

of respondents (52.3%) were 31 to 40 years old, and for the largest group, length of tenure (34.6%) in the school was 5 to 10 years.

measures We used previously published and validated measures in this study. All

measures were self-reported and rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Mean scale scores were calculated for all measures. Transformational leadership We measured employees’ individually experienced and perceived leadership behaviors using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X-short (Avolio & Bass, 1999). Four items were used to measure individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation; eight items were used to measure idealized influence. The coefficient alpha for the measure of individualized consideration was 0.875, for inspirational motivation, 0.832, for intellectual stimulation, 0.917, and for idealized influence, 0.938. Leader-member exchange This was assessed using the 7-item scale developed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995). The LMX7 scale is by far the most frequently used LMX measure. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.889. Coworker relationships Coworker relationships were measured by adapting the LMX7 measure (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Sherony & Green, 2002). However, one item; “How well does your coworker recognize your potential?” was dropped because it did not seem appropriate for coworker relations. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.830. Job performance We assessed different types of performance using the performance measure developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). This construct was operationalized subjectively with members self-rating job performance. It is a 21-item scale that assesses task performance behaviors, individual-targeted citizenship behaviors (OCBI), and organizational-targeted citizenship behaviors (OCBO). For each 7-question subscale, we mean-aggregated the items to create each performance subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the measure of task performance was 0.858, for OCBI, 0.851, and for OCBO, 0.788. Control variables We controlled for age, sex, education, and organization tenure to avoid potential interference effects on our dependent variables (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007).

reliablilTy and ValidiTy We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the construct

validity. Results indicated that the chi-square [χ2 (df) = 2820.744(1278), p < 0.001] was not satisfactory, which was not unexpected given the sample size; other indices [χ2/df = 2.207, AGFI = 0.815, NFI = 0.864, CFI = 0.921,

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1136

SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.046] were within the acceptable values, the model fit the data reasonably well. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the indicator loadings. All standardized loadings of the manifest variables on the indicators in the CFA were significant (p < 0.001). Thus, convergent validity was supported. A common test of discriminant validity is determining whether the confidence interval around the correlation of two constructs includes 1 (Smith & Barclay, 1997). None of the 36 confidence intervals included 1, therefore, discriminant validity was also supported. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient ranged from 0.788 to 0.938, meeting the generally accepted reliability of higher than 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978).

RESULTS

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlations for the study variables. The means and standard deviations are within the expected ranges. These correlations are explored further in the discussion section. We tested our hypotheses using multiple regression analyses.

Table 1 mean, sTandard deViaTions, alpha, and correlaTions among consTrucTs

Variable α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. IC .88 3.84 0.63 2. IM .83 3.89 0.61 .724* 3. II .94 3.93 0.64 .739* .755* 4. IS .92 3.80 0.64 .700* .670* .684* 5. LMX .89 3.61 0.58 .714* .648* .671* .666* 6. CWR .83 3.96 0.50 .397* .395* .367* .363* .459* 7. TP .86 3.91 0.43 .289* .311* .285* .299* .449* .440* 8. OCBI .85 3.89 0.46 .324* .355* .310* .320* .448* .584* .667* 9. OCBO .79 3.89 0.44 .348* .359* .366* .337** .417* .495* .611* .652*

Note: * p < 0.01 (2-tailed) IC = individualized consideration, IM = inspirational motivation, II = idealized influence, IS = intellectual stimulation, TP = task performance

Results testing the hypotheses regarding transformational leadership, workplace relationships, and job performance are summarized in Table 2. Hypotheses 1a-1d, which predicted a positive and significant relationship between four dimensions of transformational leadership and LMX, were tested in a simultaneous multiple regression model. The results in Table 2 show that individualized consideration (β = 0.327, p < 0.001), inspirational motivation (β = 0.119, p < 0.05), idealized influence (β = 0.176, p < 0.001), and intellectual stimulation (β = 0.230, p < 0.001) all positively and significantly influenced LMX, thus supporting

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE 1137

Hypotheses 1a-1d. Hypotheses 2a-2d were concerned with the relationship between the four dimensions of transformational leadership and CWR. The findings in Table 2 show that only individualized consideration (β = 0.191, p < 0.01), and inspirational motivation (β = 0.164, p < 0.05) were found to influence coworker relationships positively and significantly, thus Hypotheses 2a-2d were partially supported. Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 were concerned with the relationship strength between LMX, CWR, and job performance. Table 2 shows that LMX (β = 0.334, p < 0.001) and CWR (β = 0.284, p < 0.001) positively and significantly influenced task performance, while LMX had a stronger influence on task performance than did CWR (β = 0.334 > β = 0.284), thus Hypothesis 3 was supported. LMX (β = 0.237, p < 0.001) and CWR (β = 0.474, p < 0.001) also positively and significantly influenced OCBI, while LMX had a weaker influence on OCBI than did CWR (β = 0.237 < β = 0.474), thus Hypothesis 4 was supported. LMX (β = 0.257, p < 0.001) and CWR (β = 0.377, p < 0.001) positively and significantly influenced OCBO, while LMX had a weaker influence on OCBO than did CWR (β = 0.257 < β = 0.377), thus Hypothesis 5 was supported.

TABLE 2 regression resulTs for hypoTheses

LMX CWR TP OCB-I OCB-O

Sex 0.065 -0.080* -0.108** -0.044 -0.057 Age 0.038 -0.003 -0.043 -0.053 -0.071 Tenure -0.031 0.002 0.105* 0.122** 0.013 Education 0.020 0.008 0.068 0.024 0.039 IC 0.327*** 0.191** IM 0.119** 0.164* II 0.176*** 0.041 IS 0.230*** 0.101 LMX 0.334*** 0.237*** 0.257***

CWR 0.284*** 0.474*** 0.377***

F value F = 102.98*** F = 16.92*** F = 38.72*** F = 60.985*** F = 40.243***

R2 R2 = 0.595 R2 = 0.124 R2 = 0.292 R2 = 0.394 R2 = 0.683

Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In this study, we introduced and tested an integrative model that used social- identity and social-exchange theory tools for explaining the relationships among transformational leadership, workplace relationships, and job performance. To summarize the results simply, transformational leaders increase the likelihood of enhancing followers’ task performance and of followers engaging in OCB

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1138

through the formation of leader-member and coworker relationships. Addressing calls in the literature for a theoretical integration of the transfor-

mational leadership and LMX literatures (Wang et al., 2005), in this study we confirmed findings of previous research that transformational leadership has a stronger influence on LMX than on CWR. Empirical results indicated that the greater the employee perception and experience of transformational leadership, the higher the quality of the LMX and CWR. However, it is worth noting that transformational leadership had a stronger influence on LMX than did CWR. Furthermore, in this study we extended the scope of prior research (Basu & Green, 1997; Deluga, 1992; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Wang et al., 2005) by examining the extent to which dimensions of transformational leadership work in addition to, and are associated with, LMX and CWR. Given that different dimensions of transformational leadership represent the individual leader’s behaviors, differential influences on workplace relationships can be expected. Individualized consideration was the most significant factor influencing LMX, followed by intellectual stimulation and idealized influence. Inspirational motivation had the weakest effects. It appeared that transformational leadership can affect only CWR through the dimensions of individualized consideration and inspirational motivation. Our findings provide a more comprehensive picture of the interpersonal-exchange relationships between transformational leaders, members, and coworkers in organizations.

In this study we also addressed other calls in the literature for studies to examine how strongly leaders and coworkers influence work outcome (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). We found that workplace relationships do matter, in that both leader-member and coworker relationships are linked uniquely to work outcome (task and OCB). The findings of this study supported the fact that, though both types of workplace relationships positively relate to task performance and citizenship behaviors, the effect is different. LMX seems a better predictor than CWR of task performance, whereas CWR seems a better predictor than LMX of individual-targeted and organizational-targeted citizenship behaviors. The findings suggest that the development and maintenance of high-quality leader-member and coworker relationships not only increase task performance but also improve citizenship behaviors. Moreover, these results highlight the critical importance of developing and maintaining both good leader-member relationships for enhancing better task performance, and good coworker relationships for facilitating better citizenship behaviors. In sum, the strength of LMX/CWR in predicting task performance and citizenship behaviors varies considerably.

It is interesting to note that the correlation estimate (see Table 1) between LMX and CWR was significantly positive (r = 0.459), which supports the assertion of Sherony and Green (2002) that in a transformational leadership climate, when

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE 1139

members maintain a high-quality relationship with their leader, they will also maintain a high-quality relationships with coworkers. In addition, the correlation estimates show that LMX has the strongest association with task performance followed by OCBI and finally OCBO. This result is similar to that of Ilies et al. (2007) who indicated that the effect of LMX on required and discretionary behaviors is differential. In addition, CWR has a different correlation effect from LMX, which has the strongest association with OCBI followed by OCBO and finally task performance. Furthermore, LMX correlated more highly with task performance, OCBI, and OCBO than did transformational leadership.

This result offers practical implications for supervisors and organizations in that how employees experience and interpret leaders’ behaviors can, in turn, further the development and emergence of different influences on how LMX/CWR grows in an organization. For example, individualized consideration can increase both vertical and lateral dyad linkage levels. This implies that leaders should create a more supportive, warmer, and friendlier atmosphere in the workplace. The same can be said in regard to other leadership dimensions. For instance, to provide inspirational motivation, leaders must provide inspiring and appealing visions for individual members and group members in the workplace of what is possible, what needs to be done, and what can be expected in the future. By linking LMX theory to social network analysis, we learn that transformational leaders also influence the development of their subordinates’ relationships with their coworkers, because employees with a similar LMX relationship quality seek to associate with others like themselves (Sherony & Green, 2002). In summary, transformational leadership strategies should be part of leader recruitment and training programs. Such programs can be transmitted through followers’ reactions to – and feelings about – their leader and coworkers, thus strengthening the dyadic social bonds in the workplace.

In addition, the findings that LMX and CWR have a positive influence on task performance and citizenship behaviors point to the need for continued efforts designed to promote social network ties. It is worth noting that the influence of leader/coworker relationships on work outcomes is unique. Further, there is a cultural influence on interpersonal relationships, in “high power distance” and collectivist cultures, such as Taiwan, in which coworkers depend not only on leader relationships but also – to an even greater degree – on coworker relationships. This highlights the greater importance of coworker relationships organization in collectivist cultures. Some researchers have suggested that flatter organizational structures (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008) or coordinated social gatherings (Tse et al., 2008), such as sports activities, group package tours, picnics, happy hours after work, and parties can help translate into frequent and more meaningful lateral interactions. Thus, company leaders/managers are encouraged to plan and implement practices that facilitate favorable communication interactions in the

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1140

workplace in order to enhance workplace relations, which in turn could stimulate better job performance.

In this study a number of important findings have been contributed. These can be summarized as follows: First, our model offers a new, relatively unexplored set of mechanisms by simultaneously integrating transformational leadership, leader-member relationships, and coworker relationships when predicting individual work-related behavior. Our results provide support for the hypothesized relationships between these factors. The empirical results provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interpersonal relationships between leaders, subordinates, and coworkers in an organization. Secondly, the correlation between LMX and CWR does, indeed, represent a positive association between these two constructs; our findings suggest that a high-quality relationship in one part of a network (i.e., leader relations) may also influence high-quality relationships in another part (i.e., coworker relations). Thirdly, we simultaneously examined two types of social-exchange relationships as precursors of three different types of work-related behavior. Our study differs from prior research in that we shifted the focus from individual attitudinal variables to relational variables such as leader- member relationships and coworker relationships, and how these relational variables relate to specific work performance. Our results suggest that a separate process may explain employees’ engagement in task performance and individual- targeted and organizational-targeted citizenship behaviors. Following this distinction, it is likely that the leader-member relationship is the better predictor of task performance, whereas the coworker relationship is the better predictor of individual-targeted and organizational-targeted citizenship behavior. Our results extend previous work on organizational behavior research by providing empirical evidence that task performance and citizenship behavior are different constructs, with different antecedents.

Some limitations of this research should be mentioned. First, all data were collected at the same time, so that may distort the results. There may be ambiguity in causal direction, for example, high quality leader-member exchange relationships may facilitate members having closer relationships with their coworkers, therefore longitudinal research is needed to ascertain the causal extent of the relationship among transformational leadership, leader- member exchange, and coworker relationships. In addition, in future research the mediating effect of LMX between transformational leadership and CWR could be examined. Secondly, all variables were collected using a survey with self-reported measures; therefore the results may be inflated by same-source bias and may have been affected by common method variance. In future research data should be collected from different rating sources, for example, using supervisor or coworker rating measures. Thirdly, the data were collected from educational institutions in Taiwan, which are different from private organizations and this

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE 1141

limits the generalizability of the results to other industries. For example, in Taiwan people have tenure when they serve in public educational institutions, so their major concern with how the school can survive in this dynamic, complex, turbulent environment may have affected the levels and correlations between the variables in our study. In future research data could be collected from private organizations, thus providing a comparative study.

In summary, in the current study we have added to – and enriched – knowledge of leadership behaviors by extending and integrating transformational leadership, leader-member relationships, and coworker relationships, and we have demonstrated that higher quality workplace relationships are fundamental to linking leader behavior to employee work outcomes. The results suggest that leaders who behave in a transformational manner seem to have an influence on the building and maintenance of social networks in the workplace, and that both vertical and lateral forms of social ties help facilitate employees’ higher levels of task performance and active participation in citizenship behaviors.

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 282-296.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218. Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An

empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477-499.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082-1103.

Deluga, R. J. (1992). The relationship of leader-member exchange with laissez faire, transactional, transformational leadership in naval environments. In K. E. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D. P. Campbell (Eds.), Impact of leadership, centre of creative leadership (pp. 237-247). Greensboro, NC: Centre for Creative Leadership.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827-844.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member

exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE1142

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269-277.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1286-1298.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407-416.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating

role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340. Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135. Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers,

leader-member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 542-548. Sias, P. M. (2005). Workplace relationship quality and employee information experience.

Communication Studies, 56, 375-395. Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships

in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 273-299. Sias, P. M., Smith, G., & Avdeyeva, T. (2003). Sex and sex-composition differences and similarities

in peer workplace friendship development. Communication Studies, 54, 322-340. Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the

effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 3-21. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel

& W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson- Hall.

Tse, H. H. M., Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2008). A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 195-211.

Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397-427.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420-432.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Zohar, D., & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008). Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: A social network analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744-757.