Spotlight On The Followers, Li Et Al - (Leadership) PDF

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2013, 66, 225260
SPOTLIGHT ON THE FOLLOWERS: AN

EXAMINATION OF MODERATORS OF
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP AND SUBORDINATES CITIZENSHIP
AND TAKING CHARGE
NING LI
The University of Iowa
DAN S. CHIABURU
Texas A&M University
BRADLEY L. KIRKMAN
North Carolina State University
ZHITAO XIE
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Drawing on substitutes for leadership theory, we revisit an often taken-

for-granted assumption that transformational leadership is a universally
positive management practice by examining subordinate-based aspects
attenuating the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers citizenship and taking charge. Using data collected from 196
followers and their leaders situated in 55 workgroups in 2 Chinese orga-
nizations, we found that followers citizenship and taking charge were
not influenced by transformational leadership when followers perceived
leaders as prototypical and were highly identified with their workgroups.
Furthermore, following a differential pattern for citizenship and taking
charge, followers traditionality weakened the relationship with citizen-
ship, whereas followers learning goal orientation attenuated the rela-
tionship with taking charge. Introducing contingencies and specifying
their underlying logic broadens the current theoretical spectrum for both
substitutes for leadership and transformational leadership.
Transformational leadership, defined as influencing followers by

broadening and elevating followers goals and providing them with con-
fidence to perform beyond the expectations specified in the implicit or
explicit change agreement (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002, p. 735),
has been demonstrated to be a valid determinant of desirable employee
We would like to acknowledge Brad Harris and Zhijun Chen for their valuable comments
on the manuscript.
This research was partially supported by NNSFC (70972067) awarded to Ning Li.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Ning Li, Management
& Organizations, Tippie College of Business, The University of Iowa; 108 John Pappajohn
Bus Bldg, W324 Iowa City, IA 52242-1994 Phone: 319-335-2117; ning-li-1@uiowa.edu.

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. doi: 10.1111/peps.12014
225
226 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
outcomes, including task performance (Bass, 1997; Judge & Piccolo,

2004), organizational citizenship (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006;
Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), and proactive behaviors (Morgeson, DeRue,
& Karam, 2010).
Traditionally, an assumption made in the organizational literature is
that transformational leadership is a universally positive management
practice, and transformational leaders influence employee work behaviors
in beneficial ways across many organizational settings (Bass, 1997). Thus,
managers are encouraged to consistently exhibit transformational leader-
ship. Consequently, numerous studies have focused on examining how
transformational leaders drive their followers behaviors (Avolio, Zhu,
Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Piccolo & Colquitt,
2006; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999) while paying less attention
to the question of when transformational leadership is more (or less) func-
tional. As a result, we know less about the contingencies modifying the
relationships between transformational leadership and follower behaviors
(e.g., Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009).
In this study, we provide such qualification by drawing on one of
the configurations presented in the substitutes for leadership framework,
using moderators or contingencies (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) of the rela-
tionship between transformational leadership and outcomes. Explicitly
incorporating contingencies allows a more nuanced view of transforma-
tional leadership relationships, which have typically exhibited positive
direct relationships with follower task and contextual performance (e.g.,
Bass, 1997; Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). Specifying when
transformational leaders can be more (or less) effective broadens existing
knowledge of the applicability of this theory. Klein and House (1995,
p. 184) likened followers to flammable material, susceptible in varying
degrees to leaders influences that are seen as the igniting spark. Result-
ing subordinate behaviors can therefore be thought of as deriving from the
joint influence of the two: leaders transformational actions and follower
characteristics.
By explicating contingencies of leaders transformational influences,
our study makes four theoretical contributions. First, adding to studies
examining processes (i.e., mediators; Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010), we move
toward clarifying boundary conditions. Integrating transformational and
substitution arguments, we present leaders neither as sine-qua-non trans-
formational forces nor as completely substitutable entities (Bass, 1985,
1999; Kerr, 1977; Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Leader actions are subject to
contingencies (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), and we theorize
when they are most likely to meet with success and when such possibilities
are less likely, thus contributing to contingency leadership research more
NING LI ET AL. 227
generally. This approach is theoretically important because it provides

a more encompassing framework including boundary conditions and can
thus begin to shift the prevailing consensus among organizational scholars
(Hollenbeck, 2008) that transformational leadership is universally desir-
able and not subject to contingencies.
Second, as Podsakoff and colleagues noted although the notion that
subordinate, task, and organizational characteristics moderate the effect of
a leaders behavior seems intuitively appealing, the weight of the empiri-
cal evidence has not supported it (1996, p. 381). In addition to providing
empirical evidence, we propose and test contingencies that are built on
substitutes for leadership logic that are also novel. In doing so, we fol-
low a substitution for leadership direction as a general framework to be
consistent with Kerr and Jermiers (1978) observations that the substi-
tutes framework is not a closed system that cannot benefit from further
specification of its conceptual domain. Introducing new contingencies and
specifying their underlying logic can broaden the current theoretical spec-
trum in both substitutes for leadership and transformational leadership
contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kerr & Jermier, 1978).
Third, we contribute to research on follower characteristics. Two
decades after conceptualizing the role of followers (Kelley, 1992), experts
remain skeptical that followers and their importance are well understood
(Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Riggio, Challeff, & Lipman-
Blumen, 2008). The need to examine followers is typically eclipsed by a
focus on leaders influence (Riggio et al., 2008). Indeed, in a recent lead-
ership review, Avolio (2007, p. 26) pointed out that relationships similar
to the ones we examinespecifically focused on how follower charac-
teristics moderated the effects of leadership on work outcomeswere
found in only three studies. Although omissions do not automatically
create a pressing need, research in other leadership domains has shown
the value of examining contingencies (e.g., Grant, Gino, & Hofmann,
2011), and we argue that the need is particularly acute for transforma-
tional leadership, in which direct effects have already been established
(Wang et al., 2011).
Finally, our study shows the theoretical and practical value of consid-
ering leader and follower aspects together rather than in isolation. As an
example, when considered separately, increases in either transformational
leadership or follower proactivity are thought to increase work effective-
ness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010).
Yet a different pattern emerges when considering their joint influence. As
we argue below, increasing both can lead to suboptimal results due to their
nonadditive configuration. Figure 1 summarizes the contingency model
proposed in our study.
Follower traditionality
OCB
H3
LEADER
INFLUENCES H1a, H2a
DISCRETIONARY
Group-directed Leader prototypicality OUTCOMES
transformational Team identification
leadership
H1b, H2b
Taking Charge
H4, H5
Follower traditionality
Figure 1: Overall Framework for Study Hypotheses.
Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior
Theoretical Framework
Transformational leaders focus subordinates attention on a collective

entity based on acceptance of a leaders message and values (Shamir,
House, & Arthur, 1993). The leaderfollower relationship is thus built
on what the leader conveys to an entire team rather than to individual
followers (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Consistent with previous
research (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Kirkman et al., 2009), we examine
transformational leadership as a group-level phenomenon and focus on
dimensions that are group oriented.
A key tenet of transformational leadership is that transformational
leaders are able to motivate followers to perform beyond expectations
(Bass, 1985). There are two interpretations regarding the exact meaning
of performance beyond expectations. On one hand, transformational lead-
ers may inspire followers to work harder and reach higher levels of task
performance. On the other hand, Podsakoff and colleagues (1996) have
argued that transformational leaders may motivate followers to go beyond
the requirements of their job descriptions and engage in discretionary
actions. In a meta-analysis, Wang and colleagues (2011) reported that
transformational leaders influence followers discretionary behaviors to a
greater extent than they influence task performance, suggesting that dis-
cretionary behavior may be a more relevant outcome of transformational
NING LI ET AL. 229
leadership. We focus on citizenship, or good soldier behaviors defined

as contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and
psychological context that supports task performance (Organ, 1997, p.
91; Organ et al., 2006). We also examine taking charge, or good change
agent behaviors defined as voluntary and constructive efforts, by indi-
vidual employees, to effect organizationally functional change with re-
spect to how work is executed (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 403). These
two dimensions capture maintenance- and change-oriented discretionary
behaviors (Grant & Ashford, 2008), both essential in todays complex,
fast-paced organizations (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Organ et al., 2006).
We build an organizing framework for these relationships based on
substitutes for leadership theory and research on follower characteristics
(Kelley, 1992; Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Kerr and Jermier (1978) proposed
three broad classes of contingencies modifying leader behaviors including
subordinate-related aspects, nature of the task, and organizational char-
acteristics. Because several studies have already examined contingencies
situated at the organizational level (e.g., Avolio et al., 2004; Howell &
Hall-Merenda, 1999), and researchers have indicated that more attention
needs to be given to the followers of transformational leadership (Bass
& Riggio, 2006, p. 235), we focus on subordinate-related aspects.
Specifically, we choose two broad sets of followers characteristics
perceptions and dispositional traitswhich capture a broad range of
subordinate-related aspects. Our choice is guided by two theoretical
considerationssocial identity theory and an interactionist perspective.
First, according to social identity theory, one mechanism that transforma-
tional leaders use to influence followers is to put their collective interests
above self-interests and enhance collective identities. Thus, transforma-
tional leaders efforts, as entrepreneurs of identity (Haslam, Reicher,
& Platow, 2011, p. 165), may be less effective for followers who already
have strong collective identities. As a result, we argue that followers
perceptions of leader prototypicality (i.e., the extent to which the leader
is perceived to embody a groups collective identity, Hogg, 2001) and
team identification (i.e., the emotional significance that members of a
given group attach to their membership in that group, Van Der Vegt &
Bunderson, 2005) may make transformational leadership efforts less po-
tent and hence attenuate its effects.
In addition, from an interactionist standpoint, individual behavior oc-
curs as a result of the combination of dispositional factors and situa-
tional influences (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). Among dispositional
factors, we focus on several traits that could modify the influence of
transformational leadership on citizenship and taking charge. For ex-
ample, if followers already have proclivities toward initiative (e.g.,
proactive personality), such tendencies can diminish transformational
leaders influence on their subordinates taking charge. Similarly, pro-

vided that the leaderfollower relationship is hierarchical, we also exam-
ine another individual differencefollower traditionality (Farh, Hackett,
& Liang, 2007)that has been found to affect followers reactions to lead-
ers in both Eastern and Western contexts (Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004;
Spreitzer, Hopkins, Perttula, & Xin, 2005). Traditionality is the extent
to which an individual endorses traditional hierarchical role relationships
and exchanges with others (e.g., Farh et al., 2007), and traditional em-
ployees discretionary behaviors are more of a function of their social role
rather than leaders behaviors. We present specific hypotheses next.
Followers Perceptions of the Leader as a Contingency Factor: Being One

of Us
Due to our group-directed transformational leadership focus, being

one of us (i.e., prototypical) from a group standpoint is central to our ar-
guments (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998). Al-
though more general leader prototypes could also be influential, due to our
group context, we examine the extent to which a person fits the in-group
prototype (Hogg et al., 1998). Prototypical leaders represent the collective
identity of a broader social entity, such as a group of followers (Hogg,
2001). Being prototypical carries some advantages for leaders, includ-
ing being perceived as more effective (Fielding & Hogg, 1997). Followers
also trust that prototypical leaders have their groups best interests at heart
without much need to engage in leadership actions such as group-directed
inspiration and other transformational efforts. Even when they fail, pro-
totypical leaders will still be considered more effective and trusted than
less prototypical ones (e.g., Giessner, van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009).
For example, leader actions (such as self-sacrificing behaviors) are more
influential for followers perceptions of leader effectiveness, charisma,
and the extent to which the leader is oriented toward the group when
leaders are considered to be less prototypical from the groups standpoint
(van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Followers typically have
lower expectations for these leaders to articulate a vision and inspire them,
and thus, when they do so, positive followers responses are accentuated.
Following this logic, we propose that leader prototypicality acts as a sub-
stitute for leader transformational actions.
After reviewing studies outlining the advantages conferred by being
seen as prototypical, Haslam et al. (2011, p. 90) conclude that prototypical
leaders are not only seen as better leaders but are also more effective in
getting us do things and in making us feel good about those things
(italics added). Extending these arguments, when leaders match the group
prototype, group-directed transformational actions are less necessary to
NING LI ET AL. 231
stimulate followers citizenship and taking charge. Stated differently, less

prototypical leaders need to engage more in actions indicative of their
commitment to transform the group in order to get followers attention
and obtain their behavioral engagement. Consequently, we predict:
Hypothesis 1: Followers perceptions of leader prototypicality will

attenuate the relationships between transformational
leadership and follower (a) citizenship and (b) taking
charge.
Followers Attitudes Toward the Group as a Contingency Factor: Crafting

a Sense of Us
Leaders influence followers attitudes and behaviors by shaping their

identities (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Retaining our group-directed theo-
retical focus, we examine team members identification with the team as
attenuating transformational leadership influences on citizenship and tak-
ing charge. From a substitutes for leadership standpoint, when employees
belong to closely knit, interdependent, and cohesive work groups, the in-
fluence of leaders is likely attenuated (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Podsakoff,
Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993). Positive relationships within the
workgroup can be captured by determining the extent to which group
members are committed to, and identified with, their groups (Van der
Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). In such groups, leaders are less influential, not
only because of the mutual commitment developed between colleagues
but also because of the transformational qualities of the followers of the
collective groups (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p. 210).
To increase citizenship, transformational leaders typically foster em-
ployees acceptance of work goals and shift team members identities from
self- to team directed (Organ et al., 2006). Leaders idealized influence
and inspirational motivation directed toward the entire workgroup create
stronger relationships between individuals and their workgroup (Bass,
1985). Thus, leaders redirect team members toward a shared collective
rather than relational or individual identity (Lord, Brown, & Frieberg,
1999). Citizenship is facilitated by increased salience of shared iden-
tities, felt responsibility for the group, and greater role clarity (Organ
et al., 2006). Likewise, transformational leaders generate proactive forms
of citizenship such as voice (Liu et al., 2010). In groups with weaker team
identities, leaders efforts toward steering members attention to a shared
group identity will generate greater citizenship and taking charge.
In contrast, such efforts by leaders will be less effective in groups
with higher team identification. For example, in teams in which
members identify themselves with, and are more committed to, their
teams, followers are less susceptible to leaders transformational influ-

ences. In such groups, team members may already exhibit idealized in-
fluence toward one another and be subject to inspirational motivation
originating laterally from their colleagues rather than from their leader.
As Bass and Riggio (2006, p. 218) observed, instead of motivation be-
ing supplied by identification of members with an idealized, charismatic
leader, similar motivation would be supplied by identification with the
team (italics added). In such situations of strong collective identifica-
tion, inspiration can originate from goals emerging from the team rather
than from the leaders vision. Thus, leader attempts to be entrepreneurs
of identity (Haslam et al., 2011, p. 165) and efforts to engage follow-
ers will be less successful because members are already identified with
their teams, committed to team values and goals, and engaged in lat-
eral transformational actions toward one another. Consequently, we pre-
dict:
Hypothesis 2: Followers team identification will attenuate the rela-

tionships between transformational leadership and fol-
lower (a) citizenship and (b) taking charge.
Dispositions as a Contingency Factor: Follower Characteristics
So far, we have presented the same predictions for citizenship and

taking charge, due to their common underlying similarities, as contex-
tual performance. In what follows, given their contrasting nature (i.e.,
affiliative vs. change-oriented), we add differential predictions.
Moderators for citizenship behavior. Previous studies have demon-
strated that individual differences such as individualismcollectivism
modify the relationship between transformational leadership and perfor-
mance (Jung & Avolio, 1999). Because of the inherently hierarchical
nature of the supervisorsubordinate relationship (Bugental, 2000; How-
ell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986), another individual differencefollower
traditionalityis an important contingency of transformational leader-
ship. To impart transformational changes on followers, leader actions
need to be aligned with followers values (Shamir et al., 1993). Because
transformational leaders redirect followers toward broader work goals and
identities, we argue that employees higher in traditionalism will be less
influenced by transformational leader behaviors given these followers
predisposition to defer to their leaders (and to other authority figures),
based on these authority figures higher standing in the social hierarchy.
Traditionality describes employees internal values toward an en-
dorsement of hierarchical role relationships (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997).
Individuals with traditional values have already internalized beliefs
NING LI ET AL. 233
related to leaders superior role in the social hierarchy and deference to

them. Due to this deference, compared to employees with less traditional
values, those that are more traditional are less likely to base their attitudes
and behaviors on how authority figures treat them (Chen & Aryee, 2007;
Farh et al., 2007; Pillutla, Farh, Lee, & Lin, 2007). Instead, their view
on performing citizenship will be more in line with fulfilling the expec-
tations and responsibilities of their prescribed social roles rather than a
reaction to actual leader behaviors (Hui et al., 2004). High levels of tradi-
tionality are more likely to act as a buffer, absorbing potential influences
originating from the organizational authority and the leader. Starting with
organization-based aspects, only employees with low levels of traditional-
ity calibrate their citizenship as a function of organizational support (Farh
et al., 2007). Moving to leader influences, as Hui and colleagues (2004)
demonstrate, traditionalists show higher levels of citizenship irrespective
of the quality of their relationship with the supervisor. Conversely, those
who were less traditional engage in citizenship only under high quality
supervisory relationships. For traditionalists, role requirements are promi-
nent while leader actions fade into the background.
Applied to our transformational leadership situation, even though lead-
ers may direct their actions toward transforming their groups, their actions
will be less needed when employees are already high in traditionality. As
Spreitzer and colleagues (2005) demonstrated, transformational leaders
were viewed as less effective by those higher in traditionality. Extending
this logic, employees with higher levels of traditionality will engage in
citizenship even in the absence of their leaders idealized influence and
inspirational appeals. Thus, we predict:
Hypothesis 3: Followers traditionality will attenuate the relationship

between transformational leadership and follower citi-
zenship.
Moderators for taking charge behavior. Making things happen

or engaging in proactive behaviorhas been described as a function
of employees dispositional proactivity and their learning goal orienta-
tion (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010); and employees goal orientation
has been empirically linked to their proactive action (Bettencourt, 2004;
Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009;
Parker & Collins, 2010). Indeed, good followers (Kelley, 1992) display
active engagement (e.g., taking initiative, assuming ownership, participat-
ing actively). At its core, transformational leadership consists of broad-
ening and elevating followers goals (Dvir et al., 2002). Transformational
leaders have a positive impact on follower proactive behaviors (e.g.,
change-oriented citizenship). Subordinates need for independenceand
by extension being proactive and engagedwould make leaders influ-

ence less impactful (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).
Proactive personality captures an employees stable disposition to take
personal initiative in a broad range of activities and situations relatively
unconstrained by situational forces (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus, com-
pared to less proactive employees, more proactive followers are more self-
directed, self-reliant, and prefer thinking issues through without help from
others (Crant, 2000; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010) due to three key attributes
associated with proactivity including being self-starting, change-oriented,
and future-focused (Parker et al., 2010). Employees with proactive per-
sonalities will initiate more proactive behaviors without instructions from
leaders because they are predisposed to do so (Fuller & Marler, 2009;
Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Their change-oriented nature also
enables them to scan for opportunities, take action, and persevere until
they bring about change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). More importantly, if
employees can anticipate and prevent issues, they will rely less on cues
originating from transformational leaders inspiration to fix work-related
problems.
Conversely, less proactive individuals are more readily subject to trans-
formational leaders influences because they rely on others as drivers of
change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). By cultivating perceptions of an appeal-
ing future and being role models, transformational leaders enable employ-
ees who are less proactiveand more susceptible to leader-derived cues
to realize the need for change and take actions to implement changes. Ac-
cordingly, transformational leadership signals to less proactive individuals
that personal initiative is encouraged, increasing their motivation to take
charge. As empirical studies have demonstrated, proactive dispositions
drive employees to be more open to learning and engage in taking charge
behaviors (e.g., Thompson, 2005). Provided that one important driver of
taking charge is employees dispositional proactivity, the degree to which
leaders may influence proactive employees to engage in the same may
be diminished because proactive employees are relatively unconstrained
by situational forces (Bateman & Crant, 1993, p. 105). Because of their
inclination to be proactive, these employees will take charge anyway,
regardless of leaders transformational efforts or support (Parker et al.,
2006). Thus, we predict:
Hypothesis 4: Followers proactive personality will attenuate the rela-
tionship between transformational leadership and fol-
lower taking charge.
From an achievement motivation standpoint, individuals can vary in
the extent to which they will select high or low levels of learning goals
(Conroy, Elliot, & Thrash, 2009; Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004). When
NING LI ET AL. 235
followers are already predisposed toward achievement goals, leaders are

less likely to influence learning goal-oriented subordinates, who will hold
beliefs that their inner attributes and their external work environments are
changeable. Accordingly, learning goal-oriented individuals will use con-
structive strategies to self-regulate (e.g., Rusk, Tamir, & Rothbaum, 2011)
and therefore need to a lesser extent the motivational impetus provided by
transformational leaders. They will also take action externally by seeking
out opportunities to engage in change-oriented actions to fix problems,
replace outdated procedures, and propose novel solutions. Again, they
will do so irrespective of cues received from their leaders.
Existing research is indeed supportive of the connection between learn-
ing goal orientation and changing the external environment. When indi-
viduals have a high learning goal orientation, their group learning and
proactive behaviors, including innovative performance, creative perfor-
mance, and backing up, are increased (Gong et al., 2009; Hirst et al., 2009;
Janssen & Van Yperen, 2004; Porter, 2005). Conversely, employees with
low levels of learning goal orientation will be more likely to require re-
assurance, given their lower propensity to orient themselves toward novel
task situations and also unfamiliarity and lack of desire to solve difficult
and unusual situations. Possibly overwhelmed by the change-oriented na-
ture of taking charge (Bettencourt, 2004) and having more difficulties with
self-regulation (Rusk et al., 2011), low learning goal-oriented employees
can benefit from transformational leaders idealized influence and inspi-
rational motivation. Overall, we posit that high learning goal-oriented
employees will be less likely to need the influence of transformational
leaders to take charge. This line of reasoning is consistent with substitutes
for leadership theory, proposing that leaders are less likely to influence
subordinates with high need for independence (Podsakoff et al., 1993).
Hypothesis 5: Followers learning goal orientation will attenuate the

relationship between transformational leadership and
follower taking charge.
Method
Sample and Procedure
We drew our sample from employees working in two large state-

owned companies in the highway construction and manufacturing indus-
tries located in midwest China. In consultation with company personnel
managers, we selected employees and their immediate supervisors from
multiple departments in the organizations. Matching questionnaires were
distributed to 266 employees within 62 workgroups. A coding scheme was
used to ensure matched supervisorsubordinate data. Both employees and

supervisors completed the surveys during regular working hours and re-
turned the completed questionnaires to research assistants. Informed con-
sent was obtained before the study began, and the data collection process
ensured confidentiality (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
One hundred ninety-six usable responses from 55 workgroups were
obtained, for an overall response rate of 73.7%. Most of teams were
mature, with team members having a relatively long history of working
with one another. The average number of responses per group was 3.5.
Regarding demographics, 50% of respondents were female; 53% were
between 18 and 30 years old, 35% between 31 and 40, and 12% were
older than 41; 6% reported a high school education or below, 29% had
associate degrees, and 64% were university graduates; and 27% worked
with the current supervisors less than 1 year, 36% between 1 and 3 years,
16% between 3 and 5 years, and 21% worked more than 5 years with the
current supervisors.
Measures
Subordinates completed measures of transformational leadership,

leader prototypicality, team identification, traditionality, proactive per-
sonality, and learning goal orientation. Supervisors provided information
on their subordinates citizenship and taking charge. A seven-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree was
used for all study items (except where noted below). All materials were
presented in Chinese. The questions pertaining to citizenship and tradi-
tionality were originally written in Chinese, and the other questions were
translated into Chinese from English following standard translation and
back-translation procedures (Brislin, 1986).
Group-focused transformational leadership. Recent research sug-
gests two possible perspectives within transformational leadership theory
(Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). One focuses on leader behaviors that trans-
form follower values and inspire them toward a collective-focused vision
of the future motivating all members to perform beyond their expecta-
tions (Bass, 1985). The other is based on a dyadic relational perspective,
recognizing that leaders develop distinctive relationships with different
followers. Because we conceptualize transformational leadership at the
group level, we focused on the three facets of the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ5x) that are theorized to reflect the group-focused
component of transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1995) used in
previous studies (Wu et al., 2010).
Specifically, we used a 4-item measure of behavioral idealized influ-
ence (e.g., emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of
NING LI ET AL. 237
mission), a 4-item measure of attributive idealized influence (e.g., goes

beyond self-interest for the good of the group), and a 4-item measure
of inspirational motivation (e.g., articulates a compelling vision of the
future) to measure group-focused transformational leadership. Further,
consistent with studies treating dimensions of transformational leadership
as indicators of a higher-order construct (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004;
Kirkman et al., 2009), we combined the dimensions into an overall score.
The average subdimension correlation was .80, and Cronbachs alpha
was .95.1
As a shared group property, within-group agreement and between-
group variability need to be demonstrated to justify data aggregation.
Within-group agreement on transformational leadership was assessed us-
ing the r wg statistic (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). The mean and
median r wg were .79 and .90 respectively, indicating strong agreement
among members within units (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). In addition,
ICC(1), ICC(2), and the respective F-value for transformational leader-
ship were .22, .50, and F (54,139) = 1.98, p < .01. Although the ICC(2)
value was lower than ideal, the ICC(1) value was well above the me-
dian .12 value that is often observed in organizational field samples,
and the F-statistic indicated significant mean differences across groups
(Bliese, 2000). The low ICC(2) value may be due to small group sizes
in our sample (Bliese, 2000). Overall, we had sufficient statistical justi-
fication to aggregate the transformational leadership scores to the group
level.
Leader prototypicality. We measured prototypicality using a six-
item scale adapted from Platow and Van Knippenberg (2001). Followers
were asked to evaluate to what extent their leaders match their in-group
perception of leader prototypicality. Sample items include the leader
represents what is characteristic about our group members and the
leader is a good example of the kind of people who work in this group
( = .79).
Team identification. A four-item scale used by Van der Vegt and
Bunderson (2005) was used to capture this construct, consistent with prior
studies (e.g., Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003). Examples
include the extent to which employees: feel emotionally attached to this
team and feel a strong sense of belonging to this team ( = .87).
Traditionality. We used the 5-item version of the Chinese Individual
Traditionality Scale (CITS; Yang, Yu, & Yeh, 1989) adapted by Farh
and coauthors (1997) and used previously (e.g., Chen & Aryee, 2007) to
1
All the reliability coefficient estimates reported in the present study were calculated
using individual items at the individual level for conservative purposes (Chen, Kirkman,
Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007).
measure employee traditionality. Sample items include When people are

in dispute, they should ask the most senior person to decide who is right,
and The best way to avoid mistakes is to follow the instructions of senior
persons ( = .72).
Proactive personality. We measured proactive personality with 10
items from Bateman and Crant (1993). The shortened 10-item scale has
shown strong validity in prior studies (e.g., Thompson, 2005). An example
item reads: If I see something I dont like, I fix it ( = .86).
Learning goal orientation. We assessed learning goal orientation
with five items from Brett and VandeWalles (1999) scale. Sample items
include I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can
learn a lot from and For me, development of my work ability is important
enough to take risks ( = .90).
Organizational citizenship behavior and taking charge. Supervi-
sors rated their subordinates work behaviors. We measured two of
the most commonly studied dimensions of citizenship, drawing on the
PRC OCB scales (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004): altruism (Willing
to offer assistance to coworkers to solve work-related problems) and
Conscientiousness (Willing to work overtime without receiving ex-
tra pay), capturing affiliative citizenship. Compared to other OCB di-
mensions (e.g., courtesy, sportsmanship) that have been shown to be
culture variant (i.e., emic dimensions), altruism and Conscientiousness
have been identified in the West and China (i.e., etic dimensions; Farh
et al., 1997; Farh et al., 2004; Farh et al., 2007). Examining etic OCB
dimensions increases the external validity of our findings. These two di-
mensions also capture two broad OCB categories (e.g., citizenship directed
toward individuals [OCB-I] and at the organization [OCB-O; Williams &
Anderson, 1991]). Considering their considerable overlap (e.g., LePine,
Erez, & Johnson, 2002) and consistent with previous research (e.g., Cheng,
Jiang, & Riley, 2003), we combined the two dimensions (i.e., altruism and
conscientiousness) to generate an overall citizenship score ( = .95). We
measured taking charge with a 10-item scale developed by Morrison and
Phelps (1999). Taking charge captures change and challenge-oriented be-
haviors (Grant & Ashford, 2008). An item reads: This employee often
tries to bring about improved procedures for the work unit or department
( = .98).
Control variables. Because the data originated from two different
organizations, we created a dummy variable to control for company. In
addition, we considered the amount of time leaders had managed subor-
dinates as a control variable in all analyses because it may significantly
relate to followers ratings of transformational leadership (Kirkman et al.,
2009).
NING LI ET AL. 239
Analyses
Due to the multilevel nature of our data, we tested the proposed cross
level interactions using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush,
Bryk, & Congdon, 2004), which provides the correct parameter estimates
and significance tests for multilevel and nonindependent data (Bliese,
2000; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). To facilitate interpretation, the Level-1
predictors (i.e., follower characteristics) were group-mean centered and
the Level-2 predictor (i.e., transformational leadership) was grand-mean
centered. This lessens multicollinearity in Level-2 estimation by reducing
the correlation between the Level-2 intercept and slope estimates (Hof-
mann & Gavin, 1998). We first ran null models with no predictors but OCB
and taking charge as outcomes. We then calculated ICC(1) for both OCB
(ICC1 = .55) and taking charge (ICC1 = .79, Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
Thus, based on these results, we concluded that HLM is an appropriate
analytic technique.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analyses
We use confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with LISREL (Joreskog &

Sorbom, 1993) to establish discriminant validity. To maintain a favorable
indicator-to-sample-size ratio (e.g., Kirkman et al., 2009), we randomly
created three parcels for all scales except transformational leadership and
citizenship, where we used scale scores from specific subdimensions to
form the respective factors. Specifically, we compared the hypothesized
eight-factor model with several alternative models in which the concep-
tually related constructs were loaded on one latent factor. Results showed
that the hypothesized eight-factor model fit the data well ( 2 (202,N=195)
= 310.77; CFI = .97; NFI = .91, RMSEA = .05). As shown in Table 1,
several alterative models fit the data significantly worse relative to the
hypothesized model.
Given our limited sample size relative to the large number of param-
eters estimated in the model, we used parcels for the analyses; however,
using parceled scales can mask problems with individual items (Bandalos
& Finney, 2001). To strengthen the confidence in the factor structure of
our measures, we conducted a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs)
using all items in addition to the CFA with the parcels. First, an EFA of all
items from the moderators suggests that all items loaded on the intended
constructs, though factor cross-loadings for four items from proactive per-
sonality were greater than .40. A second EFA of all items from supervisor
TABLE 1
Comparison of Measurement Models for Study Variables
Models Descriptions 2 d.f. 2 RMSEA CFI NFI

Null model All the indicators are 3508.18 276
independent
The baseline Eight factors: 310.77 202 .053 .97 .91
eight-factor Transformational
model leadership, leader
prototypicality, team
identification,
traditionality,
proactive
personality, learning
goal orientation,
OCB, and taking
charge
Model 1 Seven factors: 368.55 209 57.78 .063 .95 .90
transformational
leadership and leader
prototypicality
loaded onto one
latent factor
transformational
leadership and team
identification loaded
onto one latent factor
Model 3 Seven factors: leader 516.82 209 206.05 .087 .91 .85
prototypicality and
team identification
loaded onto one
latent factor
proactive personality
and learning goal
orientation loaded
onto one latent factor
Model 5 Seven factors: OCB 440.35 209 129.58 .076 .93 .87
and taking charge
loaded onto one
latent factor
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index;
NFI = normed fit index; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.
p < .01, two-tailed tests.
measures shows that all items from the OCB scale loaded on one latent
factor and all items from the taking charge scale loaded on the second
factor, with no factor cross-loading greater than .40. These results support
the discriminant validity of the constructs.
NING LI ET AL. 241
TABLE 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Inter correlations Among
Study Variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Firm .74 .44
2. Tenure with 2.77 1.92 .11
supervisor
3. Transformational 5.47 .64 .06 .12 (.95)
leadership
4. Perceived leader 5.04 1.01 .09 .11 .43 (.79)
prototypicality
5. Follower team 5.41 1.12 .18 .01 .39 .36 (.87)
identification
6. Follower 4.16 1.08 .10 .06 .10 .27 .10 (.72)
traditionality

7. Follower proactive 4.92 .79 .08 .08 .13 .23 .23 .33 (.86)
personality
8. Follower learning 5.69 .86 .22 .04 .15 .18 .28 .23 .53 (.90)
goal orientation
9. Organizational 5.09 1.28 .38 .26 .11 .06 .22 .08 .10 .05 (.95)
citizenship
10. Taking charge 3.94 1.50 .05 .24 .18 .16 .06 .12 .02 .06 .62 (.98)
Note. Team N = 55; individual N = 196; Values on the diagonal represent reliability
estimates.
p < .05. p < .01.
Descriptive Results
Table 2 contains means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for

all variables in this study. Consistent with previous studies examining the
relationship between transformational leadership and proactive behavior
(e.g., Wang & Howell, 2010), transformational leadership was signifi-
cantly positively related to taking charge (r = .18, p < .01). Unexpectedly,
transformational leadership was positively, but not significantly, related
to citizenship behavior (r = .11, ns). Given that the result is somewhat
inconsistent with previous findings, we note two critical implications de-
rived from this nonsignificant relationship. First, although the relationship
was not significant, the effect size does not dramatically deviate from ef-
fect sizes reported in previous studies conducted in similar settings (r =
.19, Kirkman et al., 2009; r = .18, Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen
(2005)). Second, our result is consistent with a number of studies that
failed to demonstrate strong positive effects of transformational leader-
ship on several criteria (e.g., r = .04 for team innovation, Eisenbeiss, van
Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008; d = .28 for sales revenue, Grant, 2012;
r = .13 for self-efficacy, Kark et al., 2003; r = .08 for work withdrawal,
Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). These studies, along with ours, indicate the
importance of reconsidering transformational leadership as a universally
positive management practice and suggest the need to investigate its con-
tingencies. Below we report more complete tests of our hypotheses.
Hypotheses Tests
To test our cross-level interaction hypotheses, we employed moderated

multiple regression analysis using HLM (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). We
specified the Level-1 intercept and slope varying randomly. According
to Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, and Chens (2012) discussion of the
power necessary to detect cross-level interaction effects, power is strongly
influenced by sample sizes at both the individual and team levels. Our
Level 1 sample size is 3.5 (per group) and Level 2 sample size is 55, which
are limited for achieving high statistical power (.80).2 Also considering
that our HLM model is relatively complex (e.g., HLM will estimate both
fixed and random effects), we estimated separate regression equations to
test each hypothesis.
From a theoretical standpoint, our approach is of particular importance
in a substitutes for leadership context, in which multiple interactions
are posited simultaneously. As Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, and James
(2002, p. 463) indicate, rather than entering all variables into a single
regression equation, the development of specific hypotheses linking a
particular leader behavior with a specific substitute seems warranted. This
approach lends strength to assertions of predictability.
However, scholars also caution that testing hypotheses separately may
inflate type-I error and prevent researchers from detecting the unique
and joint variance explained by the predictors (Schoen, DeSimone, &
James, 2011). An omnibus test is therefore an important supplement to
individual tests. In what follows, we report both separate interaction tests
and omnibus tests to better understand the extent to which the moderators
share variance in explaining outcomes or represent unique contributions
to the outcome.
The results are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Consistent with Hypotheses
1a and 1b, the interactions of leader protypicality and transformational
leadership were significantly negatively related to both OCB ( = .36,
p < .05) and taking charge ( = .29, p < .05). To examine the form of
the interaction, we plotted simple slopes using the Johnson-Neyman (J-N)
technique developed by Bauer and Curran (2005). Both Figure 2a and
2b confirmed our prediction for perceived leader prototypicality: Higher,
rather than lower, protypicality leaders did not impact these followers
citizenship ( = .17, ns vs. = .57, p < .05) or taking charge behaviors
2
As indicated in Mathieu et al.s (2012) paper, the effect size of cross-level interaction,
level interaction, Level 1 sample size (per group), and Level 2 sample are the top three
factors influencing the actual power. Based on their simulation, when Level 1 sample size
is smaller than 18, the power rarely exceeds .50.
NING LI ET AL. 243
TABLE 3
Contingencies on the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and
Followers Citizenship Behaviors
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

s.e. s.e. s.e. s.e. s.e.
Firm .97
.32 .97
.32 .93
.31 .96
.32 .95
.31
Tenure with .03 .04 .01 .04 .06 .04 .04 .04 .05 .04
supervisor
Transformational .20 .18 .20 .18 .19 .17 .19 .18 .19 .17
leadership
(TF)
Leader .03 .11 .07 .08
prototypicality
Team .14 .08 .15 .08
identification
Traditionality .02 .06 .01 .06
Proactive .05 .13
personality
Learning goal .06 .11
orientation
(LGO)
TF .36 .17 .24 .11
prototypicality
TF .27 .12 .28 .12
identification
TF .23 .09 .29 .10
traditionality
TF proactive .61 .21
personality
TF LGO .20 .20
R2 .03 .03 .02 .04
Note. R2 = additional variance explained by adding interaction terms.
All the Level-1 variables were centered around the group mean.
p < .10. p < .05. p < .01.
( = .05, ns vs. = .63, p < .05) through their transformational efforts.

Thus, both Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported.
Concerning Hypotheses 2a and 2b, team members identification sig-
nificantly and negatively moderated the relationships between transfor-
mational leadership and both citizenship ( = .27, p < .05) and taking
charge ( = .21, p < .05). Supporting Hypotheses 2a and 2b, Figures
3a and 3b indicate that transformational leadership had less of an impact
on followers citizenship ( = .11, ns vs. = .49, p < .05) and taking
charge ( = .10, ns vs. = .56, p < .05) when workgroup members
had higher, rather than lower, levels of team identification, supporting
Hypotheses 2a and 2b.
244
TABLE 4
Contingencies on the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Followers Taking Charge
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

s.e s.e. s.e. s.e. s.e. s.e.
Firm .02 .46 .05 .46 .03 .45 .04 .46 .03 .46 .04 .45
Tenure with supervisor .03 .04 .02 .03 .05 .04 .04 .04 .03 .03 .05 .04
Transformational leadership (TF) .33 .24 .34 .24 .33 .24 .33 .24 .33 .24 .33 .24
Leader prototypicality .08 .09 .06 .07
Team identification .05 .06 .14 .07
Proactive personality .06 .09 .08 .10
Learning goal orientation (LGO) .11 .09 .07 .09
Traditionality .00 .05
TF prototypicality .29 .13 .12 .09
TF identification .21 .09 .11 .10
TF proactive personality .25 .13 .24 .17
TF LGO .47 .16 .46 .16
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TF traditionality .13 .08

R2 .02 .01 .00 .03 .02
Note. R2 = additional variance explained by adding interaction terms.
All the Level-1 variables were centered around the group mean.
p < .1. p < .05. p < .01.

NING LI ET AL. 245
a
5
4.5
3.5
OCB
2.5
2
Low prototypicality
1.5
High prototypicality
1
Low TF leadership High TF leadership
b
5
4.5
4
Taking charge
3.5
2.5
2 Low prototypicality
1.5 High prototypicality
1
Figure 2: (a) Leader Prototypicality as a Moderator of the

Transformational LeadershipCitizenship Relationship. (b) Leader
Prototypicality as a Moderator of the Transformational LeadershipTaking
Charge Relationship.
Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; TF = transformational leadership.
To determine possible attenuating influences on citizenship, we pro-

posed in Hypothesis 3 that traditionality would substitute for the effect
of transformational leadership on followers citizenship. As expected, the
interaction of traditionality and transformational leadership was nega-
tively related to citizenship ( = .23, p < .05; Table 2). The graph of
a
5
4.5
3.5
OCB
2.5
2
Low team identification
1.5 High team identification
1
b
5
4.5
4
Taking charge
3.5
2.5
2
Low team identification
1.5 High team identification
1
Figure 3: (a) Team Identification as a Moderator of the Transformational

LeadershipCitizenship Relationship. (b) Team Identification as a
Moderator of the Transformational LeadershipTaking Charge
Relationship.
Figure 4 is consistent with the prediction that transformational leadership

did not impact follower citizenship when these subordinates held more,
rather than less, traditional values ( = .06, ns vs. = .45, p < .05).
Thus, Hypothesis 3 received support.
For taking charge, we argued that two individual agentic traits
proactive personality and learning goal orientationwould moderate the
NING LI ET AL. 247
4.5
3.5
OCB
2.5
2 Low traditionality
1.5 High traditionality
1
Figure 4: Follower Traditionality as a Moderator of the Transformational

LeadershipCitizenship Relationship.
4.5
4
Taking charge
3.5
2.5
2
Low Proactive personality
1.5 High Proactive personality
1
Figure 5: Follower Proactive Personality as a Moderator of the

Transformational LeadershipTaking Charge Relationship.
transformational leadership and taking charge relationship (Hypotheses

4 and 5). In line with the prediction, the interaction of proactive person-
ality and transformational leadership marginally significantly related to
taking charge ( = .25, p < .10). The interactive effect of learning goal
orientation and leadership on taking charge was significant ( = .47,
p < .01). Figures 5 and 6 indicate that transformational leaders influenced
4.5
4
Taking charge
3.5
2.5
2
Low learning GO
1.5
High learning GO
1
Figure 6: Follower Learning Goal Orientation as a Moderator of the

Transformational LeadershipTaking Charge Relationship.
Note. GO = goal orientation; TF = transformational leadership.
subordinates taking charge less when their employees had proactive per-
sonalities ( = .14, ns vs. = .53, p < .05) and a propensity to set learning-
oriented goals ( = .07, ns vs. = .74, p < .01). Thus, although Hy-
pothesis 4 was only partially supported, Hypothesis 5 was fully supported.
Consistent with our prediction that individual traits are relevant only for
specific outcomes, traditionality did not moderate the relationship between
transformational leadership and taking charge. Likewise, proactive per-
sonality and learning goal orientation did not moderate the relationship
between transformational leadership and citizenship.
The results of omnibus tests are also presented in Tables 3 and 4.
For citizenship, all three hypothesized interactions were significantly re-
lated to the outcome in the omnibus test for prototypicality ( = .24;
p < .05), team identification ( = .28, p < .05), and traditionality
( = .29, p < .01). The three interactions explained 4% additional
variance in citizenship. Regarding taking charge, in the omnibus test,
learning goal orientation emerged as the only significant moderator in the
relationship between transformational leadership and taking charge ( =
.46, p <.01, cf. Farh et al., 2007). However, the other three hypothesized
interactions were not significantly related to taking charge. The additional
analyses suggest that all the hypothesized moderators independently at-
tenuated the effects of transformational leadership on citizenship, whereas
only goal learning orientation captured the unique substituting effect of
transformational leadership.
NING LI ET AL. 249
Finally, consistent with recent efforts distinguishing group-focused,

from individual-focused transformational leadership (e.g., Wu et al., 2010)
and in line with our theoretical arguments, we examined the contingen-
cies of group-focused transformational on group member citizenship and
taking charge. To make our findings comparable to other studies that
conceptualized transformational leadership more broadly (e.g., including
individual-focused dimensions), we also conducted supplemental analy-
ses using overall transformational leadership. Our post hoc tests indicate
that all the leader substitutes identified in this study moderated the in-
fluence of overall transformational leadership (including both group- and
individual-focused dimensions) on employee OCB and taking charge (re-
sults are available from the first author upon request). Thus, even though
our conceptualization of transformational leadership represents a narrower
construct (i.e., excluding individual consideration and intellectual stimu-
lation), the comparative results indicate identical results with the broader
construct.
Discussion
Transformational leadership has been widely researched (Bass, 1999;

Judge & Piccolo, 2004), with empirical studies indicating that transforma-
tional leaders have a generally positive impact on subordinates task and
contextual performance (e.g., Bass, 1997; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Wu
et al., 2010). We advance current research by explicating and testing con-
tingencies modifying the relationship between transformational leadership
and followers behavioral outcomes (Klein & House, 1995; Shamir, Pillai,
Bligh, & Uhl-Bien, 2007). Consistent with researchers calls for putting
more of the research spotlight on followers (e.g., Avolio, 2007; Howell
& Shamir, 2005), we asked: What role do followers perceptions and
characteristics play in the relationship between group-directed transfor-
mational leadership and followers subsequent discretionary behaviors?
Our investigation adds to a growing body of research examining structural
dimensions (e.g., Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999) operating as contingen-
cies on the relationship between transformational leadership and follower
outcomes. It can also be situated in the broader literature of contingency
theories (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; House, 1971), including substitutes for lead-
ership theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). As proposed in such models, to be
effective, leaders need to behave differently based on subordinates abili-
ties and inclinations (House, 1996). In particular, transformational leaders
impact on followers behaviors needs to be appropriately specified and
contextualized (Podsakoff et al., 1996).
Theoretical Implications
Taken together, our study findings lead to several implications. First,

the assertion that transformational leaders are always a positive influence
on followers attitudes, performance, and discretionary behaviors (Judge
& Piccolo, 2004; Kirkman et al., 2009) needs to be qualified (Podsakoff
et al. 1996). Such qualifications are not typically present in leadership
studies, which often do not take into account the situation, [t]hrough the
lack of examining potential moderators (Hunter et al., 2007, p. 439).
Our examination of contingencies (i.e., moderators) reveals that leader
transformational efforts influence followers differently. Our implications
are based on findings related to both of our outcomes, citizenship and
taking charge.
Regarding employee citizenship, we found that all of the proposed
moderators significantly and independently attenuated the relationship be-
tween transformational leadership and follower citizenship behaviors, as
supported in both separate and omnibus tests. Specifically, we show that
the effects of leaders transformational actions on citizenship are mod-
ified by followers perceptions of leader prototypicality, subordinates
workgroup identification, and followers individual differences (i.e., tra-
ditionality). Concerning prototypicality, our findings contribute to social
identity theories of leadership (e.g., Hogg, 2001) by extending the range
of boundary conditions for representative leaders (van Knippenberg & van
Knippenberg, 2005). One implication is that transformational leadership
and leader prototypicality are substitutes. If leaders create, or if followers
already have, a prototypical perception, transformational efforts are less
useful for followers citizenship.
In addition, leaders transformational efforts in promoting citizenship
are also diminished by team members perceptions of team identification.
This finding is in line with theoretical arguments rooted in substitutes
for leadership and social identity theories (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Lord
et al., 1999), which have received only scant empirical attention. As
stipulated by a substitution logic, when employees are in closely knit,
interdependent, and cohesive work groups, they are less influenced by
their direct leaders. Likewise, as noted in prior conceptual arguments,
citizenship behaviors [s]hould be more likely to occur when self-views
are defined at the collective level (Lord et al., 1999, p. 179). When such
collective views are already forged through relationships emerging from
the workgroup, leaders transformational behaviors are less influential.
Follower individual differences also decrease leaders transforma-
tional efforts directed toward generating follower citizenship, a form of
behavior geared at maintaining stability and organizational functioning
(Organ et al., 2006). In particular, leaders transformational efforts are
NING LI ET AL. 251
less effective for more traditional followers. Due to their submission to

authorities mandates, employees higher in traditionality may rely more
on internal norms and values, rather than on leader cues, to craft their
behavioral responses. Indeed, our findings fit with previous research in an
even broader literature; that is, even when not supported by their organi-
zation, employees higher in traditionality still engage in altruistic forms
of citizenship (Farh et al., 1997; Farh et al., 2007). Although this finding
is in line with previous research showing that leaders quality of rela-
tionships (i.e., LMX) with highly traditional employees does not enhance
these subordinates citizenship (Hui et al., 2004), it adds an important new
element. Leadermember exchange and transformational leadership have
distinct theoretical bases and exhibit different relationships with outcomes
(Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999), and findings in one domain cannot be
assumed to automatically translate to the other.
Concerning taking charge, employee learning goal orientation
emerged as a strong aspect attenuating the influence of transformational
leaders. Specifically, we found that learning goal-oriented employees are
less subject to their leaders transformational influences. Thus, our find-
ings extend a pattern in recent research and stipulated in earlier con-
tingency models. Across studies and contexts (i.e., laboratory and field),
Grant and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that the influence of leader per-
sonality traits, in the form of leader Extraversion, matters less for proactive
employeesessentially a follower-based substitution effect. Our study
supplements this finding by focusing on leader (transformational) behav-
iors instead of traits (Extraversion). Because traits, such as Extraversion,
may or may not be manifested in overt transformational behaviors, demon-
strating that leaders transformational behaviors are less influential when
followers learning goal orientation tendencies already exist is an impor-
tant extension.
We further note that although leader prototypicality, team identifica-
tion, and proactive personality significantly attenuated the influences of
transformational leadership on taking charge in separate statistical tests,
learning goal orientation was more influential in the omnibus test. These
results may suggest that these specific moderators are less important when
learning goal orientation is accounted for simultaneously. Yet, taken to-
gether, our results generally supported the utility of considering leader
substitutes in the relationship between transformational leadership and
employee discretionary behaviors, particularly for citizenship.
Our findings are particularly important in a work context in which
organizations become flatter, and the social distance between leaders and
followers is reduced (i.e., status leveling, Howell et al., 1986, p. 100).
With more reliance on teams and increased lateral interactions, workgroup
identities are more salient. In such environments with more flexible
workforces and team-based organizational structures, high levels of

citizenship performance are likely to become increasingly important
(Hanson & Borman, 2006, p. 169). Under these conditions, followers
through their perceptions, attitudes, and characteristicsplay an increas-
ingly important role in the socially situated leaderfollower process. Our
findings add a number of contingencies of transformational leadership and
can open up the discussion about a broader set of conditions under which
leader behaviors impact subordinates.
More importantly, our results illustrate how advice on pathways to
increase citizenship and taking charge based on fragmented and partial
knowledge can generate suboptimal interventions and results. Based on
unintegrated lines of research, managers may be advised to maximize their
subordinates taking charge by providing more transformational leader-
ship (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and by selecting subordinates who are
proactive and learning goal oriented (e.g., Fuller & Marler, 2009). How-
ever, these two influences do not reinforce each other. As we theorize and
demonstrate, in this case, more may not always be better. Our investi-
gation broadens the set of solutions on how to solve initiative paradoxes
(Campbell, 2000), such as a need to take initiative while being simulta-
neously subjected to influences (including of a transformational nature)
originating from ones leader.
Practical Implications
Our results argue for more attention to the context of transformational

leadership. As indicated by our simple slope analyses, transformational
leadership had nonsignificant relationships with employee discretionary
behaviors when leader moderators were present. In contrast, transfor-
mational leaders had sizeable effects on behaviors in situations where
substitutes were missing ( = .45.74). First, group-directed transfor-
mational efforts on citizenship are less important when leaders are highly
prototypical, with leader prototypicality and transformational leadership
substituting for each other. If leaders expect large citizenship benefits
from being transformational, they may not obtain this payoff when they
are prototypical. Depending on which is easier to use for particular fol-
lowers, leaders are at an advantage if they focus on either one of these
dimensions. Thus, this finding has implications for organizational selec-
tion and staffing. Given that certain dimensions of transformational lead-
ership require resources and interventions for modification (e.g., training,
management development), it may be more practical to select prototypical
leaders or facilitate their emergence in workgroups.
Leaders also need to take the pulse of their teams and establish the ex-
tent to which team identification is high. If team identification is high,
NING LI ET AL. 253
transformational leadership efforts on citizenship will meet with less

success. Likewise, transformational efforts to motivate followers taking
charge will be less effective for followers who are predisposed to select
and implement learning goals. If leaders operate within teams that exhibit
such configurations, they have the option to selectively rely on employees
who are already inclined to be proactive and direct their attention toward
developing their followers learning goal orientations without using trans-
formational actions. In line with our intention to outline when trans-
formational leaders are effective and with our focus on group-directed
transformational leadership, our recommendations above are directed to-
ward actions leaders ought not to take. As indicated by the form of our
interactions, leaders can nevertheless engage in specific actions to increase
their followers discretionary behaviors. For example, to the extent these
leaders work with subordinates who are not proactive or not predisposed
toward learning goals, transformational efforts will be more beneficial for
these followers taking charge.
Concerning citizenship, transformational actions directed toward em-
ployees lower in traditionality will yield the expected increase in such
discretionary behaviors. For followers higher in traditionality, neither be-
ing transformational nor, as demonstrated in prior research, building a
high quality relationship (i.e., LMX; Hui et al., 2004) generates the ex-
pected increases in citizenship. Instead leaders may attempt to use a more
paternalistic leadership style, based on its impact on followers commit-
ment (Pellegrini, Scandura, & Jayaraman, 2010) and, by extension, on
citizenship. They can also attempt to decrease traditionalists stance on
issues such as social distance by increasing their agency (Chen & Aryee,
2007). Overall, to obtain these results, leaders need to tailor their transfor-
mational actions accordingly, based on contingent aspects we just outlined
rather than use a one-size-fits-all, group-directed, transformational style.
Limitations and Future Research
Some limitations of our study should be noted. First, our design was
cross-sectional. As we did not obtain data at different points in time and
did not manipulate the independent variable, definitive conclusions about
causality are not possible. Future studies can rely on either longitudinal
data or on experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Second, our dataset
is country specific and some of our results could be specific to the national
context of the study (e.g., traditionality as moderator). The other findings,
however, may be generalizable to other settings. Past studies suggest that
it is not uncommon for leadership research to have similar results in the
West and China (e.g., Chen, Tjosvold, & Liu, 2006; Kirkman et al., 2009).
External validity should nevertheless be assessed.
Our study supports assertions that effective leaders focus on interven-

tions that complement subordinates existing abilities and compensate for
deficiencies (House, 1996). Making the issue more complex, it is possible
that a critical mass of various group- and individual-based characteristics
is needed for optimal levels of follower discretionary behaviors and other
outcomes. If existing levels of a follower characteristic (e.g., learning goal
orientation) are above this critical mass, leader transformational efforts
(e.g., intellectual stimulation) are likely to be less influential, given that
followers have the asset offered by the leader in their possession. Con-
versely, leaders may be more effective when followers have an average
level of the asset. And, finally, leaders may again become ineffective when
followers have too little of this characteristic (e.g., insufficient levels of
learning goals). Essentially, although our argument for the situation just
presented would be captured by using a curvilinear configuration, other
patterns are possible. From a theoretical standpoint, researchers may nev-
ertheless propose models differentiating when the influence of a leader
is diminished because of an insufficiency of flammable material or an
excess of it (Klein & House, 1995).
From a broader perspective, contingencies may operate on leader be-
haviors other than transformational actions (e.g., Grant et al., 2011; Van
Dyne, Kamdar, & Joireman, 2008). Thus, one fertile direction of investi-
gation is the extent to which other leader behaviors of both positive (e.g.,
charismatic, empowering; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kirkman, Rosen, Tes-
luk, & Gibson, 2004) and negative (e.g., abusive, narcissistic) valence are
subject to similar types of contingencies. Are other dimensions from the
full-range leadership model (e.g., transactional leadership) reduced to the
same extent? For example, transactional leaders purchase work effort
from subordinates with whatever material incentives they have to offer
(Sims & Manz, 1996, p. 39) instead of relying on idealized influence
and inspirational motivation. They may also prime followers individual,
rather than collective, identities (Lord et al., 1999). Thus, diminishing
influence for transactional leadership may not be as strong as the ones
uncovered in our study for transformational actions. Finally, future re-
search needs to determine how the current levels of a specific contingency
(i.e., moderator) were created. For example, high levels of a specific con-
tingency (such as team identification or cohesiveness) can be produced
by a (transformational) leader previously in the workgroups history. In
such situations, leaders influence is in fact prominent in the initial phase
when they create a substitute for their action and muted in a latter phase
when the substitute is brought to fruition. Longitudinal data, capturing
leaders actions across each workgroups history, may help clarify this
issue.
NING LI ET AL. 255
Conclusion
Leaders engage in transformational behaviors to encourage followers

to go beyond expectations. Is the transformational spark of leaders
equally effective across followers? Provided that most leadership re-
search has considered the follower a passive or nonexistent element when
examining what constitutes leadership (Avolio, 2007, p. 26), we move
followers back into the research spotlight and examine whether leaders
transformational efforts translate with equal effectiveness across contexts
and subordinates. Our findings indicateacross multiple dimensions
that the more is better assumption pertaining to transformational lead-
ership does not always hold for followers citizenship and taking charge.
Provided that leader actions are subject to contingencies, theorizing
and testing such boundaries can increase the impact of transformational
leaders.
REFERENCES
Avolio BJ. (2007). Promotive more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.
American Psychologist, 62, 2533.
Avolio BJ, Zhu W, Koh W, 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.
Bandalos DL, Finney SJ. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling.
In Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE (Eds.), New developments and techniques in
structural equation modeling (pp. 362427). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass BM. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass BM. (1997). Does the transactional/transformational leadership transcend organiza-
tional and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130139.
Bass BM. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 932.
Bass BM., Avolio BJ. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for research:
Permission set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
Bass BM, Riggio RE. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bateman TS, Crant JM. (1993). The proactive component of organizational-behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103118.
Bauer DJ, Curran PJ. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regressions:
Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 373
400.
Bettencourt LA. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct
and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80, 165180.
Bindl UK, Parker SK. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-
oriented action in organizations. In Zedeck S (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567598). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Bliese PD. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Impli-

cations for data aggregation and analyses. In Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions,
and new directions (pp. 349381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brett JF, VandeWalle D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors
of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
863873.
Brislin RW. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In Lonner W,
Berry J (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137164). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Bugental DB. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187219.
Campbell DJ. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy
of Management Executive, 14, 5266.
Chen G, Kirkman BL, Kanfer R, Allen D, Rosen B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership,
empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331
346.
Chen G, Tjosvold D, Liu CH. (2006). Cooperative goals and leader people and produc-
tivity values: Their contribution to top management teams in China. Journal of
Management Studies, 43, 11771200.
Chen ZX, Aryee S. (2007). Delegation and employees work outcomes: An examination
of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 226238.
Cheng BS, Jiang DY, Riley JH. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commit-
ment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: Proximal hypothesis or global
hypothesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 313334.
Conroy DE, Elliot AJ, Thrash TM. (2009). Achievement motivation. In Leary MR, Hoyle
RH (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 382399).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Crant JM. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435
462.
Dionne S, Yammarino F, Atwater L, James L. (2002). Neutralizing substitutes for leadership
theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 454464.
Dvir T, Eden D, Avolio BJ, Shamir B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on fol-
lower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 735744.
Eisenbeiss SA, Van Knippenberg D, Boerner S. (2008). Transformational leadership and
team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 14381446.
Farh JL, Earley PC, Lin SC. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice
and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, 421444.
Farh JL, Hackett RD, Liang J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of
perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Com-
paring the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 715729.
Farh JL, Zhong CB, Organ DW. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the Peoples
Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241253.
Fiedler FE. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
NING LI ET AL. 257
Fielding KS, Hogg MA. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field
study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
1, 3951.
Fuller JB, Marler LE. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the
proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329345.
Giessner SR, van Knippenberg D, Sleebos E. (2009). License to fail? How leader group pro-
totypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership
effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 434451.
Gong Y, Huang JC, Farh JL. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-
efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 765778.
Grant AM. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and
the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 458476.
Grant AM, Ashford SJ. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organi-
zational Behavior, 28, 334.
Grant AM, Gino F, Hofmann DA. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage:
The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528550.
Hains SC, Hogg MA, Duck JM. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of
group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 10871100.
Hanson MA, Borman WC. (2006). Citizenship performance: An integrative review and
motivational analysis. In Bennett W Jr, Lance CE, Woehr DJ (Eds.), Performance
measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 141173). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Platow M. (2011). The new psychology of leadership. Hove and
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hirst G, van Knippenberg D, Zhou J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee cre-
ativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 52, 280293.
Hofmann DA, Gavin MB. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Im-
plications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623641.
Hogg MA. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5, 184200.
Hogg MA, Hains SC, Mason I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups:
Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 12481263.
Hollenbeck JR. (2008). The role of editing in knowledge development: Consensus shifting
and consensus creation. In Baruch Y, Konrad AM, Aguinus H, Starbuck WH (Eds.),
Journal editing: Opening the black box (pp. 1626). San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
House RJ. (1971). A pathgoal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321338.
House RJ. (1996). Pathgoal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated
theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323352.
Howell JP, Dorfman PW, Kerr S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research.
Academy of Management Review, 11, 88102.
Howell JN, Hall-Merenda KE. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member
exchange, transformational leadership and transactional leadership, and distance on
predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680694.
Howell JM, Shamir B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership pro-
cess: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30,
96112.
Hui C, Lee C, Rousseau DM. (2004). Employment relationships in China: Do workers
relate to the organization or to people? 15, 232240.
Hunter ST, Bedell-Avers KE, Mumford MD. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assump-
tions, implications, and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435446.
James L, Demaree R, Wolf G. (1993). r wg : An assessment of within-group inter-rater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306309.
Janssen O, Van Yperen NW. (2004). Employees goal orientations, the quality of leader-
member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 47, 368384.
Joreskog K, Sorbom D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755767.
Jung DI, Avolio BJ. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers cultural orientation on
performance in group versus individual task conditions. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 208218.
Kark R, Shamir B, Chen G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empow-
erment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246255.
Kelley RE. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY: Currency and Doubleday.
Kerr S. (1977). Substitutes for leadership: Some implications for organizational design.
Organization and Administrative Science, 8, 135146.
Kerr S, Jermier JM. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375403.
Kirkman BL, Chen G, Farh JL, Chen ZX, Lowe KB. (2009). Individual power distance
orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-
culture examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744764.
Kirkman BL, Rosen B, Tesluk PE, Gibson CB. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on
virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy
of Management Journal, 47, 175192.
Klein KJ, House RJ. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 6, 183198.
LeBreton J, Senter J. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and
interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815852.
LePine JA, Erez A, Johnson DE. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 87, 5265.
Li N, Liang J, Crant JM. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 395404.
Liu W, Zhu R, Yang Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee
identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189202.
Lord RG, Brown DJ, Frieberg SJ. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The
role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 167203.
Mathieu JE, Aguinis H, Culpepper SA, Chen G. (2012). Understanding and estimating the
power to detect cross-level interaction effects in multilevel modeling. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 951966.
Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Hermida R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in
the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121140.
NING LI ET AL. 259
Morgeson FP, DeRue DS, Karam EP. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach
to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36,
539.
Morrison EW, Phelps CC. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403419.
Organ DW. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10, 8597.
Organ DW, Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parker SK, Bindl U, Strauss K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827856.
Parker SK, Collins CG. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633662.
Parker SK, Williams HM, Turner N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636652.
Pellegrini EK, Scandura TA, Jayaraman V. (2010). Cross-cultural generalizability of pa-
ternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group &
Organization Management, 35, 391420.
Piccolo RF, Colquitt J. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediat-
ing role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327340.
Pillai R, Schriesheim CA, Williams ES. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25, 897933.
Pillutla MM, Farh JL, Lee C, Lin Z. (2007). An investigation of traditionality as a moderator
of reward allocation. Group & Organization Management, 32, 233253.
Platow M, Van Knippenberg D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorse-
ment: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fair-
ness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 15081519.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Bommer WH. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259
298.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Podsakoff PM, Niehoff BP, MacKenzie SB, Williams ML. (1993). Do substitutes for
leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and
Jermiers situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 54, 144.
Porter COLH. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance,
efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811818.
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R. (2004). HLM 6 for Windows [Computer software].
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Riggio R, Challeff I, Lipman-Blumen J. (2008) (Eds.), The art of followership: How great
followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rusk N, Tamir M, Rothbaum F. (2011). Performance and learning goals for emotion
regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 444460.
Schoen JL, DeSimone JA, James LR. (2011). Exploring joint variance between indepen-
dent variables and a criterion: Meaning, effect, and size. Organizational Research
Methods, 14, 674695.
Shamir B, House RJ, Arthur MB. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577594.
Shamir B, Pillai R, Bligh MC, Uhl-Bien M. (2007). Follower-centered perspectives on
leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. Charlotte, NC: Information
Age.
Sims HP Jr, Manz CC. (1996). Company of heroes: Unleashing the power of self-leadership.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Spreitzer G, Hopkins M, Perttula K, Xin K. (2005). Traditionality matters: An examination
of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 205227.
Thomas JP, Whitman DS, Viswesvaran C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations:
A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275300.
Thompson JA. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspec-
tive. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 10111017.
Van der Vegt GS, Bunderson JS. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary
teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 532547.
Van der Vegt GS, Van de Vliert E, Oosterhof A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and
OCB: The role of intra-team interdependence and team identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 715727.
Van Dyne L, Kamdar D, Joireman J. (2008). In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact
of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 11951207.
van Knippenberg D, Hogg MA. (2003). A social identity model of leadership in organiza-
tions. In Kramer RM, Staw BM (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
25, pp. 243295). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
van Knippenberg B, van Knippenberg D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership ef-
fectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 90, 2537.
Wang XH, Howell JM. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leader-
ship on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 11341144.
Wang H, Law KS, Hackett RD, Wang D, Chen ZX. (2005). Leader-member exchange
as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and follow-
ers performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 420432.
Wang G, Oh IS, Courtright SH, Colbert AE. (2011). Transformational leadership and per-
formance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research.
Group & Organization Management, 36, 223270.
Wang P, Walumbwa FO. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commit-
ment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 60, 397427.
Williams LJ, Anderson SE. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as pre-
dictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17, 601617.
Wu JB, Tsui AS, Kinicki AJ. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 53, 90106.
Yang KS, Yu AB, Yeh MH. (1989). Chinese individual modernity and traditionality: Con-
struction definition and measurement [in Chinese]. Proceedings of the Interdisci-
plinary Conference on Chinese Psychology and Behavior (pp. 287354).
Copyright of Personnel Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Spotlight On The Followers, Li Et Al - (Leadership) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spotlight On The Followers, Li Et Al - (Leadership) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

2013, 66, 225260

SPOTLIGHT ON THE FOLLOWERS: AN

Drawing on substitutes for leadership theory, we revisit an often taken-

Transformational leadership, defined as influencing followers by

outcomes, including task performance (Bass, 1997; Judge & Piccolo,

generally. This approach is theoretically important because it provides

Figure 1: Overall Framework for Study Hypotheses.

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior

Transformational leaders focus subordinates attention on a collective

leadership. We focus on citizenship, or good soldier behaviors defined

leaders influence on their subordinates taking charge. Similarly, pro-

Followers Perceptions of the Leader as a Contingency Factor: Being One

Due to our group-directed transformational leadership focus, being

stimulate followers citizenship and taking charge. Stated differently, less

Hypothesis 1: Followers perceptions of leader prototypicality will

Followers Attitudes Toward the Group as a Contingency Factor: Crafting

Leaders influence followers attitudes and behaviors by shaping their

teams, followers are less susceptible to leaders transformational influ-

Hypothesis 2: Followers team identification will attenuate the rela-

Dispositions as a Contingency Factor: Follower Characteristics

So far, we have presented the same predictions for citizenship and

related to leaders superior role in the social hierarchy and deference to

Hypothesis 3: Followers traditionality will attenuate the relationship

Moderators for taking charge behavior. Making things happen

by extension being proactive and engagedwould make leaders influ-

followers are already predisposed toward achievement goals, leaders are

Hypothesis 5: Followers learning goal orientation will attenuate the

Sample and Procedure

We drew our sample from employees working in two large state-

used to ensure matched supervisorsubordinate data. Both employees and

Subordinates completed measures of transformational leadership,

mission), a 4-item measure of attributive idealized influence (e.g., goes

measure employee traditionality. Sample items include When people are

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

We use confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with LISREL (Joreskog &

Models Descriptions 2 d.f. 2 RMSEA CFI NFI

p < .01, two-tailed tests.

p < .05. p < .01.

Table 2 contains means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for

To test our cross-level interaction hypotheses, we employed moderated

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

p < .10. p < .05. p < .01.

( = .05, ns vs. = .63, p < .05) through their transformational efforts.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

TF traditionality .13 .08

p < .1. p < .05. p < .01.

Figure 2: (a) Leader Prototypicality as a Moderator of the

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; TF = transformational leadership.

To determine possible attenuating influences on citizenship, we pro-

Figure 3: (a) Team Identification as a Moderator of the Transformational

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; TF = transformational leadership.

Figure 4 is consistent with the prediction that transformational leadership

1.5 High traditionality

Figure 4: Follower Traditionality as a Moderator of the Transformational

Figure 5: Follower Proactive Personality as a Moderator of the

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; TF = transformational leadership.

transformational leadership and taking charge relationship (Hypotheses

Figure 6: Follower Learning Goal Orientation as a Moderator of the

Note. GO = goal orientation; TF = transformational leadership.

Finally, consistent with recent efforts distinguishing group-focused,

Transformational leadership has been widely researched (Bass, 1999;

Taken together, our study findings lead to several implications. First,