This document discusses a study that examines transformational and transactional leadership styles in martial arts coaches. The study tested the validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) in assessing leadership behaviors of 186 martial arts students' perceptions of their coaches. The results supported a nine-factor structure of the MLQ-5X, including scales for transformational, transactional, and non-leadership behaviors. While transactional leadership predicted leader effectiveness, transformational leadership explained additional variance and provided unique predictive ability beyond transactional leadership alone. This lends further support to the idea that transformational leadership has an "augmentation effect" in predicting leader effectiveness. The results provide insight into assessing distinct leadership styles of coaches

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uasp20
Download by: [Bahria University] Date: 06 January 2016, At: 02:27
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 (Print) 1533-1571 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasp20
Transformational and Transactional Leadership in
Martial Arts
Jens Rowold
To cite this article: Jens Rowold (2006) Transformational and Transactional
Leadership in Martial Arts, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18:4, 312-325, DOI:
10.1080/10413200600944082
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200600944082
Published online: 24 Feb 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1261
View related articles
Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

2. JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 18: 312–325, 2006
Copyright © Association for Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200600944082
Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Martial Arts
JENS ROWOLD
Universit¨at M¨unster
This study sought to provide information about both the range and effectiveness of distinct lead-
ership styles of sport coaches. Examining students’ perceptions (N = 186) of sport coaches’
leadership behaviors in a martial arts setting, this study tested the factorial validity of the Mul-
tifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X), the standard instrument for assessing a range of
transformational, transactional, and nonleadership scales. The results supported a nine-factor
structure of the MLQ-5X, confirming recent empirical analyses (Antonakis, Avolio, & Siva-
subramaniam, 2003). Although transactional leadership was significantly related to leaders’
effectiveness, transformational leadership added unique variance beyond that of transactional
leadership for predicting leader effectiveness. This lends further support for the augmentation
effect of transformational leadership. In combination, the results allow for a more thorough
description of sport coaches’ effective leadership behaviors.
In the past three decades, substantial progress has been made in the identification of sport
coaches’ leadership styles (Horn, 2002; Sullivan & Kent, 2003). For example, Smoll and Smith
(1989) proposed that athletes’ cognitive processes mediate the relationship between coaches’
behaviors and athletes’ satisfaction. Based on their cognitive-mediational model, the Coaching
Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) was developed. This system primarily focuses on the
assessment, training, and (post-training) re-assessment of feedback and instructional comments
that coaches provide. Studies using the CBAS showed significant links between coaches’
feedback patterns and athletes’ self-esteem, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, and
satisfaction. In addition, it was found that the training changed coaches’ feedback patterns,
and, in turn, enhanced athletes’ satisfaction.
Furthermore, Chelladurai (1990) elaborated the Multidimensional Model of Leadership.
For the assessment of several components of the model, the Leadership Scale for Sports
(LSS) was developed (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). It allows for the assessment of five specific
dimensions of coaches’ behaviors (i.e., leadership styles) from the coaches’ and from the
athletes’ perspective. Empirical research provided evidence that several dimensions of the LSS
are significantly related to athletes’ satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, perceived competence,
and performances (Chelladurai, 1993).
The CBAS and the LSS are two examples of how theoretical and empirical research has
advanced scientific as well as practical knowledge about coaches’ leadership behaviors (see
Received 16 August 2004; accepted 14 September 2005
The assistance of J. Moeritz in data collection is gratefully acknowledged. The author would like to
thank the Associate Editor, two anonymous reviewers, W. Hell, and T. Stumpp for constructive criticism
on earlier drafts of this paper.
Address correspondence to Jens Rowold, Psychologisches Institut II, Universit¨at M¨unster, Fliednerstr.
21, 48149 M¨unster, Germany. E-mail: rowold@psy.uni-muenster.de
312
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

3. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 313
Chelladurai, 1990; Horn, 2002, for reviews). However, several other possible leadership styles
may have been untapped by research (Horn, 2002). More specifically, while transformational
and transactional leadership styles have been explored in various settings, their application to
the field of sports has been very limited (Yukl, 2002). As a consequence, the present study
explores these leadership styles within the domain of sports. First, the theory of transforma-
tional and transactional leadership is described. Next, its relevance for the field of sports is
discussed. Central to this point is the question how specific leadership styles help coaches to
boost athletes’ motivation, satisfaction, and, ultimately, performances. Finally, empirical data
are presented that demonstrate the range and effectiveness of coaches’ transformational and
transactional leadership styles.
The Transformational–Transactional Leadership Paradigm
Burns (1978) first drew a distinction between transactional and transformational leader-
ship. Within transactional leadership, leaders clearly outline tasks and how they should be
performed. Followers agree to complete the assignments in exchange for commensurate ma-
terial or psychological compensation (e.g., recognition, awards). After outlining tasks and
rewards, the leader passively monitors how the task is performed by the subordinates. In con-
trast, transformational leaders have the ability to inspire followers to go beyond expected levels
of commitment and contribution. This inspirational process relies on emphasizing task-related
values and a strong commitment to a mission. Mission statements communicate the transfor-
mational leader’s long-term vision which is rooted in common-shared values. Ultimately, the
formulation, communication, and representation of a long-term vision transforms followers’
attitudes. Moreover, followers are motivated to look beyond their own interests toward those
that will benefit the group. Another mechanism of transformational leadership is that followers
are stimulated to view their tasks or challenges from new perspectives (Bass, 1985).
Over the last 20 years, Bass and his colleagues (Bass, 1985, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 2000)
have made considerable efforts to define and assess the aspects of transactional and transfor-
mational leadership. In order to develop a full range of leadership behaviors, several aspects
of transformational and transactional leadership were included in the standard instrument for
measurement of transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-
5X; Bass & Avolio, 2000). In its current form, the full range leadership theory represents
nine leadership factors comprised of five transformational leadership factors, three transac-
tional leadership factors, and one nonleadership or laissez-faire leadership factor (Antonakis,
Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 2000). What follows
is a brief description of these factors.
The first transformational scale is called Inspirational Motivation. Central to this subscale
of transformational leadership is the articulation and representation of a vision. Consequently,
being encouraged to view the future with a positive attitude, followers are motivated. Idealized
Influence-Attributed refers to the attribution of the leader’s charisma. Because of the leader’s
positive attributes (e.g., perceived power, focusing on higher-order ideals, values), followers
develop close emotional ties to the leader. Trust and confidence are likely to be built in the
followers. Idealized Influence-Behavior emphasizes a collective sense of mission and values,
as well as acting upon these values. Next, Intellectual Stimulation includes challenging the
assumptions of followers’ beliefs, their analysis of problems, and solutions they generate to
solve these problems. Individualized Consideration is defined as considering the followers’
individual needs and developing their individual strengths.
As for the transactional leadership scales, Contingent Reward is a leadership behavior where
the leader focuses on clearly defined tasks, while providing followers with rewards (material
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

4. 314 J. ROWOLD
or psychological) for the fulfillment of these tasks. In Active Management-by-Exception, the
leader watches and actively searches for deviations from rules and standards in order to avoid
these deviations; if necessary, corrective actions are taken. In contrast, in Management-by-
Exception Passive intervention only occurs after errors have been detected or if standards have
not been met. An even more passive approach is Laissez-Faire, which is basically defined as
the absence of leadership. As such, laissez-faire is considered as a nonleadership behavior
contrasting the more active forms of transformational and transactional leadership.
Empirical research underlines the importance of assessing a broad range of different and
distinct aspects of leaders’ behaviors in order to analyze the differences between effective
and ineffective leaders in greater detail (Avolio, 1999) and to identify the key components
of successful leadership behavior (Avolio & Bass, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam,
1996). The MLQ-5X is a valid instrument for assessing several distinct aspects of leadership
and represents the instrument of choice for testing hypotheses concerning a range of leadership
styles, as well as for development and feedback purposes (Antonakis & House, 2002).
Effects of Transformational Leadership
The relevance of transformational and transactional leadership becomes apparent when
empirical results focusing on the relationships between transformational and transactional
leadership styles, respectively, and organizational outcomes are considered. For example, in
a meta-analysis by Lowe et al. (1996), transformational leadership was found to predict both
subjective (e.g., followers’ satisfaction) and objective (e.g., profit) indicators of leaders’ effec-
tiveness across a wide range of organizational settings. In contrast, these relationships were
typically weak and insignificant for transactional leadership. Laissez-Faire showed negative
relationships to outcome criteria.
The positive impact of transformational leadership on various facets of performance and
on followers’ satisfaction augments the impact of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985). In sta-
tistical terms, transformational leadership adds unique variance beyond that of transactional
leadership for predicting outcome criteria. This augmentation effect has been confirmed in
various settings (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass, &
Yammarino, 1990) and is the key component of the external validity of transformational lead-
ership. The augmentation effect is tested by applying hierarchical regression analysis. First,
the impact of transactional and nonleadership scales on the dependent measure is tested. In a
second step, the transformational leadership scales are included in the regression equation. The
augmentation effect is confirmed if the transformational leadership scales explain additional
variance in the outcome measure (Waldman et al., 1990).
Transformational Leadership in Sports
Summarizing the literature, Bass (1997) claimed that transformational leadership represents
a universal phenomenon. For example, transformational leadership has been proven to have a
positive impact on organizational performance and followers’ satisfaction in a wide range of
different organizations such as profit- and nonprofit organizations (Fuller, Patterson, Hester,
& Stringer, 1996; Lowe et al., 1996), in educational contexts (Harvey, Royal, & Stout, 2003),
the church (Druskat, 1994), the military (Bass, 1998), and sports management (Davis, 2002;
Ristow, Amos, & Staude, 1999).
In addition, it is important to study the transformational leadership of sport coaches, for
three main reasons. First, as was described above, transformational leadership has been proven
valid for our comprehension of leadership in a wide range of organizations. Second, as trans-
formational leadership has been found to be closely associated with outcome criteria such as
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

5. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 315
followers’ performance and motivation, it seems valuable to learn more about the effects of
this approach to leadership in the sports domain. Third, especially the augmentation effect
seems to be particularly promising in order to learn more about effective leadership strategies
for sport coaches (Lim & Cromartie, 2001). Taken together, transformational leadership is a
useful approach to study sport coaches’ leadership behaviors, as has been suggested by Jones
(2002) and other researchers (Hsu, Bell, & Cheng, 2002; Lim & Cromartie, 2001; Weese,
1994). While these scholars examined the subject of transformational leadership theoretically,
empirical studies are rare.
To our knowledge, only two empirical studies using transformational leadership to describe
sport coaches’ leadership behaviors were conducted. First, using a developmental approach,
Zacharatos, Barling, and Kelloway (2000) examined the impact of adolescents’ leadership
styles on subjective performance measures within team sports. Adolescents who employed
transformational leadership were rated as more effective, satisfying, and effort-evoking by
their peers and coaches. However, this empirical investigation combined several aspects of
transformational leadership into one single scale of transformational leadership, limiting the
results. Moreover, the mean age (15.2 years) of the participants further limits the results.
Second, Charbonneau, Barling, and Kelloway (2001) reported a model of sports perfor-
mance of university athletes. Students’ intrinsic motivation moderated the relationship between
coaches’ transformational leadership and students’ sports performances. As in the Zacharatos
et al. (2000) study, the age of participants was young, ranging between 17 and 22 years. The re-
sults were further limited because of the use of a single, combined measure of transformational
leadership. Subscales of transformational leadership, as well as transactional leadership, were
omitted from analyses. Given the high impact transformational leadership has on important
outcomes such as performance and followers’ satisfaction, the limited number of empirical
research studies is surprising.
Effective Leadership in Recreational Sports
In this section, we will deal with the explication of performance measures of effective sport
coaches. The present study examined sport coaches’ leadership behaviors in recreational sports.
It has been stated elsewhere (Hawkins & Tolzin, 2002) that sport is an example of postmodern
organizations.Thisistrueforrecreationalsports,too(Mathews,1987).Duetoreducedfinancial
support from governmental agencies and dynamic situational contingencies, sport coaches have
to stay flexible in order to lead successfully (Lim & Cromartie, 2001; Stobart & Johnson, 1991).
In this regard, they face the same challenges as leaders in other nonprofit organizations (Egri &
Herman, 2000). In accordance to Zacharatos et al. (2000), several distinct and representational
components of leaders’ effectiveness in recreational sports are defined. First, leaders have to
be effective in meeting organizational requirements (e.g., administration, supplies). Second,
leaders have to ensure a high degree of members’ satisfaction. Third, especially in recreational
sports which include competition, coaches help members to develop their physical and mental
abilities and to continuously expand their performance efforts. The last two components of
effective leadership will result in satisfied members who experience a higher degree of quality
of life (due to continuous development of physical capacities). This, in turn, will extend
members’ tenures, which is important for the survival of recreational sport clubs (Mathews,
1987). Fourth, the frequency of members’ attendance at training sessions per month is defined
as an indicator of their effort and their high commitment to their respective sport (Stobart
& Johnson, 1991). In combination, these four components defined coaching effectiveness for
the purpose of the present study. It is acknowledged, however, that other components—which
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

6. 316 J. ROWOLD
were beyond the scope of the present study—are important for our comprehension of effective
coaching, too (for a review of this issue, cf. Horn, 2002).
Theory suggests that these performance measures are influenced not only by sport coaches’
behaviors, but also by a number of additional variables. Most notably, coaches’ and athletes’
demographic characteristics such as age and gender should be taken into account. For example,
in Smoll and Smith’s (1989) cognitive-mediational model, these variables were discussed
in regards to their relevance for explaining athletes’ evaluative reactions to their coaches’
behaviors. In addition, Magill (1994) provided empirical evidence that the effectiveness of
coaches’ behaviors varied as a function of athletes’ skill levels. More specifically, experienced
athletes needed different kinds of feedback than novice athletes.
It is reasonable to assume that not only athletes’, but also coaches’, skill levels have an
effect on the evaluation of coaches’ leadership behaviors. More experienced coaches might
possess more positive attributes. In addition, behaviors exerted by more experienced coaches
might be more credible and more valuable to the athletes and thus have a stronger positive
impact on the evaluation of leadership behavior. In sum, while coaches’ leadership behaviors
are important for the explanation of the performance measures discussed above, these control
variables should be taken into account (Horn, 2002).
STUDY GOALS
The present study aimed at extending previous research in two ways. First, it tested if sport
coaches’ behaviors can be described by nine transformational, transactional, and nonleadership
scales (Antonakis et al., 2003). Thus, the complete set of MLQ-5X items was implemented
in a set of sport organizations. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine whether
the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X provided an adequate fit to sport coaches’ leadership
behaviors.
Second, this study tested which leadership styles are related to four criteria of coaching
effectiveness. From the review of the literature discussed above it can be proposed that trans-
formational leadership styles are significantly and positively related to coaching effectiveness.
Regression analysis was used to test if the augmentation effect proved to be valid in the field
of sport coaches’ leadership. In the first step of the regression analysis, control variables (i.e.,
students’ and coaches’ demographic variables and skill levels) were included in the regression.
Next, transactional and nonleadership measures were included to test their effect on the re-
spective outcome measure. Finally, the augmenting effect of transformational leadership was
tested by including transformational leadership scales in the last step of the regression analy-
sis. Because transformational leadership scales were included in the last step of the regression
analysis, their influence on outcome criteria is tested in a rigorous way.
Providing future researchers with a broad range of leadership behavior descriptions for
feedback and training purposes, it was hoped that these two extensions to previous research
would yield a more complete, more valid, and more useful understanding of the leadership
process and its impact on effectiveness measures.
METHOD
The study focused on martial arts sport clubs (traditional karate) for three reasons. First,
within traditional karate, the leadership role is clearly defined and highly visible. The sport
coach (sensei) represents a role model and provides clearly defined examples of required
behavior to the students of martial arts (e.g., new physical capabilities like moves). In the
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

7. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 317
present study, the terms sensei and coach are used synonymously. Second, traditional karate
requires the student (karateka) to learn a variety of skills and knowledge from the coach. This
includes physical (Columbus & Rice, 1998), mental (Seitz, Olson, Locke, & Quam, 1990),
emotional (Layton, 1990), and philosophical (Sylvia & Pindur, 1978) skills and knowledge.
This provides a basis for a multilayered relationship between coach and student. Third, karate
organizations have a well-defined hierarchy, where students as well as coaches have highly
visible ranks. The rank is in turn related to the respective skill level: Novice students occupy
a lower rank, which is demonstrated by the color of their belt. The novice students advance
from white belt (which corresponds to their 9th grade or Kyu), to yellow (8th Kyu), orange (7th
Kyu), green (6th Kyu), blue (5th Kyu), and purple (4th Kyu) belt. Advanced students wear one
of three possible brown belts (3rd to 1st grade or Kyu, respectively). Masters of martial arts
are easy to recognize by their black belts (ranging from 1st black belt or Dan up to 9th black
belt). This strong prevalence of hierarchy pervades the organizational climate of karate sport
clubs and also each training session, which makes karate ideal to study leadership phenomena
(cf. Sylvia & Pindur, 1978).
Sample Description
Questionnaires were administered by a member of the research team to a random sample
of 200 students of martial arts who belonged to one of 20 martial arts sport clubs located
in a variety of cities in northern Germany. It was explained that the project was conducted
purely for research; anonymity was assured. This resulted in a 95% response rate; however,
after missing data were accounted for, a sample of 186 resulted.
Thirty-six percent of the participants were female and 64% were male; the mean age was
32 years (SD = 12 years). Twenty-two percent practiced martial arts for less than a year, 45%
practiced for 1–5 years, and 33% practiced between 5 and 10 years. Of these participants,
50% were advanced students (4th rank (Kyu) or higher). Participants provided demographic
information about their respective sport coaches. Twenty percent of the coaches were female
and 80% were male. Coaches’ ages were not known to more than 16% of the participants, so
this variable was dropped from the analysis. The coaches ranged from first black belt (1st Dan,
6%), 2nd Dan (21%), 3rd Dan (26%), and 4th Dan (30%) to fifth black belt (5th Dan, 17%).
Measures
Leadership Behaviors
To assess the coaches’ leadership behaviors, the MLQ-5X (Bass & Avolio, 2000) was used.
All of the MLQ-5X items were carefully translated from English to German by a professional
and then backtranslated by an English native speaker, both experts in the field of organizational
psychology (Brislin, 1980). The comparison of the two English translations yielded virtually
no differences. Next, the German items were slightly modified to reflect the students’ positions
in sports (Rowold, 2004).1
Students judged how often their respective coach displayed the
behavior identified. A five-point response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree) was utilized.
1
Research Edition Translation performed by Dr. Jens Rowold on July 7, 2004. Translated and re-
produced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., Redwood City, CA 94061
www.mindgarden.com from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by Bernhard M Bass
and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernhard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. All rights reserved.
Further reproduction is prohibited without the Publisher’s written consent.
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

8. 318 J. ROWOLD
Dependent Measures
Four measures of coaching effectiveness were outlined in the introduction. Consequently,
this paragraph presents the rationale for the selection of four indicators. Like in the Zacharatos
et al. (2000) study, students were asked to rate the Effectiveness of coaches’ behaviors (EFF),
their Satisfaction (SAT) with their respective coach, and their Extra Effort (EEF). These 3-item
scales ranged from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) and are part of the standardized MLQ-5X (Bass
& Avolio, 2000). Empirical research has provided consistent evidence for high validity and
reliability of these three dependent measures (Avolio & Bass, 2004). In addition, respondents
indicated their training effort, defined as the Frequency of Training per Month (FTM). The
scale ranged from one (up to two times a month) to five (more than eight times a month).
Finally, participants provided demographic information about themselves and their respective
coach.
Analysis
The first main objective of the present study was to test the factorial validity of the MLQ-5X
in the sports domain. While the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X described above is the most
recent (Antonakis et al., 2003), other research has found support for varying models (Tejeda,
Scandura, & Pillai, 2001). Thus, the MLQ has been criticized for problems with its factorial
validity (Den Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997). In addition to the nine-factor model, a six-factor
model is well established (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000). It combines the first three factors
of transformational leadership (Inspirational Motivation, Idealized Influence-Attributed and
Idealized Influence-Behavior) into a single scale labeled Charisma. In addition, it combines
the scales of Management-by-Exception Passive and Laissez-Faire into a single scale labeled
Passive-Avoidant. The nine-factor and the six-factor model are the two most common models
for describing a full range of transformational, transactional, and nonleadership behaviors by
means of the MLQ-5X.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8 (J¨oreskog & S¨orbom, 1993) was used
to test the factorial validity of the MLQ-5X. This approach was chosen because it was sought
to confirm the superiority of one of two competing models, the six-factor vs. the nine-factor
model (Heck, 1998). In CFA, various fit indices may be used to evaluate whether a specified
model fits the empirical data (Kline, 1998). In the present study, the following indices were
computed. First, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was used, which
takes sample size as well as the degrees of freedom into account. Values lower than .08 indicate
an adequate fit of the data (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Second, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
as an approximate fit index was calculated (Bentler, 1990). Third, the Non-Normed Fit Index
(NNFI) was used in addition to the CFI. Given appropriate sample sizes, both the CFI and the
NNFI are valid for comparing different factorial models (Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 2001). If both
the CFI and the NNFI exceed values of .90, the data show an adequate fit to the respective
model (Bentler, 1990). Fourth, because it has been suggested that the Akaike Information
Criteria (AIC) is useful to compare the fit of two competing models (where models with a
lower AIC indicate a better fit to the data; Akaike, 1987; Kline, 1998), this index was included
in the analysis. Taken together, these four fit indices provide information in order to evaluate
competing first-order CFA models. In addition, the incremental chi-square (i.e., the likelihood
ratio test) was used to decide if one model fits the data significantly better than another model
(Hoyle, 1995).
Hierarchical regression analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2002) were conducted
to test the augmentation hypotheses. Prior to analyses, examination of the data showed that
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

9. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 319
Table 1
LISREL 8 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Model χ2 df AIC NNFI CFI RMSEA ∆χ2 ∆ df
Null-model 7545 630 7617 NA NA NA 6577∗∗∗ 72
Six-factor model 1092 573 1278 0.91 0.92 0.069 124∗∗∗ 15
Nine-factor model 968 558 1148 0.93 0.93 0.062
Note. NA = not available; χ2 was calculated by subtracting model χ2 from that of the nine-factor model;
likewise, d f was calculated by subtracting model df from that of the nine-factor model.
∗∗∗ p < .001.
they upheld the assumptions for CFA and regression analysis (multicollinearity, normality; cf.
Bollen, 1989).
RESULTS
Confirmatory Factor Analyses were performed to test the factor structure of the MLQ-5X.
(Table 1). Although the fit indices of the nine-factor model were better, both the six-factor and
the nine-factor model indicated an adequate fit (i.e., the RMSEA was below .08 and the CFI and
NNFI were above .90; cf. Antonakis et al., 2003). However, both the AIC and the incremental
chi-square supported the nine-factor model (i.e., the AIC was lower for the nine-factor model
and the chi-square was significant). These results were in line with a recent large-scale analysis
of the factorial validity of the MLQ-5X (Antonakis et al., 2003). Consequently, the nine-factor
model of the MLQ-5X was used for further analysis.
Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the measures are
displayed in Table 2. Reliabilities were within the acceptable range (.60 < α < .74). As the
scales analyzed included four or less items, α values higher than .60 are acceptable (cf. Cortina,
1993). However, because of the unsatisfactory internal consistency (α = .45) of Management-
by-Exception Passive, this scale was excluded from further analyses.
Consistent with previous literature (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000), Contingent Reward
was positively associated with transformational leadership scales. To a lower degree, Active
Management-by-Exception was also correlated to the transactional scales. However, Laissez-
Faire was negatively correlated with the transformational scales, providing limited support for
the divergent validity of the MLQ-5X. The high intercorrelations among the transformational
scales have been reported by other researchers (Tejeda et al., 2001; Vandenberghe, Stordeur, &
D’hoore, 2002). However, the intercorrelations in the present study (.38 < r < .63) were lower
than those reported in the MLQ-5X manual (.74 < r < .82; Bass & Avolio, 2000, p. 39), in
meta-analysis (.68 < r < .85; Lowe et al., 1996), or in empirical research (.84 < r < .93; Van-
denberghe et al., 2002). In sum, the relatively low intercorrelations among the transformational
scales of the MLQ-5X used in our study provided further evidence for the factorial validity of
the MLQ-5X (Antonakis et al., 2003). Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test
the augmentation hypotheses. For each dependent measure, the independent measures were
entered into the regression in three successive steps. First, demographic information and skill
level of both the students and the coaches were entered. It is important to note that it was
controlled for rank (i.e., the status of students’ belts). The rank is an indicator of students’ skill
levels. Second, transactional and nonleadership scales were entered into the regression. In the
third step, the transformational scales were included. For each step, the amount of variance
explained is reported, as is a test of significant change in variance explained between each step.
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

10. 320 J. ROWOLD
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations
for Key Study Variables (N = 186)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Transformational leadership
1. IM 3.61 0.79 (.73)
2. IIa 4.05 0.68 .63 (.70)
3. IIb 3.77 0.77 .47 .48 (.72)
4. IS 3.90 0.64 .53 .63 .58 (.67)
5. IC 3.80 0.61 .43 .61 .38 .56 (.70)
Transactional and nonleadership
6. CR 3.90 0.65 .63 .62 .50 .58 .55 (.62)
7. AMbE 3.79 0.73 .34 .45 .34 .45 .39 .51 (.71)
8. MbEP 2.24 0.73 .00 −.22 −.02 −.13 −.03 −.10 .04 (.45)
9. LF 1.57 0.63 −.18 −.24 −.08 −.26 −.29 −.24 −.15 .46 (.64)
Dependent measures
10. EEF 4.01 0.77 .57 .58 .29 .43 .44 .52 .28 −.13 −.27 (.74)
11. EFF 3.98 0.71 .63 .73 .45 .64 .65 .54 .39 −.19 −.27 .64 (.78)
12. SAT 4.35 0.67 .52 .67 .35 .56 .66 .51 .41 −.15 −.39 .52 .67 (.60)
13. FTM 4.09 1.08 −.12 .00 .05 .00 −.11 −.12 −.10 .01 .05 −.07 −.14 −.05 —
Note. IM = Inspirational Motivation; IIa = Idealized Influence-Attributed; IIb = Idealized Influence-Behavior;
IS = Intellectual Stimulation; IC = Individualized Consideration; CR = Contingent Reward; AMbE = Active
Management by Exception; MbEP = Management by Exception Passive; LF = Laissez-Faire. EEF = Extra Effort;
EFF = Effectiveness; SAT= Satisfaction; FTM = Frequency of training per month; Values along the diagonal in
parentheses are internal consistency reliability estimates.
All r > .22: p < .05; all r > .18: p < .01.
As can be seen in Table 3, for each dependent measure, demographic variables and transac-
tional leadership scales (as well as Laissez-Faire) each accounted for a significant amount of
variance. As predicted, the transformational scales added unique variance with the dependent
measures. The exception was the training effort of students (FTM), which could be predicted
by students’ ranks and one transformational leadership scale (Idealized Influence-Behavior).
However, the results generally supported the augmentation hypotheses.
A closer look at Table 3 revealed some patterns of relationship between certain leadership
scales and dependent measures. In sum, transactional and nonleadership scales were unre-
lated or negatively related to the dependent measures. In contrast, transformational leadership
scales were generally positively associated with measures of leaders’ effectiveness. Inspira-
tional Motivation, Idealized Influence-Attributed, and Individualized Consideration showed
the strongest impact on dependent measures. FTM was significantly predicted by Idealized
Influence-Behavior. In sum, the applied measures of leadership allowed for valid prediction
of leaders’ effectiveness, a fact which is highlighted by a relatively high amount of variance
explained.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was twofold. First, it was tested if a broad range of transfor-
mational, transactional, and nonleadership behaviors were a valid description of sport coaches’
leadership behaviors. The results support the nine-factor model of leadership, as measured
by the MLQ-5X. In addition, this provides further support for the universality of the trans-
formational and transactional leadership paradigm. Second, it was tested if transformational
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

11. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 321
Table 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Results (N = 186)
Dependent measure
EEF EFF SAT FTM
Demographics
Student age −.05 .04 .02 −.12
Student gender −.04 .07 .02 .11
Student rank .11 .00 −.03 .24∗∗
Coach gender .03 −.07 −.05 .09
Coach rank .06 .07 .04 .08
R2 .06 .10∗∗ .06∗ .12∗∗
Transactional- and Nonleadership
CR .17∗ −.08 −.04 −.10
AMbE −.03 .00 .07 −.12
LF −.12∗ −.04 −.17∗∗ −.03
R2 .34 .38 .39 .14
R2 .28∗∗ .28∗∗ .33∗∗ .02
Transformational leadership
IM .30∗∗ .25∗∗ .13 −.14
IIa .24∗∗ .30∗∗ .31∗∗ .07
IIb −.09 .00 −.05 .18∗
IS .00 .19∗∗ .09 .07
IC .10 .25∗∗ .32∗∗ −.11
Total R2 .47 .67 .60 .17
R2 .13∗∗ .29∗∗ .21∗∗ .03
Note.IM=InspirationalMotivation;IIa=IdealizedInfluence-Attributed;IIb=IdealizedInfluence-
Behavior; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; IC = Individualized Consideration; AMbE = Active Man-
agement by Exception; LF = Laissez-Faire; EEF = Extra Effort; EFF = Effectiveness; SAT=
Satisfaction, FTM = Frequency of training per month; Gender coding: male = 0; female = 1.
∗∗ p < .01; ∗ p < .05.
leadership scales accounted for unique variance in sport coaches’ leadership effectiveness
beyond that of transactional and nonleadership scales. While controlling for students’ and
coaches’ demographic variables and skill levels, this augmentation hypothesis was confirmed
for three of the four dependent measures.
Full Range
While the results support the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X, they are preliminary.
They can be seen as a first insight into the variety of transformational, transactional and
nonleadership behaviors of sport coaches. In contrast to earlier studies (Charbonneau et al.,
2001; Zacharatos et al., 2000), subjects’ ages ranged from 13–70 years (M = 32; SD = 12),
providing a more representative sample. Further researchers can build upon these results by
assessing more distinct leadership styles simultaneously, yielding a more complete description
of leaders’ behaviors. This, in turn, may result in a more differentiated picture of leadership
processes within sports. Although the present study identifies a broad spectrum of leadership
styles, other leadership styles, which have been addressed by other scholars (Smoll & Smith,
1989; Chelladurai, 1990), may be important for our understanding of sport coaches’ leadership
behaviors. Far more research is needed before concluding that a “full range” of sport coaches’
leadership styles has been identified (Yukl, 1999).
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

12. 322 J. ROWOLD
It is interesting to speculate about the high intercorrelations between Active Management-
by-Exception and the transformational leadership scales. In sports and training session setting,
Active Management-by-Exception is quite elementary. The coach watches out for students’
mistakes and takes corrective actions to help them improve their physical abilities. Thus, Active
Management-by-Exception mirrors one of trainings’ main functions: to help students improve
by wielding out their mistakes. We propose that Active Management-by-Exception is an im-
portant leadership skill for sport coaches. Moreover, it might be seen as a prerequisite for
transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), because only coaches who detect students’ mistakes
are able to help them to correct these mistakes; while doing this, they interact with students
directly and, therefore, have a better chance to transform their values, as proposed in transfor-
mational leadership theory (Avolio & Bass, 2002). In sum, Active Management-by-Exception
is a valid description of sport coaches’ active behaviors within the training context. Trans-
formational sport coaches build on Active Management-by-Exception in order to add to their
transformational leadership influencing strategies (Bass, 1985).
Effectiveness
Regression analyses resulted in a pattern of relationships between coaches’ leadership
styles and effectiveness. The impact transactional and nonleadership scales had on leaders’
effectiveness was clearly augmented by the impact of transformational leadership behaviors.
Thus, the augmentation effect of transformational leadership was confirmed. These results are
in line with previous research (Lowe et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 1990).
These results, can help sport coaches to optimize their leadership role. A closer inspection
of Table 3 reveals that in the martial arts setting, Inspirational Motivation in particular as
well as Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) are important for effective leadership.
Interestingly, these effects were observed while controlling for demographic variables as well
as students’ and coaches’ skill levels.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The present study is limited by several factors. First, the research study was implemented
within a single sport setting, i.e., martial arts. More samples in diverse sports are needed for
validation of the results. As the research design was cross-sectional, a longitudinal design
seems warranted to provide stronger support for causal linkages between leadership and ef-
fectiveness measures. The limited internal consistency of one of the transactional leadership
scales (Management-by-Exception Passive) demands further research, also in different sport
settings. At the same time, the factorial validity of the MLQ-5X (nine leadership scales) has
to be reconfirmed (Tejeda et al., 2001). Finally, the study relied on data from a single source
(students of martial arts). To avoid monomethod bias, diverse sources of both leadership and
performance data should be used in future research.
Given the high impact transformational leadership has on performance and followers’ sat-
isfaction, it would be interesting to know if and how it is possible to help coaches to expand
these leadership skills. Although studies in this area are rare, Barling, Weber, and Kelloway
(1996) provided evidence that transformational leadership skills can be trained. However, as
the sample in their study consisted of managers, further research should focus on evaluating
training of sport coaches’ leadership abilities.
Moreover, future research could also link coaches’ leadership behaviors to objective perfor-
mance measures such as students’ contest performances and students’ organizational tenures.
This idea may be very useful within the field of competitive sport. Our results, as well as
research within transformational leadership in general (Bass, 1998), suggest the idea that
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

13. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 323
transformational leadership is likely to help sport coaches to lead in an effective, satisfying
way within competitive sports, too. However, empirical research which includes objective
performance measures is clearly needed.
As a conclusion, the results point to an interesting avenue of research. In contrast to trans-
actional and nonleadership behavior, sport coaches may benefit from transformational lead-
ership behavior. As several distinct outcomes of leaders’ behaviors are positively influenced
by transformational leadership behavior, this field of research is interesting for scientists and
practitioners alike.
REFERENCES
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 332.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the
nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership
Quarterly, 14, 261–295.
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio
& F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: the road ahead (pp. 3–34).
Amsterdam: JAI.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set.
(3rd ed.) Redwood City: Mind Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on
attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827–
832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass,B.M.(1997).Doesthetransactional-transformationalleadershipparadigmtranscendorganizational
and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact. Mahway,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9–32.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Redwood City: Mind
Garden.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Bulletin,
98, 588–606.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In C. Triandis &
J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross Cultural Psychology: Vol. 2 Methodology (pp. 389–444).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468–478.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and pro-
gramming. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports per-
formance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31,
1521–1534.
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

14. 324 J. ROWOLD
Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21,
328–354.
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of
research on sport psychology (pp. 647–671). New York: Macmillian.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a
leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34–45.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Columbus, P. J., & Rice, D. (1998). Phenomenological Meanings of Martial Arts Participation. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 21, 16–30.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.
Davis, D. J. (2002). An analysis of the perceived leadership styles and levels of satisfaction of selected
junior college athletic directors and head coaches. Sport Journal, 5, 27–33.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Van Muijen, J. J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An
analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.
Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the
roman catholic church. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 99–119.
Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the north american environmental sector: Values, leader-
ship styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 571–604.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, S. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on
charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271–287.
Harvey, S., Royal, M., & Stout, D. (2003). Instructors’ transformational leadership: University student
attitudes and ratings. Psychological Reports, 92, 395–402.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.
Hawkins, K., & Tolzin, A. (2002). Examining the team/leader interface. Group & Organization Man-
agement, 27, 97–112.
Heck, R. H. (1998). Factor analysis: exploratory and confirmatory approaches. In G. A. Marcoulides
(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 177–215). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in Sport
Psychology (pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Hsu, C. H., Bell, R. C., & Cheng, D. M. (2002). Transformational leadership and organizational effec-
tiveness in recreational sports/fitness programs. Sport Journal, 5.
Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport and business.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 268–281.
J¨oreskog, K., & S¨orbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software
International Co.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Layton, C. (1990). Anxiety in black-belt and nonblack-belt traditional karateka. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 71, 905–906.
Lim, J. Y., & Cromartie, F. (2001). Transformational leadership, organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness in sport organizations. Sport Journal, 4, 6–10.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational
and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly,
7, 385–425.
Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on characteristics
of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314–327.
Mathews, D. O. (1987). Research and the management of campus recreation. Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 1, 32–36.
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016

15. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP 325
Ristow, A. M., Amos, T. L., & Staude, G. E. (1999). Transformational leadership and organizational
effectiveness in the administration of cricket in South Africa. South African Journal of Business
Management, 30, 1–5.
Rowold, J. (2004). MLQ-5X for sport coaches. German translation and adaptation of Bass & Avolio’s
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City: Mind Garden.
Seitz, F. C., Olson, G. D., Locke, B., & Quam, R. (1990). The martial arts and mental health: The challenge
of managing energy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 464.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behavior in sport: A theoretical model and research
paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522–1551.
Stobart, B., & Johnson, J. (1991). A generation of revenue at college and university intramural-recreational
sport departments with student populations of 5,000 or less. National Intramural Recreational Sports
Association Journal, 16, 47–49.
Sullivan, P. J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in intercollegiate
athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1–11.
Sylvia, R. D., & Pindur, W. (1978). The role of leadership in norm socialization in voluntary organizations.
Journal of Psychology, 100, 226.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited - Psychometric properties and
recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31–52.
Vandenberghe, C., Stordeur, S., & D’hoore, W. (2002). Transactional and transformational leadership
in nursing: Structural validity and substantive relationships. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 18, 16–29.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward behavior—the
augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 15, 381–394.
Weese, W. J. (1994). A leadership discussion with Dr. Bernhard Bass. Journal of Sport Management, 8,
179–189.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership
theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of transformational
leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 211–226.
Downloadedby[BahriaUniversity]at02:2706January2016