Original Article
Age and Transformational
Leadership
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The Roles of Motivation to Lead and Managerial Discretion
Yisheng Peng1, Jie Ma2, Xiaohong Xu3, and Greg Thrasher4
1
Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
2
School of Management, Jinan University, Guangzhou, PR China
3
Department of Management, The University of Texas at San Antonio, TX, USA
Department of Management and Marketing, Oakland University, Rochester Hills, MI, USA
4
Abstract: Based on socioemotional selectivity theory, this study examined the indirect relationship between leader’s age and transformational
leadership through motivation to lead. This study also investigated managerial discretion as a moderator of the association between age and
motivation to lead. A multisourced and two-wave study of 186 Chinese leader–follower dyads shows that leader’s age was indirectly related with
transformational leadership through motivation to lead. Managerial discretion moderates the negative age–motivation to lead relationship such
that the relationship was significant and negative only for leaders with low managerial discretion. This study provides implications for the
management of an increasingly age-diverse workforce and can inform human resource management practices aiming to maximize leadership
effectiveness at a later age.
Keywords: age, transformational leadership, motivation to lead, managerial discretion
Transformational leadership is defined as “moving the
follower beyond immediate self-interests through idealized
influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation,
or individualized consideration” (Bass, 1999, p. 11).1
Leaders who display transformational leadership behaviors
have the potential to promote followers’ job attitudes (e.g.,
Judge & Piccolo, 2004) and job performance (e.g., Piccolo
& Colquitt, 2006; Wang et al., 2011), as well as
organization-level performance (e.g., Judge & Piccolo,
2004; Wang et al., 2011). Given that the population of
leaders is growing increasingly age-diverse (Thrasher et al.,
2020), there is an increasing interest in understanding the
role of age in leadership and finding ways to retain leadership talent (e.g., transformational leadership) across the
lifespan (Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018; Walter &
Scheibe, 2013; Zacher et al., 2015). It is expected that
modern organizations will rely on a body of leaders who,
regardless of age, are able to exhibit transformational
leadership behaviors. However, research suggests that as
1
individuals age, they may shift their leadership styles in
response to a variety of internal (changes in motivation;
Thrasher et al., 2020; Zacher, Rosing, Henning, & Frese,
2011) and external age-related changes (age-based social
norms; Zacher et al., 2015).
To date, very limited research has examined age and
transformational leadership. Among the few exceptions,
there is little consistency in results. For example, transformational leadership has been found to be more pronounced at older ages (Barbuto et al., 2007), while other
unpublished research found a negative relationship between leader’s age and transformational leadership (Van
Solinge, 2014). Some research also found a null effect of
age on transformational leadership (Ng & Sears, 2012;
Zacher, Rosing, & Frese, 2011). The inconsistent results
offer little guidance to retaining leadership talent across
the lifespan. Scholars suggest that research should delve
deeply into why and when age relates to transformational
leadership (Ng & Feldman, 2015; Walter & Scheibe, 2013;
While readers are likely more familiar with the four-dimensional model by Bass (1999), the present study follows the five-dimensional model by
Rafferty and Griffin (2004). This is because other researchers have raised concerns about the lack of theoretical distinctiveness between the four
dimensions (Barbuto, 1997; Yukl, 1999). As such, Rafferty and Griffin (2004) have further identified five more focused subdimensions of
transformational leadership that are theoretically distinct: visioning, inspirational communication, supportive leadership, intellectual stimulation,
and personal recognition.
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000326
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
72
Zacher, Rosing, & Frese, 2011). The gap in understanding
the effect of age on transformational leadership is especially surprising given that the relationally focused and
socially constructed nature of leadership (McCauley &
Palus, 2021) presents direct theoretical guidance to
study the socially driven lifespan developmental changes
highlighted in theories of age-related changes in organizational settings. In the current study, we build on the
literature on transformational leadership and lifespan
development at work to examine individual processes and
contextual boundary conditions that affect the relationship
between age and transformational leadership.
By bridging the gap between the age and leadership
literature, we extend emerging theoretical propositions
stating that age-related changes in motivations could
explain the possible relationship between age and positive
leadership behaviors (Hertel et al., 2013; Inceoglu et al.,
2012; Kooij et al., 2011; Zacher et al., 2015). These
propositions are largely rooted in socioemotional selectivity theory (SST; Carstensen et al., 1999), which states
that with age, people tend to be more present-oriented and
are less motivated toward future-oriented, knowledge, and
development-related goals. Such a weakened tendency to
seek future-oriented and agentic goals can orient people
less toward dominance and status (Thrasher et al., 2020)
and in turn reduce their motivations to take a leadership
role and invest time and effort into leading others (i.e.,
motivation to lead; Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Building on
these, the current study first tests whether motivation to
lead can explain the age–transformational leadership
relationship.
Furthermore, because motivation is fundamentally defined by an interaction between personal goal orientations
and environmental opportunities and feedback (Klein,
1989; Locke, 1991), we suggest that leaders’ managerial
discretion can influence the extent to which age relates to
motivation to lead and subsequent transformational leadership behaviors. Managerial discretion refers to the extent
to which managers perceive that they can affect important
organizational outcomes through various managerial actions (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987; Wangrow et al., 2015).
Grounded within SST (Carstensen et al., 1999), because
managerial discretion can enhance positive emotional experiences and perceived meaningfulness of being a leader,
people with high managerial discretion at relatively older
ages may still prioritize leadership roles, and thus, their
motivation to lead can be sustained. In contrast, those with
low managerial discretion at relatively older ages may have
weaker motivations to lead because they perceive their
leadership roles to be less satisfying, rewarding, and
meaningful. Thus, we test a moderated mediation model
examining the motivational process (i.e., motivation to lead)
and one structural boundary condition (i.e., managerial
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
discretion) for the age–transformational leadership relationship (see Figure 1).
This study contributes to the research on age and
leadership in the following ways. First, we introduce SST as
the theoretical foundation and test motivation to lead as a
mediator between age and transformational leadership,
deepening our understanding of the underlying mechanism that links age and transformational leadership
(Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018; Thrasher et al., 2020;
Walter & Scheibe, 2013). Second, we examine one
structural working condition by testing the moderating
effect of managerial discretion, providing a potential explanation for the inconsistent findings regarding possible
age differences in transformational leadership (Barbuto
et al., 2007; Ng & Sears, 2012; Van Solinge, 2014; Zacher,
Rosing, & Frese, 2011). Overall, this study extends leadership literature by testing a model that acknowledges the
role of person–environment interaction in understanding
age and leadership.
Age, Motivation to Lead, and
Transformational Leadership
Motivation to lead affects a “leader’s decisions to assume
leadership training, roles, and responsibilities and that
affect his or her intensity of effort at leading and persistence as a leader” (Chan & Drasgow, 2001, p. 482). It is an
important predictor of leadership emergence (Luria &
Berson, 2013), leadership behaviors (Kark & Van Dijk,
2007), and leadership effectiveness (Badura et al.,
2020). It should be noted that although motivation to
lead is relatively stable over time, it may change due to
social learning processes and experiences (Chan &
Drasgow, 2001; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007) as well as agerelated changes in physical, cognitive, and socioemotional
aspects (Peng et al., 2018). This is especially true given that
being in leadership roles may demand an intensive effort
at leading and managing other people (Chan & Drasgow,
2001), whereas individuals’ effort and interest in doing so
may decline as they age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004).
Researchers have long applied SST (Carstensen, 1992)
to describe age-related socioemotional changes. SST
categorizes human goals/motives into two categories,
knowledge acquisition and emotion regulation, and proposes that one’s perception of time influences how they
assign importance to these goals. As people grow older,
they tend to be less motivated toward future-oriented,
knowledge, and development-related goals (Carstensen
et al., 1999). Specifically, at younger ages, people usually perceive time as open-ended and tend to prioritize
knowledge-related goals. With age, people tend to gradually perceive the future as limited (i.e., having less
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
73
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
remaining time), so they give less value to career growth
and development-related goals (Lang & Carstensen,
2002). In the workplace, with age, people tend to perceive less remaining time in employment and, importantly,
fewer new work-related goals, possibilities, and opportunities in the foreseen future (Rudolph, Kooij, et al., 2018).
Thus, it is possible that with age, people tend to focus less
on goals that help maximize their career development
outcomes, such as becoming a leader.
Indeed, it has been found that age is negatively related
with strength of growth and extrinsic motives (e.g., promotion; Inceoglu et al., 2012; Kooij et al., 2011). Extrinsic
growth values (e.g., advancing one’s career, gaining influence) also decline with age (Hertel et al., 2013). It has
also been found that age was related to lower work-related
growth motives and lower motivation to continue working
through reduced future time perspective (limited remaining time) and promotion focus (Kooij et al., 2014). As to
leaders, it has been found that they generally tend to shift
away from dominance and agentic goals as they grow older
(Thrasher et al., 2020). Although some people may want to
lead because leading others may involve enjoyable emotional experiences that allow for building communal bonds,
cultivating such pleasant emotions and leader–follower
exchange relationships requires a set of effortful behaviors, such as emotional labor (e.g., managing one’s emotions when interacting with followers; Humphrey et al.,
2008). Relatedly, findings of previous research suggest that
people generally tend to engage in less effortful emotional
labor (e.g., intentionally displaying positive emotions) as
they grow older (Dahling & Perez, 2010; Peng et al., 2021).
Furthermore, because transformational leaders usually
need to invest great effort and energy to inspire, excite, and
deliver an extraordinary vision to followers (Bass & Avolio,
1993), with age, people may be less motivated to assume
leadership roles due to the required effort and energy. As
people grow older, they may experience declines in cognitive resources (Peng et al., 2018). Older individuals may
face difficulties in cognitively demanding jobs (Peeters &
van Emmerik, 2008), and thus, they may have weaker
motivations to become a leader if leadership roles require
great cognitive efforts. In all, because being a leader may
require people to effortfully focus on long-term, visionary
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
goals and specific social and emotional relationships that
feature such leadership roles, with age, people may tend to
have lower levels of motivation to lead.
Hypothesis 1: Leader’s age will be negatively related
with motivation to lead.
Transformational leaders can positively influence employees through various leadership behaviors (e.g., visioning, intellectual stimulation, etc.; Bass, 1999; Rafferty
& Griffin, 2004). Given the important implications of high
motivation to lead for individuals’ transformational
leadership (Badura et al., 2020; Barbuto, 2005; Gilbert
et al., 2016) and leadership effectiveness (Badura et al.,
2020; Kirkpatrick & positively relate to transformational
leadership. Motivation typically “moves people to act”
(Deci & Ryan, 2008, p. 14). In general, people with high
motivation to lead would self-set high standards (Chan &
Drasgow, 2001). They are more likely to develop idealized
influence because they could empower followers and
engender the trust and respect of their followers by behaving as a role model. They may also tend to have pride in
being the leader, act with integrity, and make sacrifices for
the good of the whole team. People with high motivation to
lead may also highly commit to their leadership roles and
seek to benefit the collective. They tend to create and
articulate high expectations and shared visions to motivate
and inspire followers.
Furthermore, people with high motivation to lead tend
to assume leadership positions, not for their own interest,
and are thus more likely to be concerned with the wellbeing and development of followers (Bass, 2008). They
are more likely to show individualized consideration by
treating followers as individuals and helping them meet
different needs. They also tend to act in a way that is in
accord with the group’s interest and are likely to encourage followers to challenge existing beliefs, involve
them in decision-making, and seek their suggestions and
ideas. In all, we expect that people with high motivation to
lead are more likely to display transformational leadership
behaviors because these behaviors could be natural
consequences of those people’s positive orientation and
desire to assume leadership roles (Badura et al., 2020).
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
74
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
Consistent with the theoretical proposition made by SST
that as people age, they tend to be less motivated toward
future-oriented, knowledge, and development-related goals
(Carstensen et al., 1999), we posit that as people grow older,
they may be less likely to demonstrate transformational
leadership due to declines in their motivations to lead.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hypothesis 2: Motivation to lead will be positively
related with transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 3: Leader’s age will be indirectly related
with transformational leadership through motivation
to lead.
The Moderating Role of Managerial
Discretion
According to SST (Carstensen et al., 1999), with age,
people tend to focus more on emotionally positive and
meaningful experiences. Because managerial discretion
allows leaders to bend leadership roles to their will and
personal preferences (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987;
Wangrow et al., 2015), it brings leaders positive and
gratifying experiences. As such, the age–motivation to
lead relationship may depend on leaders’ perceived
managerial discretion.
Specifically, when managerial discretion is high, people
have a wide range of options and thus perceive great decision latitude (Wangrow et al., 2015). It enables individuals
to use skills and abilities to navigate contextual constraints
and effectively influence critical organizational outcomes
(López-Cotarelo, 2018). Such discretion is fundamental for
creating positive emotions at work (Xanthopoulou et al.,
2012). Research has also found that managerial discretion
may be particularly helpful when people grow older (Kooij
et al., 2011; Zaniboni et al., 2016). As such, managerial
discretion may help retain leaders’ motivation to lead at
relatively older ages.
Although anecdotally people in leadership roles tend
to perceive a good amount of managerial discretion at
work, some of them may perceive low managerial discretion (relative to others) due to the institutional and
organizational contexts that can impose constraints on
leaders (Jacobsen, 2022; Yukl, 2013). For instance, in an
organization with a flat structure, middle-level leaders
may perceive low managerial discretion because there
are few levels of management and the authority and
power might be shared between the workers and the
higher-level leaders. When managerial discretion is low,
leaders could experience constraints on their authority
to make decisions, which do not grant them with necessary options and actions available to achieve important
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
goals at work (Barker et al., 2001). Thus, leaders with
low managerial discretion are less likely to experience
positive emotions (Xanthopoulou et al., 2012) and more
likely to experience negative and aversive experiences at
work (Liu et al., 2005). Leaders at relatively older ages
may perceive such leadership roles with low managerial
discretion as demotivating (Kooij et al., 2011) and thus
exhibit a low motivation to lead.
With the aforementioned reasoning, it is likely that
when managerial discretion is high, the indirect effect of
age on transformational leadership via motivation to lead
will be weaker. In contrast, when managerial discretion is
low, this indirect effect will be stronger.
Hypothesis 4: Managerial discretion will moderate the
relationship between leader’s age and motivation to
lead such that the relationship will be weaker for
leaders with high than low managerial discretion.
Hypothesis 5: Managerial discretion will moderate the
indirect relationship between leader’s age and
transformational leadership through motivation to
lead such that the indirect relationship will be weaker
for leaders with high than low managerial discretion.
Methods
Participants and Procedure
The data collection was conducted in compliance with the
ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association
(APA) and was approved by the second author’s affiliated
institute. At Time 1, 227 leaders from a large telecom
company in Northwest China received a paper survey assessing demographic variables, motivation to lead, and
managerial discretion. One month later, another paper
survey enclosed in an envelope containing the measure of
transformational leadership was sent to a follower under
each leader selected by the human resource department.
At Time 1, we received 219 responses of the 227 supervisors we invited (a response rate of 96.48%). At Time 2, we
received 195 valid responses and successfully linked 186
valid supervisor–employee dyads. On average, leaders were
41.62 years old (SD = 6.91; 32–60 years old). The distribution
of age in the sample can be found in Figure 2. As can be seen
in Figure 2, the distribution of leader’s age is non-normal
(positively skewed), which is very similar to the age distributions of the US workforce (United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2022) and the Chinese workforce (China Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2020). Specifically, 92 respondents were 39
years old or younger (49.5%), 63 were between 40 and 49
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
75
Figure 2. The distribution of age in the sample. Ninety-two respondents were 39 years old or younger (49.5%), 63 were between 40 and 49 years old
(33.9%), 29 were between 50 and 59 years old (15.6%), and two were 60 years old and older (1.1%).
years old (33.9%), 29 were between 50 and 59 years old
(15.6%), and two were 60 years old and older (1.1%). The job
duties of the majority of leaders were executed at the section
and division (97.85%) levels but did not involve managing
other leaders. All the participants are below the C-suite level.
There were 125 males and 61 females, and the average of
years in leadership positions was 8.37 (SD = 6.67).
Measures
Motivation to Lead
We used a shortened 15-item version of Chan and
Drasgow’s (2001) questionnaire. Participants were asked
to indicate the extent to which they agree with each of the
statements on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree,
7 = strongly agree). A sample item is “I am the type of person
who likes to be in charge of others.” Cronbach’s α was .87.
Managerial Discretion
tBased on previous research (Karasek, 1979; LópezCotarelo, 2018; Wangrow et al., 2015), we measured
leaders’ managerial discretion over the following six aspects
that are important to leadership and management work:
personnel decision-making, budget planning, work-related
goal setting, how to perform work, use of organizational
resources, and organizational strategic decision-making.
Leaders were instructed to indicate the extent to which
they perceive managerial discretion in each of the six aspects
on a five-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). The six
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
items used in the current study yielded a single-factor model
that had a good model fit [χ2(9) = 11.25, p = .26, CFI = .98,
RMSEA = .04 (95% CI = .00–.10), SRMR = .04]. A sample
item is “To what extent you perceive managerial discretion
in personnel decision-making.” Cronbach’s α was .70.
Transformational Leadership
Rafferty and Griffin’s (2004) 15-item measure was used to
measure transformational leadership via five dimensions:
vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership, and personal recognition.
Followers were asked to indicate the extent to which their
leaders exhibit transformational leadership behaviors on a
5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very large
degree. A sample item is “Has a clear understanding of
where we are going.” Cronbach’s α was .86.
Control Variables
Gender was controlled in the analyses because past research has shown that female leaders tend to be more
transformational than male leaders (Eagly et al., 2003). It
should be noted that excluding this control variable did not
affect the results for all our hypothesized relationships.
Analytic Strategies
Path modeling was used to test the hypotheses via Mplus 7.1
(Muthén & Muthén, 2012). To yield greater precision of
estimates and facilitate the interpretation of the unstandardized coefficients for age in comparison with the other
unstandardized coefficients in our statistical analyses, we
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
76
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations
Variables
M
SD
Range
1
41.62
6.91
32–60
—
2. Gendera
.33
0.47
0–1
.03
1. Age
2
3
4
5
—
3. Managerial discretion
5.57
0.67
1–7
.05
.06
(.70)
—
4. Motivation to lead
5.08
0.79
1–7
.18**
.07
.59**
(.87)
—
5. Transformational leadership
3.88
0.47
1–5
.02
.09
.21**
.28**
(.86)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Note. N = 186. Diagonal values represent internal consistency for each measure where applicable. aGender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. *p < .05.
**p < .01.
rescaled age by a factor of 10 (Fasbender et al., 2020; Gielnik
et al., 2018). Basically, after rescaling age by a factor of 10, all
effects including age could be interpreted as for every 10year increase in age a relative change in Y was observed.
Results
Table 1 provides means, SDs, and correlations among all
study variables. Before testing the hypotheses, we performed
CFAs to examine the distinctiveness of the study variables.
We used dimensional scores for transformational leadership
and motivation to lead to model their respective latent
constructs. The results show that the three-factor (i.e.,
motivation to lead, managerial discretion, and transformational leadership) measurement model fitted the data well:
χ2(74) = 84.77, p = .18, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03 (95%
CI = .00–.05), SRMR = .05. Compared with a two-factor (i.e.,
managerial discretion and transformational leadership were
combined into one factor) Model 1 [χ2(76) = 283.86, p < .001,
CFI = .65, RMSEA = .12 (95% CI = .11–.14), SRMR = .13], a
two-factor (i.e., motivation to lead and managerial discretion
were combined into one factor) Model 2 [χ2(76) = 101.36,
p = .03, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .04 (95% CI = .02–.06),
SRMR = .06], a two-factor (i.e., motivation to lead and
transformational leadership were combined into one factor)
Model 3 [χ2(76) = 263.91, p < .001, CFI = .68, RMSEA = .12
(95% CI = .10–.13), SRMR = .13], and a single-factor model
[χ2(77) = 315.25, p < .001, CFI = .60, RMSEA = .13 (95%
CI = .11–.14), SRMR = .12], the hypothesized three-factor
model had the best model fit.
A moderated mediation model, which included the interaction effects of age and managerial discretion on motivation to lead, was tested via path modeling analyses. This
model has a good model fit: χ2(4) = 0.91, p = .92, CFI = 1.00,
RMSEA = .00 (95% CI = .00–.04), SRMR = .02. We also
tested an alternative model including a direct effect between age and transformational leadership. This alternative
model also has good fit: χ2(3) = 0.75, p = .86, CFI = 1.00,
RMSEA = .00 [95% CI = .00–.07]. The results found that
the direct effect of leader’s age on transformational
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
leadership was not significant (B = .02, SE = .05, p = .68).
Because the model excluding this direct effect did not
significantly differ from this model [Δχ2(1) = .18, ns], suggesting that the model without a direct effect was more
parsimonious and satisfactory. Table 2 and Figure 1 present
the path coefficients of the hypothesized relationships.
As shown in Figure 1, age was negatively related with
motivation to lead (B = .15, SE = .07, p = .04). Motivation to
lead was positively related with transformational leadership
(B = .17, SE = .04, p < .01). To test the indirect relationship
between age and transformational leadership through motivation to lead, we used the Bayesian approach. Compared
to the traditional approaches (e.g., Sobel test, bootstrapping),
Bayesian estimation neither requires nor assumes normal
distributions of indirect effects (Yuan & MacKinnon, 2009).
The Bayesian analysis also has much less chance to exhibit
Type I error when the sample size is small (Koopman et al.,
2015). Additionally, the interpretation of the confidence
interval computed by Bayesian analysis is more straightforward. A 95% credibility interval means that there is a 95%
probability that the interval includes the true population
mean based on the observed data. The results found that
leader’s age was indirectly related with transformational
leadership through motivation to lead (IE = .03, 95%
CI = .06 to .01). Thus, Hypotheses 1–3 were supported.
The interaction between age and managerial discretion
was significantly related to motivation to lead (B = .28,
SE = .13, p = .03), explaining an additional 2.40% of the
variance in motivation to lead. Supporting Hypothesis 4,
the results of simple slope tests further showed that when
managerial discretion was low (1 SD below the mean), age
was negatively related to motivation to lead (B = .34,
SE = .11, p = .002). When managerial discretion was high (1
SD above the mean), this relationship was not significant
(B = .03, SE = .12, p = .78). We plotted this interaction effect
in Figure 3. Furthermore, supporting Hypothesis 5, at low
levels of managerial discretion, age had a significant,
negative relationship with transformational leadership
through motivation to lead (IE = .06, 95% CI = .10
to .03). However, at high levels of managerial discretion,
this indirect relationship was not significant (IE = .01, 95%
CI = .04 to .04).
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
77
Table 2. Path coefficients of multilevel path modeling analyses
Dependent variables
Predictors
Motivation to lead
Leader’s age
.15 (.07)*
Managerial discretion
.69 (.08)**
Leader’s age × Managerial discretion
.28 (.13)*
Transformational leadership
Motivation to lead
.17 (.04)*
Gender
.11 (.07)
The indirect and conditional indirect effects
Estimate
Bayesian 95% CI
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Leader’s age → Motivation to lead → Transformational leadership
Indirect effect
.03
[ .06,
.01]
The conditional indirect effect at high managerial discretion (+1SD)
.01
[ .04, .04]
The conditional indirect effect at low managerial discretion ( 1SD)
.06
[ .10,
.03]
Note. N = 186. The coefficient estimates were unstandardized and the standard error for the coefficient is in parentheses. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Figure 3. The moderating effect of managerial
discretion on the relationship between leader’s
age and motivation to lead.
Sensitivity Analyses
To provide further support for our proposed model, we
tested a model to include tenure as a competing
predictor/control variable for the hypothesized relationship (Bohlmann et al., 2018). The model fit indices
were χ2(5) = 1.01, p = .96, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00,
SRMR = .02. The results found that leader’s age was still
negatively related with motivation to lead (B = .36,
SE = .14, p < .01) and managerial discretion significantly
interacted with leader’s age in predicting motivation to
lead (B = .28, SE = .13, p = .03). However, tenure was not
significantly related with motivation to lead (B = .08,
SE = .07, p = .26).
mechanism and one boundary condition pertaining to the
environmental context (i.e., managerial discretion). In a
group of 186 Chinese leaders with multisourced data using
a time-lagged research design, we found that age was
indirectly related to transformational leadership via motivation to lead. Managerial discretion moderated the
negative relationship between age and motivation to lead
such that the relationship was significant only for leaders
with low managerial discretion. Additionally, managerial
discretion moderated the indirect relationship such that
the indirect relationship between age and transformational
leadership via motivation to lead was significant only for
leaders with low managerial discretion.
Theoretical Implications
Discussion
We tested a model of age and transformational leadership
that included both motivation to lead as a mediating
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
The current research has meaningful theoretical implications for the leadership literature. Although scholars
have suggested more than 30 years ago that allocating
more attention to age and leadership can significantly
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
78
benefit leadership research given the aging trend in the
workplace (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988), to date, our understanding of the age–leadership relationship is limited.
This study adds to these initial attempts to empirically
investigate mediating mechanisms underlying the relationship between age and transformational leadership.
Extending past research examining potential age differences in transformational leadership behaviors, we
proposed and tested motivation to lead as a mediating
mechanism underlying the relationship between age and
transformational leadership. Our finding highlights the
important role of motivation to lead in explicating the
indirect association between age and transformational
leadership.
This study demonstrates managerial discretion as an
important boundary condition for the associations between age, motivation to lead, and transformational
leadership. Given the complexity of the relationships
between age and leadership behaviors (Walter &
Scheibe, 2013), there might be various intervening factors involved in this relationship. Our finding suggests
that when managerial discretion is low, motivation to
lead suffers more for those at older ages than those at
relatively younger ages. Consistent with the rationale in
previous research (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Xanthopoulou
et al., 2012), with age, people may perceive leadership
roles with low managerial discretion as demotivating
(Kooij et al., 2011) because low managerial discretion
may not lead to gratifying and meaningful experiences
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Xanthopoulou et al., 2012). Instead,
they may tend to prioritize leadership roles and sustain
motivation to lead when managerial discretion is high as
high managerial discretion may help them acquire
emotionally positive and meaningful experiences from
leadership roles. It should be noted, though, that the
current study did not directly test these age-related
changes as suggested by SST (Carstensen et al., 1999).
Future research may consider empirically examining
these age-related changes as part of the moderation
effect of managerial discretion on the age–motivation to
lead relationship.
Extending previous research focusing on whether there
are age-related differential effects of managerial discretion
(Ng & Feldman, 2015; Zaniboni et al., 2016), our results
provide an interesting perspective showing that motivation
to lead may actually suffer more from low managerial
discretion for those at relatively older ages. Perhaps when
perceiving low discretion in leadership roles, people at
relatively older ages are likely to be less motivated to lead
(e.g., less likely to be a leader) because motivation to lead
reflects individuals’ strive for achievement-related goals
that require a lot of personal resources (Inceoglu et al.,
2012).
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
Furthermore, although past research has suggested that
managerial discretion could enhance leaders’ influence
on their organizations (Crossland & Hambrick, 2011;
Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987), it is still unclear why it
matters to organizations. This study offers empirical evidence from the leadership process perspective showing
the significant role of managerial discretion in retaining
leader’s motivation to lead. Our findings emphasize
managerial discretion as an important work contextual
factor that has significant implications for leadership
behaviors during later working life (e.g., Ng et al., 2008).
The results of ancillary sensitivity analyses confirmed that
age was negatively related with motivation to lead, above
and beyond the effect of tenure. This observation shows that
our research model was robust to job tenure. It suggests that
the effect of age on motivation to lead (as well as its interaction effect with managerial discretion) was not purely a
function of the number of years working in a job. It is very
likely that people’s motivation to lead may not necessarily
decline as the number of years working in a job increases.
Rather, because age itself only serves as an umbrella construct that is intertwined with the passage of time (Peng
et al., 2020), it might be due to individuals’ aging experiences as they grow older. Because the major theory used in
the current research is SST, which primarily focuses on agerelated, cognitive-motivational changes throughout the
lifespan (Rudolph, Kooij, et al., 2018), future research may
consider testing the roles of relevant age-related changes in
explaining the age–motivation to lead relationship.
Practical Implications
Beyond the above theoretical implications, this research
also has practical implications. When planning for
leadership development and talent resources, practitioners should also be aware of the role of managerial
discretion in compensating for age-related declines in
motivation to lead. Organizations’ succession planning
should recognize that one’s motivation to lead may decline as one grows older when managerial discretion is
low. As a further note for practitioners to help maintain or
even increase employees’ motivation to lead at older
ages, we suggest that organizations should recognize the
motivating potential of managerial discretion in retaining
and strengthening older leaders’ motivation to lead. To
promote motivation to lead and encourage transformational leadership behaviors during later working life,
organizational practitioners should increase managerial
discretion by enabling individuals to access various
managerial actions available in deciding their management work and influencing organizational outcomes
(Wangrow et al., 2015).
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Limitations and Future Research
The strengths of this study included the use of multisource
data from both leaders and followers. However, while this
study advances knowledge on age and leadership, the
results should be interpreted in light of some limitations.
First, the reliance on cross-sectional data does not allow
conclusions regarding causality. The observed age effects
could be confounded with the cohort (generation) effect
(Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018; Salthouse, 2013). A
longitudinal design may help examine the relationship
between age and transformational leadership from a truly
developmental perspective.
Furthermore, as our data were collected from a single
company, the moderation effect of managerial discretion
could be suffered from range restrictions given that
managerial discretion is greatly affected by organizationlevel factors (Wangrow et al., 2015). In other words, the
real effect of managerial discretion might be even larger
than what we found. Relatedly, being in a leadership role
usually grants this person a good amount of managerial
discretion at work. As such, there might be a possible
ceiling effect in our sample. Thus, future research may
examine managerial discretion among employees from a
variety of different organizations and recruit a sample of
leaders that may have more variations in perceived
managerial discretion.
Another limitation is that the present study only examined transformational leadership but no other types of
leadership behaviors, and thus, it may not necessarily be a
negative consequence if people had a lower motivation to
lead and engaged in less transformational leadership (with
low managerial discretion at older ages). Without empirically measuring other types of both positive (e.g., authentic)
and negative (e.g., laissez-faire) leadership behaviors, it
would be unclear if they would engage in more negative or
ineffective leadership behaviors or, instead, more positive
and effective leadership behaviors. Future research should
consider measuring additional types of leadership behaviors
to examine if the shift away from transformational leadership is truly detrimental, versus a situation of merely
adopting other positive leader behaviors instead.
Although we focused on maximizing older individuals’
own career development outcomes when explaining why
older leaders tend to have a lower motivation to lead, it is
likely that older individuals may have a different motivation such as a stronger generativity motivation (i.e., one’s
inner desire to support and guide younger people and to
benefit “future generations”; Doerwald et al., 2021; Kooij &
Van De Voorde, 2011), which may relate to other different
leadership styles other than transformational leadership.
Due to their emphasis on generativity, they may have
stronger inner desires to support and guide younger people
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
79
and to benefit future generations than younger individuals.
Future research may consider investigating whether older
leaders tend to develop certain types of leadership behaviors such as servant leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011)
to promote/develop younger colleagues.
The current study was conducted in China, which brings
the concern that the findings may not be generalized to
leaders in the West. It is unclear whether specific features
of Chinese culture (e.g., power distance) may influence the
results. We encourage researchers to conduct a crosscultural study to further examine the generalizability of
our findings. Future research may also consider extending
our theoretical model by encompassing other important
leadership outcomes (e.g., effectiveness) and organizational outcomes.
It should be noted that the magnitudes of the effect sizes
found in the present study were relatively small, which
may raise concerns about the practical significance.
However, as noted by other scholars, it is not uncommon
to find such similar magnitudes of the effect sizes of the
indirect effects and/or moderation effects. For instance,
Thrasher et al. (2020) reported a similar magnitude (i.e.,
effect = .04) of the indirect effect of leader’s age and
relational-oriented leadership behaviors through amicability (one’s tendency to focus on positive aspects and
develop positive social relationships). Like the magnitude
of the interaction effect (i.e., 2.4% of variance) found in the
present study, it is also common to find interactions accounting for 1%–3% of the criterion variance in field
studies (e.g., McClelland & Judd, 1993). Due to the importance of leadership and its effectiveness in nowadays
organizations, billions of dollars are invested in leadership
developmental efforts each year (Badura et al., 2022;
SHRM, 2017). Given its significant implications for leader
emergence and leadership behaviors and effectiveness
(Badura et al., 2020), we believe that the interpretation of
even a small effect-size interaction effect on motivation to
lead could have important practical implications.
Despite our effort in recruiting a representative sample
with appropriate numbers of leaders from different age
groups (especially those closer to retirement), our study
sample might still be limited due to the range restriction of
leader’s age. It is likely that the relationship between
leader’s age and motivation to lead was underestimated
due to the positively skewed age distribution (i.e., more
young and middle-aged and fewer older participants;
Bohlmann et al., 2018). The generalization of our findings
may be limited because the average leader’s age in the
current sample was relatively young. Future research
should recruit a sample with a wider age range and an
appropriate number of leaders at an older age to more
accurately estimate the effect sizes of the hypothesized
relationships.
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
80
Finally, future research may examine other possible
contextual moderators of the age–motivation to lead relationship. For instance, Walter and Scheibe (2013) discussed
job-related cognitive and emotional demands as possible
contextual moderators. It is likely that in addition to managerial discretion perceived by leaders, people may also
perceive various levels of cognitive and emotional demands
at work, which may moderate the relationship between
leader age and motivation to lead.
In conclusion, this research not only shows that motivation to lead can explain why as leaders get older they
may engage in less transformational leadership but also
increases our understanding of the role of managerial
discretion in the effect of age on motivation to lead. Our
findings highlight that motivation to lead could interact
with the environmental context in contributing to individuals’ leadership development across the lifespan.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational
leaders: A life span approach. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo
(Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 276–308). Jossey Bass.
Badura, K. L., Galvin, B. M., & Lee, M. Y. (2022). Leadership
emergence: An integrative review. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2069–2100. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000997
Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Galvin, B. M., Owens, B. P., & Joseph, D. L.
(2020). Motivation to lead: A meta-analysis and distal-proximal
model of motivation and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000439
Barbuto, J. E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational
leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3),
689–697.
Barbuto, J. E., Jr (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic,
and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26–40. https://doi.
org/10.1177/107179190501100403
Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., Matkin, G. S., & Marx, D. B. (2007). Effects
of gender, education, and age upon leaders’ use of influence
tactics and full range leadership behaviors. Sex Roles, 56(1),
71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9152-6
Barker, V. L., III, Patterson, P. W., Jr, & Mueller, G. C. (2001). Organizational causes and strategic consequences of the extent
of top management team replacement during turnaround attempts. Journal of Management Studies, 38(2), 235–270.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00235
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/
135943299398410
Bass, B. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications. Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership and
organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112–121.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40862298
Bohlmann, C., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2018). Methodological
recommendations to move research on work and aging forward.
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
Work, Aging and Retirement, 4(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.
1093/workar/wax023
Carstensen, L. L., (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood:
Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and
Aging, 7(3), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking
time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. The
American Psychologist, 54(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0003-066x.54.3.165
Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual
differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to
lead. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 481–498. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481
China Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). [Title not available].
https://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/7rp/zk/indexce.htm.
Accessed 25 August 2022.
Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Differences in managerial
discretion across countries: How nation-level institutions affect
the degree to which CEOs matter. Strategic Management
Journal, 32(8), 797–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.913
Dahling, J. J., & Perez, L. A. (2010). Older worker, different actor?
Linking age and emotional labor strategies. Personality and
Individual Differences, 48(5), 574–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2009.12.009
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327965pli1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and
psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 49(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Doerwald, F., Zacher, H., Van Yperen, N. W., & Scheibe, S., (2021).
Generativity at work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 125, Article 103521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.
103521
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003).
Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles:
A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin,
129(4) 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
Fasbender, U., Burmeister, A., & Wang, M. (2020). Motivated to be
socially mindful: Explaining age differences in the effect of
employees’ contact quality with coworkers on their coworker
support. Personnel Psychology, 73(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/
10.1111/peps.12359
Gielnik, M. M., Zacher, H., & Wang, M. (2018). Age in the entrepreneurial process: The role of future time perspective and prior
entrepreneurial experience. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
103(10), 1067–1085. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000322
Gilbert, S., Horsman, P., & Kelloway, E. K. (2016). The motivation for
transformational leadership scale. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 37(2), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/
lodj-05-2014-0086
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A
bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 369–406.
Hertel, G., Thielgen, M., Rauschenbach, C., Grube, A., StamovRoßnagel, C., & Krumm, S. (2013). Age differences in motivation
and stress at work. In C. M. Schlick, E. Frieling, & J. Wegge (Eds.),
Age-differentiated work systems (pp. 119–147). Springer. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35057-3_6
Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with
emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2),
151–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810850790
Inceoglu, I., Segers, J., & Bartram, D. (2012). Age-related differences in work motivation. Journal of Occupational and
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
Organizational Psychology, 85(4), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02035.x
Jacobsen, D. I. (2022). Room for leadership? A comparison of
perceived managerial job autonomy in public, private and hybrid
organizations. International Public Management Journal. Advance online publication.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and
work motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3),
440–458. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.13670969
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and
mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2392498
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to
follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500–528.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351846
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work
motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 150–172.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4282072
Kooij, D., & Van De Voorde, K. (2011). How changes in subjective
general health predict future time perspective, and development and generativity motives over the lifespan. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 228–247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02012.x
Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., Kanfer, R., & Dikkers, J. S.
(2011). Age and work-related motives: Results of a meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 197–225. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.665
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Bal, P. M., & Kanfer, R. (2014). Future time perspective and promotion focus as determinants of intraindividual
change in work motivation. Psychology and Aging, 29(2), 319–328.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036768
Koopman, J., Howe, M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Sin, H.-p. (2015). Small
sample mediation testing: Misplaced confidence in bootstrapped confidence intervals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
100(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036635
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: Future time
perspective, goals, and social relationships. Psychology and
Aging, 17(1), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.
125
Liu, C., Spector, P., & Jex, S. (2005). The relation of job control with
job strains: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 325–336.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905x26002
Locke, E. A. (1991). Goal theory vs. control theory: Contrasting
approaches to understanding work motivation. Motivation and
Emotion, 15, 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00991473
López-Cotarelo, J. (2018). Line managers and HRM: A managerial
discretion perspective. Human Resource Management Journal,
28(2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12176
Luria, G., & Berson, Y. (2013). How do leadership motives affect informal and formal leadership emergence? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(7), 995–1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1836
McCauley, C. D., & Palus, C. J. (2021). Developing the theory and
practice of leadership development: A relational view. The
Leadership Quarterly, 32(2), Article 101456 https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.leaqua.2020.101456
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of
detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing
81
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus 7.1 [Computer
program].
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2012). CEO leadership styles and the
implementation of organizational diversity practices: Moderating effects of social values and age. Journal of Business Ethics,
105(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0933-7
Ng, K.-Y., Ang, S., & Chan, K.-Y. (2008). Personality and leader
effectiveness: A moderated mediation model of leadership selfefficacy, job demands, and job autonomy. The Journal Of applied
Psychology, 93(4), 733–743. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
93.4.733
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). The moderating effects of age in
the relationships of job autonomy to work outcomes. Work,
Aging and Retirement, 1(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/
workar/wau003
Peeters, M. C., & van Emmerik, H. (2008). An introduction to the work
and well-being of older workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(4), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810869006
Peng, Y., Jex, S. M., & Wang, M. (2018). Aging and occupational
health. In K. Shultz & G. Adams (Eds.), Aging and work in the 21st
century (2nd ed., pp. 213–233). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.
4324/9781315167602-10
Peng, Y., Ma, J., Zhang, W., & Jex, S. (2021). Older and less deviant?
The paths through emotional labor and organizational cynicism.
Work, Aging and Retirement, 7(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/
workar/waaa017
Peng, Y., Xu, X., & Matthews, R. (2020). Older and less deviant
reactions to abusive supervision? A moderated mediation model
of age and cognitive reappraisal. Work, Aging and Retirement,
6(3), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waaa006
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership
and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340. https://
doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.20786079
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2004.02.009
Rudolph, C. W., Kooij, D. T., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018).
Occupational future time perspective: A meta-analysis of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
39(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2264
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Leadership and
generations at work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly,
29(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004
Salthouse, T. A. (2013). Within-cohort age-related differences in
cognitive functioning. Psychological Science, 24(2), 123–130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612450
SHRM. (2017). SHRM research overview: Leadership development.
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/specialreports-and-expert-views/Documents/17-0396%20Research%
20Overview%20Leadership%20Development%20FNL.pdf
Thrasher, G. R., Biermeier-Hanson, B., & Dickson, M. W. (2020).
Getting old at the top: The role of agentic and communal orientations in the relationship between age and follower perceptions of leadership behaviors and outcomes. Work, Aging and
Retirement, 6(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waz012
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Civilian labor force
by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. https://www.bls.gov/emp/
tables/civilian-labor-force-summary.htm
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206310380462
Van Solinge, S. W. (2014). Are older leaders less transformational?
The role of age for transformational leadership from the
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
82
perspective of socioemotional selectivity theory [Master’s thesis]. University of Groningen.
Walter, F., & Scheibe, S. (2013). A literature review and emotionbased model of age and leadership: New directions for the trait
approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 882–901. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.003
Wang, G., Oh, I. S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011).
Transformational leadership and performance across criteria
and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group
& Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270, https://doi.org/10.
1177/1059601111401
Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J., & Barker III, V. L. (2015). Managerial
discretion. Journal of Management, 41(1), 99–135. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206314554214
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B.
(2012). A diary study on the happy worker: How job resources
relate to positive emotions and personal resources. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(4), 489–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2011.584386
Yuan, Y., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). Bayesian mediation analysis.
Psychological Methods, 14(4), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0016972
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s1048-9843(99)00013-2
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson
Education Limited.
Zacher, H., Clark, M., Anderson, E. C., & Ayoko, O. B. (2015). A
lifespan perspective on leadership. In P. M. Bal, D. T. A. M. Kooij,
& D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Aging workers and the employeeemployer relationship (pp. 87–104). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9_6
Journal of Personnel Psychology (2024), 23(2), 71–82
Y. Peng et al., Age and Transformational Leadership
Zacher, H., Rosing, K., & Frese, M. (2011). Age and leadership:
The moderating role of legacy beliefs. The Leadership
Quarterly, 22(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.
2010.12.006
Zacher, H., Rosing, K., Henning, T., & Frese, M. (2011). Establishing
the next generation at work: Leader generativity as a moderator
of the relationships between leader age, leader-member exchange, and leadership success. Psychology and Aging, 26(1),
241–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021429
Zaniboni, S., Truxillo, D. M., Rineer, J. R., Bodner, T. E., Hammer, L.
B., & Krainer, M. Decision authority, job satisfaction, and mental
health: A study of construction workers. Workar, 2(4), 428–435.
https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw006
History
Received January 22, 2022
Revision received January 30, 2023
Accepted February 27, 2023
Published online August 9, 2023
Publication Ethics
The data collection was conducted in compliance with the ethical
guidelines of the American Psychological Association (APA) and
was approved by the second author’s affiliated institute (Jinan
University, Guangzhou, PR China).
Yisheng Peng
Department of Organizational Sciences and Communication
The George Washington University
600 21st Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20052
USA
yishengpeng@gwu.edu
© 2023 Hogrefe Publishing