Transformational and charismatic leadership: Assessing the

convergent, divergent and criterion validity of the MLQ and the CKS
Jens Rowold
a,

, Kathrin Heinitz
b
a
University of Mnster, Psychologisches Institut II, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149 Mnster, Germany
b
Free University of Berlin, Germany
Abstract
This study aimed at empirically clarifying the similarities and differences between transformational, transactional, and
charismatic leadership. More specifically, the convergent, divergent, and criterion validity of two instruments, the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) and the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS), was explored. It was found that transformational
and charismatic leadership showed a high convergent validity. Moreover, these leadership styles were divergent from transactional
leadership. With regard to criterion validity, subjective (e.g. satisfaction) as well as objective (profit) performance indicators were
assessed. Firstly, results indicated that transformational as well as charismatic leadership augmented the impact of transactional
leadership on subjective performance. In addition, transformational and charismatic leadership both contribute unique variance to
subjective performance, over and above the respective other leadership style. Secondly, transformational leadership had an impact
on profit, over and above transactional leadership. This augmentation effect could not be confirmed for charismatic leadership.
Furthermore, transformational leadership augmented the impact of both transactional and charismatic leadership on profit.
Implications for leadership theory and practice are discussed.
2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Transformational leadership; Transactional leadership; Charismatic leadership; Profit
Over the last two decades a new genre of leadership theory, alternatively labeled as charismatic (Conger &
Kanungo, 1998; Hunt, Boal, & Dodge, 1999; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), visionary (Sashkin, 1988), or
transformational (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985), has emerged. Among these, two fields of research have
gained considerable interest. First, within transformational leadership, leaders emphasize higher motive development,
and arouse followers' motivation by means of creating and representing an inspiring vision of the future (Bass, 1997).
Second, charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998) describes why followers identify with their respective
leader.
The positive effects of transformational and charismatic leadership on several organizational outcomes underscore
their relevance (Bass, 1998; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). While these positive effects have been proven in
a wide range of applied settings (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996), the elementary field of research concerning the constructs of transformational and charismatic
The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 251 8331377; fax: +49 251 8334104.
E-mail address: rowold@psy.uni-muenster.de (J. Rowold).
1048-9843/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.003
leadership still needs further attention (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Hunt & Conger, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). The
urgent call for research in this area is summarized by Yukl (1999):
One of the most important conceptual issues for transformational and charismatic leadership is the extent to which
they are similar and compatible. [] The assumption of equivalence has been challenged by leadership scholars []
who view transformational and charismatic leadership as distinct but partially overlapping processes. (p. 298 ff.).
The instruments to assess these constructs add to the confusion about the underlying meaning of transformational
and charismatic leadership. As an example, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio,
2000), which is used to assess transformational leadership, includes five subscales of transformational leadership. Of
these five, three subscales were combined into one factor called charisma in earlier versions of the instrument. In turn,
the empirical leadership literature uses the terms transformational and charismatic leadership inconsistently and
interchangeably.
Following the arguments made by Yukl (1999) and other leadership researchers (Judge, 2005), the present study
aimed at explicating and demonstrating the relationships of the constructs of transformational and charismatic
leadership, as well as their effect on individual (subjective) and organizational (objective) outcomes. In the following
section, we compare and contrast two widely used instruments for assessing these leadership styles, namely the
MLQ-5X and the CongerKanungo Scales (CKS). We focus on these instruments as they both represent elaborated
theories and have adequate psychometric properties. We are aware, however, that other approaches to trans-
formational and charismatic leadership may result in a more elaborated understanding of the subject as well (Rafferty
& Griffin, 2004).
1. Comparison of MLQ and CKS
1.1. Similarities
Both the MLQ and CKS belong to what has been labeled neo-charismatic leadership theories (Antonakis &
House, 2002). Fundamental to the theories of Bass (1985) and Conger & Kanungo (1998) is the representation and
articulation of a vision by the leader (Sashkin, 2004). As a long-term attempt to change followers' attitudes, self-
concepts (House & Shamir, 1993) and motives, this vision is rooted in commonly-held ethics and values (Bass &
Steidlmeier, 1999). The ethical foundation of the vision is fundamental to both Bass' and Conger and Kanungo's
theories. Thus, they focus on socialized as opposed to personalized charisma (Howell & Avolio, 1992). Socialized
charismatic leaders use their abilities to achieve benefits for all followers, and not just for their own benefit.
Both transformational and charismatic leaders are agents of change. In addition to the formulation of a vision, strong
emotional ties between the leader and the led are necessary in order to change followers' belief systems and attitudes. In
addition, if the leader is a trustworthy model and represents a code of conduct, transformation occurs more easily. As a
consequence of the leader's charismatic qualities and behaviors, followers identify with the leader. In turn, values and
performance standards are more likely to be adapted by followers. Finally, transformational and charismatic leaders
foster performance beyond expectations.
These similarities between the theories proposed by Bass (1985) and by Conger & Kanungo (1998) highlight
the fact that they share at least one basic assumption (cf. Antonakis & House, 2002). In his original work on
transformational leadership, Bass (1985) proposed that charisma is the main component of transformational leadership.
However, several important differences between these theories are clearly evident.
1.2. Differences
The main difference between the MLQ and CKS is that each is based on its own conceptualization of charismatic/
transformational leadership (Antonakis & House, 2002; House & Shamir, 1993). As a consequence, these measures
include different sets of leadership scales. We turn to each of these instruments in the following paragraphs.
Central to the theory of Bass (1985) is the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership.
Over the last two decades, empirical research resulted in several subscales for the assessment of these two
multifaceted constructs. Nine different subscales of transformational and transactional leadership are measured by
the MLQ-5X (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 2000). Whereas in the last decades the factorial validity of
122 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
the MLQ-5X was under consideration (Den Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Yukl, 1999), a recent large sample analysis
(Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003) supported the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X, which is
described in Table 1.
Whereas the MLQ assesses leadership behavior at a single point in time, the CKS views leadership as a process over
time. Thus, the two theories focus on different time frames. Conger & Kanungo (1998) developed a model of
charismatic leadership which focuses on three distinct stages of the leadership process. In the first stage, the leader
assesses the environment as to growth opportunities for the respective organization (cf. Table 1, Sensitivity to the
Environment, SE) and carefully evaluates his/her followers' needs (Sensitivity to Members' Needs, SMN). In stage two,
the respective leader formulates a strategic vision which is constantly presented in an inspiring way (Strategic Vision
and Articulation, SVA). Finally, in the third stage, the leader provides a role model by demonstrating Personal Risk
(PR) and Unconventional Behavior (UB) to his/her followers. By means of PR and UB, the leader builds up followers'
trust and commitment (Conger, Kanungo, Menon, & Mathur, 1997). In sum, these five subscales form the Conger and
Kanungo Scale (CKS) of charismatic leadership. A combined measure of charisma will be labeled CKS-CH in the
present study.
At the subscale level, additional similarities between transformational (MLQ) and charismatic (CKS) leadership can
be noted (cf. Table 1). In both the MLQ scale IS and the CKS scale SE, the leader questions the status quo and seeks out
new ways to solve problems. Furthermore, articulating a vision and inspiring the followers are contents of both the
MLQ scale IM and the CKS scale SVA. Thirdly, understanding and evaluating the followers' needs is a subject of both
the MLQ IC and the CKS SMN scales. Unique to the CKS are the subscales of PR and UB. In contrast to the MLQ, no
Table 1
Comparison of the subscales of MLQ-5X and CKS
MLQ CKS
Transformational leadership Charismatic leadership
Inspirational motivation (IM). Articulation and representation
of a vision; leaders' optimism and enthusiasm.
Sensitivity to the environment (SE). The leader assesses the
environment for growth opportunities for his/her respective
organization, criticizes the status quo and proposes radical
changes in order to achieve organizational goals.
Idealized influence attributed (IIa). Instilling pride in and respect
for the leader; the followers identify with the leader.
Sensitivity to members' needs (SMN). The leader carefully
evaluates his/her followers' needs.
Idealized influence behavior (IIb). Representation of a
trustworthy and energetic role model for the follower.
Strategic vision and articulation (SVA). The leader formulates
a strategic vision for the respective organization. It is constantly
presented to followers in an inspiring way.
Intellectual stimulation (IS). Followers are encouraged to
question established ways of solving problems.
Personal risk (PR). Presenting self-confidence, demonstrating
belief in the potential outcome of the vision.
Individualized consideration (IC). Understanding the needs and abilities
of each follower; developing and empowering the individual follower.
Unconventional behavior (UB). Leaders build trust and
commitment in followers; provides a role model for followers.
Transactional leadership
Contingent reward (CR). Defining the exchanges between what is
expected from the follower and what the follower will receive in return.
Active management-by-exception (AMbE). In order to maintain
current performance status the focus is on detecting and
correcting errors, problems or complaints.
Management-by-exception passive (MbEP). Addressing problems
only after they have become serious.
Nonleadership
Laissez-faire (LF). Absence of leadership behavior.
123 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
subscale of the CKS assesses transactional leadership behaviors. All in all, discussing the MLQ and CKS scales reveals
that these instruments do cover different but also similar facets of leadership behavior (Yukl, 1999).
2. Leadership styles and performance: The augmentation effect
Several meta-analyses provided evidence for the criterion-related validity of transformational and charismatic
leadership (DeGroot, Kiker, & Cross, 2000; Dumdum et al., 2002; Fuller, Patterson, Hester, & Stringer, 1996; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004). These two constructs consistently showed a positive impact on both subjective (Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996) and objective (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998) performance
criteria. In addition, transactional leadership was positively related to outcome criteria, although to a lesser degree than
transformational and charismatic leadership. A recurring theme within transformational leadership research literature is
the augmentation hypothesis. In order to evaluate the two diverging leadership styles, it was hypothesized by Bass
(1985) that transformational leadership adds unique variance beyond that of transactional leadership for predicting
organizational outcomes. This augmentation effect of transformational leadership was found when predicting
subjective (e.g., Waldman, Bass, & Yammarino, 1990) and objective measures of performance (e.g., Geyer & Steyrer,
1998), providing support for the criterion validity of transformational leadership. However, the augmentation effect has
not been tested for charismatic leadership (CKS). Thus, implementing hierarchical regression analyses, the present
study tested the augmentation effect for both charismatic and transformational leadership.
3. Overview of the present study
In combination, we intended to provide insights into both the interrelationship as well as the effects of partially
rivaling leadership constructs (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Yukl, 1999). More specifically, the present study had
three objectives. First, using data from an empirical investigation, we investigated the nomological network of
charismatic, transformational, and transactional leadership. We proposed that transformational and charismatic
leadership share some attributes, are highly redundant, and show a convergent validity (H1a). In comparison, these
two leadership styles show a divergent validity to transactional leadership (i.e. transactional leadership shows weaker
correlations with transformational and charismatic leadership than these styles show with each other [H1b]).
Second, we focused on the criterion validity of transformational, transactional, and charismatic leadership. On the
side of subjective performance, we assessed subordinates' perception of effectiveness, their extra effort, and their
satisfaction. On the side of objective performance, we focused on profit. Transactional leadership shows negative
(Howell, Neufeld, & Avolio, 2005) as well as positive correlations to objective outcomes (Geyer & Steyrer, 1998).
However, the meta-analytic results of Lowe et al. (1996) as well as Judge & Piccolo (2004) suggest that the correlation
of transactional leadership and objective outcomes are positive, but to a lesser degree than with transformational
leadership. Therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested: Transactional (H2a), transformational (H2b), and
charismatic (H2c) leadership are positively correlated to subjective performance. Transactional (H3a), transformational
(H3b), and charismatic (H3c) leadership are positively correlated to objective performance. In both cases, transactional
leadership shows weaker correlations with the performance criteria than transformational and charismatic leadership.
Third, for a more rigorous test of the impact these constructs have on both subjective and objective performance
indicators, regression analysis was implemented. We proposed that both transformational and charismatic leadership
augment the impact of transactional leadership on subjective and objective performance. Specifically, we began by testing
if transformational leadership has a stronger relationship to subjective and objective performance criteria than
transactional leadership. In the next analysis, we tested if the augmentation effect can be found for charismatic leadership
as well. We proposed that charismatic leadership augments the effect of transactional leadership. Finally, we compared
charismatic and transformational leadership directly. We tested if transformational leadership augments charismatic
leadership and vice versa. This last step in the criterion validity analysis is an extension to convergent validity: If the
results show that transformational and charismatic leadership are not completely redundant, it will be interesting to know
which leadership style shows a stronger relationship to performance. In sum, with these analyses we aimed at clarifying
the ways in which different leadership models relate to each other as well as to important organizational outcomes.
It has been noted by leadership scholars that contextual influences are to be taken into consideration when examining
the relationship between leadership styles and organizational outcomes (Bass, 1985; Waldman et al., 1990). More
specifically, it was hypothesized that contextual variables such as size of department, type of organization, and
124 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
hierarchical level moderated the relationship between leadership styles and outcome criteria (Antonakis & House, 2002;
Yukl, 2002). In the present study, we were able to include the focal leaders' hierarchical level as one of the more important
contextual conditions (cf. Lowe et al., 1996), as for example managerial functions and experiences may vary with
hierarchical levels of the leader, likewise the experiences of the respondents (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987). In
turn, within all the regression analyses, we controlled for focal leaders' hierarchical level. Compared to transactional
leadership it was hypothesized that transformational and charismatic leadership explains additional variance in subjective
(H4a) and objective (H4b) performance, whilst controlling for focal leaders' hierarchical level. Also, it was hypothesized
that both transformational and charismatic leadership augment the impact of the respective other leadership style on
subjective (H5a) and objective (H5b) performance whilst controlling for focal leaders' hierarchical level.
4. Method
4.1. Participants
Participants were employees in a large public transport company in Germany. From a total of N=298 employees,
220 responded (response rate=73.8%). These employees assessed the leadership style of their respective direct leader
(i.e. supervisor) who led one of the companys' 45 branches. At least two employees reported to their respective leader.
The branches are hierarchically nested so that leaders of four hierarchical levels were rated. Seven employees (3.4%)
reported to top executives, 37 (17.9%) to upper management, 88 (42.5%) to middle management, and 75 (33.8%) to
first-level supervisors. The mean age of the participants was 40 years (SD=7.1); 73% were male.
4.2. Questionnaire design
4.2.1. Leadership style
Transformational and transactional leadership was assessed using a German translation of the MLQ 5-X (Bass &
Avolio, 2000; cf. Note 1; Yammarino, Spangler, & Dubinsky, 1998). In contrast to earlier German translations of the
MLQ-5X (Felfe & Goihl, 2002; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998), this translation proved to measure the nine dimensions of
transformational and transactional leadership described above with good psychometric properties (Rowold, 2004,
2005). For assessing charismatic leadership style, the Conger and Kanungo Scales (CKS; Conger & Kanungo, 1998)
were carefully translated from English to German by a professional and then backtranslated by an English native
speaker, both experts in the field of organizational psychology (Behling & Law, 2000). For each of the MLQ and CKS
items, participants rated the frequency of leaders' behavior on a 5-point rating scale (1=not at all, 5=frequently, if not
always). The subscale values represent the unweighted means of the respective items; combined measures represent the
mean values of the respective subscales. In addition, participants indicated their focal leaders' hierarchical level within
the organization, ranging from 1 (upper management) to 4 (second-level supervisors).
As we did not have any a priori expectation concerning the differential affect of the transformational or charismatic
subscales, we used combined measures that were consistent with recent empirical studies (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, &
Bhatia, 2004). Transformational, transactional and charismatic leadership show satisfactory -levels (see Table 3). We
therefore assume that our results are based on reliable construct assessment. In order to test the factorial validity of the
leadership instruments, confirmatory factor analyses were performed. For both instruments several alternative models
found in prior research (cf. Antonakis et al., 2003; Conger & Kanungo, 1998) were tested. Several fit indices were
used to evaluate the model fit (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994) and the
2
-Difference-Test was implemented to
compare rivaling factor models. Results from Table 2 demonstrate that for the MLQ-5X, the nine factor model showed
the best fit, replicating recent research (Rowold, 2005). As for the CKS, the five factor model advocated by Conger
and colleagues was supported. These results seem to justify the use of the two leadership instruments.
5. Performance indicators
5.1. Subjective measures
The present study included three subjective performance measures. Respondents were asked to rate their
Extra Effort (EEF), the Effectiveness of leaders' behavior (EFF), and their Satisfaction (SAT) with the respective
125 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
leader. These scales ranged from (1) very low to (5) very high and are part of the MLQ-5X (Bass & Avolio,
2000).
5.2. Objective measures
The participating transport company had a clearly defined system of evaluating the financial performance of the 45
branches. Prior to each year, the top management carefully defined the budget for each branch individually. This
process was carried out in close collaboration with the respective branch leader and took into account parameters
such as the size of the respective branch and its annual performance goal. At the end of each year, the gains and losses
of each branch were calculated, yielding the final financial performance. The difference between these two measures
(profit) was an ideal objective performance indicator and made it easy to communicate each branch's success in
financial terms. In sum, each branch was responsible for its budget and could directly contribute to the company's
financial performance goals. For N=39 branches, profit data was available from company records and standardized for
further analyses.
6. Procedure
The questionnaires were administered to participants during work time; full anonymity was assured. All
N=220 participants filled out both the MLQ (which included the subjective performance criteria) and the
CKS. The survey took place during the last 3 months of the same year for which the objective performance
measures were collected.
7. Results
7.1. Convergent and divergent analysis
Using correlational analysis, we explored the relationships between transformational (TF), transactional (TA
both measured with the MLQ) and charismatic leadership (as measured by the CKS, CKS-CH). TA is seen as
divergent, TF and CKS-CH as convergent leadership styles. Table 3 shows the intercorrelations of constructs
(individual level, N=220).
7.1.1. Convergent validity
The high correlation between TF and CKS-CH (r =.88, pb.01) supports convergent validity between these
constructs (hypothesis 1a).
Table 2
Results of confirmatory factor analyses

2
df AIC TLI CFI RMSEA
2
df
MLQ
Null-model 21701 666 21773 NA NA 0.38 20454

108
One factor model
a
1797 594 2013 0.94 0.94 0.10 550

36
Three factor model
b
1677 591 1899 0.94 0.95 0.09 430

33
Six factor model
c
1350 579 1596 0.96 0.96 0.08 103

21
Nine factor model
d
1247 558 1535 0.96 0.97 0.07
CKS
Null-model 14509 276 14555 NA NA 0.46 13976

56
One factor model
a
997 230 1135 0.94 0.95 0.12 464

10
Five factor model
d
533 220 691 0.97 0.98 0.08
Note: a) All items load on one leadership factor; b) transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership; c) in contrast to the nine factor
model, inspirational motivation and both idealized influence factors were combined into one charisma factor; d) factor model as described in
Table 1 (target model); NA = not available;
2
was calculated by subtracting model
2
from that of the nine-factor (MLQ) or five-factor
(CKS) model; likeways, df was calculated by subtracting model df from that of the nine-factor (MLQ) or six-factor (CKS) model;

pb.001.
126 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
7.1.2. Divergent validity
Both the correlations between TA and TF (r =.57, pb.01) as well as between TA and CKS-CH (r =.52, pb.01) were
statistically significant. Further statistical analysis was deemed necessary to check if these divergent validity
coefficients were significantly smaller than convergent validity. Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin's (1992) approach was
utilized to test differences between dependent correlations. It was found that 1) r
TF,CH
Nr
TF,TA
(Z=1.90, pb.05) and 2)
r
TF,CH
Nr
CH,TA
(Z=2.35, pb.01). Thus, divergent validity coefficients were significantly smaller than convergent
validity, supporting hypothesis 1b.
8. Leadership style and performance
Table 3 reveals that all of the leadership styles were significantly associated with indicators of subjective
performance. Thus, hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were supported by the data. It should be noted that focal leaders'
hierarchical level was significantly correlated with transformational and charismatic leadership style as well as the three
subjective performance indicators. Thus, higher-level leaders exhibit more of these leadership behaviors which are, in
turn, associated with subjective performance. These results highlight the importance of contextual variables such as
respondents' level (Lowe et al., 1996). As was stated in the introduction, we controlled for level in the regression
analyses which will be presented next.
9. Augmentation analyses
The results reported above show that transformational and charismatic leadership are highly convergent.
However, as already mentioned, the two questionnaires (MLQ and CKS) both measure facets of leadership
behavior that are not part of the respective other instrument. Therefore, on the one hand, it was examined if the
facets of transformational and charismatic leadership augment transactional leadership and, on the other hand,
if they augment each other, i.e. if they explain genuine variance in subjective and objective performance
indicators.
9.1. Subjective performance
Hierarchical regression analysis was performed in order to assess the impact of the hierarchical level and different
leadership styles on subjective performance indicators. Each step within these hierarchical regressions is represented by
a separate row in Table 4. Throughout the analyses, the hierarchical level was entered first into the regression. In the
next steps, we separately entered different leadership styles into the regression analysis.
The results show that, for the subjective performance indicators, transformational leadership adds between 29 and
39% variance beyond that of transactional leadership (analysis #1). Also, charismatic leadership adds comparable
amounts of variance (2940%) to transactional leadership (analysis #2). Taken together, these results support
hypothesis 4a.
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and internal consistency reliabilities for key study variables at the individual level (N=220)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Level 3.11 0.94
2. Transactional leadership 2.90 0.48 .04 .85
3. Transformational leadership 3.35 0.65 .31

.57

.87
4. CKS-CH 3.26 0.69 .32

.52

.88

.87
5. Extra effort 3.19 0.84 .25

.45

.77

.76

.81
6. Effectiveness 3.56 0.76 .31

.41

.79

.81

.74

.70
7. Satisfaction 3.47 0.86 .31

.33

.74

.75

.65

.79

.83
Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level; TA = transactional leadership; TF = transformational leadership; CKS-CH = charismatic leadership as
measured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales, EEF = extra effort; EFF = effectiveness; SAT = satisfaction. Values along the diagonal represent
internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha).

p.01 (one-tailed).
127 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
Furthermore, the results show that both transformational (analysis #3) and charismatic leadership (analysis #4) add
unique variance (35%) for subjective performance beyond that of the respective other leadership style. These results
lend support to hypothesis 5a.
9.2. Objective performance
The impact of leadership styles on profit is analyzed at the branch level. Before the data was aggregated at the branch
level, it was tested if different subordinates attributed the same leadership styles to their mutual supervisor (i.e. branch
leader). Following the recommendations made by McGraw & Wong (1996), interrater agreement (ICC
1
and ICC
2
) and
within-group agreement indices (r
wg
) were calculated (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). Table 5 indicates that the raters
highly agreed on the three leadership scales. Consequently, leadership ratings were aggregated at the branch level.
Descriptive statistics of key study variables are presented in Table 5. As can be seen, profit is significantly correlated to
transformational leadership. While this result supports hypothesis 3b, the hypotheses 3a and 3c were not supported.
With regard to the augmentation hypothesis, the analyses of objective performance paralleled the analyses of
subjective performance. Hierarchical regression analyses were implemented to assess the impact of different leadership
styles on profit, while controlling for the focal leaders' hierarchical level (cf. Table 6). Transformational leadership
augmented the impact of transactional leadership on profit: 14% variance in profit is due to transformational leadership,
over and above transactional leadership (analysis #1). In contrast, charismatic leadership did not augment transactional
Table 5
Descriptive statistics for key study variables at the branch level (N=39)
M SD ICC
1
ICC
2
Mean SD 1 2 3 4
r
wg
r
wg
1. Level 3.03 0.96
2. TA 2.89 0.37 .79 .51 .67 .95 .07 .15
3. TF 3.34 0.55 .93 .67 .80 .96 .06 .52

.69

4. CKS-CH 3.20 0.50 .94 .46 .63 .95 .07 .55

.69

.93

5. Profit 0.00 1.00 .21 .21 .26

.15
Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level within the organization; TA = transactional leadership; TF = transformational leadership; CKS-CH =
charismatic leadership as measured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales; EEF = extra effort; EFF = effectiveness; SAT = satisfaction, Profit =
(standardized) objective profit.

p.05;

p.01 (one-tailed).
Table 4
Summary of simultaneous regression analyses (standardized Betas) for leadership styles predicting subjective measures of performance at the
individual level (N=220)
Analysis No. Extra effort Effectiveness Satisfaction
Beta R
2
R
2
Beta R
2
R
2
Beta R
2
R
2
(1) Level .02 .12 .12

.06 .16 .16

.08

.08 .08

TA .03 .29 .18

.04 .30 .14

.15

.17 .10

TF .74

.59 .29

.79

.63 .33

.86

.57 .39

(2) Level .42

.12 .12

.08 .16 .16

.05 .08 .08

TA .01 .29 .18

.01 .30 .14

.10 .17 .10

CKS-CH .38 .58 .29

.78

.66 .36

.82

.58 .40

(3) Level .00 .12 .12

.04 .16 .16

.10 .08 .08

TA .01 .29 .18

.07 .30 .14

.17

.17 .10

TF .43

.59 .29

.38

.63 .33

.46

.57 .39

CKS-CH .37

.62 .03

.49

.69 .05

.48

.62 .05

(4) Level .00 .12 .12

.04 .16 .16

.10

.08 .08

TA .01 .29 .18

.07 .30 .14

.17

.17 .10

CKS-CH .37

.58 .29

.49

.66 .36

.48

.58 .40

TF .43

.62 .04

.38

.69 .03

.46

.62 .04

Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level; TF = transformational leadership; TA = transactional leadership; CKS-CH = charismatic leadership as
measured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales.

p.01;

p.05.
128 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
leadership (analysis #2). Thus, hypothesis 4b was only partially supported. Furthermore, charismatic leadership did not
augment the impact of transformational leadership on profit (analysis #3). However, transformational leadership
augments charismatic and transactional leadership (analysis #4) and adds 11% of unique variance. These results
partially confirmed hypothesis 5b. Although these results echo the results from Table 5, where only transformational
leadership was associated with profit, we performed these analyses as only the regression analyses provide additional
information about the augmenting effect of certain leadership styles. The -weights, however, should not be interpreted
due to multicollinearity problems (high correlations between the leadership styles, see Table 5; cf. Cohen, Cohen, West,
& Aiken, 2002). Summarizing the results for objective performance, hierarchical regression analyses show that
transformational leadership augments the impact of transactional as well as charismatic leadership on profit.
10. Discussion
Although they are often compared and used interchangeably, charismatic (CKS) and transformational (MLQ)
leadership have a differential focus on the leadership phenomenon and its outcomes on top of the many components
they share. This study provides evidence for convergent validity between transformational (MLQ) and charismatic
(CKS) leadership. From the results reported in Table 3, we estimate the shared variance between these constructs to be
78%. While this supports the idea that charismatic and transformational leadership are to a larger degree overlapping,
the still remaining 22% variance gives us an idea about the uniqueness of these constructs. Furthermore, analyses show
that transformational and charismatic leadership are differential to transactional leadership, which provides, on the side
of transformational leadership, further support for the divergent validity, showing that transformational leadership is
not redundant to transactional leadership. According to our analyses, the same counts for charismatic leadership as
measured with the CKS (cf. Note 2).
However, the correlations between transactional and transformational leadership are high and significant. While
these results limit divergent validity of the MLQ to some extent, they replicate findings from earlier research. Drawing
on large samples from diverse organizational settings, independent analyses showed that transformational and
transactional leadership are highly correlated (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass & Avolio, 2000).
With regard to criterion validity of transformational and charismatic leadership, the conducted hierarchical
regressions provide more insight into the convergence (or overlapping) of these two concepts. First of all, the
augmentation hypothesis was confirmed in this study. Transformational leadership augments transactional leadership
for subjective as well as objective criteria. With respect to the objective criterion, our results confirm earlier results from
Geyer & Steyrer (1998). Their results showed that transformational leadership uniquely accounts for 6% of the
Table 6
Summary of simultaneous regression analysis (standardized Betas) for leader-ship styles predicting objective measures of performance at the branch
level (N=39)
Analysis No. Leadership style Profit
Beta R
2
R
2
(1) Level .52

.05 .05
TA .15 .10 .06
TF .63

.24

.14

(2) Level .42

.05 .05
TA .01 .10 .06
CKS-CH .38 .15 .05
(3) Level .47

.05 .05
TA .10 .10 .06
TF .92

.24 .14

CKS-CH .38 .26 .02

(4) Level .47

.05 .05
TA .10 .10 .06
CKS-CH .38 .15 .05
TF .92

.26 .11

Note: Level = focal leaders' hierarchical level; TF = transformational leadership; TA = transactional leadership; CKS-CH = charismatic leadership as
measured by the Conger and Kanungo Scales.

p.01;

p.05.
129 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
variance of long-term objective performance ratings (profit). In comparison, in our study 14% of variance in profit is
explained by transformational leadership, over and above transactional leadership.
Furthermore, charismatic leadership (as measured with the CKS) explains additional variance in the
subjective performance measures. However, charisma does not augment transactional leadership with regard to
the objective performance measure. The key finding in this study is that although transformational (MLQ) and
charismatic (CKS) leadership share a considerable portion of variance (78%), they have a differentiated impact
on profit.
When comparing transformational and charismatic leadership within the hierarchical regressions, it becomes obvious
that these two concepts explain approximately the same amount of extra variance in subjective performance measures
above the respective other concept. Therefore, with regard to subjective performance criteria, the augmentation effect
can be confirmed for charismatic leadership as measured with the CKS scale as well. In order to learn more about which
subscales of the CKS augment both transactional and transformational leadership, we conducted additional hierarchical
regression analyses. It was found that all subscales of the CKS have a significant impact on subjective performance
indicators such as Extra Effort. In sum, the additional regression analyses put further emphasis on the importance of
analyzing a wide range of different leadership styles, as assessed by different leadership instruments.
10.1. Implications for theory
The two terms of charismatic and transformational leadership are often used interchangeably. Although our
empirical results suggest that they are highly convergent, both the MLQ and the CKS capture their own piece of
charisma (cf. Table 1). While both approaches to leadership explain unique variance in subjective performance criteria,
only the MLQ assesses parts of the leaderfollower-relationship that are more directly related to profit. Several reasons
might account for this phenomenon. First, in addition to behaviors, the MLQ includes followers' attributions which
have been hypothesized to play an important role for the leadership process and related outcomes (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). Second, whereas the MLQ focuses on the effect of focal leaders' perceived
behavior on subordinates, Conger and Kanungo provide a more leader-centered theory. Thus, it might be speculated
that in the CKS theory, follower processes (e.g. their attribution, motivation) that are related to profit are missing. Third,
as the CKS implies three stages of the charismatic leadership process, future theoretical modifications should explicate
effects of the stage model. Therein, it should be specified how the three stages are to be combined (e.g. sum or product
of stages' subscales) to predict outcome criteria. Also, the effect of the CKS subscales of UB and PR should be
specified for different contexts. From our results it might be speculated that within transaction-based organizations,
these extraordinary and/or risky behaviors might be irrelevant to objective outcomes.
10.2. Implications for practice
Our results have implications for managerial selection and training. Both charismatic and transformational
leadership behavior are important to subjective performance. Hence, both approaches to leadership are valuable and
should be the focus of leadership development interventions. It can be proposed that, depending on the organizational
relevant performance indicator, certain distinct leadership styles will show a unique impact on subjective indicators.
Given the context sensitivity of leadership phenomena (Antonakis et al., 2003; cf. Pawar & Eastman, 1997), the
implementation of different leadership approaches within a single organization seems warranted. In sum, both theories
are valuable and complement each other concerning the clarification of the influence of leadership on subjective
indicators of organizational behavior.
With regard to objective criteria such as profit, transformational leadership augments the impact of other (e.g.
transactional and charismatic) leadership styles. In turn, evaluation and development of managers' transformational
leadership abilities will help organizations to accomplish business goals (Avolio, 1999).
10.3. Limitations
Several limitations should be noted. First of all, our sample is limited to a single organization. The obtained results
may therefore be context-specific. This is even more of importance as the organization is German and Germany and
charisma have a difficult relation. Research with transformational leadership in the German culture, however, has shown
130 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
that there are barely any differences in the correlational structure of transformational leadership and several outcomes to
American studies (Felfe, Tartlerm, & Liepmann, 2004; Geyer & Steyrer, 1998; Kuchinke, 1999). We therefore expect
that the here obtained results are to a certain degree transferable to other cultures as well. Furthermore, on the side of the
subjective criteria, the data might underlie a common source and monomethod bias (Avolio, Yammarino, &Bass, 1991).
Thus, the correlations reported here may be inflated. For example, Brown & Keeping (2005) demonstrated that the
relationship between transformational leadership and subjective outcomes are highly influenced by the interpersonal
affect raters feel towards the targets being rated (p. 245). However, with respect to transformational leadership
behaviors, their influence on performance is supported by the results of the objective criteria as well. Thus, one of the
most important findings of this study is not due to common source bias. Thirdly, for the analysis of the impact of
leadership styles on objective performance criteria, the effect of early performance data should be controlled for. As an
example, Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino (2004) found no significant effect of CEO charismatic
leadership style on organizational performance, when the effect of early performance data was accounted for. Fourthly,
as already mentioned, several measurements and theories of transformational and charismatic leadership exist. Most of
them agree on core facets of transformational/charismatic leadership. However, it can not be excluded that other
measures would lead to different results. Fifthly, we use a limited set of variables for predicting performance. Additional
variables, such as value congruence (Jung & Avolio, 2000) or self-efficacy (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996), may impact
performance. Finally, we assessed constructs at a single point in time. Thus, we cannot be sure if leadership affects
performance or the other way around.
10.4. Perspectives for future research
Future research should try to further clarify the similarities and differences between as well as the augmentation
effect of transformational and charismatic leadership in order to add further understanding to the variety of effective
leadership. Therein, other measurements should also play a role in order to narrow down the effective leadership
behaviors contained in one or the other concept. Analyses of convergent and divergent validity could draw on multitrait
multirater matrices (cf. Conway, 1996) and should implement divergent measures such as personality. The present study
was conducted in a German, transaction-based context (cf. Howell et al. 2005). Thus, empirical studies extending this
research onto other cultures, countries, and organizational contexts such as nonprofit or research and development
organizations (cf. Keller, 1992) are needed. Also, the impact of rivaling leadership styles on additional subjective
performance measures such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; cf. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &Bommer, 1996)
and commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990) should be explored. Longitudinal and experimental designs should also be
part of research that focuses on the relationship between transformational and charismatic leadership styles with and the
direction of influence of these leadership styles on performance and other criteria.
Acknowledgement
The assistance of L.H. Laukamp with data collection is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would like to thank D.
Liepmann, the senior editor, and three anonymous reviewers for constructive criticism on earlier drafts of this paper.
Notes
(1) Research Edition Translation performed by Dr. Jens Rowold on September 25th, 2003. Translated and reproduced
by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., Redwood City, CA 94061 www.mindgarden.com
from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernhard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio
et al. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without the Publisher's written consent.
(2) Convergent and divergent validity of the MLQ and CKS was also analyzed on the subscale level. For the
interested reader, the corresponding author will provide a full correlation matrix.
References
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory
using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261295.
131 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational
and charismatic leadership: The road ahead ( pp. 334). Amsterdam: JAI.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Manual and sampler set, 3rd ed. Redwood City: Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441462.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic
leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801823.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Reflections, closing thoughts, and future directions. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Trans-
formational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead ( pp. 385406).
Avolio, B. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Identifying common method variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved
sticky issue. Journal of Management, 17, 571587.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. L., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological
empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951968.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American
Psychologist, 52, 130139.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181217.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization
Studies, 12, 7387.
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. Leadership Quarterly, 16,
245272.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., & Mathur, P. (1997). Measuring charisma: Dimensionality and validity of the Conger-Kanungo scale of
charismatic leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 290302.
Conway, J. M. (1996). Analysis and design of multitraitmultirater performance appraisal studies. Journal of Management, 22, 139162.
DeGroot, T., Kiker, D. S., & Cross, T. C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review organizational outcomes related to charismatic leadership. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 356371.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 70, 1934.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and
satisfaction: An update and extension. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead
( pp. 3566). Amsterdam: JAI.
Felfe, J., & Goihl, K. (2002). Deutsche berarbeitete und ergnzte Version des Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) [German revised and
endorsed Version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)]. In A. Glckner-Rist (Ed.), ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches
Handbuch sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente, 6th ed. Mannheim: Zentrum fr Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen.
Felfe, J., Tartler, K., & Liepmann, D. (2004). Advanced research in the field of transformational leadership. Zeitschrift fr Personalforschung, 18,
262288.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, S. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological
Reports, 78, 271287.
Geyer, A. L. J., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied PsychologyAn International
Review, 47, 397420.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman
(Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions ( pp. 167188). San Diego: Academic Press.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6, 4354.
Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 273285.
Hunt, J. G., Boal, K. B., & Dodge, G. E. (1999). The effects of visionary and crisis-responsive charisma on followers: An experimental examination
of two kinds of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 423448.
Hunt, J. G., & Conger, J. A. (1999). From where we sit: An assessment of transformational and charismatic leadership research. Leadership
Quarterly, 10, 335343.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 8598.
Judge, T. A. (2005). Psychological leadership research: The state of the art. Paper presented at the 4th Conference of the German Psychological
Association, section I/O Psychology, Bonn, Germany.
132 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 755768.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949964.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18,
489501.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 3651.
Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership styles among one company's U.S. and German
telecommunication employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10, 135154.
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, 385425.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organizational commitment.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171194.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 3046.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and
human resources management research. Journal of Management, 20, 439464.
Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172175.
Pawar, B. S., & Eastman, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual
examination. Academy of Management Review, 22, 80109.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of
employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259298.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadership Quarterly, 15,
329354.
Rowold, J. (2004). MLQ-5X. German translation of bass and Avolio's multifactor leadership. Questionnaire Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Psychometric properties of the German translation by Jens Rowold. Redwood City: Mind
Garden.
Sashkin, M. (1988). The visionary leader. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational
effectiveness ( pp. 98124). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership
( pp. 171196). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization
Science, 4, 577594.
Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 405420.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership.
Group & Organization Studies, 15, 381394.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership
Quarterly, 4(1), 81102.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels
of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 2754.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10,
285305.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
133 J. Rowold, K. Heinitz / The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121133