Track: Organizational Behaviour and Organizational Theory
Type of Submission: Original Paper
Exploring New Frontiers: The Role of Collective Efficacy in the Relations between
Transformational Leadership and Work-related Attitudes
FRED OCHIENG WALUMBWA
University of Nebraska—Lincoln
Department of Management
Lincoln, NE 68588-0491
Phone: (402) 472 9860
Fax: (402) 472 5855
E-mail: fwalumbwa@unlnotes.unl.edu
PENG WANG
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations
504 East Armory Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
Phone: (217) 265 0951
Fax: (217) 244 9290
E-mail: pengwang@uiuc.edu
JOHN J. LAWLER
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations
504 East Armory Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820
Phone: (217) 333 6429
Fax: (217) 244 9290
E-mail: j-lawler@uiuc.edu
Exploring New Frontiers: The Role of Collective Efficacy in the Relations between
Transformational Leadership and Work-related Attitudes
Abstract
This study examined the role of collective in the relationships between ratings of
transformational leadership and work-related attitudes. A total of 402 employees from the
banking and finance sectors in China and India participated in the study. Results indicated
that transformational leadership had both direct and indirect effects on work-related
attitudes, mediated through collective efficacy. Implications and directions for future
research are discussed.
Key words: Transformational leadership, efficacy, and attitudes
Empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated strong support for the positive effects
of transformational leadership on follower and organizational outcomes (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, &
Shamir, 2002; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996). However, relatively few studies have empirically tested the mediating
links between leader behaviors and follower effects to explain how transformational leadership
works (Bass, 1999; Conger, 1999; Kark & Shamir, 2002). Indeed, as pointed out by Conger
(1999), Shea and Howell (1999), and Yukl (1999), our knowledge of the processes associated
with transformational leadership is still limited, formative, and largely speculative. To bridge this
gap, we explored the role of collective efficacy in mediating the relationships between
transformational leadership and work-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.
Following, we first examine how transformational leadership is related to collective
efficacy. Second, we examine how collective efficacy is related to dimensional job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. Finally, we examine the extent to which collective efficacy
mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work-related attitudes.
CONCEPT DEFINITIONS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS
Transformational Leadership and Collective Efficacy
Bandura (1997) defined collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of
attainment” (p. 477). According to decades of research by Bandura (1986, 1997, 2000) efficacy
beliefs play an important role in both individual and group motivation since people have to rely,
at least, to some extent, on others to accomplish their tasks. Indeed, one reason why scholars and
practitioners are interested in collective efficacy is because this variable has been shown
significantly related to a variety of organizational outcomes. Drawing from
transformational/charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994, Conger & Kanungo,
1998), self-concept/identity (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), social identity (Pratt, 1998), and socialcognitive theories (Bandura, 1986), we argue that transformational leadership can have a positive
effect on collective efficacy, which in turn, will influence organizational outcomes. Figure 1
illustrates the theoretical positioning of the variables.
----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 About Here
-----------------------------------
1
Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transformational leadership includes charisma (excite
and arouse followers, such that they emotionally identify with the leader), inspirational
motivation (provide meaning and challenge), intellectual stimulation (challenge followers to
think critically and seek new ways to address issues), and individualized consideration (pay
special attention to each follower). Specifically, Bass (1999) views transformational leadership
as “moving the follower beyond self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration,
intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration” (p. 11). This definition suggests a
number of ways through which transformational leadership can influence collective efficacy.
First, by emphasizing visionary, inspirational messages, and displaying confidence in self
and followers, a transformational leader is able to enhance followers’ efficacy beliefs both at the
individual and group levels (Bass, 1998). Such leaders speak with a captivating voice tone, make
direct eye contact, show animated facial expressions, and have a powerful, yet confident and
dynamic interaction style (Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Transformational leaders also can enhance
efficacy beliefs by providing emotional and ideological explanations that link follower’s
individual identities to the collective identity of their organization (Kark & Shamir, 2002). For
example, through individualized consideration transformational leaders are able to help their
followers recognize their capabilities, which then provides a basis for elevating each follower’s
needs and performance to higher “than expected levels” (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Kark
and Shamir (2002) further argue that transformational leaders have a dual effect on followers: by
influencing followers through personal identification with the leader, and social identification
with the work group.
Similarly, a transformational leader through the use of intellectual stimulation can help
followers to think through more deeply the obstacles confronting their success, thus leading them
to develop a better understanding of what needs to be done to be successful. The process of
thinking through the best ways to approach problems and challenges should help raise their
individual and collective confidence to perform exceptionally, resulting in job satisfaction and
commitment to the organization. Furthermore, a transformational leader can affect collective
efficacy by raising followers’ awareness of other group members’ contribution by emphasizing
the value and self-sacrifice through idealized influence for the good of the group (Bass & Avolio,
1994). Taken together, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively associated with followers’
collective efficacy.
Transformational Leadership and Work-related Attitudes
We investigated four work-related attitudes, including three facets of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Job satisfaction was viewed as a multi-dimensional construct,
including satisfaction with coworkers, with supervisors, and with work in general. We focused
on affective organizational commitment, which describes an individual’s psychological
attachment to an organization through such feelings as loyalty, affection, and belongingness.
The link between transformational leadership and work-related attitudes, such as job
satisfaction and organizational commitment is well established (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway,
1996; Bass, 1998; Howell & Frost, 1989; Lowe et al., 1996; Dvir et al., 2002). According to Bass
(1985), transformational leaders motivate their followers to transcend their own self-interests for
the sake of the group. As consequence, such leaders are able to bring a deeper understanding and
appreciation of input from each member. Bass (1985) further argued that such leaders encourage
followers to think critically and seek new ways to approach their jobs. This charge to seek new
2
ways to approach things motivates followers to become more involved in their duties, resulting
in an increase in the levels of satisfaction with their work and commitment to the organization.
Hypothesis 2a: Transformational leadership is positively associated with followers’
organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 2b: Transformational leadership is positively associated with followers’ job
satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with coworkers, with supervisor, and with work in general).
Transformational Leadership, Collective Efficacy and Work-related Attitudes
Little work has systematically examined the effects of collective efficacy on
organizational outcomes. More specifically, very few studies have tested the mediating effects of
collective efficacy on specific outcome variables. Indeed, our knowledge of collective efficacy is
still in the beginning stage in terms of how it can be applied to explain group motivation and
performance (George & Feltz, 1995). Although we know little about how collective efficacy
mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational outcomes, we
can draw from a number of existing theories to develop our arguments regarding the expected
relationships. First, we turn to social identification theory—defined as a process whereby an
individual’s belief about a group or organization becomes self-referential or self-defining (Pratt,
1998). The influence of transformational leaders on social identification is central to Bass (1985)
and Bass and Avolio (1994) transformational leadership theory. For example, Bass (1985)
described a transformational leader as influencing followers to transcend their self-interests for
the good of the group or organization by raising their awareness of the importance and value of
group outcomes. By emphasizing the group mission, stressing shared values and ideology,
connecting followers’ individual interests, and group interests, transformational leaders provide
followers with more opportunities to appreciate group accomplishments and other group
members' contributions, resulting in group-level identities (Kark & Shamir, 2002). In addition, a
transformational leader through idealized influence (i.e., emphasis on sacrificing for the benefit
of the group and demonstrating high ethical standards) and what Pratt (1998) called ‘assumed’
and ‘transcendent we’, is able to uplift followers’ self-efficacy to the level of collective efficacy.
Another important theoretical framework that may help to explain how transformational
leadership influences collective efficacy, which in turn influences organizational outcomes is the
self-concept theory (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This theory distinguishes between two levels of
the social selves: the relational (or interpersonal) and the collective identity (or the self as a
group member). According to this theory, individuals at the relational level largely visualize their
roles as a function of significant others, thus encouraging group benefits (Brewer & Gardner,
1996). At the collective identity level, group norm becomes the yardstick for measuring
individual self-worth in relation to other out-group members (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
Following Kark and Shamir (2002), we argue that by emphasizing similarities among group
members, transformational leaders can increase activation of collective efficacy in a number of
ways, including shaping the context of work (i.e., work group structure, task structure and
reward structure).
We also draw from charismatic leadership theory (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Shamir et
al., 1993) to explain how transformational leaders might influence collective efficacy. According
to this theory, leaders are able to influence their followers through social identification with the
group. Kark and Shamir (2002) have argued that transformational leaders are able to influence
their followers by connecting followers’ self-concept to the mission of the group, “such that
followers’ behavior for the sake of group becomes self-expressive” (p. 7). Similarly, Avolio,
3
Kahai, and Sivasubramaniam (2001) have argued that transformational leaders influences
perceptions of team members’ ability, benevolence, integrity, and information exchange through
their influence on team members’ emotions using individualized consideration and by promoting
intellectual stimulation.
Having explored how transformational leadership is likely to influence collective
efficacy, we turn our attention to the link between collective efficacy and work-related attitudes.
Collective efficacy can influence work-related attitudes in several ways. Bandura (1982, 2000)
argued that when faced with obstacles, groups with higher levels of collective efficacy are more
likely to persist in trying to solve such problems. Mulvey and Klein (1998), in testing the impact
of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal process and performance, reported that
high efficacy groups responded to negative feedback by putting in more effort versus low
efficacy groups. They also found collective efficacy positively related to group goal
commitment. Zellar, Hochwarter, Perrewe, Miles, and Kiewitz (2001), using a sample of 188
nurses found that collective efficacy was associated with lower levels of turnover intentions, and
higher levels of job satisfaction, even after controlling for age, gender, and self-efficacy. Spink
(1990) in a field study of volleyball teams reported that teams with the highest collective efficacy
performed better than teams with lowest collective efficacy. Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai (1997),
using an electronic mediated group meeting (GDSS) empirically demonstrated how
transformational leadership influences collective efficacy and consequent performance.
In sum, in view of the above discussion regarding the link between transformational
leadership and collective efficacy, and the proposed links between collective efficacy and workrelated attitudes, we expect collective efficacy to mediate the relations between transformational
leadership and work-related attitudes.
Hypothesis 3a: Collective efficacy will mediate the relations between transformational
leadership and organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 3b: Collective efficacy will mediate the relations between transformational
leadership and job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with coworkers, with supervisor, and with work
in general).
Summary of the Theoretical Framework
In seeking to explain the process by which transformational leadership affects workrelated attitudes, we adopted Jung and Avolio (2000) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and
Fetter’s (1990) analytic strategy by proposing several alternative models for testing in the present
study. As shown in Figure 1, there are three potential relationships between transformational
leadership, collective efficacy, and work-related attitudes. The first one includes a direct
influence from transformational leadership to work-related attitudes. The second one
hypothesizes indirect relationships from transformational leadership to work-related attitudes,
mediated through collective efficacy. The third one hypothesizes that the effect of
transformational leadership could be both direct and indirect, mediated through collective
efficacy.
METHODS
Sample, Procedure and Participants
Survey was conducted among employees in indigenous firms as well as subsidiaries of
American firms operating in China and India in the banking and financial sectors. The choice of
the two countries was driven both by the issues in the study and by feasibility. Besides, literacy
4
rate in these sectors is high, which facilitated the use of questionnaires, in addition to controlling
for industry type error. Human resource managers or chief executive officers were contacted for
approval of the study in each country. The surveys were administered on-site and researchers in
each country collected completed surveys.
A total of 402 (China = 208; India = 194) employees participated in the present study.
Women comprised 41 percent of the total sample (China = 74%; India = 26%). Respondents
ranged in age from 20 to 51 years, with a mean age of 32 (s.d. = 6.36 years) for China and 34.12
(s.d. = 9.37 years) for India, and over 90 percent were married or living with a partner.
Respondents were relatively well educated, with more than 97 percent having completed some
college or university degree.
Measures
Two different versions of questionnaires were used: an English version in India and a
Chinese version in China. To enhance the validity of the translation, the survey was translated
into Chinese and then back translated into English by two different bilingual speakers.
Leadership Measures. Leadership ratings were obtained using twenty items adapted from
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x short (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Four scales
measured transformational leadership, including charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. In the current study, the four dimensions are
treated as one underlying construct called transformational leadership because the scales were
highly correlated consistent with previous empirical and meta-analyses (Bycio et al., 1995;
Howell & Avolio, 1993; Tejeda, Scandura, & Pillai, 2001). Ratings were completed on a 1-to-5
scale, with 1 representing “Not at all” and 5 representing “Frequently, if not always.” Sample
items included: “Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group” and “Articulates a
compelling vision of the future.”
Collective Efficacy. Collective efficacy was assessed using a 7-item scale developed by
Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker (1994). Sample items included: “The department
I work with has above average ability” and “The members of this department have excellent job
skills.” Responses were made on a 6-point response scale ranging from “Very inaccurate” (1) to
“Very accurate” (6).
Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment was assessed using a ten-item
scale from Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Sample items included: “This organization has a
great deal of personal meaning for me” and “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my
career with this organization.” Responses were made on a 5-point scale, with 1 representing
“Strongly disagree” and 5 representing “Strongly agree.”
Job Satisfaction. Twenty-seven items from Job Descriptive Index (JDI: Smith, Kendall,
and Hulin, 1969) were used to measure three facets of job satisfaction: satisfaction with
coworkers, with supervisor, and with work in general. Respondents were asked to circle “yes” if
the item described the people they work with, the supervisor, or work in general; “no” if the item
did not; and “?” if they could not decide. Example item included: “People I work with are
intelligent” and “My supervisor praises good work.”
RESULTS
Assessing Equivalence of Scales
One of the pressing issues in cross-cultural research is the construct comparability in
different samples (Little, 1997). To establish the scale equivalency across the two countries, we
5
used a combination of mean and covariance structures (MACS: Byrne, 2001) and simultaneous
factor analysis in several populations (SIFASP: Jöreskog, 1971). The SIFASP test whether the
same factor model holds for each of the several populations under study. Both techniques were
performed using analysis of moment structures (AMOS) maximum likelihood estimation
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999; Byrne, 2001).
Following Byrne (2001), we first assessed whether individual items on each scale were
invariant across the two countries. On the basis of this analysis, one item from organizational
commitment was excluded in later analyses because it did not function in the same way in both
countries. We then tested whether factor loadings of each construct was equivalent across
countries by fitting progressively restricted models to multi-sample data. Following the
procedure recommended by Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, and Magley (1997), two to
four multi-item indicators were formed for each construct to generate more stable parameter
estimates.
The loading of the first indicator in each factor was fixed at 1.00 for identification
purposes. Covariations were assumed among variables. In model A (unrestricted), each indicator
was allowed to load on only its factor, but the factor loadings and covariances were allowed to
vary across two countries. In model B (restricted factor loading), factor loadings were restricted
to be invariant across two countries, but the covariances were allowed to vary across countries.
In model C, an additional restriction of equal intercepts across the two countries for each factor
was added. Acceptance of model C (fully restricted model) would imply that indicators provided
approximately equivalent measurement of the same constructs across the two countries (Little,
1997).
In assessing the model, we relied on several standard fit indices to examine the overall
model fit: the change in the chi-square relative to the change in degrees of freedom, the ratio of
chi-square to degrees of freedom (2/df), goodness-of-fit (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Fit indices for the measurement models are
presented in Table 1. These indices indicate a satisfactory fit of the data for Model A, the least
restricted model: the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio was 1.46, the GFI was .91, the CFI was
.97, and the RMSEA was .03. Fit statistics marginally decreased for the more constrained Model
B but still showed a satisfactory fit to the data: the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio was 1.51,
the GFI was .91, the CFI was .97, and the RMSEA was .04. The factor loadings and standard
errors from Model B are presented in Table 2. All the estimated factor loadings were significant
and reasonably closer to 1.00, suggesting that the indicators measured their latent traits well,
even under rigorous constraint. In addition, because Models A and B are nested, their differences
in chi-square can be compared to their differences in degrees of freedom; the ratio was 29.97/12
= 2.50. These statistics indicate that the factor loadings are approximately equal across the two
samples. Fit statistics for Model C also indicates a satisfactory fit to the data under further
rigorous constraints with the chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio 1.69, the CFI .99, and the
RMSEA .04. Given that model C provided an adequate fit to the data after we set very rigorous
constraints on parameters across samples, we concluded that the assumption of measurement
equivalence was acceptable.
-------------------------------------Insert Table 1 & 2 About Here
--------------------------------------
6
Preliminary Data Analyses
Table 3 summarizes the means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas and
intercorrelations for all measures. The reliability coefficient estimates were all above the
recommended criterion of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978) and could therefore be classified as acceptable.
As shown in Table 3, transformational leadership is positive and significantly related to
collective efficacy (r = .28, p < .01), and various organizational outcomes such as satisfaction
with coworker (r = .37, p < .01), satisfaction with supervisor (r = .58, p < .01), satisfaction with
work in general (r = .47, p < .01), and organizational commitment (r = .42, p < .01). As expected,
collective efficacy was positive and significantly related to all four work-related attitudes at .01
levels. These results suggest that collective efficacy may be important in enhancing commitment
and satisfaction. The correlations between facets of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment were consistent with existent literature.
-------------------------------------Insert Table 3 About Here
-------------------------------------Tests of Hypotheses
We mean-centered the independent variables before computing the regression paths to
increase the chances of obtaining unbiased estimates of different coefficients (Aiken & West,
1991). We then tested the model presented in Figure 1 using a path analysis with AMOS. The
chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio was 2.12, the GFI = .93, the CFI was .96, and the RMSEA
was .05, indicating that our structural model had a satisfactory fit to the data. Results of the path
analysis are shown in Figure 2. Hypothesis 1, which stated that transformational leadership
would have positive relationship with collective efficacy, was supported ( = .41, p < .0001). We
predicted in hypotheses 2a and 2b that transformational leadership will have positive relationship
with commitment and job satisfaction. As expected, transformational leadership had positive and
significant relationship with commitment ( = .30, p < .0001), satisfaction with supervisor ( =
.53, p < .0001), satisfaction with coworkers ( = .14, p < .05), and satisfaction with work in
general ( = .46, p < .0001), in full support of hypotheses 2a and 2b.
-------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 About Here
-------------------------------------In order to test the mediating effects of efficacy beliefs, we compared several models
following Jung and Avolio (2000) using AMOS. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) and
Podsakoff et al. (1990), mediation analysis requires (1) regression analysis of the dependent
variable on the independent variable, (2) the mediating variable on the independent variable, and
(3) the dependent variable on the mediating variable. Therefore, we tested three sets of
relationships, including the relationships between: (1) transformational leadership and collective
efficacy, (2) transformational leadership and the four outcome variables, and (3) collective
efficacy and the four outcome variables. Results are presented in Table 4.
Because Model A, as shown in Figure 1, includes all direct and indirect effects of
transformational leadership on outcome measures it is a saturated model. Model B is similar to
Model A, except the direct effect of transformational leadership on outcomes is absent. The chisquare difference between Model A and B is an overall test of the direct effect of
transformational leadership on outcomes (Jung & Avolio, 2000). Model C through D examine
the indirect effects of transformational leadership on outcomes. Model C is similar to Model B,
7
except the effect of transformational leadership on collective efficacy is absent. The chi-square
difference between Model B and C indicates an overall test of transformational leadership on
collective efficacy. Finally, Model D is similar to Model B, except the effects of collective
efficacy on outcome variables are absent. The chi-square difference between Model B and D
represents an overall test of the direct effect of collective efficacy on outcome variables.
-------------------------------------Insert Table 4 About Here
-------------------------------------Support for direct effect of transformational leadership on outcome variables would be
observed if the chi-square difference between Model A and B is significant. On the other hand,
the indirect effect of transformational leadership mediated through collective efficacy would be
observed when a path from transformational leadership to collective efficacy and a path from
collective efficacy to outcomes are each significant. As shown in Table 4, transformational
leadership had both direct and indirect effects on followers’ commitment. The chi-square
difference between Model A and B was significant, indicating a strong direct effect of
transformational leadership to followers’ commitment. The chi-square difference between Model
B and Model C as well as between Model B and Model D were statistically significant,
indicating a strong indirect effect from transformational leadership to followers’ commitment
through collective efficacy.
As shown in Table 4, the chi-square differences between Model B and C were significant
for all facets of job satisfaction, suggesting that transformational leadership had a direct effect on
followers’ satisfaction with supervisor, satisfaction with coworker, and satisfaction with work in
general. At the same time, the significant chi-square differences between Model B and C and
Model B and D for all facets of job satisfaction indicated the mediating effect of collective
efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership and three facets of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, respectively. Consequently, hypotheses 3a and 3b
regarding the mediating effect of collective efficacy were supported.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
In this present study, we investigated the direct and indirect effects transformational
leadership has on followers’ attitudes, such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction,
mediated through collective efficacy. The present study represents one of the pilot large-scale
attempts to empirically test the linkages between transformational leadership, collective efficacy,
and work-related attitudes in collectivist cultures.
The finding that collective efficacy mediated the relationship between transformational
leadership and work-related attitudes suggests that transformational leadership is a possible
mechanism through which collective efficacy may be enhanced, which in turn, influences group
outcomes (Prussia & Kinicki, 1996). Indeed, to the extent that transformational leaders
encourage followers to make personal sacrifice in the interest of the group and to take greater
responsibility for their own development as well as the development of others, it is possible that
such leaders can play an important role in translating group members’ hidden capabilities into
unambiguous plans for the benefit and good of the group (Bass & Avolio, 1996; Howell &
Avolio, 1993).
The current study provides several theoretical and practical implications for future
research in leadership processes. Theoretically, the current study has extended previous research
by attempting to improve our understanding on how transformational leaders motivate their
8
followers through efficacy beliefs. Specifically, our data suggests that by developing collective
efficacy through transformational leadership, followers’ commitment and satisfaction can be
enhanced. However, this area of research still merits further empirical investigation before
conclusive generalizations can be made. It might also be informative if future research attempts
to compare the roles of collective efficacy between cultures that are distinctively different.
Finally, our findings also have practical implications for leadership development programs. Our
results suggest that organizations can benefit greatly by providing transformational leadership
training to their supervisors and managers in order to enhance followers’ collective efficacy,
which in turn, would enhance positive organizational outcomes.
Limitations and Conclusions
As with all research, our study is bound by certain limitations that warrant further
attention. First, the use of cross-sectional data precludes definitive assertions regarding causality
and directionality. Longitudinal designs with appropriate time lag are needed in future research
to extend our findings. Finally, data for the current study was collected from inherently
collectivistic cultures. Future studies might sample a wider range of cultural values and thus
reveal differential mediation effects in distinctive cultural contexts.
Despite these limitations, the present study makes an important contribution to our
understanding of the leadership processes by systematically examining the mediating role of
collective efficacy. This area of research has yet to receive research attention. Therefore, we
hope that the results of the current study will stimulate further investigation into other potential
mediators affecting the relations between leadership styles and organizational outcomes.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Arbuckle, J.L, & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
Avolio, B.J., Kahai, S., Dumdum, R., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2001). Virtual teams:
Implications e-leadership and team development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate
others in organizations: 337-358. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9: 75-78.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81: 827-832.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychology research: Conceptual, Strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Bass, B.M.(1985). Leadership and performance and beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, Military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research in transformational leadership. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 10: 9-32.
9
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through
Transformational Leadership. California: Sage.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form,
rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1996). The Multifactor leadership questionnaire report. Palo Alto,
CA: Mind Garden.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self
representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83-93.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Bass's (1985)
conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80: 468-478.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conger, J.A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider'
perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 145-179.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., & Shamir, B. (2002). impact of transformational leadership on
follower development and performance: A field experiment. The Academy of Management
Journal, 45: 735-744.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L., Gelfand, M.J., & Magley, V.J. (1997). Antecedents
and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 578-589.
Gardner, W.L., & Avolio, B.J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23: 32-58.
George, T.R., & Feltz, D.L. (1995). Motivation in sport from a collective efficacy perspective.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26: 98-116.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unitperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891-902.
Howell, J.M., & Frost, P.J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 243-269.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36:
409-426.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 949-964.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational
and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B.J. Avolio, & F.J. Yammarino
(Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead: 67-91. Oxford:
Elsevier Science
Little, T. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data:
Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32: 53-76.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature.
Leadership Quarterly, 7: 385-425.
10
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224-247.
Mulvey, P.W., & Klein, H.J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on
group goal process and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 74: 62-87.
Nunally, J.C., (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.
Pratt, M.G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. In D.A.
Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through
conversation: 171-207. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prussia, G.E., & Kinnicki, A.J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using
social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 187-198.
Riggs, M.L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. 1994. Development and
validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58: 1017-1034.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effect of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 577-594.
Shea, C.M., & Howell, J.M. (1999). Charismatic leadership and task feedback: A laboratory
study of their effects on self-efficacy and task performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 373396.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Hulin, C.L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J., & Kahai, S.S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity and
group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82: 89-103.
Spink, K. S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 12: 301-311.
Tejeda, M.J., Scandura, T.A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties
and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 31-52.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 285-305.
Zellars, K.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Perreewe, P. L., Miles, A. K., & Kiewitz, C. (2001). Beyond
self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict and perceived collective efficacy. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 13: 483-499.
11
Figure 1. Direct and Indirect Effects of Transformational Leadership on Work-related Outcomes
Leadership Style
Mediating Variables
Outcome Variables
Commitment
Path 3
Collective
Efficacy
Coworker Satisfaction
Path 2
Transformational
Leadership
Path 1
Satisfaction with Supervisor
Work General Satisfaction
12
Figure 2. Results of the AMOS Path Analysis
.30***
Commitment
.44***
.14*
.72***
.42***
Transformational
Leadership
CollectiveEfficacy
.33***
Coworker Satisfaction
Supervisor Satisfaction
.53***
.19**
General Satisfaction
With Work
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
13
.46***
Table 1
Summary of Fit Indices for Measurement Models
Model
A: Unrestricted mean and factor loadings
B: Restricted factor loadings
C: Restricted mean and factor loadingsa
2
351.44
381.41
443.23
df
240
252
262
2/df
1.46
1.51
1.69
GFI
.91
.91
CFI
.97
.97
.99
RMSEA
.03
.04
.04
Note. N = 402 for all chi-squares (2). GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; df = degrees of freedom.
a
GFI are not reported for restricted mean and factor loadings in Model C of the measurement
model because it does not generalize to the case where means and intercepts are model
parameters in AMOS (see Byrne, 2001).
14
Table 2
Factor Loadings and Standard Errors From Measurement Model (B) Used in Structural Model
Transformational Leadership
Collective Efficacy
Organizational Commitment
Coworker Satisfaction
Supervisor Satisfaction
Work Satisfaction in General
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
.95 (.04)
1.44 (.16)
.92(.05)
.96(.07)
1.20(.08)
1.00(.06)
Note. Standard errors in parentheses.
15
3
.94 (.05)
.93(.05)
.92 (.06)
1.21(.08)
.99 (.06)
4
.88 (.05)
Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas and Correlations of Study Variables
Variables
Mean
1. Transformational
3.04
Leadership
2. Collective Efficacy
4.31
3. Organizational
3.43
Commitment
4. Coworker
2.58
Satisfaction
5. Supervisor
2.50
Satisfaction
6. Work Satisfaction
2.23
General
SD
.72

.92
.88
.69
1
_
2
3
.74
.85
.28**
.42**
_
.39**
_
.45
.80
37**
53**
.35**
_
.49
.82
.58**
.37**
.36**
.48**
_
.60
.87
.47**
.27**
.52**
.21**
.27**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
16
4
5
6
_
Table 4
Summary of Model Comparisons and Results from Path Analysis
Model
Organizational Commitment
A: Full model
B: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Commitment
C: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Collective-Efficacy
D: Full model w/o a path from
Collective-Efficacy to outcomes
Satisfaction with Coworker
A: Full model
B: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Coworker Satisfaction
C: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Collective-Efficacy
D: Full model w/o a path from
Collective-Efficacy to outcomes
Satisfaction with Supervisor
A: Full model
B: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Supervisor Satisfaction
C: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Collective-Efficacy
D: Full model w/o a path from
Collective-Efficacy to outcomes
Satisfaction with Work in General
A: Full model
B: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Work Satisfaction
C: Full model w/o a path from
TFL to Collective-Efficacy
D: Full model w/o a path from
Collective-Efficacy to outcomes
Missing
path in
Figure 1
2
df
2/df
GFI
CFI
RMSEA
df
2
None
1
277.20
241.68
131
132
2.12
1.83
.93
.93
.96
.97
.05
.05
1
35.52**
2
313.95
133
2.36
.92
.95
.06
1
72.27**
3
343.24
133
2.58
.92
.95
.06
1
101.56**
None
1
277.20
229.29
131
132
2.12
1.73
.93
.94
.96
.98
.05
.04
1
47.91**
2
293.71
133
2.21
.93
.96
.06
1
64.42**
3
388.51
133
2.92
91
.93
.07
1
159.22**
None
1
277.20
257.24
131
132
2.12
1.95
.93
.93
.96
.97
.05
.05
1
19.96**
2
399.87
133
3.01
.91
.93
.07
1
142.63**
3
427.90
133
3.22
.90
.92
.07
1
170.60**
None
1
277.20
259.26
131
132
2.12
1.96
.93
.93
.96
.97
.05
.05
1
17.94**
2
342.62
133
2.58
.92
.95
.06
1
83.36**
3
334.78
133
2.52
.92
.95
.06
1
75.52**
Note. N = 402 for all chi-squares (2).
* p<.05
** p<.01
17