Advanced Research in the Field of Transformational Leadership**

Zusammenfassung

---

The model of transformational leadership, proposed by Bass (1985), has been widely used in the United States in applied research as well as in practice for more than twenty years. In Germany, as well, this approach has received increasing attention since the late nineties. This article aims to offer a rough introduction to the model proposed by Bass and to provide a general survey on recent German research dealing with this paradigm. First of all, the transferability of the concept to Germany will be discussed. Similarities with results obtained in America are shown and differences thoroughly conferred. Although some limitations and restrictions have to be considered, it can be shown that the concept of transformational leadership is a fruitful approach for leadership research in Germany. Moreover, interesting implications for managerial practice are derived. Furthermore, advanced research questions concerning antecedences and consequences of transformational leadership in Germany are examined. Furthermore, recent findings show that the self-rater version of the MLQ provides additional information concerning the quality of leadership. A detailed look is taken at the relation between leadership and different facets of commitment. It could be shown that there are significant contributions of transformational leadership to affective and normative commitment. Interesting differences appear, if one considers the different contexts. Another direction of current research focuses on the role of followers for the perception and maintenance of transformational leadership. Results indicate that followers' characteristics, such as personality traits and implicit leadership theories, influence the perception and acceptance of transformational leadership.

Siehe den Gesamtinhalt dieses Dokumentes

Auszug

---

Advanced Research in the Field of Transformational Leadership**

Introduction

Historical perspective

Over the last two decades, research has revived the talk about charismatic leadership and put emphasis on transformational leadership, particularly in North America. Inspired by House's "1976 theory of charismatic leadership" (House 1977), charisma has been rediscovered in the field of leadership research. A second starting point was Burns' (1978) book on transformational leadership, portraying political leaders. Although the origin of the charisma concept that was first introduced by Weber (1922/1976) is political leadership, the ideas were soon transferred to an organizational context.

The central thesis that emerged out of those theories of charismatic leadership is that organizations and employees are overmanaged but underled (Bennis/Nanus 1985). In contrast to managers who are functionally orientated and maintain the status quo, leaders offer value based and attractive visions of the future, communicate their aims and strategies in a convincing manner, offer trust and confidence, and consider the personal needs and values of their followers. This behavior is supposed to be essential for competitiveness and long-range organizational development. These leaders can be called transformational or charismatic (Bass 1985; House 1977; Tichy/Devanna 1986).

Bass (1985) as well as Conger and Kanungo (1987) started developing theoretical models and instruments for the empirical research on transformational and charismatic leadership. Diverging from the religious and mystic aspects as well as superhuman extraordinary capabilities of singular "heroes" of the first charisma theories (Weber 1922/1976), they changed the former concepts towards a more behaviororientated and pragmatic perspective. Although there currently exist different theoretical frameworks and instruments (Alimo-Metcalfe/Alban-Metcalfe 2001; Bass 1985; Conger/Kanungo 1987; House/Podsakoff 1994; Podsakoff/Mackenzie/Moorman/ Fetter 1990), a relative consensus concerning the core facets of transformational and charismatic leadership behavior has been found in the meantime. They are as follows: value-based attractive visions, inspiration, role modeling, support of personal growth, trust and consideration of followers' needs. By influencing the subordinates' values, self-esteem and self-concept, these show higher levels of effort, performance, satisfaction and commitment (Shamir/House/Arthur 1993). Although some authors discuss differences between charismatic and transformational leadership, there has always been much theoretical similarity and empirical overlapping. Therefore we use, as Hunt (1999) and others do, both terms synonymously.

Current research

A lot of research has been done since the first conceptual steps were taken. The relationships between transformational leadership and several antecedences, such as the leaders' personality (Deluga 1997; Judge/Bono 2000) and context variables (Podsakoff/MacKenzie/Bommer 1996), were examined. Moreover, the effects on attituclinal outcomes such as satisfaction or organizational commitment where shown (Bycio/Hackett/Alien 1995). Also behavioral consequences such as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB; Deluga 1995), subjective, and objective performance zenship Behavior (OCB; Dcluga 1995), subjective, and objective performance measures (Avolio/Waldman/Einstein 1988; Geyer/Steyrer 1998) were analyzed. Additionally, sever...

Siehe den Gesamtinhalt dieses Dokumentes

---