Effective Leadership and Organizational Change

Successful Changes May Depend on Leadership Style

© Lucia Jenkins Sep 19, 2009

Selecting the right leadership style to influence the effectiveness of change is important if large organizational change is to be successful.

Effective leadership in the change management process is particularly important because of all the factors involved in organizational change. According to McShane and VonGlinow (2004), a leader must be able to “influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization.” Stabilizing the organization after the change process begins is critical to continued success.

McShane and VonGlinow (2004) outline seven competencies to effective leadership. Those competencies include emotional intelligence, integrity, drive, leadership motivation, self-confidence, intelligence and knowledge of the business. Leaders with this set of competencies and skills should be effective in their leadership ability regardless of the leadership style that they favor

Selecting the Right Leadership Style

Selecting the right leadership style to influence the effectiveness of change is important if large organizational change is to be successful. Different leadership styles to consider include

visionary/inspirational leaders, commanding leaders, situational leaders, people-oriented and task-oriented leaders. The right leadership style might change as the situation changes within an organization.

A visionary/inspirational leadership style should be used when a leader is trying to move people towards a shared dream. However, a coaching leadership style might be used to effectively connect what a person wants with organizational goals. A commanding leadership style gives clear direction and is useful in cases of emergency. The situational leadership model suggests that leaders change their style of leadership based on how ready their followers seems to be.

When drastic organizational changes are involved, having leaders who are people-oriented as opposed to task-oriented will be better able to anticipate the needs of the employees as they motivate and enable them to change. Also, by using Kurt Lewin’s three-stage model for change which involves initiating change (unfreezing), managing the change (changing) and then stabilizing the change (refreezing), a leader can effectively manage the change process and the employees involved in the change.

Steps for Leading Change

Kreitner and Kinicki (2004) outline John Kotter’s eight steps for leading organizational change as another model to follow when attempting to manage the change process. Kotter suggests establishing a sense of urgency, empowering groups of people to lead the change, and developing a vision or strategy. Kotter also recommends eliminating barriers to change, generating short-term successes, reinvigorating the change process and finally anchoring or stabilizing the new approaches.

Effective leadership in the change management process is particularly important because of all the factors involved in organizational change. As situations shift, leaders must be able to adapt and motivate employees to reduce fear, uncertainty and loss of employee morale. Anytime an organization goes through major changes, using the most effective leadership style can directly impact the success of the change and impact to the organization.

References

Kreitner, Robert and Kinikci, Angelo. (2004). Organizational Behavior. Chapter 19, Managing Change and Stress, Ch 19. Retrieved August 20, 2005 from the University of Phoenix Online Library.

McShane, Steve and VonGlinow, Mary Ann. (2005). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution (3rd ed.) New York. McGraw-Hill. Chapter 14: Leadership in Organizational Settings. Retrieved August 19, 2005 from the University of Phoenix Online Library.

Robert H. Guest, Paul Hersey & Kenneth H. Blanchard Organizational Change Through Effective Leadership

by Don Brown

Introduction As succinctly stated in their concluding remarks, the authors of Organizational Change through Effective Leadership held dual purpose in creating their work; first, helping readers “become more sensitized to the systemic complexities” of

organizational change (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 173) and second, “sharing the insights of those who have studied organizational change” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 173). Themselves dedicated practitioners of the applied behavioral sciences; the authors provide us a panoramic view of an organizational case study - “Plant Y” - through a lens of the classics of organizational behavior. In this comprehensive work, I believe that the authors endeavor and succeed in building upon the foundation established by Dr. Douglas McGregor; that “the manager, vis-à-vis the social sciences will one day be no different than that of the engineer vis-à-vis the physical sciences or the doctor vis-à-vis chemistry or biology” (The Human Side of Enterprise, McGregor, 2006, p.7).

The following article is organized by first touching upon the subject case study itself, an inventory of the contextual models used in interpreting the case study, a discussion of what appear to be the critical success factors responsible for the success of “Plant Y”, and finally, a series of questions for further discussion of this classic work of Guest, Hersey and Blanchard. The Case Study – Plant Y Plant Y, the subject case study of Organizational Change through Effective

Leadership, is identified by the authors only as “a patient who was acutely ill and who became extremely healthy…the „patient‟ was not a person but a management, the management of a large, complex, industrial organization” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). The case covers a three-year span of time, covering what are termed to be

periods of disintegration, change and retrospection. The authors very clearly differentiate their case in four ways:

1. “it describes a real-life experience…covering many dimensions” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). This is as close to reality as we can get, with lots of variables.

2. “this real-life case not only gives „before and after‟ data on the organization studied, but focuses on the process of change itself” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). The people and process are as much a part as the numbers. 3. “this case study contains an unusually complete set of performance indices” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 2). Far too many studies today stop short of capturing specific, measurable, end-result variables.

4. “controlling „constants‟ in the situation made it possible to concentrate on the behavior of the new top manager and his role in the process of change” (Guest, Hersey, Blanchard, 1977, p. 3). Because Plant y was one of five other identical plants, meaningful comparative data was plentiful, and causal variables – specifically the change in leadership – could readily be isolated. Guest, Robert / Hersey, Paul / Blanchard, Kenneth H. Organizational Change through Effective Leadership, Englewood Cliffs, Prentiss-Hall, Inc.

McGregor, Douglas. (2006). The Human Side of Enterprise, Annotated Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

The effects of leadership style on stress outcomes Joseph B. Lyonsa, a

, and Tamera R. Schneiderb

Air Force Research Laboratory, United States

Wright State University, United States Available online 8 August 2009.

b

Abstract

The present study manipulated transformational and transactional leadership styles to examine their influence on individuals' performance on a stressful task, and on perceived social support, self-efficacy beliefs, emotions, and stressor appraisals. In addition, this study examined whether these variables mediated the relationship between leadership style and performance. Two hundred fourteen participants viewed video instructions for a stressful task presented by an actor depicting one of three leadership styles (transformational, transactional-contingent reward, and

transactional-management by exception). Participants' psychological, emotional, and motivational responses to the videos were assessed prior to their engagement with the task. The transformational leadership condition was associated with enhanced task

performance, higher social support perceptions, greater efficacy beliefs, lower negative affect, and lower threat appraisals compared to the transactional conditions. Causal modeling revealed that leadership style had a direct, rather than indirect, effect on task performance. The present research extends leadership research by providing an experimental evaluation of the costs/benefits of transformational and transactional leadership under stressful task conditions. Some of the results parallel those from correlational field studies, thus corroborating transformational leadership theory while other results diverge from theory, but present opportunities for future research.

1. Introduction

Highly complex and stress-laden workplaces present challenges to organizational leaders as they are faced with the task of managing the workforce while concurrently maintaining commitment and morale. Leaders themselves can often be a central source of stress among employees ([Basch and Fisher, 2000], [Offermann and Hellmann, 1996] and [Sosik and Godshalk, 2000]). As the characteristics of work change, so must the roles and tactics of modern leaders. Leaders who promote supportive relationships, elicit motivation among subordinates, facilitate more positive and less negative emotions among subordinates, and engender more benign evaluations of stressful tasks among subordinates may be more effective than the more traditional leaders who tend toward task-directive techniques. These relational, motivational, and emotional leadership elements are consistent with transformational leadership styles ([Bass, 1998] and [Yukl, 1998]). Despite a substantial body of literature which suggests that transformational leaders are effective, there is a paucity of experimental research that has explored how transformational leaders impact subordinates during stressful transactions. The present study manipulated transformational and transactional leadership styles to examine their influence on a variety of subordinate outcomes including emotional and motivational experiences, as well as objective task performance on a stress-laden task. Further, these variables were examined as potential mediators of the effects of leadership style on stressful task performance.

Bass's (1998) Full Range of Leadership Model discusses three leadership styles: transactional, laissez-faire,1 and transformational. A fundamental aspect of transactional leadership is the social exchange process. There are three forms of transactional leadership: contingent reward, management by exception-active, and management by exception-passive. Contingent reward leadership involves

establishing employee expectancies of rewards (e.g., financial remuneration or public praise) for good performance. Management by exception-active leadership is characterized by actively monitoring subordinate deviations from performance standards. These leaders motivate subordinates by encouraging them to maintain established performance standards and avoid making mistakes. When performance deviations are detected, the leader will intervene and make the necessary corrections. In contrast to the active form, passive management by exception leaders do not actively monitor performance deviations but rather wait to be notified of performance deviations. Then upon recognition of a performance deviation, the leader will intervene. The present research focuses only on the active form of management by exception, and all future references to management by exception leadership are in reference to the active form of management by exception.

In contrast to transactional leaders, transformational leaders appeal to the motivational, emotional, and developmental needs of their subordinates (Bass, 1998). Transformational leadership is characterized by four elements: inspirational

motivation (the ability to naturally motivate and appeal to others' emotions), idealized influence (the ability to elicit respect from others), individualized support (the ability to support subordinates' unique developmental needs), and intellectual stimulation (the ability to stimulate subordinates' desire to learn and develop) (Bass, 1998). Transformational leaders empower employees through emotional appeals (Yukl, 1998) and may reframe stressful situations as opportunities for growth while providing the necessary support throughout the performance process ([Bass, 1998] and [Sosik and Godshalk, 2000]). Research has demonstrated that transformational leaders are effective leaders ([Lowe et al., 1996], [Podsakoff et al., 1996] and [Yammarino et al., 1993]). However, most leadership research has used correlation data to examine how certain leadership styles relate to performance and other subordinate variables, consequently numerous researchers have called for increased use of experimentation in leadership research ([Brown and Lord, 1999] and [Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996]). There are some empirical studies in which leadership styles (notably charismatic styles) have been manipulated ([Cherulnik et al., 2001] and [Bono and Ilies, 2006]), yet few studies have examined whether these manipulations result in changes in objective task performance. Due to their superior visioning, support, and potential for reframing of stressful situations as opportunities, it is expected that transformational leaders will enhance subordinate's task performance during stressful tasks.

Hypothesis 1 Individuals exposed to a transformational leader will perform a stressful task better than individuals exposed to a transactional leader.

Given the complexities of modern work and the inextricable influence of leaders in the workplace, a variety of subordinate outcomes should be considered in leadership research. Stress-related variables may be pertinent given the increasingly harsh demands under which modern-day workers must perform. The stress process involves a multitude of influential factors, some of which are elements of the situation, while others are individual characteristics that influence reactions to situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The present study is concerned with the costs and benefits of different leadership styles. Consequently, we focused on stress-related variables that may be influenced by leadership styles, including: social support perceptions, efficacy beliefs, emotions, and stressor appraisals.

Social support can be considered one aspect of the repertoire of resources that individuals may have access to in order to cope with stress (Hobfoll, 1998). Social support encompasses a variety of dimensions including: emotional, informational, and instrumental support (see Cohen & Wills, 1985). Transformational leaders are thought to provide the necessary support to subordinates while attending to subordinates' unique developmental needs (Bass, 1998). Past field research has shown that transformational leaders are perceived as being more supportive of their subordinates compared to other leadership styles (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990), yet this relationship has not been tested in a laboratory setting.

Hypothesis 2 Individuals exposed to a transformational leader during a stressful task will report greater social support than individuals exposed to a transactional leader.

In addition to social support perceptions, leaders are also likely to influence individuals' confidence perceptions in task situations, also known as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy represents an individual's perception of being agentic, in a general sense (Bandura, 1997). Transformational leaders likely have a positive influence on individuals' task-specific self-efficacy beliefs, which are malleable compared to the trait-like self-efficacy perceptions (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000). Transformational leaders are believed to increase subordinates' effort-performance expectancies, and thus should facilitate subordinates' beliefs they will achieve existing

goals (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). In accordance, past research has linked transformational leadership to the development of collective efficacy among teams (Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi, 2004).

Hypothesis 3 Individuals exposed to a transformational leader during a stressful task will report higher task-specific self-efficacy beliefs than individuals exposed to a transactional leader.

While transformational leaders are believed to influence subordinates' efficacy perceptions, they are also thought to interact with subordinates on an emotional level (George, 2000). Research examining subordinate attitudes has shown that transformational leadership is related to higher subordinate-rated satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 1996) and optimism, and to lower frustration (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). Individuals experience emotions on a continuous basis as new situations are encountered and evaluated (Lazarus, 1999). As employees experience routine and novel events, leaders may shape their emotions through processes such as emotional contagion. Emotional contagion occurs when individuals reciprocate the emotions that they observe in those around them (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994).

The emotional contagion hypothesis has been substantiated by past research. Researchers have found that that has charismatic/transformational leadership generates positive emotions among subordinates in laboratory settings ([Bono and Ilies, 2006] and [Cherulnik et al., 2001]) as well as in work settings (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007). For example, Bono and Ilies (2006) conducted a series of studies to show that charismatic leaders express more positive emotion (in vision statements and in video presentations). In another study, participants were assigned to videotapes coded as high or low in positive leader expression. Participants exposed to leaders high in positive emotion expression reported more positive affect than those exposed to leaders low in positive emotion expression. Similarly, participants exposed to positive emotion leader expression compared to a neutral expression condition reported higher positive affect. These results show that participant-followers perceive differences in emotional expression in leaders, and that these perceptions evoke differences in reports of positive affect. While emotional contagion appeared to occur during passive exposure, it is currently unclear whether subordinates benefit from emotional contagion during demanding task situations. Additionally, experimental research has yet to examine the effects of transformational leadership on the

experience of negative emotions. Plausibly, the inspirational and supportive nature of transformational leaders may foster positive emotions while inhibiting negative emotions among subordinates, relative to other leaders. In fact, when employees are asked to describe what makes them feel positive and negative at work, they report that organizational leaders can be a source of both positive and negative emotions (Basch & Fisher, 2000). Hypothesis 4a

Individuals exposed to a transformational leader during a stressful task will

experience a smaller stress-related decrease in positive affect compared to individuals exposed to a transactional leader.

Hypothesis 4b Individuals exposed to a transformational leader during a stressful task will experience a smaller stress-related increase in negative affect compared to individuals exposed to a transactional leader.

While leaders may shape subordinate emotions, they might also influence how subordinates evaluate stressful work tasks. Given an impending stressor, stress appraisals depend on evaluations of situational demands in relation to available resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The outcomes of this appraisal process can be either challenge appraisals (approach-oriented responses) where demands are evaluated as commensurate with resources, or threat appraisals (avoidance-oriented responses) where stressor demands are deemed as outweighing available resources ([Blascovich and Tomaka, 1996] and [Schneider, 2004]). Transformational leaders will likely influence subordinates' stress appraisals because of the support, encouragement, and emotional involvement that characterize their daily interactions with employees. Subordinates tend to report lower stress levels when leaders use encouraging and delegating (empowerment) behaviors compared to controlling behaviors (Offermann & Hellmann, 1996). Research by Sosik and Godshalk (2000) corroborates this claim by demonstrating that protégés of mentors exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors (e.g., an empowerment-based style) report less distress than individuals under mentors who exhibit transactional or laissez-faire behaviors.

Hypothesis 5 Individuals exposed to a transformational leader will report less threatening appraisals of an impending stressor compared to individuals exposed to a transactional leader.

To date, little is known about the mechanisms through which transformational leaders influence subordinate performance. Transformational leadership theory postulates that these leaders enhance subordinate performance by appealing to subordinate emotions (George, 2000), enhancing effort-performance expectancies (Shamir et al., 1993), supporting subordinates, and reframing work demands as opportunities for growth (Bass, 1998). The previous section discussed past research linking transformational leadership with social support, task-specific self-efficacy, state affect, and stress appraisals. The following section briefly discusses how these variables, in turn, may be associated with enhanced performance.

There is substantial empirical evidence demonstrating that heightened threat appraisals are related to performance decrements. Stress appraisals predict

performance on stressful tasks such as mental math ([Schneider, 2004] and [Tomaka et al., 1993]), giving a videotaped speech (Lyons & Schneider, 2005), and even training on a complex task (Gildea, Schneider, & Shebilske, 2007). These studies demonstrate that threat appraisals predict poor performance on an impending task, relative to challenge appraisals. Self-efficacy, social support, and emotions are also related to performance. Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to set higher goals and perform better than individuals with low self-efficacy perceptions (Phillips & Gully, 1997). Self-efficacy has been well-researched and is linked to enhanced performance in a variety of domains (Bandura, 1997). Social support can also enhance performance in both leadership (Erdogan & Enders, 2007) and laboratory settings (Sarason & Sarason, 1986). Finally, past research has linked emotions, primarily positive emotions, with enhanced performance ([Erez and Isen, 2002] and [Isen et al., 1987]). Hypothesis 6 The relationship between leadership style and task performance of a stressor will be indirect, operating through the impact of leadership style on social support, task-specific self-efficacy, emotions, and stressor appraisals. In summary, the purpose of the present study was two-fold. First, the authors sought to expand upon past experimental research by exploring how laboratory manipulations of transformational leadership influence task performance during a stressful task, social support perceptions, efficacy beliefs, positive and negative emotions, and stressor appraisals. Second, the authors examined a theoretically-based mediation model which posited that the effects of transformational leadership on task performance would indirectly operate through social support, efficacy, emotions, and stressor appraisals.

4. Discussion

The present study manipulated different leadership styles to examine their impact on a variety of subordinate outcomes during a stressful transaction. It was expected that individuals exposed to a transformational leader would perform better on a stressful task than those exposed to a transactional leader. This hypothesis was partially supported. Individuals in the transformational condition outperformed individuals in the transactional-management by exception condition but not individuals in the transactional-contingent reward condition. A recent meta-analysis found that transformational and transactional-contingent reward leaders have a similar influence on subordinate performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Interestingly, those same performance effects were replicated in this experimental study. The present findings suggest that organizations could promote either transformational or transactional-contingent reward leadership styles and expect high productivity. However, the same does not hold true for other important subordinate outcomes.

The second hypothesis predicted that individuals exposed to a transformational leader would report higher social support than individuals exposed to transactional leaders. This hypothesis was supported. Individuals in the transformational condition reported receiving more social support than individuals in either the transactional-contingent reward or the transactional-management by exception conditions, as expected. This is consistent with past research (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and theory (Bass, 1998). The individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership appears to be a robust element of transformational leadership that differentiates these leaders from others. The benefits of social support are well-documented (see Cohen & Wills, 1985 for a review). Social support from one's immediate supervisor has been shown to reduce work stress (Sargent & Terry, 2000), thus suggesting that leaders who engender social support perceptions (notably transformational leaders) should be encouraged in the workplace.

Third, we predicted that individuals exposed to a transformational leader would report higher task-specific self-efficacy beliefs compared to those exposed to transactional leaders. This hypothesis was partially supported. Individuals in the transformational condition reported higher task-specific self-efficacy beliefs compared to those in the transactional-management by exception condition. Individuals in the transformational condition tended to report higher task-specific self-efficacy beliefs than those in the transactional-contingent reward condition, however this was only marginally

significant. An underlying assumption of transformational leadership theory is the ability of transformational leaders to increase subordinates' effort-performance expectancies (Shamir et al., 1993). Yet this fundamental supposition has never been empirically tested using experimental methods, that is, until now. Past research has found that task-specific self-efficacy is malleable (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000). Consistent with that research, the present study found that transformational leadership has a beneficial influence on subordinates' task-specific self-efficacy beliefs. However, caution should be taken when drawing inferences about the comparison between transformational and transactional-contingent reward leaders, given the marginal significance of the present results.

Fourth, we predicted that individuals exposed to a transformational leader would a) experience a smaller stress-related decrease in positive affect compared to those in the transactional conditions, and b) experience a smaller increase in negative affect compared to those in the transactional conditions. Unexpectedly, leadership had no influence on positive affect. This is inconsistent with past research, which has found a positive relationship between participant's experience of positive affect and

experimental manipulations of charismatic leadership (see [Bono and Ilies, 2006] and [Cherulnik et al., 2001]). However, there are two crucial elements that distinguish the present study from past research. Much of the past research has focused on the basic emotional contagion process and has used passive exposure to explore whether participants benefit from charismatic leadership styles. In contrast, the present study actively engaged participants in a performance situation. This task focus may have diverted participants' attention from the emotional expressions of the transformational leader and may have inhibited the emotional contagion process. Researchers suggest that as individuals engage in more detailed information processing strategies (similar to those they might experience during a performance situation) that there is a lower likelihood of heuristics influencing their information processing (Forgas, 1995). The detailed processing associated with a performance situation may have inhibited the heuristic process of emotional contagion. Secondly, participants in the present study were asked to perform a stressful mental arithmetic task. Generating changes in positive affect can be challenging in laboratory settings (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994) and these challenges may be exacerbated when participants are asked to engage in a stressful task. Non-stressful task conditions may create more optimal laboratory conditions to study how the emotional contagion process influences positive affect.

Changes in negative affect may be more meaningful in a stressful task condition. Leadership did tend to influence negative affect, although this effect was marginally significant. Individuals in the transactional-management by exception condition appeared to have greater increases in negative affect following the stressor instructions than those in the transformational condition. This is consistent with past research findings that transformational leadership is related to less frustration among subordinates (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). Contemporary leaders are believed to engage subordinates at an emotional level (George, 2000), and this emotional interaction is believed to, in part, drive the effectiveness of

transformational leaders ([Bass, 1998] and [Shamir et al., 1993]). Past research has also shown that transformational leadership buffers individuals from the deleterious effects of emotional regulation on job satisfaction (Bono et al., 2007). Perhaps this buffering effect occurred because transformational leaders inhibit the experience of negative emotions among their employees relative to other leaders.

The fifth hypothesis predicted that individuals exposed to a transformational leader would evaluate an impending stressor as less threatening than those exposed to transactional leaders. This hypothesis was supported. Individuals in the

transformational condition evaluated the mental arithmetic task as less threatening compared to the individuals in both of the transactional leadership conditions, as expected. Past research has shown that supportive leadership behaviors are related to lower reports of stress among employees ([Britt et al., 2004] and [Sosik and Godshalk, 2000]). The present research supports these findings and augments them by using experimental methods, demonstrating that transformational leaders diminish subordinate threat appraisals. This is a crucial finding given the impact and prevalence of leaders in organizations (Yukl, 1998). The present research suggests that subordinates' evaluations of their work tasks, whether as an overwhelming demand or a challenging opportunity, depends partly on the leaders from whom they obtain directives about their work. The consequences of work-related stress to both the employee and the organization are well-documented (Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001) and the present research suggests that leadership development/selection using the transformational leadership paradigm may help in these regards.

While the present study sought to examine the costs/benefits of different leadership styles on individual stress outcomes in an experimental scenario, it also explored a mediational relationship between leadership style, subordinate stress-related outcomes,

and task performance. The last hypothesis predicted that the influence of leadership style on task performance would be indirect through the impact of leadership style on social support, task-specific self-efficacy, state affect, and stress appraisals. This hypothesis was not supported. A directs effects model, which depicted the effects of leadership on task performance as direct rather than an indirect, was found to better fit the data relative to an indirect effects model. This is inconsistent with

transformational leader theory which posits that these leaders enhance subordinate performance by appealing to subordinate emotions (George, 2000), enhancing effort-performance expectancies (Shamir et al., 1993) by being supportive, and by promoting an opportunistic perspective on harsh task demands (Bass, 1998). There are two possible explanations for these findings. First, the leadership manipulation in the present research was based on a brief interaction. Subordinates may experience performance benefits due to increased social support and efficacy, coupled with reduced negative affect and minimized threat appraisals over time as they repeatedly interact with transformational leaders. Secondly, the highly-structured task may have impeded the mediational relationship. There were few opportunities for creativity and social interaction during the math task, and while an individual may have been motivated to perform well, performance on the task was also reliant on individuals' math skills. Future research might examine this same mediational relationship under task conditions that require creativity and social interaction. While this particular hypothesis was not supported, the present study substantiates a variety of claims about how transformational leaders influence subordinate outcomes. The mechanisms through which leaders impact employee performance remain elusive, however future studies should build on the present research, using experimental methods to uncover potential mediators of leadership style and employee performance. One particular domain, motivation, may inform and fuel future research efforts. Leaders may directly impact task performance while indirectly influencing constructs such as motivation. An exploratory post-hoc analysis tested this assertion by replacing task performance in the SEM analysis with individual's intentions to perform well for this particular leader. Specifically, participants were asked three questions relating to how much they would be willing to work for the individual in the video. Two models were created (indirect effects and direct effects), with willingness, rather than task performance as the outcome. The two models did not differ significantly, χ(1) = 1.11, ns, suggesting that the model with the fewest parameters (i.e., the indirect effects

model) be accepted. While this was simply a post-hoc, exploratory analysis, it suggests that a relationship between leadership style and motivation may operate indirectly through social support, efficacy, state affect, and stress appraisals. Future research should explore this issue further.

In summary, the present study identified areas of convergence and divergence with regard to the transformational leadership literature. The study showed that laboratory manipulations of transformational and transactional leadership can result in performance effects that mirror a recent meta-analysis (see Judge & Piccolo, 2004), such that both contingent reward and transformational leadership styles are beneficial to performance relative to management by exception leadership. In congruence with theory, this study partly demonstrated that transformational leaders can benefit subordinate's perceptions of social support, efficacy beliefs, negative emotions, and stressor appraisals relative to transactional styles. In contrast to theory, the present study showed that the influence of transformational leadership on subordinate performance is direct, rather than indirect.

5. Conclusion

We live in an era where leadership represents a motivational, emotional, and developmental part of organizational success; thus a variety of subordinate outcomes are important factors to consider when evaluating leadership effectiveness. The present study provided experimental evidence that transformational leadership is beneficial not only for performance, but also when considering social support, efficacy beliefs, negative emotions, and stressor appraisals. The leaders of the future are faced with onerous challenges. They must be adept at influencing subordinates' motivational, emotional, and developmental needs in the stressful context of modern work. This shift in the focus of leadership effectiveness requires that leadership researchers follow suit and consider a wider range of outcome variables in leadership research. Transformational leaders, with their arsenal of inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individualized support, and intellectual stimulation stand poised to meet these challenges of today and those of the future.