For the Good or the Bad Interactive Effects of Transformation.docx

For the Good or the Bad? Interactive Effects of
Transformational
Leadership with Moral and Authoritarian Leadership Behaviors
Sebastian C. Schuh • Xin-an Zhang •
Peng Tian
Received: 16 July 2012 / Accepted: 7 September 2012 /
Published online: 24 September 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Although the ethical aspects of transformational
leadership have attracted considerable attention, very little is
known about followers’ reactions to the moral and immoral
conduct of transformational leaders. Against this background,
this study examined whether and how transformational lead-
ership interacts with moral and authoritarian leadership
behaviors in predicting followers’ in-role and extra-role
efforts. Building on attribution theory, we hypothesized that
the positive and negative effects of these leadership behaviors
would be particularly pronounced for highly transformational

leaders given that this leadership style elicits strong attention
and sense-making efforts among followers. We tested our
model in a sample of 228 individuals comprising 114 leader–
follower dyads from a wide range of organizations and
industries. In line with our hypotheses, results revealed that for
highly transformational leaders, moral leadership behaviors
related positively to employees’ in-role and extra-role efforts
whereas authoritarian leadership behaviors related negatively
to employees’ in-role and extra-role efforts. In contrast, moral
and authoritarian leadership behaviors did not significantly
affect followers’ reactions to leaders low in transformational
leadership. Taken together, these findings suggest that trans-
formational leadership, contrary to its largely positive per-
ception in the literature, can be a rather mixed blessing.
Implications for theory, future research, and managerial
practice are discussed.
Keywords Authentic transformational leadership �
Authoritarian leadership � Extra-role performance �
In-role performance � Moral leadership �

Pseudo-transformational leadership
When it comes to severe wrongdoings in the organizational
domain, it is not uncommon that leaders who had been
praised as visionary and transformational play a crucial
role (Bass 2008). Indeed, whereas transformational lead-
ership has often been regarded as a leadership behavior that
considers and emphasizes ethical standards (Burns 1978),
several scholars have questioned its inherent morality
(Bass and Steidlmeier 1999; Conger and Kanungo 1998;
Price 2003). Specifically, they have pointed out that
transformational leadership behaviors (e.g., vision, inspi-
ration, and role modeling; Bass 1985) do not have to be
applied in the interest of the common good. Indeed, these
behaviors seem to be equally effective in pursuing immoral
purposes and to increase the personal power and status of
the leader. As Price (2003) posited, transformational
behaviors are ‘‘morally neutral’’ (p. 70) and whether they
are used for good or bad depends on the intentions of the

leader.
Building on this observation, Bass and Steidlmeier
(1999) elaborated on transformational leadership theory
and differentiated two types of transformational leaders:
(a) authentic transformational leaders who focus on
the common good and (b) pseudo-transformational leaders
who seek to enhance their status and foster employees’
dependence (see also Bass 1998; Howell and Avolio
1992). Both types of leaders engage in transformational
S. C. Schuh
Institute of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt,
Germany
X. Zhang (&) � P. Tian
Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao
Tong University, 535 Fahua Zhen Road, Shanghai 200052,
China
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Ethics (2013) 116:629–640

DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1486-0
leadership. However, as Bass and Steidlmeier (1999)
noted, it is likely that their contradicting (altruistic versus
self-focused) goals will also surface in their leadership
behaviors.
Whereas the distinction between morally good and bad
transformational leadership has contributed to a more bal-
anced perspective on this leadership style, an essential
aspect has been largely overlooked: followers’ reactions to
these two types of leaders. Specifically, it has remained
unclear whether and how altruistic versus self-focused
behaviors of transformational leaders affect their follow-
ers’ in-role and extra-role efforts. However, this seems to
be a crucial question given the profound influence of
transformational leaders on followers’ reactions (Bass
2008) and the fact that the success of organizations
strongly depends on their employees’ performance

(Podsakoff et al. 2009). Therefore, the purpose of this study
was to build and examine a model that details the inter-
active relation between transformational leadership and
altruistic as well as self-focused leadership behaviors. In
doing so, we draw on attribution theory, which provides an
overarching framework to explain followers’ reactions to
the perceived intentions of their leader (Dasborough and
Ashkanasy 2002). Specifically, given the often unconven-
tional nature of transformational leadership behaviors, we
propose that followers will seek for signals that may reveal
the intentions of their leader. Accordingly, we expect that
the effects of moral and authoritarian behaviors on fol-
lowers’ in-role and extra-role efforts will be particularly
pronounced for transformational leaders compared to non-
transformational leaders.
With this focus, this study contributes to the literature in
two ways: First, whereas the ethical and unethical sides of
transformational leadership have often been discussed, they

have received little attention in empirical research. How-
ever, the double-edged nature of transformational leader-
ship seems to be a crucial aspect to understand followers’
responses to their leader and, consequently, for the future
development of transformational leadership theory. Sec-
ond, the study extends existing research by providing an
integrative model of different leadership behaviors. As
Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) noted, it is unlikely that
leaders exclusively engage in one type of leadership
behavior (e.g., transformational leadership)—the behav-
ioral repertoires of most leaders go beyond one particular
style and include additional behaviors. Surprisingly, few
studies have addressed this rather intuitive aspect despite
several calls for integrative studies of different leadership
styles (Casimir 2001; Kerr et al. 1974; Kirkpatrick and
Locke 1996). Indeed, to foster a better understanding of the
leadership process, it seems to be essential to consider how
different leadership behaviors interact in affecting follow-

ers’ reactions (De Cremer 2006).
The Double-Edged Nature of Transformational
Leadership
The transformational leadership model has had a tremen-
dous influence on the modern understanding of leadership
effectiveness. Since its introduction by Burns (1978),
leadership researchers have identified several behaviors
that are representative for this leadership style. Perhaps the
most characteristic one is the articulation of a compelling
vision (Bass 1985; Podsakoff et al. 1990). This behavior
refers to leaders who voice an appealing picture for the
future of the organization and who inspire their followers
by identifying attractive opportunities for the group. In
doing so, they show a strong sense of purpose and they
enthuse followers by using persuasive and image-based
rhetoric (Emrich et al. 2001).
Another behavior that is strongly associated with
transformational leadership is charismatic role modeling

(Bass 1985; Kark and van Dijk 2007). In that, transfor-
mational leaders do not only influence their followers
through convincing communication, they also ‘‘walk the
talk’’. These leaders provide a charismatic model of
appropriate and expected behavior and, in doing so, they
take personal risks to show their conviction (Podsakoff
et al. 1990). In addition, transformational leaders encour-
age their subordinates to collaborate in their work and to
jointly strive toward the same goal (Shamir et al. 1993).
They create a sense of identification among subordinates,
which supports the acceptance of their vision.
Numerous studies have examined transformational
leadership behaviors and have indicated their effectiveness
in directing followers’ efforts (Judge and Piccolo 2004).
However, one of the vexing aspects of these behaviors is
that they seem to be open to pursue morally good and bad
goals (Price 2003). For example, the skills of communi-
cating a compelling vision and leading by example can be

used to motivate followers toward collectively benefitting
ends. However, they can also be applied to foster the power
and status of the leader. As Carey (1992) aptly noted, ‘‘the
gifts of charisma, inspiration, consideration, and intellec-
tual strength [can be readily] abused for the self-interest of
the leader’’ (p. 232).
Building on these observations, diverse aspects of the
dark side of transformational leadership have been dis-
cussed including undesirable personality traits that may be
associated with transformational behaviors (e.g., narcis-
sisms, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and the need for
personalized power; Conger and Kanungo 1998; Khoo and
Burch 2008), transformational leaders’ values and ability
for moral reasoning (Groves and LaRocca 2011; Turner
et al. 2002; also see Du et al. 2012), and leaders’ emotions
as cues for their motives (Dasborough and Ashkanasy
2002). Perhaps the most influential account has been
630 S. C. Schuh et al.

123
provided by Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) who differenti-
ated two types of transformational leaders: (a) authentic
transformational leaders, who focus on altruistic goals and
the common good and whose behavior ‘‘is characterized by
high moral and ethical standards’’ (p. 191) and (b) pseudo-
transformational leaders who are primarily concerned with
their own status and authority and who ‘‘seek power and
position even at the expense of their followers’ achieve-
ments’’ (p. 187). As the authors emphasized, a fundamental
difference between these two types of leaders lies in their
intentions guiding their actions. Whereas authentic trans-
formational leaders focus on altruistic goals that promote
the common good, pseudo-transformational leaders are
guided by self-centered motives.
Transformational Leadership and Followers’
Attributions

Given that transformational behaviors seem to be equivocal
with regard to leaders’ intentions, followers will have to
focus on additional cues if they strive to understand their
leaders’ motives (Dasborough and Ashkanasy 2002). As
attribution theory emphasizes, individuals seek out signals
and information that reveal the intentions behind behaviors
(Allen and Rush 1998). The theory posits that individuals
experience a desire to make sense of other peoples’
motives because understanding why someone acts in a
certain way reduces uncertainty and allows predicting
future events (Wong and Weiner 1981). This seems to be
particularly crucial in the leader–follower relationship
given that followers depend on their leaders to get access to
desired resources (e.g., the assignment of tasks, bonuses,
promotion decisions etc.; Pittman and D’Agostino 1985).
Importantly, attributions about another person’s behaviors
strongly affect how people evaluate and react to this person
(Dasborough and Ashkanasy 2002). As past research

shows, reactions to presumably altruistic deeds consider-
ably differ from responses to seemingly self-focused
actions (Eastman 1994; Grant et al. 2009). Specifically,
these studies suggest that one and the same behavior (e.g.,
proactivity) can elicit positive or negative reactions
depending on the motives that seem to underlie this
behavior. Similarly, subordinates’ reactions will hugely
differ when they assume that their leader assigned a task to
foster the good of the collective or when they feel that
they are being used for the personal benefit of the leader
(Dienesch and Liden 1986).
Although making attributions about other people’s
behaviors is a central aspect of social life, it is a core
premise of attribution theory that not all social events
trigger attributions (Pyszczynski and Greenberg 1981).
Specifically, if a social event meets people’s expectations,
individuals generally refrain from causal analysis (Hastie
1984). Under these circumstances a search for further

explanations would imply a rather inefficient allocation of
cognitive resources. Conversely, unexpected and uncon-
ventional behaviors tend to trigger sense-making processes
and attributional explanations. These are beneficial to adapt
predictions about future behaviors and events (Wong and
Weiner 1981).
Drawing on this reasoning, it has repeatedly been noted
that transformational leadership behaviors are particularly
likely to elicit attributional search among subordinates
(Bass 2008; Conger and Kanungo 1998; Van Knippenberg
and Van Knippenberg 2005). The central reason for this is
seen in the often unconventional nature of transformational
leadership behaviors (Shamir et al. 1993). For instance, in
providing direction for their team, transformational leaders
develop an elaborate visionary message instead of focusing
on short-term goals (Bass 1985). In doing so, they tend to
use metaphoric language and symbols to convey their
message to the group whereas non-transformational leaders

may largely rely on numbers and facts (Kark and van Dijk
2007). Moreover, transformational leaders often show
positive emotions and even enthusiasm in communicating
with their employees whereas less charismatic leaders
merely use a factual tone in talking to their subordinates
(Avolio et al. 2004). In line with these examples, trans-
formational leadership behaviors are often described as
extraordinary (Shamir et al. 1993) and, consequently, they
are likely to foster employees’ search for signals that may
reveal their leaders’ intentions (Berscheid et al. 1976).
In making sense about transformational leaders’ inten-
tions, two kinds of behaviors seem to be particularly
informative: moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors.
Indeed, following Bass and Steidlmeier’s (1999) analysis,
these behaviors seem to be representative for authentic
transformational and pseudo-transformational leaders
given their focus on altruism and the common good (i.e.,
moral leadership) and on personalized power and status

(i.e., authoritarian leadership), respectively. Following this
lead, the following discussion elaborates on the interplay
between transformational leadership and these leadership
behaviors.
Interactive Effects of Transformational and Moral
Leadership
Moral leadership has been defined as an essentially altru-
istic leadership behavior (Cheng et al. 2000; Pellegrini and
Scandura 2009). It comprises behaviors that depict superior
personal virtues and selflessness. In that, the primary focus
of moral leadership behaviors is the common good and
moral leaders use the authority of their position to benefit
Interactive Effects of Transformational Leadership 631
123
the collective (Cheng et al. 2004). Moreover, moral leaders
tend to actively refrain from using their power for personal
gains. For example, they do not use personal relationships,

dependencies, and back-door practices. Rather they forgo
personal privileges to benefit the group (Cheng et al. 2000).
Such selfless behaviors are regarded as a strong signal
for the group-oriented and altruistic intentions of the leader
(Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg 2005). Indeed,
acting in a selfless or even self-sacrificing way is perhaps
one of the most direct ways to demonstrate one’s com-
mitment to the collective and its welfare. This is because
these behaviors are costly to the individual as they either
involve direct negative consequences (e.g., a higher
workload) or the abandonment of positive consequences
and privileges (e.g., the right to a spacious office).
According to attribution theories’ principle of augmenta-
tion (Kelley 1973), followers tend to perceive selfless
behaviors as a sign for the sincerity of their leaders’ group-
oriented intentions. Specifically, these selfless acts con-
tribute to followers’ trust in the leader and their conviction
in their leader’s concern for the common good (Van Lange

et al. 1997). In line with this view, previous research has
found a positive relationship between leaders’ selfless
behaviors and followers’ perceptions of leaders’ focus on
the collective (Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg
2005). Importantly, as the results further revealed, this
relation was particularly pronounced if followers had been
uncertain about their leaders’ motives.
The extent to which a leader’s actions are perceived as
altruistically motivated also tends to have a strong impact
on followers’ reactions (De Cremer 2006). Under these
circumstances, followers are particularly likely to engage
in in-role and extra-role efforts (Van Knippenberg and Van
Knippenberg 2005). There are several reasons for this:
First, altruistic behaviors tend to create a felt obligation to
reciprocate in order to equalize the exchange relationship
(Gouldner 1960). Based on the norm for reciprocity, fol-
lowers are expected to do as is done to them. A failure to
do so is likely to harm the relationship with their supervisor

(Dienesch and Liden 1986). Second, a leader, in most
instances, is the linking pin between the organization and
the employees (Levinson 1965). Accordingly, if a leader is
perceived to act in a moral and altruistic way, this should
positively affect followers’ motivation to engage in in-role
and extra-role efforts, which in turn, benefits the organi-
zation. Third, it has been argued that engaging in behaviors
that are personally costly fosters leaders’ influence on
followers (Yorges et al. 1999). These behaviors are per-
ceived as motivated by sincerity and conviction. Conse-
quently, altruistic leadership behaviors should be apt in
fostering followers’ efforts for the collective.
Integrating these insights with our earlier discussion, we
expect that signaling group-oriented intentions should be
particularly effective if a leader also engages in transfor-
mational leadership behaviors. Given that transformational
behaviors do not reveal leaders’ intentions, followers will
search for additional cues to discern their leaders’ motives

(Dasborough and Ashkanasy 2002). Even more impor-
tantly, due to the often unconventional nature of their
behaviors, transformational leaders attract considerable
attention (Bass 2008; Conger and Kanungo 1998). These
behaviors promote attribution processes to make sense of
these actions and subordinates will seek out additional
signals that reveal their leaders’ intentions (Berscheid et al.
1976). Accordingly, the influence of moral leadership
behaviors on followers’ reactions should be particularly
pronounced for transformational leaders. Lowly transfor-
mational leaders, on the other hand, tend to be perceived as
rather conventional (Bass 2008). They tend to act in line
with followers’ expectations and, therefore, should attract
fewer efforts to make sense of their leadership behaviors.
As a consequence, followers’ responses to moral leadership
behaviors of non-transformational leaders should be
weaker than for transformational leaders. We propose:
Hypothesis 1 Transformational leadership and moral

leadership interact in predicting followers’ in-role and
extra-role performance. The more a leader engages in
transformational behaviors, the stronger the positive asso-
ciation between moral leadership and followers’ in-role
and extra-role performance.
Interactive Effects of Transformational
and Authoritarian Leadership
In contrast to moral leadership that builds on the authority
of the leadership position to benefit the collective,
authoritarian leaders use the power-asymmetry between
leaders and followers to assure personal dominance and to
centralize control (Tsui et al. 2004). Specifically,
authoritarian leadership has been defined as ‘‘leader’s
behavior that asserts absolute authority and control over
subordinates and [that] demands unquestionable obedience
from subordinates’’ (Cheng et al. 2004, p. 91). In that,
authoritarian leadership behaviors emphasize unilateral
decision-making through the leader and strive to maintain

the distance between the leader and his or her followers
(Aryee et al. 2007). These behaviors assure the leader’s
authority over the direction of the group and grant him or
her full control over desired outcomes and resources. As
Bass and Steidlmeier’s (1999) suggested, these behaviors
are particularly characteristic of pseudo-transformational
leaders. Specifically, the authors noted that, ‘‘pseudo-
transformational leaders will welcome and expect blind
obedience. They will attempt to enhance their personal
123
status by maintaining the personal distance between
themselves and their followers (p. 189)’’.
Absolute power has often been associated with abuse
and leaders’ quest for personal benefits (Sivanathan et al.
2008). In line with this view, authoritarian leadership
behavior has been related to leaders’ self-centered motives.

Specifically, previous research has linked these behaviors
to leaders’ need for personalized power (Aryee et al. 2007),
Machiavellianism (Kiazad et al. 2010), psychopathy (Khoo
and Burch 2008), and narcissism (Conger and Kanungo
1998). Moreover, several scholars have proposed that
authoritarian leadership behaviors signal a strong disregard
for the interests and perspective of their subordinates (Chan
et al. 2012; De Cremer 2006). For example, authoritarian
leaders tend to ignore followers’ suggestions and discount
their contribution (Aryee et al. 2007). As Chan et al. (2012)
noted, subordinates are likely to perceive these
authoritarian behaviors as signs of disrespect, devaluation
and, accordingly, as indicators for the self-centeredness of
their leaders.
Consistent with this view, previous research found that
authoritarian leadership was negatively related to follow-
ers’ perceptions of leaders’ selflessness (De Cremer et al.
2004). More importantly, this behavior is likely to under-

mine followers’ efforts for the collective: First, based on
social exchange principles, authoritarian leadership
behaviors tend to trigger retaliatory responses (Blau 1964).
Followers who perceive their leaders as disrespecting and
devaluating their interests will try to resist their influence
and tend to withhold beneficial work behaviors (Harris
et al. 2007). Second, as leaders represent the organization
(Levinson 1965), their actions often directly affect fol-
lowers’ behavior toward the organization. Consequently, if
leaders are perceived as belittling their followers’ interests,
this is likely to deteriorate followers’ motivation to engage
in in-role and extra-role efforts for the organization
(Aquino et al. 1999). Third, self-focused behaviors of a
leader also seem to reduce his or her influence on followers
(Tepper et al. 2001; Yorges et al. 1999). Under these cir-
cumstances, subordinates are more likely to focus on their
own interests and their investment in group-oriented
activities will be reduced. Accordingly, they should be less

likely to engage in in-role and extra-role efforts.
Drawing on the attributional reasoning developed above,
we expect that the detrimental effects of authoritarian
leadership should be particularly pronounced for transfor-
mational leaders. Given the unconventional nature of their
behaviors, subordinates will draw on additional signals to
understand their leaders’ intentions (Berscheid et al. 1976).
Conversely, the negative influence of authoritarian behav-
iors should be less pronounced for less transformational
leaders as they attract less attributional search (Bass 2008).
We propose:
Hypothesis 2 Transformational leadership and authoritar-
ian leadership interact in predicting followers’ in-role and
extra-role performance. The more a leader engages in trans-
formational behaviors, the stronger the negative association
between authoritarian leadership and followers’ in-role and
extra-role performance.
Method

Procedure and Participants
We tested our hypotheses in a sample of 228 individuals
representing 114 subordinate–supervisor dyads. Partici-
pants were recruited among employees enrolled in a part-
time MBA program at a University in Eastern China.
Participants completed the subordinate questionnaire in
class. Furthermore, they provided contact information of
their supervisors. A survey was sent to each supervisor
together with a pre-stamped, self-addressed envelope, and
a cover letter. The cover letter stated that one of their
subordinates, whose name was printed on the letter, had
participated in a management study and had identified the
addressee as the referent for performance ratings. Super-
visors and subordinates were assured that their data would
be kept fully confidential and used for scientific purposes
only.
Of 145 subordinates who were invited, 129 participated
for a response rate of 89.0 %. Of the 129 supervisors, who

were contacted, 114 participated for a response rate of
88.4 %. Fifty-four percent of the subordinates were male;
their average age equaled 30.12 years (SD = 3.31). They
worked in various organizations throughout China repre-
senting a wide range of industries with the most frequent
being industrial production (17 %), banking and finance
(14 %), and informational technology (13 %). Average
work experience equaled 4.85 years (SD = 3.00). Sixty-
nine percent of supervisors were male and their average
age equaled 38.85 years (SD = 7.34). Chi-square and
t tests did indicate no significant differences in demo-
graphic variables between subordinates whose supervisors
responded and those whose supervisors did not respond,
alleviating concerns about systematically missing data.
Measures
All variables were measured with established scales
developed in previous studies. Subordinates provided rat-
ings of their leaders’ transformational, moral, and

authoritarian leadership behaviors. Subordinates’ in-role
and extra-role performance was rated by their supervisors.
Unless otherwise noted, items were rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree.
123
The original language of the scales on transformational
leadership, in-role performance, and extra-role perfor-
mance is English. To ensure translation equivalence, these
scales were translated into Chinese and then back-trans-
lated into English by two researchers individually both
proficient in Chinese and English. The comparisons
between the original and the back-translated scales indi-
cated translation equivalence of both versions.
Transformational Leadership
We measured transformational leadership with Podsakoff
et al.’s (1990) twelve-item core-transformational leader-

ship scale, which has widely been used in previous studies
(e.g., Bettencourt 2004; Jung et al. 2009). Sample items
are: ‘‘My supervisor inspires others with his/her plans for
the future’’ and ‘‘My supervisor leads by ‘doing,’ rather
than simply by ‘telling’’’ (a = .94).
Moral Leadership
We measured moral leadership with the scale by Cheng
et al. (2000). This scale was developed in Chinese and has
repeatedly been used in prior research (Pellegrini and
Scandura 2009; see Cheng et al. 2004 for the English
version). Sample items are: ‘‘My supervisor uses his/her
authority to seek special privileges for himself/herself
(reversed)’’ and ‘‘My supervisor does not take advantage of
me for personal gain’’ (a = .90).
Authoritarian Leadership
To measure authoritarian leadership, we used a scale also
developed by Cheng et al. (2000). The original language of
the scale is Chinese; it has been repeatedly used in previous

studies (e.g., Chan et al. 2012; see Cheng et al. 2004 for the
English version). Sample items are: ‘‘My supervisor asks
me to obey his/her instructions completely’’ and ‘‘My
supervisor determines all decisions in the organization
whether they are important or not’’ (a = .81).
In-Role Performance
As in prior research (Kacmar et al. 2009; Tepper et al.
2011), supervisors evaluated followers’ performance using
five items adopted from Wayne and Liden (1995). In
contrast to the other scales of this study, each of the five
items was anchored with an individual description corre-
sponding to the question asked (e.g., ‘‘strongly agree’’ or
‘‘outstanding’’). Sample items are: ‘‘This subordinate is
superior to other subordinates that I have supervised
before’’ and ‘‘Rate the overall level of performance that
you observe for this subordinate’’ (a = .90).
Extra-Role Performance
Supervisors also rated followers’ extra-role behavior. They

answered the nine-item scale by Janssen (2001). The items
focus on innovative work behavior, a central aspect of
extra-role effort (Podsakoff et al. 2000). The scale has
repeatedly been used (Pieterse et al. 2009). Sample items
are: ‘‘This subordinate mobilizes support for innovative
ideas’’ and ‘‘This employee introduces innovative ideas
into the work environment in a systematic way’’ (a = .95).
Control Variables
In line with the previous research (e.g., Schuh et al. 2012),
we controlled for supervisors’ and followers’ age and
gender because demographic characteristics can be related
to leadership behaviors and their perception (e.g., Bass
et al. 1996; Eagly et al. 2003).
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all vari-
ables are displayed in Table 1.
Validity Analyses
To ensure that the concepts of our study were empirically

distinct, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor
analyses (CFAs). Results showed that our measurement
model assuming five factors (transformational leadership,
moral leadership, authoritarian leadership, in-role perfor-
mance, and extra-role performance) fit the data well
(v2 = 1057.44, df = 619, CFI = .96, NNFI = .96,
RMSEA = .08). We compared this model to three plau-
sible alternative models: (a) a two-factor model combining
all leadership variables in one and all supervisor-rated
outcome variables in a second factor, (b) a three-factor
model combining moral and authoritarian leadership in one
factor, in-role and extra-role behavior in a second factor
while transformational leadership represented the third
factor, and (c) a four-factor model combining moral and
authoritarian leadership in one factor while all other vari-
ables built individual factors. All three alternative models
fit the data significantly worse than the measurement model
(two-factor model: v2 = 1758.04, df = 628; CFI = .90,
NNFI = .90, RMSEA = .13; Dv2 = 700.60, p .001;
three-factor model: v2 = 1452.90, df = 626, CFI = .92,

NNFI = .92, RMSEA = .11; Dv2 = 326.4, p .001;
four-factor model: v2 = 1278.87, df = 623, CFI = .94,
NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .10; Dv2 = 221.43, p .001).
123
Hypotheses Tests
To test our hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regres-
sion analyses. In the first step, we entered the control
variables followed by transformational leadership, moral
leadership, and authoritarian leadership. We then added the
interaction terms. Following Aiken and West (1991), all
variables were standardized prior to analysis and the
interaction terms were calculated based on the standardized
scores.
Table 2 shows the results of our analyses. Of greatest
importance and in line with Hypothesis 1, the interaction
between moral leadership and transformational leadership
predicted followers’ in-role (b = 18, t = 2.60, p .05)
and extra-role efforts (b = .18, t = 2.02, p .05). To

examine the nature of these interactions, we conducted
simple slope analyses (Aiken and West 1991) and esti-
mated the relations between moral leadership and in-role
and extra-role performance at low (1 SD below the mean)
and high (1 SD above the mean) levels of transformational
leadership. In line with Hypothesis 1, the relations between
leaders’ moral behaviors and subordinates’ in-role and
extra-role efforts were positive and significant for
employees who experienced their leaders as highly trans-
formational (b = .45, t = 3.26, p .01 and b = .36,
t = 2.10, p .05, respectively) and not significant for
those followers who perceived their leaders as lowly
transformational (b = .08, t = .67, p [ .50 and b = .01,
t = .05, p [ .96, respectively). Figure 1a, b shows the
interactions based on the simple slopes.
Providing support for Hypothesis 2, the interaction
between authoritarian leadership and transformational
leadership predicting followers’ in-role and extra-role
efforts was also significant (b = -.23, t = -3.18, p .01
and b = -.24, t = -2.60, p .05, respectively). Fur-
thermore, simple slope tests revealed that the relations

between leaders’ authoritarian behaviors and subordinates’
in-role and extra-role efforts were significant and negative
for employees who experienced their leaders as highly
transformational (b = -.38, t = -3.35, p .01 and
b = -.36, t = -2.48, p .05, respectively) and not sig-
nificant for those followers who perceived their leaders as
lowly transformational (b = .07, t = .65, p [ .51 and
b = .11, t = .79, p [ .42, respectively). The interactions
are shown in Fig. 2a, b.
Discussion
Building on Bass and Steidlmeier’s (1999) differentiation
between authentic transformational leadership and pseudo-
transformational leadership, we set out to answer the
question whether transformational leadership interacts with
moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors in predicting
followers’ in-role and extra-role efforts. Building on attri-
bution theory, we hypothesized that the positive and neg-
ative effects of these leadership behaviors would be
particularly pronounced for highly transformational leaders
given that this leadership style elicits strong attention and

sense-making efforts among followers. In line with our
hypotheses, results revealed that moral and authoritarian
leadership behaviors, indeed, had a stronger relationship
with employees’ in-role and extra-role efforts for trans-
formational leaders. In contrast, these leadership behaviors
did not affect followers’ reactions to non-transformational
leaders. These findings add to the literature in several
ways:
First, whereas ethical aspects of transformational lead-
ership have attracted considerable attention, very little
is known about followers’ reactions to moral and
immoral conduct of transformational leaders. This study
sought to addresses this gap. Our findings suggest that
Table 1 Descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and
zero-order correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Follower gender
a
- - -

2. Follower age 30.12 3.31 -.25** -
3. Supervisor gender
a
- - .10 -.14 -
4. Supervisor age 38.85 7.34 -.02 .04 .02 -
5. Moral leadership 4.63 1.02 .11 -.11 .19* .05 .90
6. Authoritarian leadership 3.23 1.07 -.14 -.17 -.01 -.02 -.42***
.81
7. Transformational leadership 5.11 .96 -.02 -.03 -.09 -.05
.63*** -.36** .94
8. In-role performance 5.57 .89 .12 .08 .14 .18 .29** -.28** .10
.90
9. Extra-role performance 5.10 1.07 .03 .16 .06 .22* .15 -.18 .04
.66*** .95
Note. N = 114 supervisors and 114 subordinates
a
0 = male; 1 = female
* p .05; ** p .01; *** p .001; two-tailed
123

transformational leadership behaviors can intensify the
positive effects of altruistic (i.e., moral) leadership
behaviors on followers’ in-role and extra-role efforts.
Importantly, however, they also enhanced the adverse
consequences of self-centered (i.e., authoritarian) leader-
ship behavior with regards to followers’ reactions. In
contrast, no such effects were found for non-transforma-
tional leaders. These findings are in line with the notion
that followers of transformational leaders strive to make
sense of their leaders’ transformational behaviors and,
accordingly, are sensitive to additional signals that reveal
their leaders’ intentions (Berscheid et al. 1976). Moreover,
they shed initial light on the differential effects of authentic
versus pseudo-transformational leadership. Specifically,
these findings indicate that transformational leadership
behaviors do not automatically foster followership but also
can diminish followers’ compliance. This seems to be an
important finding given that it contradicts the commonly

held assumption that transformational leadership is quasi
inherently effective. In that, it may prove beneficial for the
future development of transformational leadership theory
as it may help to delineate the contingencies that determine
the effectiveness of transformational leaders.
Second, by building and testing an integrative model of
different theories, our study provides a fresh perspective on
the effects of leadership. Although it appears to be a rather
intuitive insight that most leaders’ behaviors do not
exclusively fall into one theoretical category (e.g., trans-
formational leadership) and despite several calls for a
theoretical integration of different leadership theories
(Casimir 2001; De Cremer 2006; Kerr et al. 1974; Kirk-
patrick and Locke 1996), very little is known about the
joint effects of different leadership styles. Indeed, the
majority of leadership research to date has focused on main
effects and on contingencies with context and follower
variables (Bass 2008). However, a multidimensional

approach to leadership, integrating different leadership
models, seems to provide beneficial insights for under-
standing leaders’ effects on followers. Specifically, our
findings suggest that the influence of moral and
authoritarian leadership behaviors increases with the
degree to which leaders are perceived as being transfor-
mational. This important insight has largely been masked
by the unidimensional approach to leadership applied in
most previous studies.
Third, on a conceptual level, this article may also con-
tribute to a better understanding of the nature of authentic
versus pseudo-transformational leadership. Whereas this
distinction has been frequently cited, previous research has
largely refrained from elaborating on the specific behaviors
that characterize these two leadership types. Building on
Bass and Steidlmeier’s (1999) work and the wider leader-
ship literature, we developed the argument that it is merely
the interplay of transformational leadership behaviors with

Table 2 Hypothesis tests: results of hierarchical regression
analyses
Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2
In-role performance Extra-role performance In-role performance
Extra-role performance
b SE t b SE t b SE t b SE t
Controls
Follower gender
a
.08 .08 .94 .04 .10 .40 .08 .08 .95 .04 .10 .40
Follower age .06 .08 .73 .14 .11 1.36 .08 .08 .93 .16 .10 1.52
Supervisor gender
a
.06 .08 .70 .03 .10 .25 .05 .08 .65 .02 .10 .20
Supervisor age .14 .08 1.77 .22 .10 2.23* .18 .08 2.28* .26 .10
2.65**
Moral leadership .27 .11 2.40* .18 .14 1.33 .31 .11 2.78** .23
.14 1.65
Authoritarian leadership -.20 .09 -2.15* -.16 .11 -1.42 -.16 .09 -
1.76 -.12 .11 -1.10
Transformational leadership -.04 .11 -.37 -.02 .13 -.14 -.07 .10 -
.70 -.05 .13 -.38

Interactions
Moral leadership 9
transformational leadership
.18 .07 2.60* .18 .09 2.02*
Authoritarian leadership 9
transformational leadership
-.23 .07 -3.18** -.24 .09 -2.60*
DR2 interaction .05* .04* .07** .06*
R
2
.22** .15* .24* .17*
Note. N = 114 supervisors and 114 subordinates
a
0 = male; 1 = female
* p .05; ** p .01; two-tailed
123
moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors that lies at the

heart of authentic and pseudo-transformational leadership,
respectively. This notion rests on and integrates three
important insights: (a) the observation that transforma-
tional leadership behaviors are morally neutral (Price
2003), (b) the notion that most leaders’ behavioral reper-
toires exceed one particular leadership style and comprise
additional behaviors (Casimir 2001; De Cremer 2006), and
(c) the conceptualization of authentic transformational and
pseudo-transformational leadership as serving the interests
of the collective versus the power and status of the leader
(Bass and Steidlmeier 1999). Given that identifying the
behaviors of authentic and pseudo-transformational lead-
ership is essential to further understand these two leader-
ship types, we hope that our reasoning will stimulate and
contribute to future discussions of the morality of trans-
formational leaders.
Limitations and Future Research
In discussing important limitations of this study, we also

want to point out potential directions for future research.
The first limitation is the cross-sectional nature of our data.
However, although this design, which the present research
shares with most studies in the organizational domain, does
not allow for a test of causality, we believe that there are
robust arguments for the assumption of leadership behavior
affecting followers’ reactions. Indeed, although we
acknowledge that at times influence in organizations may
weave its influence from the bottom to the top, it appears
plausible to assume that the predominant direction of
influence follows the direction of formal power. This view
parallels theoretical accounts (e.g., upper echelon theory;
Hambrick and Mason 1984) and has been supported in
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2

5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
Low Moral
Leadership
High Moral
Leadership
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
Low Moral
Leadership
High Moral

Leadership
Low Transformational Leadership
High Transformational Leadership
a
b
Fig. 1 a Interaction between transformational leadership and
moral
leadership in predicting subordinates’ in-role performance. b
Interac-
tion between transformational leadership and moral leadership
in
predicting subordinates’ extra-role performance
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6

5.8
6.0
Low Authoritarian
Leadership
High Authoritarian
Leadership
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
Low Authoritarian
Leadership

High Authoritarian
Leadership
a
b
Fig. 2 a Interaction between transformational leadership and
authoritar-
ian leadership in predicting subordinates’ in-role performance.
b Inter-
action between transformational leadership and authoritarian
leadership
in predicting subordinates’ extra-role performance
123
empirical studies (Jung and Avolio 2000; Kirkpatrick and
Locke 1996). Nevertheless, we agree that concerns related
to causality should not be lightheartedly discarded and
certainly be addressed in future studies.
The second concern may be related to the fact that our

research was conducted in Mainland China. Accordingly, it
can be questioned whether Western leadership models also
apply in other cultures. However, from a theoretical per-
spective it has been posited that the transformational
leadership model transcends cultural borders (Bass 2008)
and, in line with this reasoning, previous research has
supported the validity of the transformational leadership
model across cultures (Chen et al. 2007; Walumbwa et al.
2005). These findings may reflect the fact that in the pro-
cess of opening to global markets many Chinese organi-
zations have adopted Western management concepts (Lin
et al. 2001). Nonetheless, as our study is the first to dem-
onstrate the interactive effects of transformational leader-
ship with moral and authoritarian leadership behaviors, we
encourage future research to test these interactions in
additional cultural contexts.
Another promising avenue for future research seems to
lie in testing whether our theoretical model also applies to

additional important employee outcomes. Whereas for an
initial test of a model other-rated in-role and extra-role
performance are often regarded as the gold standard, the
explanatory power of the interactions among transforma-
tional, moral, and authoritarian leadership may go beyond
these dependent variables. For instance, it appears to be
worthwhile to examine whether this model also generalizes
to indicators of employees’ ethical conduct (e.g., whistle
blowing, organizational deviance) and employee health
(e.g., exhaustion, absenteeism).
Future research may also extend the present model by
considering leaders’ personality traits. Particularly, the
dark side of leaders’ personality has recently emerged as a
promising field of research linking leaders’ traits to unfa-
vorable employee outcomes (Gudmundsson and Southey
2011; see also Boddy 2011). Most relevant in this context
are the traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psy-
chopathy, termed as the ‘‘dark triad of personality’’, which

relates to callous-manipulative behavior in interpersonal
relationships (Jones and Paulhus 2010; Paulhus and Wil-
liams 2002; Rauthmann 2012). By integrating these traits
with the present model, pseudo-transformational leadership
may emerge as an important mediator that links the dark
side of leaders’ personality and undesirable employee
outcomes.
Finally, future research may also follow the lead of this
study and examine the interactive effects of transforma-
tional leadership with additional leadership behaviors. In
view of the present findings, we believe that examining
the contingencies of different leadership behaviors can
significantly advance the understanding of leadership
effectiveness. We hope that this neglected field of study
will attract considerable attention in future research.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
Our findings also bear valuable insights for practice. Spe-
cifically, the interaction of transformational leadership with

moral and authoritarian leadership suggests that particular
caution is required with regards to leadership selection,
training, and compensation. Whereas previous research has
suggested that organizations should promote transforma-
tional leadership (e.g., Liao and Chuang 2007), our findings
add yet another consideration: It appears to be equally
important to implement practices targeted at enhancing
moral leadership behaviors while reducing authoritarian
conduct.
Indeed, the pattern of our results suggests that focusing
on transformational leadership while ignoring moral and
authoritarian aspects may not only undermine efforts of
promoting effective leadership but also result in negative
consequences. When paired with low moral leadership or
high authoritarian leadership subordinates’ showed least in-
role and extra-role performance. Conversely, underlining
the double-edged nature of this leadership style, transfor-
mational leaders were also able to elicit the highest level of

followers’ in-role and extra-role efforts—when they were
perceived as moral or non-authoritarian behaviors. In light
of these findings it appears crucial that organizations,
including private and public organizations but also uni-
versities and business schools, complement existing efforts
in fostering transformational leadership with measures
focusing on high morality and low authoritarianism. For
instance, training programs discussing the importance of
ethics, increasing awareness for moral conduct, and intro-
ducing ethical role modeling may prove to be particularly
effective (Mayer et al. 2009). Focusing on this and related
approaches, organizations are likely to develop and sustain
the virtues of (authentic) transformational leadership.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by a fellowship
of
the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation awarded to Sebastian
C.
Schuh.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing

and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of
organizational
citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study
and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(2), 247–260.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice
constructs,
negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model
123
and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7),
1073–1091.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., & Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents
and
outcomes of abusive supervision: Test of a trickle-down model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 191–201.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., &

May,
D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by
which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors.
The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond
expecta-
tions. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial,
military
and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. New
York:
Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1996). The
transformational and transactional leadership of men and
women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 5–
34.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and
authentic
transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,
10(2), 181–217.

Berscheid, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & Dermer, M. (1976).
Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution, and attraction.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 978–989.
Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational
citizenship
behaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orien-
tation. Journal of Retailing, 80(2), 165–180.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
York:
Wiley.
Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths, bullying and
unfair
supervision in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics,
100(3),
367–379.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carey, M. R. (1992). Transformational leadership and the
fundamen-
tal option for self-transcendence. The Leadership Quarterly,
3(3), 217–236.

Casimir, G. (2001). Combinative aspects of leadership style:
The
ordering and temporal spacing of leadership behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 245–278.
Chan, S. C. H., Huang, X., Snape, E., & Lam, C. K. (2012). The
Janus
face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence,
subordinates’ organization-based self-esteem, and performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior. doi:10.1002/job.1797.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member
exchange
and member performance: A new look at individual-level
negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empower-
ment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 202–212.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., & Farh, J. L. (2000). A triad model
of
paternalistic leadership: The constructs and measurement.
Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies,
14(1), 3–64.
Cheng, B. S., Chou, L. F., Wu, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Farh, J.
L.

(2004). Paternalistic leadership and subordinate responses:
Establishing a leadership model in Chinese organizations. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 7(1), 89–117.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership
in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dasborough, M. T., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Emotion and
attribution of intentionality in leader–member relationships. The
De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences
of
leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic lead-
ership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79–93.
De Cremer, D., Van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. (2004). Distributive
justice
moderating the effects of self-sacrificial leadership. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 25(5), 466–475.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member
exchange
model of leadership: A critique and further development.

Academy of Management Review, 11(5), 618–634.
Du, S., Swaen, V., Lindgreen, A., & Sen, S. (2012). The roles
of
leadership styles in corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1333-3.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L.
(2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire lead-
ership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An
attributional
approach to ingratiation and OCB. Academy of Management
Journal, 37(5), 1379–1391.
Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H.
(2001).
Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 527–557.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S., & Collins, C. (2009). Getting credit

for
proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you
value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31–55.
Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). An empirical study of
leader
ethical values, transformational and transactional leadership,
and
follower attitudes toward corporate social responsibility.
Journal
of Business Ethics, 103(4), 511–528.
Gudmundsson, A., & Southey, G. (2011). Leadership and the
rise of
the corporate psychopath: What can business schools do about
the ‘snakes inside’?’. e-Journal of Social and Behavioural
Research in Business, 2(2), 18–27.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The
organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of
Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An
investigation
of abusive supervision as a predictor of performance and the

meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The
Hastie, R. (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 44–56.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic
leadership: Submission or liberation. Academy of Management
Executive, 6(2), 43–54.
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the
curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job perfor-
mance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,
44(5), 1039–1050.
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Differentiating the Dark
Triad
within the interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz & S.
Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology (pp.
249–267). New York: Wiley.
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 leader-
ship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949–964.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.
Jung, D. I., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating
role of
subordinates’ attitudes on transformational leadership and
effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level perspective. The
123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1797
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1333-3
Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A.
(2009).
Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the
perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(6), 1572–1580.

Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation
to
follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership
processes. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 500–528.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution.
American
Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.
Kerr, S., Schriesheim, C. A., Murphy, C. J., & Stogdill, R. M.
(1974).
Toward a contingency theory of leadership based upon the
consideration and initiating structure literature. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 12(1), 62–82.
Khoo, H. S., & Burch, G. S. J. (2008). The ‘‘dark side’’ of
leadership
personality and transformational leadership: An exploratory
study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1), 86–97.
Kiazad, K., Lloyd, S., Restubog, D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz,
C., &
Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of
authoritarian
leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavel-

lianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory
behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(6), 512–519.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect
effects
of three core charismatic leadership components on performance
and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 36–51.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between
man
and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4), 370.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees
and
climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transforma-
tional leadership in building long-term service relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1006–1019.
Lin, Y. J., Cai, F., & Li, Z. (2001). State-owned enterprise
reform in
China. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., &
Salvador,
R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a

trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 108(1), 1–13.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of
personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563.
Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2009). Paternalistic
leadership:
A review and agenda. Journal of Management, 34(6), 566–593.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam,
D.
(2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and inno-
vative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empow-
erment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609–623.
Pittman, T. S., & D’Agostino, P. R. (1985). Motivation and
attribution: The effects of control deprivation on subsequent
information processing. In J. H. Harvey & G. Weary (Eds.),
Attribution: Basic issues and applications (pp. 117–141). New
York: Academic Press.
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. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach,
D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review
of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume,
B. D.
(2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of
organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal
of
Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 67–81.
Pyszczynski, T. A., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of
disconfirmed
expectancies in the instigation of attributional processing.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 31–38.

Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). The Dark Triad and interpersonal
percep-
tion: Similarities and differences in the social consequences of
narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Social Psycho-
logical and Personality Science, 3(4), 487–496.
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X.-A., Egold, N. W., Graf, M. M., Pandey,
D., &
van Dick, R. (2012). Leader and follower organizational
identification: The mediating role of leader behaviour and
implications for follower OCB. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 85(2), 421–432.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The
motivational
effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory.
Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Sivanathan, N., Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, K. J. (2008).
Power
gained, power lost. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 105(2), 135–146.
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Personality

moderators of the relationship between abusive supervision and
subordinates’ resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5),
974–983.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., & Duffy, M. K. (2011). Predictors of
abusive supervision: Supervisor perceptions of deep level
dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and subordinate
performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 279–294.
Tsui, A. S., Wang, H., Xin, K., Zhang, L., & Fu, P. P. (2004).
Let a
Thousand Flowers Bloom: Variation of leadership styles among
Chinese CEOs. Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 5–20.
Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner,
C.
(2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 304–311.
Van Knippenberg, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader
self-
sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of
leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1),

25–37.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga,
X. B.,
Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 72(6), 1373–1395.
Walumbwa, F. O., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. J. (2005).
Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and
job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S.
financial firms. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2),
235–256.
Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression
management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 232–260.
Wong, P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ‘‘why’’ questions,
and
the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and
Social, 40(4), 650–663.
Yorges, S. L., Weiss, H. M., & Strickland, O. J. (1999). The

effect of
leader outcomes on influence, attributions, and perceptions of
charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 428–436.
123
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of
Springer Science & Business Media
B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
For the Good or the Bad? Interactive Effects of
Transformational Leadership with Moral and Authoritarian
Leadership BehaviorsAbstractThe Double-Edged Nature of
Transformational LeadershipTransformational Leadership and
Followers’ AttributionsInteractive Effects of Transformational
and Moral LeadershipInteractive Effects of Transformational
and Authoritarian LeadershipMethodProcedure and
ParticipantsMeasuresTransformational LeadershipMoral
LeadershipAuthoritarian LeadershipIn-Role PerformanceExtra-
Role PerformanceControl VariablesResultsValidity
AnalysesHypotheses TestsDiscussionLimitations and Future
ResearchPractical Implications and
ConclusionAcknowledgmentsReferences
Teaching Implicit Leadership

Theories to Develop Leaders
and Leadership:
How and Why It Can Make
a Difference
BIRGIT SCHYNS
Durham University
TINA KIEFER
University of Warwick
RUDOLF KERSCHREITER
Freie Universität Berlin
ALEX TYMON
University of Portsmouth
Implicit leadership theories (ILTs) are lay images of leadership,
which are individually
and socially determined. We discuss how teaching implicit
leadership theories
contributes to developing leaders and leaderships by raising
self- and social awareness
for the contexts in which leadership takes place. We present and
discuss a drawing
exercise to illustrate different implicit leadership theories and
discuss the implications for
leaders and leadership, with a particular focus on how leaders
claim, and are granted,
leader identities in groups.
...............................................................................................
.........................................................................

Day stated in 2001 that “the interest in leadership
development seems to be at its zenith” (581), yet a
decade later, interest in leadership and leadership
development seems to be unbroken, both in aca-
demia and, of course, in practice. This special edi-
tion on teaching leadership serves as a further
indicator of this interest. To date, most leadership
literature focuses on leaders as such: their leader-
related skills, personal characteristics, and behav-
iors (e.g., transformational leadership; Bass, 1985;
charismatic leadership, Conger & Kanungo, 1994;
authentic leadership, Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey,
Oke, 2009). Hence it is fair to deduce that the vast
majority of the teaching and development is fo-
cused on leader skills, characteristics, and behav-
iors. This draws a distinction between leaders and
other participants in the leadership process, such
as followers.
However—as Day (2001) pointed out—leadership
is more than just a skill set of an individual, it has
also been conceptualized as a social process. He
differentiates “leader development” (focused on in-
dividual skills) from “leadership development” (fo-
cused on the wider relational or social context in
which leadership takes place). As Iles and Preece
(2006) argue, leader and leadership development
are often seen as the same thing. They highlight
the usefulness of differentiating between both
types of development, arguing that self-awareness
is a part of leader development and that social
awareness is a facet of interpersonal competence
for leadership development. Social awareness in-
cludes, for example, empathy, service orientation,
and developing others. Bolden and Gosling (2006)

stress that this is an important part of leadership,
arguing that leadership has to move from individ-
ualistic to collective forms.
The social context (leadership development) has
� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2011, Vol.
10, No. 3, 397–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0015
...............................................................................................
.........................................................................
397
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved.
Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or
otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use only.
received considerably less attention in research
and practice than the individual leader (leader
development). With respect to social context, gen-
erally, there has been a call for more attention to
the specific context in leadership development
(see e.g., Liden & Antonakis’, 2009, call for leader-
ship researchers to include followers’ influence on
leaders in their research). We aim to address this
gap here by focusing on both the individual leader
and the social context in which leadership occurs.
Specifically, we outline how leaders operate in
social contexts that encompass different cognitive
schemas about leaders and leadership, including
their and their followers’ schemas. Therefore, one
way of integrating social context into leader/lead-

ership development is by addressing leaders’ and
followers’ images of leaders in general or so-called
implicit leadership theories. Implicit leadership
theories are conceptualized as everyday images of
what leaders are like in terms of traits and behav-
iors (e.g., Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994;
Schyns & Schilling, 2011). Therefore, implicit lead-
ership theories, as theoretical constructs, focus on
the social context in which leadership occurs.
Teaching implicit leadership theories develops
leaders and leadership by raising awareness of
this social context and of one’s own implicit lead-
ership theories and how they might or might not
match the social context. The latter is vital for
understanding interactions between leaders and
followers in organizational settings. The reason for
this is twofold: As De Rue and Ashford (2010) argue,
a match between a person’s implicit leadership
theories and his or her self-concept facilitates the
taking on of a leader identity. At the same time, the
acceptance of someone as a leader is only possible
if there is a match between the implicit leadership
theories of potential followers and their actual per-
ception of that person. De Rue and Ashford call this
process claiming and granting leader identity.
However, implicit leadership theories are, by na-
ture, not necessarily conscious to those who hold
them. Therefore, we suggest that teaching implicit
leadership theories through an awareness-raising
exercise develops leaders and leadership by mak-
ing these images more explicit and, thus, helping
leaders and followers to better understand (a) how
such implicit leadership theories develop and play
out in the social context of leadership, and (b) how

leader identities develop and are shaped.
Consequently, our aim of this here is twofold:
First, to introduce the theoretical underpinnings of
implicit leadership theories and discuss how and
why teaching implicit leadership theories can af-
fect leaders and leadership. A particular focus lies
on how leader identities are shaped. Second, we
present an exercise that can be conducted in a
teaching or training context, which aims to raise
awareness of different implicit leadership theo-
ries. We discuss how this exercise may help de-
velop leaders and leadership in various contexts.
To achieve this, we draw on Day’s differentiation
between leader development and leadership de-
velopment to analyze the usefulness of teaching
implicit leadership theories, particularly the con-
cepts of self-awareness and social awareness, as
crucial elements in both leader and leadership
development. At the same time, we integrate De
Rue and Ashford’s (2010) notion of how a match
between leaders’ and followers’ implicit leader-
ship theories helps to shape leader identities.
In the following, we first outline the background
of implicit leadership theories before introducing
an in-class exercise to illustrate how implicit lead-
ership theories can be accessed and how raising
awareness for different implicit leadership theo-
ries can affect various partners in the leadership
process. We then use the elements of the exercise
to explain how and why teaching implicit leader-
ship theories is important for practicing and teach-
ing leadership.

With the introduction of this exercise, we respond
to Bell’s (2010) call for “evidence-based teaching” (7),
that is, teaching that “includes current, impactful
research in our classes” (7), and address what
Burke and Rau (2010) call the research–teaching
gap. We do this by providing one example of how
to teach a heavily theoretical construct, based on
very recent research. Teaching students,1 and
thereby (future) leaders and followers, about im-
plicit leadership theories serves a multiplier func-
tion in that they can distribute the knowledge ac-
quired in class into their organizations.
UNDERSTANDING IMPLICIT
LEADERSHIP THEORIES
The concept of implicit leadership theories was
first introduced by Eden and Leviatan (1975; see
also Eden & Leviatan, 2005). They deduced the idea
of implicit leadership theories from Schneider’s
(1973) implicit personality theories. Implicit leader-
ship theories are images that everyone holds
about the traits and behaviors of leaders in gen-
eral (e.g., Schyns & Meindl, 2005). Similar to stereo-
types, implicit leadership theories serve to explain
the other person’s behavior and also the observer’s
1 We use the term students here in the broadest sense. The
exercise we outline, as well as its intended aims, are relevant
for undergraduate and postgraduate students, but also for adult
learners, such as those that are already in leadership positions.
398 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

reaction toward that person (Kenney, Schwartz-
Kenney, & Blascovich, 1996; Schyns & Schilling,
2011). This means that when meeting or observing
a “leader,” certain leader images are activated,
and the behavior of this “leader” is interpreted in
line with these images. For instance, research by
Lord and colleagues (see Lord & Maher, 1993, for an
overview) has shown that information about suc-
cess influences the extent to which people are re-
garded as leaderlike. This means that people men-
tally connect success and leadership, and this
connection feeds back into their perception of a
“leader.” At the same time, Lord’s categorization
theory (e.g., Lord, Foti, & de Vader, 1984) shows that
implicit leadership theories can be categorized at
hierarchical levels. On the superordinate level, the
differentiation is between characteristics of lead-
ers versus nonleaders; on the basic level, distinc-
tions are made between different types of leaders
(e.g., business vs. political leaders); and on the
even less abstract, subordinate level, these leader
prototypes are further specified (e.g., leaders of a
certain political party).
We know that implicit leadership theories de-
velop early. Ayman-Nolley and Ayman (2005) con-
ducted a study among children and found that they
had no problem drawing a “leader,” or differenti-
ating what they considered a typical leader. An-
tonakis and Dalgas (2009) similarly showed that
children already have implicit leadership theories.
Research among adults confirms interindividual
differences in implicit leadership theories (e.g.,
Felfe, 2005). These implicit leadership theories are
also relatively stable when the context changes
(Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). So, while on the one

hand there is a distinct individual aspect to im-
plicit leadership theories, on the other, cross-
cultural research has shown that implicit leader-
ship theories are influenced by culture (House,
Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002), thus highlight-
ing a socially shared aspect of implicit leadership
theories.
The idea that implicit leadership theories func-
tion similarly to stereotypes has prompted re-
search on the influence of implicit leadership the-
ories on the perception of actual leaders. More
specifically, research assessing individuals’ im-
plicit leadership theories has shown that the men-
tal images individuals hold influence how they see
a person labeled “leader,” including their own su-
pervisors (Schyns, Felfe, & Blank, 2007; Shamir,
1992). For example, individuals who hold a roman-
tic view of leaders, that is, those who overattribute
company performance to leaders (cf. the romance
of leadership model; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich,
1985) perceive their leader as more charismatic
(Shamir, 1992). Together, these findings lead to the
conclusion that the perception of actual leaders
is not independent of the perceiver’s implicit lead-
ership theories. To quote Cummings, “It has been
said that leadership is like beauty—you know it
when you see it” (2007: 143).
From a practitioner’s perspective, leadership is
taught because there is a belief that the behavior
of leaders can be influenced to improve perfor-
mance and output of organizations. However, re-
search into implicit leadership theories casts
doubt on whether this is the whole story, as it

emphasizes the role of perceptional processes in
the effect of leadership. Thus, traditional leader-
ship trainings (or rather leader trainings), focusing
on individual skills and behaviors, may have—at
least to a certain extent— overly optimistic expec-
tations placed upon them. At the very least, it
should make us wonder whether the traditional
leadership development concepts are sufficient in
their focus on leader skills and behaviors and why
we are not including more concepts and ideas that
highlight the importance of the social context and
leadership as a process.
The knowledge of implicit leadership theories is
still scarce in organizations; therefore, spreading
the word about the implications of socially shaped
perceptions due to implicit leadership theories and
their implications seems vital. Teaching students
at different levels can serve as a fast and easy way
of transferring knowledge about implicit leader-
ship theories into organizations. Knowledge about
implicit leadership theories in turn can, and
should, directly affect how leaders and followers
are trained, assessed, and developed. In the fol-
lowing, we outline an exercise useful for teaching
leadership in different contexts.
IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES
DRAWING EXERCISE
The challenge of assessing implicit leadership
theories (ILTs) is that they are, by definition, part of
our implicit knowledge and, therefore, difficult to
assess. To develop and raise self- and other
awareness,2 the cognitive schema that are implicit
leadership theories (Kenney et al., 1996) need to be

“uncovered.” This appears difficult with conven-
2 Prior teaching exercises to raise self- and other awareness
include one suggested by Mirvis (2008), where he describes
how
he takes executives out of their familiar context into extreme
environments (e.g., taking leaders of a car company to inner-
city orphanages) to raise their self- and other-awareness and to
improve their dealing with diversity. Although not as extreme,
our exercise has a similar goal.
2011 399Schyns, Kiefer, Kerschreiter, and Tymon
tional methods (e.g., presenting ready-made case
studies).3 In the following sections, we outline the
aims and structure of the exercise, clarify some of
the important contextual factors, and provide the-
oretical arguments for its effectiveness before turn-
ing to explaining the reasoning behind its features
in more detail using three illustrating examples.
The implicit leadership theories drawing exer-
cise has three aims. First, to make individuals
aware of their personal implicit leadership theo-
ries, second to facilitate the negotiation of socially
determined implicit leadership theories and, third,
to help participants become aware of differences
between implicit leadership theories in various so-
cial contexts and discuss the implications for lead-
ers and leadership. We thereby address several
theoretical issues, namely, self-awareness of im-
plicit leadership theories, social awareness of oth-
ers’ implicit leadership theories, and awareness of
how self- and other implicit leadership theories

may or may not match and, ultimately, how this
match influences the negotiation of leader identi-
ties. This integrates Day’s (2001) differentiation be-
tween leader and leadership development and
De Rue and Ashford’s (2010) claiming and granting
leader identities. The core of the exercise focuses
on the leader versus nonleader differentiation and,
thus, on the superordinate level of implicit leader-
ship theories categories according to Lord et al.
(1984). However, as we outline below, according to
Lord and colleagues, it also can be adapted to
more specific levels, that is, basic or subordinate
levels of implicit leadership theories.
The Exercise Explained
We developed the implicit leadership theories
drawing exercise in three parts of equal impor-
tance, to address the above aims. Exhibit 1 shows
the instructions. It consists of self-reflection (Part
A) and two group exercise parts, consisting of a
group discussion and a group drawing (Part B),
and last, the presentation and discussion of the
drawings in class (Part C).
First, before starting the drawing, each student
reflects on images of leaders. The aim is to start
the reflective process and is self-centered, thus
focusing on self-awareness. In the second part,
when working on the group drawing, the discus-
sion that is necessary to get the drawing started
helps students realize how their ideas about lead-
ers are similar to, or different from, others’ leader
images, tapping into both self-awareness (in the
sense that one’s implicit leadership theories differ

from others’ implicit leadership theories) and so-
cial awareness (knowledge about what others’ im-
plicit leadership theories look like). The drawing
makes this even clearer, as not only words can be
used to express opinions, but also parts of the
drawing (e.g., “I would put the followers next to the
leader”).
Last, when the drawings of all groups are pre-
sented and discussed, students realize the vari-
ance in implicit leadership theories, again raising
social awareness but also self-awareness by high-
lighting the similarities and differences between
their own and others’ implicit leadership theories.
We found that when working in, for example, cul-
turally homogeneous groups and presenting to
groups from different cultural backgrounds, stu-
dents realize that implicit leadership theories con-
tain a culturally shared aspect. This discussion
3 Our approach fits neatly into earlier attempts to use drawings
in leader and leadership development. The Center for Creative
Leadership (CCL) uses a drawing exercise in the context of
their
concept “leading creatively.” In contrast to our exercise, the
exercise is not directly linked to leadership, but rather explores
how both left and right sides of the brain can be used in one
exercise, combining rational and emotional thinking (Cart-
wright, 2009). Cartwright argues that drawing is linked to prob-
lem solving and that it helps leaders in slowing down when
considering a problem rather than taking rushed decisions.
While we agree that drawing exercises tend to force students
out of their comfort zones, and that it can help them address
everyday problems in different ways, our exercise has a more
specific aim in that the drawings are used not only as a stretch
exercise but also to uncover specific implicit knowledge.

EXHIBIT 1
Sample Exercise for Teaching Implicit
Leadership Theories—Instructions to Students
The implicit leadership theories drawing exercise
(A) Individual reflection (10 min)
• On your own, think about leaders in general. From
your perspective: What characteristics do they
have? What did they do (and what don’t they do)?
(B) Group discussion and drawing exercise (30 min each)
• Interview each other: What did you find? Which
points do you agree/disagree on?
• Then, discuss the following points: What are other
factors that impact on leaders’ effectiveness? How,
if at all, are your views about leaders rooted in
culture? What are possible explanations for agree-
ments/disagreements? [modifications depending
on context]
• In the group, make a drawing of your “leader.”
(C) Plenum presentation and discussion (5–10 min each)
• Present and answers questions in class, one group
at a time.
• Discussion of following questions: What are simi-
larities and differences between the drawings?
What stands out for you? How effective would the
leader of one group be in the context of another
group? What is the role of followers in these draw-

ings? [modifications depending on context]
about similarities and differences in implicit lead-
ership theories in general, and cultural communal-
ities in particular can be enhanced by using draw-
ings from earlier groups with which the drawings
of the current groups can be contrasted.
The exercise is designed to work equally well
with undergraduate and graduate students, indi-
viduals with and without leadership or work expe-
rience, and executives or teams from a single or
different organization(s). Indeed, while we present
only the exercise here and not data on its effective-
ness, we have used the exercise on these different
groups several times over the last years and judg-
ing from the feedback, the exercise has challenged
ways of thinking in all.
Teaching Different Groups and Different Context
The instructions can be modified to address the
general aim of the course and the context in which
the exercise takes place. Two types of modifica-
tions are useful: First, the group composition can
be varied; second, the type of leader can be spec-
ified (see Lord et al.’s categorization theory).
Depending on context and group composition,
the instruction under Part B can be modified to
focus on cultural or social differences (e.g., for cul-
turally diverse groups or to extract gender differ-

ences), or on professions (e.g., physicians vs. nurs-
es; IT vs. HR departments). Hence, paying attention
to group composition is important in this exercise.
An example of such a modification may illustrate
this point. After discussing their findings and ar-
eas in which they concur or disagree, students can
be asked to discuss factors impacting on leaders’
effectiveness in their specific context (e.g., budget
cuts in the public sector). They can then be asked to
discuss how they believe their views are affected
by their professional backgrounds. In terms of
group composition, groups should be homogenous
with respect to the profession of the members, for
example, nurse-only groups and surgeon-only
groups in a health service context. In this way,
differences between those professional groups can
be highlighted in the general discussion.
With respect to type of leader, the exercise can
be altered in Part A so that rather than thinking
about leaders in general, students could be en-
couraged to think about, for example, “leaders in
health-care.” Depending on the specific learning
goals, the exercise can be repeated for a specific
context or to illustrate changes in implicit leader-
ship theories over time. For example, students can
be asked to draw a second picture of a leader in a
specific context and would then be asked to dis-
cuss the differences between the general leader
and the context-specific leader.4 This relates to
Lord’s categorization theory (e.g., Lord, 1984). The
first picture would be the leader versus nonleader
level in Lord’s categorization, and the second pic-
ture would be an example of an implicit leadership
theory on a lower level of abstraction.

Where student groups are more homogenous,
such as BA students, who also have little experi-
ence with leadership, it can be useful to later dis-
cuss in the group whether and why it was difficult
to identify characteristics of a leader and to draw
that leader. Sometimes, when students are reluc-
tant to start drawing (e.g., stating that they cannot
draw), it can be useful to provide other material,
such as magazines, so they can do a collage rather
than a drawing.
THE ADVANTAGES OF VISUAL METHODS IN
TEACHING IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES
Visual methods such as drawings have been read-
ily used in development and education settings
(Haney, Russell, & Bebell, 2004; Pridmore & Bend-
elow, 1995). Less frequently, visual methods have
been used for research purposes, mainly in areas
such as education or anthropology rather than or-
ganizational behavior or leadership (for an over-
view see Warren, 2009). As Warren (2009) points
out, there are several different methods of employ-
ing visual material, such as taking existing mate-
rial and using it to conclude, for example, an orga-
nization, or asking interview partners to draw in
response to a question (see, for example, Bagnoli,
2009). The exercise we propose uses the latter
approach.
As Crilly, Blackwell, and Clarkson (2006) point
out, language can sometimes be unspecific and
using language in (intercultural) studies has been
criticized (Jepson, 2009). An example from our own
use of drawings in teaching illustrates this prob-

lem: Students may point out that leaders need fol-
lowers. However, the drawings add to this informa-
tion by showing, for example, the size as well as
the position of followers in relation to the leader,
as well as the relationship between leaders and
followers in a social context (see Figures 1–3 for
examples). In line with Crilly and colleagues
(2006), we believe that the students are best placed
to interpret their drawings. Therefore, we ask stu-
dents to verbalize their ideas in interpreting the
drawings and conveying their meaning to other
students.
Using drawing is particularly appropriate for
4 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this idea.
teaching implicit leadership theories, as it encour-
ages “thinking outside the box” (Bagnoli, 2009). It
allows for the expression of emotions (Barner,
2008), which may be difficult to achieve when ex-
clusively using verbal techniques. Drawing can
help surface tacit or latent constructs (Stiles, 2004).
The exercise of drawing itself and then sharing the
meaning of the drawing can help making implicit
views explicit, thus raising self-awareness of im-
plicit leadership theories.
HOW THE EXERCISE AFFECTS LEARNING
Although we cannot present data here to support
the effectiveness of our exercise, there are several

theoretical reasons why we assume that the exer-
cise affects learning. According to Burgoyne, Hirsh,
and Williams (2004), “there is astonishingly little
evidence on how management and leadership de-
velopment affects individual capability and per-
formance of managers” (38). They argue that there
are several reasons why finding a relationship
between leadership development and perfor-
mance cannot necessarily be expected. First, lead-
ers may not apply the new competencies they have
learned, for example, due to low motivation. Sec-
ond, leaders work in teams, and leader develop-
ment needs to include the ability to build social
capital for leaders to improve performance. Third,
leader development can have personal effects
without leading to performance outcomes. So even
when leaders acquire new competencies or capa-
bilities in the development process, a transfer to
their actual performance or the performance of the
team or company does not necessarily follow.
Therefore, looking solely at performance as an out-
come of leader/leadership development may not
be the best strategy for assessing the effect of
development on leaders.
How, then, do we determine whether our exer-
cise is “successful” in terms of raising self- and
social awareness? Looking at the learning litera-
ture, we find that several aspects that are key to
learning are included in our exercise and make us
confident about the effects the exercise has on our
students. First, as Burgoyne and colleagues (2004)
point out, feedback is key in development. We use
multiple sources of feedback and participants are
able to discuss feedback with those participants
who provided it. Second, our exercise incorporates

several aspects of the experiential learning theory
(Kolb & Kolb, 2005); namely,
• “Learning is best facilitated by a process that
draws out the students’ beliefs and ideas” (194).
In asking students to draw a typical leader,
this exercise is specifically geared toward as-
sessing and making salient beliefs and ideas
about leaders.
• “Conflict, differences, and disagreement are
what drive the learning process” (194). An im-
portant part of the exercise is the discussion
about different images of leaders as an ele-
ment of the drawing process and also in the
larger group when the drawings are presented.
• “Learning is the process of creating knowledge
. . . whereby social knowledge is created and
recreated in the personal knowledge of the
learner” (194). By drawing in groups and dis-
cussing the drawings in the larger groups, the
students are made aware of the images of
leaders that others have (social knowledge)
and are able to integrate this knowledge into
their own knowledge.
EXAMPLES
We have used this drawing exercise over 20 times
in several different contexts over the last few
years. We mostly used the exercise with mature
MBA and MSc students (about 15 times) and in
executive teaching (5 times). We have also used it
in the context of a BA course on leadership (twice).

While the exercise itself has not changed, we did
adapt it to different contexts (see above, e.g., using
“effective leaders” vs. “leaders in general”).
Figures 1–3 illustrate implicit leadership theo-
ries drawings from three different cultural groups.
Figure 1 shows the drawing from a group of United
States students, indicating implicit leadership the-
ories typical of “focus on leader,” highlighting his/
her skills, characteristics and behaviors. Figure 2
portrays the drawing of a Far-East Asian group. In
their presentation, the students highlighted that to
FIGURE 1
Prototypical Drawing With Focus on Leader
Skills, Characteristics, and Behaviors (United
States students). “An effective leader needs to be
all these things at once.”
be effective leaders need to be looking out not only
for the well-being of their employees, but also of
their employees’ families. Figure 3 exemplifies the
process that can lay behind the implicit leadership
theories of effective leaders, involving many par-
ties (e.g., shareholders, here Unions, represented
by the octopus reaching out from the sea, or market
forces, represented by the waves and weather). In
contrast to the first two drawings, the third draw-
ing describes leadership as effective, although the

leader is not the most central figure but just one of
many important contributors in the leadership pro-
cess. Also of interest was that the characteristics
attributed to effective leaders were similar in
many drawings (e.g., passionate, charismatic, in-
spiring); however, the context in which leadership
is “carried out” and “interpreted” varies consider-
ably.
When presenting and discussing the drawing,
different groups’ implicit leadership theories are
contrasted, for example, by comparing different
drawings and highlighting similarities. Here, we
often see that the topic of “charisma” appears in
drawings even across different cultures, which is
in line with the results of the Global Leadership
and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE)
study (e.g., House et al., 2002). The advantage of
using this exercise as a group exercise (for a sim-
ilar approach see Barner, 2008), is that it is often
useful to ask students to what extent they found it
easy or difficult to agree within their group to high-
light individual differences. At the same time, in-
structors should highlight that these images can
be influenced by social contexts (here, we intro-
duced culture as a social context).
In our example, we could see that the presenta-
tion and discussion of drawings is a vital part of
the exercise, as it often exposes very deeply rooted
assumptions. For example, it is striking that draw-
ings like the one depicted in Figure 1 often get
challenged on the aspects that are represented
(e.g., does an effective leader have to be “selfish”),
but very rarely are questions asked regarding their
absence of followers in the drawing.

The drawing in Figure 2, however, was strongly
challenged by the North American group. One par-
ticipant was particularly struck by the drawing,
nearly incredulous: “You cannot be serious, how
can it be the role of effective leaders to look after
the families of employees?” The discussion that
followed made clear just how deeply rooted cul-
tural assumptions about leadership are. Figure 3 is
a good example of drawings that highlight even
more of the context in which effective leaders are
seen to operate. In this drawing, an effective
leader is portrayed as only one of the key factors in
the leadership process. The leader is literally in
the same boat with the followers, and the system
(boat) is kept afloat by a whole series of processes
and forces (leader, followers, markets, unions, and
economy).
In the following, we discuss links between the
implicit leadership drawing exercise and leader
and leadership development, in particular the
FIGURE 2
Drawing Highlighting a Wider Societal Purpose
of Leadership in Relationship to Followers (Far-
East Asian students). “An effective leader is
responsible for employees’ and their families’
well-being.”
FIGURE 3
Excerpt of a Drawing Describing Different Power
Relations Within the Leadership Process in a

Wider Organizational and Societal Context (Latin
students). “An effective leader is in the same
boat with the followers and is just one aspect of
the leadership process.”
ways in which the exercise helps to raise self- and
social awareness; affects (leader and follower)
cognition, motivation, and behavior; and shapes
leader identities (in followers).
LINKING THE EXERCISE BACK TO LEADER AND
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
Our exercise is aimed at raising awareness by
making implicit knowledge explicit. It consists of
several parts that are geared toward raising
awareness about students’ implicit leadership the-
ories and how these are similar to, or differ from,
others’ implicit leadership theories, as well as the
implications arising from this knowledge. An ad-
vantage of using a drawing method of teaching is
that the students directly experience the prevail-
ing differences themselves, rather than merely be-
ing told about them. By provoking conflict, differ-
ences, and disagreements to the way of thinking,
the exercise stimulates learning (in the Kolb &
Kolb sense), and many students experience a “Eu-
reka!” moment when they realize how differently
leaders and leadership are constructed, and how
this may impact on the daily leadership processes.

For the Good or the Bad Interactive Effects of Transformation.docx

For the Good or the Bad Interactive Effects of Transformation.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to For the Good or the Bad Interactive Effects of Transformation.docx

Similar to For the Good or the Bad Interactive Effects of Transformation.docx (20)

More from AKHIL969626

More from AKHIL969626 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

For the Good or the Bad Interactive Effects of Transformation.docx