Article Review – Hoyt & Blascovich – COM 674 – Z Ban 2009
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical
environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678-715.
Summary: Transformational and transactional leadership in both physical (i.e., face-to-face) and virtual settings were
examined in a laboratory experiment. Leadership style (transformational or transactional) and group setting
(face-to-face, immersive virtual environment, or intercom) were manipulated experimentally for three-person
ad hoc work groups. Results indicated that, compared to transactional leadership, transformational leadership
was associated with decreases in quantitative performance but increases in qualitative performance, leadership
satisfaction, and group cohesiveness. Contrary to expectations, neither self- nor collective efficacy mediated
the performance effects of leadership style; trust, however, appeared to play an important mediational role.
Group performance and cohesiveness were similar across group settings; however, group members were most
satisfied with their leader when interacting face-to-face. The theoretical and practical implications of these
findings are discussed.
Leadership styles:
1. Transactional leadership: goal setting, clarification of desired outcomes, provision of feedback and rewards and
recognition for accomplishments.
2. Transformational leadership: charisma or idealized influence; inspirational motivation; intellectual stimulation;
individualized consideration
Hypotheses:
1. Hypothesis 1: Compared to groups under transactional leaders, groups under transformational leaders will
attain (a) quantitatively higher performance levels, (b) qualitatively higher performance levels, (c) greater
leadership satisfaction, and (d) greater group cohesiveness.
2. Hypothesis 2: The performance effects (qualitative, quantitative, satisfaction, and cohesiveness) associated
with leadership style will be identical across group settings: face-to-face, Immersive Virtual Environment
Technology, and intercom.
3. Hypothesis 3: Self-efficacy, collective efficacy, trust, and value congruence will mediate the performance
effects associated with leadership style.
Method:
1. Research design: 2 (leadership style: transformational or transactional) × 3 (group setting: face-to-face,
immersive virtual environment, or intercom) between-subjects factorial design.
2. N=72 groups of 3 with a group leader that exhibit either transactional or transformational leadership styles.
3. Groups in different settings are asked to perform remote associated tests and reverse RAT.
Results:
1. Leadership style was related to all four outcome variables. The followers of transformational leaders produced
less quantity, greater quality, were more satisfied, and had greater cohesiveness than those being led by
transactional leaders.
2. Although group members were more satisfied with their leader when interacting face-to-face than when
interacting virtually, there were no differences in qualitative or quantitative group performance or group
cohesiveness across settings, and the effects of leadership style on these four outcome measures did not differ
across group setting.
3. Trust appeared to fully mediate the relationship between transformational leadership style and satisfaction and
cohesiveness. There’s no support for the mediational role of self- or collective efficacy; there is no relationship
between leadership style and self- or collective efficacy.
Proposed questions about assumptions and applications:
1. What effects do you think the IVET will have on a virtual team, in general?
2. The subjects of this study are all university students with a mean age of around 19 years. Will this affect the
external validity of the study?
3. The study shows that “although group members were more satisfied with their leader when interacting face-toface than when interacting virtually, there were no differences in qualitative or quantitative group performance
or group cohesiveness across settings, and the effects of leadership style on these four outcome measures did
not differ across group setting.” What practical implications does this finding have?
4. The study shows that there is no relationship between leadership style and self- or collective efficacy. Does that
hold with your personal experience with leadership?