9-MesterVisser.qxd


72

Organisations and managers are increasingly aware that they face
a future of rapid and complex change. This wave of future-
oriented uncertainty, coupled with individual demands for
increased participation at all levels of the organisation, has
dramatically changed perceptions of leadership, specifically
with regard to the respective roles played by the leader and the
follower. Almost all leadership theory is based on the relative
importance assigned to the leader versus the follower in mission
accomplishment. However one questions what effect this has on
employee attitude and behaviour. Although there are many
factors affecting employee attitudes and behaviour, research to
date implies that these are influenced to some extent by
leadership style. In an attempt to understand leadership
effectiveness, researchers have studied two main lines of theory.
Transformational leadership, which has emerged as a dominant
approach, is contrasted in many studies to transactional
leadership. Both transformational and transactional leaders are
active leaders who actively intervene to solve and prevent
problems from occurring. Numerous studies have also
compared these two styles of leadership to laissez faire
leadership, which is descriptive of an inactive leader (Barbuto,
1997; Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Hater & Bass, 1988; Posdakoff,
MacKenzie & Bommer, 1996; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Tracey &
Hinkin, 1998; Trott & Windsor, 1999). 

Leadership theory suggests a positive relation bet ween
transformational/transactional leadership and other constructs
such as organisational commitment, job involvement, job
satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour. However,
based on the cumulative evidence thus far, one could expect
transformational leadership to have a stronger, positive
relationship with these constructs. Judge and Bono (2000, p.754)
stated, “the MLQ ratings do not include some potentially
relevant outcomes, such as organisational commitment or
overall job satisfaction. Although one would expect that the
subordinates of transformational leaders are more satisfied with

their jobs and more committed to their organisations, with a few
exceptions,… there is little evidence to support these linkages.”
Several studies indicate that transformational leadership, when
compared to transactional and laissez faire leadership, results in
higher levels of satisfaction, commitment, organisational
citizenship behaviour, cohesion, motivation, performance,
satisfaction with the leader and leader effectiveness (Avolio &
Bass, 1999; Barbuto, 1997; Covin & Kolenko, 1997; Hartog & Van
Muijen, 1997; Hater & Bass, 1988; Posdakoff, MacKenzie &
Bommer, 1996; Tepper & Percy, 1994). Although the attitudes of
job satisfaction, job involvement and organisational
commitment represent distinct concepts (Brooke, Russel & Price,
1988), research has indicated that the these work-related
variables are likely consequences of each other (Brown, 1996). As
a positive emotional state reflecting an affective response to the
job situation (job satisfaction), and a cognitive belief state
reflecting one’s psychological identification with the
organisation (job involvement), researchers have indicated that
these two attitudes to a specific job are different from one
another and from organisational commitment which focuses on
the individual’s identification with the organisation as a whole
(Brooke, Russell & Price, 1988; Brown, 1996). Trott and Windsor
(1999) provided findings that indicate that staff nurses are more
satisfied with transformational leaders, and that their level of
satisfaction increases as the leader uses a more participative
st yle. Furthermore, Hater and Bass (1988) found
transformational leadership to be positively correlated with how
effective subordinates perceive leaders, how much effort they say
they will expend for the leader, how satisfied they are with the
leader, and how well subordinates perform as rated by the leader. 

This study aims to determine the relationship bet ween
leadership st yles and the attitudes and behaviour of
organisational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement
and organisational citizenship behaviour. The results of this
study would be particularly relevant given the centrality of
leadership to the success or failure of organisations. Although
there are many differentiations in the leadership theory, there

CHERYL MESTER
DELÉNE VISSER
GERT ROODT

Programme in Industrial Psychology

Department of Human Resource Management

Rand Afrikaans University

RITA KELLERMAN
RSM, Erasmus University 

Rotterdam

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between leadership style and organisational
commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and organisational citizenship behaviour and whether these
relationships were stronger for transformational than for transactional leaders. A sample of 52 leaders and 276 raters
from a world class engineering company participated. The results of a canonical correlation analysis using the rater
data indicated that the most prominent relationship was that between transactional leadership and affective
commitment. Furthermore, transformational and transactional leadership did not correlate significantly with the
constructs of job involvement and job satisfaction.

OPSOMMING
Die doel van die ondersoek was om te bepaal wat die verbande tussen leierskapstyl en organisasieverbondenheid,
werkstevredenheid, werkbetrokkenheid en organisatoriese burgerskapsgedrag is en of hierdie verbande sterker is vir
transformasionele as vir transaksionele leiers. ’n Steekproef van 52 leiers en 276 beoordelaars van ’n wêreldklas
ingenieursfirma het deelgeneem. Die resultate van ’n kanoniese korrelasie-ontleding van die beoordelaardata het
getoon dat die prominentste verband dié tussen  transaksionele leierskap en affektiewe verbondenheid is. Verder het
transformasionele en transaksionele leierskap nie beduidend met die konstrukte werkbetrokkenheid en
werkstevredenheid gekorreleer nie.

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ITS RELATION TO EMPLOYEE

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOUR

Requests for copies should be addressed to: C Mester, Department of Human

Resource Management, RAU University, PO BOX 524, Auckland Park, 2006

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2003, 29 (2), 72-82

SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2003, 29 (2), 72-82



appears to be an acceptance of the distinction between
transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership.
These will now be discussed. 

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leaders are said to be responsible for
motivating employees to go beyond ordinary expectations
(Hater & Bass, 1988). The transformational leader elicits this
performance level by appealing to follower’s higher order needs
and moral values, generating the passion and commitment of
followers for the mission and values of the organisation,
instilling pride and faith in followers, communicating personal
respect, stimulating subordinates intellectually, facilitating
creative thinking and inspiring followers to willingly accept
challenging goals and a mission or vision of the future (Carless,
1998; Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Posdakoff, MacKenzie &
Bommer, 1996; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998;
Trott & Windsor, 1999). The leader thus identifies the future of
the organisation and “pulls, rather than pushes” (Trott &
Windsor, 1999, p. 128), lifting individuals to focus their
commitment and energies towards the organisation and its goals
(Barbuto, 1997). 

Transformational leadership theorists suspect that a
consequence of the transformational leader’s behaviour is the
emotional attachment to the leader and emotional and
motivational arousal of followers. The degree to which a leader
is regarded as being transformational depends on the effect he or
she has on the follower, where followers of transformational
leaders feel trust and respect towards leaders, and are motivated
to perform extraordinary behaviours (Barbuto, 1997).    

Research to date indicates that transformational leadership
behaviours exist in all levels of management and in a variety of
organisational settings and are therefore not limited to
executives and world-class leaders (Hater & Bass, 1988). In a
study assessing the link bet ween leader personality and
transformational leadership behaviour, Judge and Bono (2000)
found that by controlling for transactional leadership,
transformational leadership behaviour significantly predicted
subordinate satisfaction with the leader, subordinate
organisational commitment, work motivation and supervisory
ratings of leader effectiveness. No relationship was however
found with subordinate overall job satisfaction. 

It is apparent in the literature that four dimensions underlie the
transformational leadership construct (Barbuto, 1997; Bass &
Avolio, 1997; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998; Hartog & Van Muijen,
1997; Tracey & Hinkin, 1998), namely:
� Charismatic leadership or idealised influence: the leader instills

pride and faith in followers, provides a vision and a sense of
mission, gains respect and trust and sets high standards for
emulation;

� Inspirational leadership: the leader inspires followers to accept
challenging goals, provides meaning for engaging in shared
goals and arouses team spirit through enthusiasm and
optimism. 

� Individualised consideration: the leader recognises individual
uniqueness, links the individuals’ current needs to the
organisation’s needs and provides coaching, mentoring and
growth opportunities;

� Intellectual stimulation: the leader encourages followers to
approach problems in new ways and to creatively think of
new ways to carry out their daily responsibilities.

Transactional Leadership

Whereas transformational leaders motivate subordinates to
perform beyond expectations, transactional leadership is based
on the traditional, bureaucratic authority and legitimacy where
followers receive certain valued outcomes when they act
according to the leader’s wishes. The relationship is based on a
series of exchanges or implicit bargains between leader and
follower, clarif ying role expectations, assignments and task-

oriented goals. Transactional leaders thus focus their energies
on task completion and compliance and rely on organisational
rewards and punishments to influence employee performance
(Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997; Tepper & Percy, 1994; Tracey &
Hinkin, 1998; Trott & Windsor, 1999). According to Hater and
Bass (1988, p.695) “the dynamics of a quid pro quo dominates
the transactional exchange, in which the leader clarifies task
requirements and rewards for compliance.” Transactional
leadership theory rests on the notion that when the
environment and the job do not motivate, direct and satisf y the
follower, the transactional leader has to rely on his or her
behaviours to compensate for the deficiency. The leader clarifies
what he or she expects from subordinates regarding acceptable
standards of performance and what they will receive in return
(Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997). Transformational and
transactional leadership models thus differ with regard to the
process by which leaders motivate subordinates and the types of
goals set (Hater & Bass, 1988). 

Research on transactional leadership indicates that there are
three dimensions underlying the transactional leadership
construct (Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998; Hartog
& Van Muijen, 1997; Hater & Bass, 1988; Tepper & Percy, 1994): 
� Contingent rewards or reinforcement: The leader uses rewards,

promises and praise to motivate followers to achieve
performance levels contracted by both parties. 

� Active management-by-exception: The leader monitors
followers’ performance, taking corrective action in
anticipation of problems or when irregularities occur

� Passive management-by exception: The leader waits passively
for mistakes to occur, or for things not to go as planned,
before taking corrective action with negative feedback or
reprimand.

Hater and Bass (1988) indicated that, by contrasting
transformational and transactional leadership, it does not mean
that the two models are unrelated. In fact, researchers have
indicated that, although the two are distinct concepts, they are
interrelated, meaning that a leader can be both transactional
and transformational. It is argued that transformational
leadership builds on transactional leadership and not the other
way around. Transformational leadership is thus viewed as an
extension of the transactional leadership style (Avolio & Bass,
1999; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998; Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997).
Transactional and transformational leaders are described as
such, because at the defining moment their beliefs, attitudes
and behaviours resemble that of either the transactional or the
transformational leader (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998). Bass and
Avolio (1997) were of the opinion that, although
transformational leadership may be more effective in changing
times, the transactional process of clarif ying certain
expectancies for a reward, is an essential component of the full
range of effective leadership. 

Non-transactional or Laissez Faire Leadership

Transactional and transformational leadership, two active forms
of leadership, are often contrasted to a passive laissez faire
leadership style. As no attempt is made by the laissez faire leader
to motivate others or to recognise and satisf y individual needs,
researchers have concluded that this leadership style is indicative
of an absence of leadership. The laissez faire leader avoids
decision-making, the provision of rewards and the provision of
positive/negative feedback to subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 1997;
Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997). 

Hater and Bass (1988, p. 697) argued that, “passive management-
by-exception is not the same as laissez faire leadership. The status
is guarded and respected in passive management-by-exception;
the status is ignored by the laissez faire leader who essentially
avoids decision making and supervisory responsibilities.”

In assessing the relationship between leadership styles and
employee commitment attitudes and engagement behaviours, it

LEADERSHIP STYLE 73



is important to understand the constructs of organisational
commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and
organisational citizenship behaviour. 

Organisational commitment

Morrow (1983) indicated that several but different theoretical
foundations have been used to define commitment related
concepts with a number of measuring instruments as a result.
Despite the lack of consensus on the conceptual and theoretical
development of this construct, the concept of organisational
commitment has attracted considerable interest in an attempt to
understand and clarif y the intensity and stability of an
employee’s dedication to the organisation. Researchers have
distinguished between three approaches to study commitment,
namely from an attitudinal, behavioural and a motivational
perspective. Although several studies have viewed affective
commitment as an attitude and continuance commitment as a
behaviour (Boyle, 1997; McGee & Ford, 1987; Reichers, 1985;
Somers, 1993), Allen and Meyer (1990) recognised that the cost
involved in leaving an organisation may be regarded as a
psychological state and therefore view continuance commitment
as a component of attitudinal commitment. According to Allen
and Meyer (1990, p.1), organisational commitment consists of a
three-dimensional construct defined as follows:

The affective component of organisational commitment… refers
to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with,
and involvement in, the organisation. The continuance
component refers to commitment based on the costs that the
employee associates with leaving the organisation. Finally, the
normative component refers to the employee’s feeling of
obligation to remain with the organisation.

A number of studies have supported the distinctiveness and
independence of these three dimensions and provide evidence
that they also have unique antecedents (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
Boyle, 1997; Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; McGee
& Ford, 1987; Meyer & Allen, 1984; Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993;
Randall, Dunham, Grube & Castaneda, 1994; Reichers, 1985;
Shore, Barksdale & Shore, 1995; Somers, 1993). Furthermore,
support has been found for two distinct dimensions of
continuance commitment, one based on personal sacrifices
involved in leaving the organisation, and the second based on
limited employment opportunities (McGee & Ford, 1987;
Randall, Dunham, Grube & Castaneda, 1994; Somers, 1993). 

Although reference to the term ‘organisational commitment’
describes three very different constructs, a common denominator
underlying each construct is the individual’s psychological
attachment to the organisation, and it is therefore this
psychological attachment that defines organisational
commitment. The three concepts differ in terms of the link
between the employee and the organisation. Employees with a
strong affective attachment stay with the organisation because
they want to, those with a strong continuance commitment stay
because they need to and those with a strong normative
commitment stay because they feel they ought to (Allen & Meyer,
1990; Caldwell, Chatman & O’Reilly, 1990; Meyer, Allen & Smith,
1993). Literature indicates that highly committed employees are
more satisfied with their work, perform at levels beyond
expectation, are more motivated and experience higher levels of
job involvement (Boyle, 1997; Caldwell, Chatman & O’Reilly,
1990; Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). A large
percentage of these studies have been based on employee self
report measures of commitment. In an attempt to determine
managerial perceptions of employee commitment, research has
indicated that organisational citizenship behaviour is predictive
of manager-rated affective commitment, and that side bets such
as age and tenure are predictive of manager-rated continuance
commitment (Shore, Barksdale & Shore, 1995). Meyer, Allen and
Smith (1993) argued however that commitment is a complex and
multifaceted construct, and therefore a multidimensional
approach should be taken when studying commitment. Research

suggests that employees experience several different
commitments to the goals and values of multiple groups, and that
where two individuals may be committed to ‘the organisation’,
the focus of the two commitments may be entirely different.
Individuals may thus be committed in varying degrees to top
management, immediate supervisors, peers, customers, unions,
their career, occupation or profession (Boyle, 1997; Meyer, Allen
& Smith, 1993; Reichers, 1985). The distinction between different
commitment foci may therefore only be of theoretical interest if
the same theoretical base is used for operationalising the
different foci (Roodt, 1997; Storm & Roodt, 2002). Lee, Carswell
and Allen (2000) for example undertook a study to assess the
relationship between occupational commitment and person-and
work-related variables. Results of the study indicate that
occupational commitment is positively related to organisational
commitment as well as job-focused constructs such as job
involvement and satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction

As an attitude, job satisfaction has been extensively researched,
and has in many studies been considered a dependent and an
independent variable. Agho and Price (1992, p. 185) defined job
satisfaction as “the extent to which employees like their work”.
In investigating job satisfaction, a distinction is usually made
between a global feeling of liking one’s job in general and a
constellation of attitudes about various facets of the job where
individuals indicate their satisfaction with parts of their job,
such as pay, promotion, work, supervisors and co-workers
(Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson & Paul, 1989; Lease, 1998). 

Although research to date has focused specifically on the impact
of job satisfaction on commitment, absenteeism and turnover
(Agho & Price, 1992), results of several studies have indicated
that employees are more likely to experience job satisfaction
when they are able to use their skills and knowledge on the job,
perform enriched tasks, the organisation adopts a participative
approach to decision-making, employees experience positive
employee-management relations, supervisors act considerately
towards their workers, the organisation recognises and rewards
employee talents, instills the values and principles held by
employees and listens to employees (Bailey, 1999; Bassett, 1994;
Berg, 1999; Harkins, 1998; Levin & Stokes, 1989). Additional
studies have shown that intrinsic motivation has a positive effect
on job satisfaction, as does the role of a subordinate’s supervisor
(Blau, 1999; Lu, 1999). 

A constant debate in the job satisfaction literature is the effect of
situational and dispositional mechanisms on attitude
formation. Cropanzano, James and Konovsky (1993) for example
found that the dispositional mechanisms of positive affectivity
(an individual’s disposition to be happy across all situations)
and negative affectivit y (an individual’s disposition to
experience discomfort) were related to global job satisfaction,
whereas Steel and Rentsch (1997, p. 878) found support for both
situational and dispositional mechanisms, concluding that one
could “view job satisfaction as the product of both person-based
tendencies and situation-based experiences”. 

Job involvement

Job involvement, as a type of work-related attitude has for a long
time been the focus of research. Unfortunately, the concept has
not evolved in a logical and evolutionary fashion, resulting in
several different theoretical conceptualisations of the construct
with a myriad of measuring instruments as a consequence
(Bleeker & Roodt, 2002). Although there appears to be a lack of
consensus on the meaning of job involvement, Paullay, Alliger &
Stone-Romero (1994, p. 224) defined job involvement as “the
degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged
in, and concerned with one’s present job.” This attitudinal
construct is often contrasted and viewed as a polar opposite of
alienation, where alienation implies a ‘state of individuality and
separation from the self and work environment’. Alienation is

MESTER, VISSER, ROODT, KELLERMAN74



said to exist when an individual experiences powerlessness,
meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation and self-estrangement
(Brown, 1996, p. 235). 

In addition to research showing job involvement as a
unidimensional construct concerned with an individual’s
psychological identification (Blau, 1985), Paullay, Alliger and
Stone-Romero (1994) found that two distinct constructs are
important and necessary to experience job involvement. Job
involvement-role, refers to the degree to which one is involved
in the specific tasks that make up one’s job, and job
involvement-setting, refers to the situation where the individual
finds the present work environment engaging. 

Involvement in a specific job is different from involvement with
work in general. The former is concerned with the present job’s
ability to satisf y one’s present salient needs and the latter with
the centrality of work in one’s life. The extent to which an
employee experiences job involvement depends on (a) the
saliency of both intrinsic and extrinsic needs and (b) the
perception held by the individual of the present job’s ability to
satisf y these needs (Kanungo, 1982b). 

The degree to which the job situation is central to the individual
and satisfies one’s salient needs is distinct but related to other
forms of work-related commitment, standard definitions of job
satisfaction, perceptions of the supervisor, participative decision
making, intrinsic motivation, work commitment and job
characteristics such as skill variety and job challenge (Blau, 1985;
Brown, 1996; Knoop, 1986). Elloy, Everett and Flynn (1991,
p.173) indicated that “job-involved individuals are more likely to
be satisfied with, and thus more committed to, their jobs and
organisations”. Knoop (1986) did however note that job
involvement could have a different meaning for 8-to-4 factory
workers than for professionals who are required to take work
home and have the responsibility of planning and organising
details of their jobs. Research has also indicated that job
involvement is a higher predictor of job performance for those
individuals who are committed to an outside profession than
those who are committed to their employing organisation,
suggesting that job involvement is especially important for
knowledge workers who are ‘cosmopolitan’ and who have
internalised professional values (Keller, 1997). 

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour 

Organisational citizenship behaviour is a type of discretionary
job performance in which employees go beyond prescribed job
requirements (in-role behaviours) that are not explicitly
recognised by the formal reward system, and engage in helping
behaviours aimed at individuals and the organisation as a whole
(Organ, 1988). To describe organisational citizenship behaviour,
Organ (1988) identified the following five dimensions:
� Altruism, which refers to helping behaviours aimed at

specific individuals;
� Conscientiousness, which refers to helping behaviours aimed

at the organisation as a whole;
� Sportsmanship, which refers to the willingness on the part of

the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances
without complaining;

� Courtesy, which refers to actions aimed at the prevention of
future problems; and

� Civic virtue, which refers to a behaviour of concern for the
life of the organisation.

A number of studies have investigated the various indicators of
worker citizenship. Research shows that employee behaviour
(organisational citizenship behaviour) is positively related to
affective commitment (as opposed to continuous
commitment), employee involvement in work organisational
issues, perceived organisational support, high quality of leader-
member exchange, overall evaluations of performance
effectiveness, quantity of output, turnover and satisfaction
(Allen & Rush, 1998; Cappelli & Rogovsky, 1998; Chen, Hui and

Sego, 1998; Deluga, 1998; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Posdakoff,
Ahearne & MacKenzie, 1997; Posdakoff & MacKenzie, 1994;
Shore, Barksdale and Shore, 1995; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Van
Yperen and Van den Berg (1999) found that when employees
feel that they are able to participate in decisions made, they
tend to feel supported by their supervisors and consequently
exhibit more organisational citizenship behaviours. One can
therefore expect employee acts of organisational citizenship
behaviour to serve as a behavioural cue on which management
bases its presumptions of employee commitment to the
organisation (Shore, Barksdale & Shore, 1995).

In a study examining the relationship between leader behaviour
and organisational citizenship behaviour, Schnake and Dumler
(1993) found traditional leadership (characterised by the
limitation of employee discretion) to contribute more to the
prediction of organisational citizenship behaviour than super
leadership (characterised by employee autonomy and control).
Although these results were unexpected, Schnake and Dumler
(1993) believed that a possible reason for these results could be
that the jobs in the study were all relatively low task scopes, and
that future research should investigate leadership as a predictor
of organisational citizenship behaviour with a sample of jobs
higher in task scope.  

In an attempt to further understand the organisational
citizenship behaviour variable, Hodson (1999) hypothesised
that just as an employee is expected to perform beyond
ordinary expectations, management should also engage in
such behaviours. The results of the st udy indicate that
management citizenship behaviours (behaviours that meet a
minimum set of workplace norms) are a crucial determinant
of worker citizenship behaviour (Hodson, 1999, p. 467), and
that management citizenship behaviours are positively
associated with bilateral systems (work involving at least some
input by workers into decisions about the organisation) and
job autonomy. 

Following the findings in the literature, it is proposed that
employee attitudes and behaviour are affected by leadership
style. The study aims to show that (a) transformational and
transactional leadership are positively correlated with the
constructs of organisational commitment, job satisfaction, job
involvement and organisational citizenship behaviour; (b) there
are higher significant correlations between transformational
leadership and affective commitment, normative commitment,
job satisfaction, job involvement and organisational citizenship
behaviour than between transactional leadership and these
constructs, and (c) there is a statistically significant correlation
between transactional leadership and continuance commitment. 

METHOD

Sample

The participants in this study were executives and senior
managers of a major company listed on the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange involved in the development and implementation of
infrastructure and industry projects and the design and
manufacture of engineered products. Two samples were drawn
from 18 operating companies, namely all individuals who held
management or leadership positions and all subordinates
reporting directly to these leaders (referred to hereafter as ‘raters’). 

Due to the size of the company, operating divisions were
categorised into four groups, Building and Civil Engineering;
Industry and Mining; Engineered Products and Corporate as well
as Supplies and Services. Although questionnaires were sent to 62
leaders and 342 raters, only 52 leaders and 276 raters were
included in the study. This was primarily due to the fact that the
research design required a minimum of three raters per leader.
Failure to complete questionnaires by either the leader or the
leader’s raters meant that they could not be included in the study. 

LEADERSHIP STYLE 75



Of the rater respondents, 91,3% were male and 8,3% female. The
levels of education of the raters were as follows: 10,5% had a matric
or equivalent, 41,5% were in possession of a college or technikon
qualification, 43,3% had a university qualification and 4,7% did not
respond. About 37% of the raters were between the ages of 40 and
49. Of the leader respondents, 94,3% were male and 5,7% female.
With regard to the representation of leaders in the different
company groups, 22,6% were from Building and Civil Engineering,
22,6% from Industry and Mining, 15,1% from Engineered Products
and Corporate and 39,6% from Supplies and Services. 

Measuring Instruments

Transformational, Transactional and Laissez faire Leadership

Transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership styles
were measured with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ)(5X)(Revised), developed by Bass and Avolio (1997)*. Using
the MLQ (5X)(Revised), Ackermann, Schepers, Lessing and
Dannhauser (2000) reported internal consistency reliability
estimates for transformational, transactional and laissez faire
leadership of 0,94, 0,80 and 0,74 respectively. The MLQ assesses five
components of transformational leadership (Idealised Influence –
attributes, Idealised Influence- behaviour, Inspirational Motivation,
Intellectual Stimulation and Individualised Consideration), three
components of transactional leadership (Constructive Transaction,
Management by Exception- active and Management by Exception-
Passive), and one non-transactional/laissez faire leadership
component. The relevant components were combined to obtain
total scores on transformational, transactional and laissez faire
leadership. In addition, the MLQ (5X)(Revised) assesses three
outcome components (Extra Effort, Effectiveness and Satisfaction).
The MLQ items are evaluated on a five-point scale ranging from 0
(“not at all”) to 4 (“frequently, if not always”). Two questionnaire
forms were completed, namely the self-rating form, where managers
rated themselves as leaders, and the rater form, where subordinates
of these leaders rated their superiors. 

Organisational commitment

Organisational commitment was measured using the three-
dimensional Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) instrument, that was
originally developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The affective,
continuance and normative organisational-commitment scales each
comprises six items, a modification of the original questionnaire.
Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) reported internal consistency reliability
estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for affective commitment (AC),
continuance commitment (CC) and normative commitment (NC) as
follows: AC, 0,82; CC, 0,74 and NC, 0,83. Responses were made on a 7-
point scale (1= strongly disagree and 7= strongly agree) and were
averaged to yield composite commitment scores for each leader. 

Job involvement

Kanungo’s (1982a, p. 169-170) 10-item Job Involvement Scale was
used, without filter items to measure the degree to which each rater
identified with his or her present job. Kanungo (1982b) reported
internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients of 0,87
and 0,85 respectively. The items were responded to on a six-point
scale (1= Agree strongly and 6= Disagree strongly), and were
averaged to yield a composite Job Involvement score for each leader.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was assessed using the 18-item Job in General
Scale, which was used to measure overall feelings about the job.
The scale required respondents to combine their reactions to
various aspects of the job into a single integrated response by
responding with a yes to a positive item and no to a negative
item. A total score, based on the 18 items, was calculated and
averaged across the raters for each leader. For interpretation
purposes an average score of 18 signifies a very high level of job
satisfaction and a 0 a very low level of job satisfaction. Ironson,
Smith, Brannick, Gibson and Paul (1989), reported an internal
consistency coefficient for the scale (coefficient alpha) of 0,91.  

The MLQ (5X) (Revised) (Copyright 1995 by Bernard M. Bass and
Bruce J. Avolio), was used with permission of Productivity
Development (Pty) Ltd, P.O. Box 756, Randburg, 2125.

Organisational citizenship behaviour

Three aspects of citizenship behaviour were measured – helping
behaviour, sportsmanship and civic virtue, using Posdakoff,
Ahearne and MacKenzie’s (1997) instrument. Posdakoff, Ahearne
and MacKenzie reported internal consistency reliabilit y
estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for Helping, 0,95; Civic Virtue,
0,96 and Sportsmanship, 0,88. Organisational citizenship
behaviour measures were obtained on a 7-point scale ranging
from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. 

Work Behaviours

In order to obtain additional information regarding each of the
rater’s work behaviours, it was decided to include a four-item
scale focusing on general work behaviours. Example items are:
“on average, how many hours overtime do you work per week?”
and “How many times a week do you take lunch?”

Procedure

The chief executive of the company introduced the study to all
executives and senior managers and personally encouraged
them to participate in the study so as to gain important insight
into the leadership styles and environment of the Group. Due
to the nature of the study, it was necessary to use a two-fold
approach. All directors/executives were first asked to complete
the MLQ as a self-rating, indicating how frequently, or to what
degree, they believed they engaged in the specific behaviours
identified. Thereafter all raters were requested to completed a
survey pack which contained personal profile information as
well as the MLQ (Rater), Organisational Commitment
Questionnaire, Work Behaviour Assessment Form, Job
Satisfaction Questionnaire, Job Involvement Questionnaire and
the Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Questionnaire. All
questionnaires were personalised with the name of the
executive/senior manager and the company name. The author
also ensured that each rater’s questionnaire included his/her
immediate superior’s name for control purposes. 

A private e-mail facility was set up with a password, accessible
only by the first author. Questionnaires were e-mailed to all
leaders and those subordinates reporting directly to these
leaders. Each questionnaire had a covering letter inviting
subjects to participate in the study and assuring them that
their individual responses would remain confidential.
Questionnaires were distributed using the e-mail facility
because of the geographical dispersion of the various
operating companies and the fact that many of the
participants’ work schedules did not allow for personal
administration of the questionnaires. Participants were
requested to complete the questionnaires and return them to
the author either via e-mail or in a sealed envelope to a central
location. Because control of the st udy was of utmost
importance, the author created a checklist per company and
tabled the names of each rater per leader. Completed
questionnaires were recorded against this checklist.

RESULTS

The descriptive statistics and reliabilities of the various
measures are shown in Table 1. It should be noted that the
results of the work behaviour items were omitted due to an
exceptionally poor response rate on these items. It should
further be noted that because the number of raters per leader
varied considerably, although the difference in their ratings
was minimal, a mean score was computed across all raters for
each respective leader. Two sets of descriptive statistics for the
rater MLQ results are provided in Table 1, namely the results
for the 276 raters and also the results based on the mean rater
scores per leader. The mean rater scores were used for testing
the hypotheses.

MESTER, VISSER, ROODT, KELLERMAN76



TABLE 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RELIABILITIES FOR

THE VARIOUS MEASURING INSTRUMENTS FOR RATERS

(N = 276) AND LEADERS (N = 52)

Variable N M SD Cronbach

alpha

MLQ (Raters)

Idealised Influence (attributes) 276 2,98 0,81 0,81

Idealised Influence (behaviour) 276 2,86 0,75 0,77

Inspirational Motivation 276 3,02 0,82 0,86

Intellectual Stimulation 276 2,74 0,79 0,78

Individualised Consideration 276 2,38 0,85 0,73

Constructive Consideration 276 2,70 0,87 0,77

Management by Exception (active) 276 2,38 0,86 0,75

Management by Exception (passive) 276 1,22 0,74 0,54

Laissez Faire 276 0,95 0,85 0,72

Extra Effort 276 2,74 0,92 0,84

Effectiveness 276 2,82 0,80 0,74

Satisfaction 276 3,00 0,84 0,84

MLQ (Raters – mean scores)

Idealised Influence (attributes) 52 2,89 0,58

Idealised Influence (behaviour) 52 2,80 0,54

Inspirational Motivation 52 2,93 0,62

Intellectual Stimulation 52 2,70 0,47

Individualised Consideration 52 2,33 0,57

Constructive Consideration 52 2,64 0,60

Management by Exception (active) 52 2,35 0,52

Management by Exception (passive) 52 1,23 0,40

Laissez Faire 52 1,00 0,59

Extra Effort 52 2,65 0,60

Effectiveness 52 2,76 0,53

Satisfaction 52 2,94 0,58

MLQ (Leaders)

Idealised Influence (attributes) 52 3,13 0,49 0,59

Idealised Influence (behaviour) 52 3,19 0,47 0,59

Inspirational Motivation 52 3,20 0,52 0,73

Intellectual Stimulation 52 3,21 0,45 0,67

Individualised Consideration 52 3,21 0,46 0,54

Constructive Consideration 52 3,12 0,52 0,46

Management by Exception (active) 52 2,46 0,77 0,76

Management by Exception (passive) 52 0,92 0,50 0,44

Laissez Faire 52 0,39 0,47 0,52

Extra Effort 52 3,19 0,51 0,80

Effectiveness 52 3,18 0,44 0,52

Satisfaction 52 3,21 0,46 0,38

Leadership Styles (Raters)

Transformational Leadership 276 2,76 0,67 0,92

Transactional Leadership 276 2,09 0,46 0,54

Laissez Faire Leadership 276 0,95 0,85 0,72

Organisational Commitment

Affective Commitment 272 5,50 1,07 0,77

Continuance Commitment 272 3,50 1,31 0,79

Normative Commitment 272 4,64 1,28 0,82

Job Involvement 271 4,18 0,81 0,83

Job Satisfaction 272 14,94 2,53 0,82

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Helping Behaviour 272 5,85 0,62 0,74

Civic Virtue 271 5,83 0,80 0,64

Sportsmanship 271 5,62 1,01 0,47

The affective, normative and continuance commitment 
mean scores were 5,50, 4,64 and 3,50 respectively. The mean
scores for job involvement, job sat isfact ion and
organisat ional cit izenship behaviour were above their
respective scale midpoints.

The internal consistency coefficients for the MLQ (raters),
organisational commitment, job involvement and job
satisfaction measures were generally acceptable (>0,70) except
for the MLQ dimension of Management by Exception, passive
(0,54). The internal consistency coefficients for the MLQ
(leaders) were not acceptable for several scales, probably as a
result of the small sample size. The intercorrelations between
the rater mean scores on the MLQ scales were calculated and
are reported in Table 2. The only scale that did not correlate
strongly with all the other scales, was Management by
Exception (active). It was therefore decided to obtain a
composite score for the three leadership styles separately and
to use these in the analyses to follow. The reliabilities of the
three leadership styles based on the rater mean scores were also
computed, namely 0,92 for transformational leadership, 0,54
for transactional leadership and 0,72 for laissez faire leadership
(see Table 1). 

The internal consistency coefficients for the organisational
citizenship behaviour dimensions of Civic Virtue (r = 0,64) and
Sportsmanship (0,47) were also found to be non-acceptable. In
order to assess whether the organisational citizenship behaviour
measure was reliable overall, the reliability of the total scale was
computed, which yielded a coefficient of 0,62. On the grounds
of these unsatisfactory reliability results, it as decided to carry
out an exploratory factor analysis on the organisational
citizenship behaviour measure to determine whether the
questionnaire would yield dimensions with acceptable
psychometric properties.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (MSA)
was equal to 0,78 and the Bartlett test for sphericit y was
613,45 (p<0,000) indicat ing that the sample used was
adequate and that there was sufficient justification to perform
a factor analysis. The 13 items of the organisat ional
citizenship behaviour questionnaire were subjected to a
principal axis factor analysis using a varimax rotation, which
resulted in four factors being extracted. Subscores were
determined for each of these factors, which were then
intercorrelated and subjected to a second order factor
analysis. The obtained factor matrix was obliquely rotated to
a simple structure using the direct oblimin procedure. Two
factors were obtained, namely Helping Behaviour and Civic
Virtue, as shown in Table 3. Due to the high correlation
bet ween these t wo factors, they were combined to yield a
single organisational citizenship behaviour dimension with a
reliabilit y coefficient of 0,76.

In order to establish whether there were any significant
differences bet ween the rater mean scores and the leaders’
self-ratings on each of the three leadership st yles, t-tests were
performed. Table 4 indicates significant differences in the
rat ings of transformat ional (p<0,000) and laissez faire
leadership (p<0,000). No significant difference was however
found for transactional leadership (p=0,062). When the
leadership st yles according to the perceptions of the raters
and the leaders were compared, 99,1% of the leaders rated
themselves as transformational, whereas the raters indicated
that only 90,6% were transformational and 7,5% laissez faire.
Interestingly, neither the leaders nor the raters indicated
transactional leadership as a dominant leadership st yle.
Leadership st yles according to the leaders and raters are
shown in Table 5. These results support findings in previous
research that self-report ratings are more favourable than
ratings by others.  

LEADERSHIP STYLE 77



TABLE 3

ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF THE ORGANISATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR QUESTIONNAIRE

Items Helping Behaviour Civic Virtue

OCB2 0,57 0,27

OCB4 0,58

OCB5 0,57 0,19

OCB1 0,57

OCB7 0,51 0,32

OCB3 0,48

OCB6 0,40 0,24

OCB9 0,70

OCB8 0,35 0,54

OCB10 0,14 0,61

TABLE 4

TEST FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADER AND RATER RESPONSES

TO THE MLQ (TRANSFORMATIONAL, TRANSACTIONAL AND

LAISSEZ FAIRE LEADERSHIP)

Paired Differences

Variable Mean SD SE t df p (2-tailed)

difference

Transformational 0,44 0,48 0,07 6,55 51 0,000
leadership

Transactional 0,09 0,35 0,05 1,91 51 0,062
leadership

Laissez Faire -0,61 0,67 0,09 -6,54 51 0,000
leadership

An objective of the study was to assess the interrelationships
between transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership
and organisational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement
and organisational citizenship behaviour. The interrelationships
between the variables were computed using Pearson’s product
moment correlation to identify the direction and strength of the
relationships between each of the variables. Subsequently, canonical
correlation analyses were performed to assess the overall correlation
between the independent and dependent variables. 

TABLE 5

PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP STYLE ACCORDING TO

LEADERS AND RATERS (N = 52)

Frequency Percent

Leader

Transformational 52 99,1

Rater

Transformational 48 90,6

Laissez Faire 4 7,5

Table 6 presents the results of the intercorrelation matrix.
Significant correlations were obtained between the leadership
dimensions. Both transformational and transactional leadership
correlated positively with affective commitment (r = 0,45 and
0,46). No significant correlation was found bet ween
continuance commitment and transformational and
transactional leadership. Furthermore, no significant correlation
was found between transactional leadership and normative
commitment. A significant correlation was found between
transformational leadership and normative commitment (r =
0,34) and organisational citizenship behaviour (r = 0,28). A
surprising result, however, was that transformational and
transactional leadership did not correlate significantly with the
constructs of job involvement and job satisfaction. The results
indicate that laissez faire leadership does not correlate with the
variables of affective commitment, continuance commitment,
normative commitment, job involvement, job satisfaction and
organisational citizenship behaviour. In line with the high
affective and normative mean scores obtained, the
intercorrelation matrix indicates a significant correlation
between these two variables (r = 0,55). The results further
indicate significant correlations bet ween normative
commitment and job involvement (r = 0,36), job satisfaction (r =
0,53) and organisational citizenship behaviour (r = 0,53).
Furthermore, and in line with previous research findings,
significant correlations were found between (a) affective
commitment and job involvement (r = 0,37), job satisfaction (r =
0,56) and organisational citizenship behaviour (r = 0,52), (b) job
involvement with job satisfaction (r = 0,46) and organisational
citizenship behaviour (0,40) and (c) job satisfaction and
organisational citizenship behaviour (r = 0,37). 

MESTER, VISSER, ROODT, KELLERMAN78

TABLE 2

INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE MLQ SCALES (RATER MEANS, N=52)

MLQ scale Idealised Idealised Inspirational Intellectual Individualised Constructive Management by Management by Laissez faire

influence- influence- motivation stimulation consideration consideration exception-active exception- passive

attributes behaviour

Idealised influence- 1,00
attributes

Idealised influence- 0,79** 1,00
behaviour

Inspirational 0,86** 0,78** 1,00
motivation

Intellectual 0,77** 0,67** 0,74** 1,00
stimulation

Individualised 0,79** 0,65** 0,70** 0,79** 1,00
consideration

Constructive 0,87** 0,74** 0,83** 0,74** 0,85** 1,00
consideration

Management by 0,30* 0,31* 0,16 0,31* -0,37** 0,43** 1,00
exception-active

Management by -0,72** -0,64** -0,65** -0,67** -0,63** -0,63** -0,35* 1,00
exception- passive

Laissez faire -0,67** -0,59** -0,58** -0,48** -0,59** -0,66** -0,23 0,68** 1,00

**p<0,01
*p<0,05



Two canonical correlation analyses were performed. Firstly, an
analysis was performed using the leadership styles (raters) as
independent variables and the attitude and behaviour variables
as dependent variables. 

In order to determine the number of statistically significant
canonical correlations, Bartlett’s chi-square test was performed.
Table 7 shows the results of Bartlett’s chi-square test based on the
mean scores of the raters on all variables. It appeared that at least the
first eigenvalue was significant and the researcher was thus entitled
to interpret the first set of canonical correlations given in Table 8.

TABLE 7

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONS –

BARTLETT’S TEST (RATERS)

Eigenvalue Canonical No of eigen- Chi-square df p

correlation values removed

0,372 0,61 0 38,69 18 0,003

0,199 0,45 1 16,80 10 0,079

0,127 0,36 2 6,36 4 0,174

TABLE 8

CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF THE LEADERSHIP STYLES

(RATERS) AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND THE ATTITUDES AND

BEHAVIOUR VARIABLES AS DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Correlations of original measures 

with canonical variate

Independent Variables 

Transformational Leadership 0,53

Transactional Leadership 0,92

Laissez Faire Leadership -0,004

Percentage of variance explained 37,42%

Redundancy index 13,93%

Dependent Variables 

Affective Commitment 0,74

Continuance Commitment 0,03

Normative Commitment 0,49

Job Involvement 0,43

Job Satisfaction 0,19

Organisational citizenship behaviour 0,05

Percentage of variance explained 16,88%

Redundancy index 6,28%

In order to interpret the ‘meaning’ of each canonical variate pair,
the factor structure method was used. Those variables that
correlate highly with a canonical variate can be regarded as
having more in common with it. The correlations of the original
measures with the first canonical variate pair are given in Table
8. It is apparent that transactional leadership (0,92) is
significantly correlated with the independent canonical variate,
whilst affective commitment (0,74) is significantly correlated
with the dependent canonical variate. Furthermore, the results
indicate that transformational leadership (0,53) is positively
correlated with the independent variate and normative
commitment (0,49) and job involvement (0,43) are positively
correlated with the dependent variate. The canonical correlation
between the independent and the dependent variates is 0,61.
Thus 37,23% (Table 7) of the variance of the dependent variate is
accounted for by the independent variate. It can also be seen
from Table 8 that the independent canonical variate accounts for
37,42% of the variance of the original independent variables and
the dependent canonical variate accounts for 16,88% of the
variance of the original dependent variables. If one considers the
redundancy index, it appears that the independent canonical
variate accounts for 13,93% of the dependent variables and the
dependent canonical variate accounts for 6,28% of the variance
of the independent variables. 

For the second canonical correlation analysis, leadership styles
(leaders) were used as independent variables and the attitudes
and behaviour variables were used as dependent variables. Table
9 shows the results of Bartlett’s chi-square test based on the
leaders’ MLQ results and the raters mean scores for the affective
commitment, continuance commitment, normative
commitment, job involvement, job satisfaction and
organisational citizenship behaviour variables. It appeared that
the first eigenvalue is not significant and therefore an
interpretation of the first canonical correlation is not indicated. 

TABLE 9

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CANONICAL CORRELATIONS –

BARTLETT’S TEST FOR LEADER RATINGS

Eigenvalue Canonical No of eigen- Chi-square df p

correlation values removed

0,166 0,41 0 12,43 18 0,824

0,076 0,28 1 3,88 10 0,921

0,004 0,06 2 0,17 4 0,996

LEADERSHIP STYLE 79

TABLE 6

INTERCORRELATION MATRIX OF RATERS’ SCORES (N = 52)

TF TA LF AC CC NC JI JS OCB

TF 1,00

TA 0,56 1,00
(0,000)

LF -0,66 -0,32 1,00
(0,000) (0,020)

AC 0,45 0,46 -0,24 1,00
(0,001) (0,001) (0,066)

CC -0,15 0,02 0,11 -0,12 1,00
(0,279) (0,872) (0,450) (0,409)

NC 0,34 0,26 -0,11 0,55 0,14 1,00
(0,019) (0,061) (0,446) (0,000) (0,327)

JI 0,11 0,13 0,20 0,37 0,08 0,36 1,00
(0,448) (0,354) (0,149) (0,006) (0,567) (0,009)

JS 0,24 0,11 -0,14 0,56 -0,05 0,53 0,46 1,00
(0,081) (0,434) (0,323) (0,000) (0,703) (0,000) (0,001)

OCB 0,28 0,02 -0,18 0,52 0,01 0,54 0,40 0,37 1,00
(0,045) (0,907) (0,204) (0,000) (0,968) (0,000) (0,003) (0,007)

Note: Values between brackets indicate the exact p values
TF = Transformational Leadership; TA = Transactional Leadership; LF= Laissez Faire Leadership; AC= Affective Commitment; CC= Continuance Commitment; NC= Normative Commitment; JI= Job
Involvement; JS= Job Satisfaction; OCB = Organisational Citizenship Behaviour



DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this study was to examine the
relationship between leadership style and employee attitudes
and behaviour, and whether the strength of the relationship was
greater for transformational than transactional leaders.
Leadership theory suggests a stronger, positive relationship
bet ween transformational leadership and organisational
commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement and
organisational citizenship behaviour, however previous
researchers (Judge & Bono, 2000; Schnake & Dumler, 1993) have
called for more research to support such a link. This study
responds to this call and thus fills an important void in the
leadership literature. 

Both the intercorrelations and canonical correlation analyses of
the rater mean scores revealed that the most prominent
significant relationship is between transactional leadership and
affective commitment. Interestingly, the results of the canonical
correlations based on the leaders ratings, indicated that no
significant canonical correlation was found. 

From the intercorrelation matrix for raters (Table 6), it was found
that there was a significant and positive correlation between
transactional leadership and affective commitment (r = 0,46).
However the correlation between transformational leadership
and affective commitment was also positive and significant (r =
0,45). At the same time, Table 8 indicates that, although
transactional leadership best describes the independent
canonical variate (r = 0,92), transformational leadership is also
positively correlated with the independent variate (r = 0,53).
Given the significant correlation between transformational and
transactional leadership (r = 0,56), one could expect to obtain a
significant and positive correlation of both transformational and
transactional leadership with affective commitment. These
findings support the author’s prediction of a positive
relationship bet ween affective commitment and
transformational and transactional leadership. However, it does
not support the hypothesis of a higher correlation between
transformational leadership and affective commitment than
between transactional leadership and affective commitment. In
retrospect, several factors may explain these results. 

First, the results seem understandable given that transactional
leadership is based on an exchange of information between
leaders and followers for various kinds of rewards. When this
transactional relationship is acceptable to the follower, there
may be a feeling of emotional attachment towards the
organisation. This could also possibly explain the non-
significant correlation between transactional leadership and
continuance commitment. Secondly, effective leaders typically
display both transformational and transactional characteristics,
as evidenced by the positive correlations between these two
styles of leadership. This supports previous findings in the
literature (Avolio & Bass, 1999; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998; Hartog
& Van Muijen, 1997), and suggests that effective executives use
a combination of distinct leadership styles, each in the right
measure and at the right time. Although results indicate a strong
correlation bet ween transformational and transactional
leadership, it is interesting to note that both leaders and raters
perceive transformational leadership to be the dominant
leadership style (Table 5). 

The significant differences in the ratings between the rater mean
scores and leaders mean ratings on transformational leadership
(Table 4), support theories that self-ratings are consistently
higher than rater responses. Respondents tend to give socially
desirable responses as opposed to actual behaviours in action.
Thirdly, the low internal consistency (0,54) of the transactional
leadership scale may be the cause for the non-significant
relationships with other variables. Finally, the average age of the
respondents may be a factor in this study. The majority of
respondents in the sample were above the age of 40, indicating

that they possibly have well established leadership patterns and
could therefore find it difficult and uncomfortable to change to
a more transforming leadership style. 

The high correlation between affective commitment and
normative commitment is noteworthy. By means of a brief
historical overview, many of the participants in this study had been
with the company for a long time and have therefore been involved
in the structural changes that have taken place. In addition, this
company employed a number of new executives/senior managers
before and during these changing times. Based on the history of
the company, the results do not seem surprising at all. The high
levels of normative commitment could be a result of those
executives/senior managers who have been with the company for
a long time and therefore feel duty-bound to remain with the
company during its difficult times or they are new employees who
remain with the organisation because they feel that they ought to.
The high levels of affective commitment describe those long-
standing loyal executives/senior managers who are emotionally
attached to the organisation and its purpose. 

A surprising result of this study is that transformational and
transactional leadership did not correlate significantly with job
involvement and job satisfaction. Although Judge and Bono
(2000) found no relationship bet ween transformational
leadership and overall job satisfaction, a finding of no
significant correlation between transformational leadership and
job involvement is not supported by previous research found in
the literature (Knoop, 1986). The mean job involvement (4,18)
and job satisfaction (14,94) scores as shown in Table 1, provide
evidence of above average levels of job involvement and job
satisfaction in this company. However, the results indicate that
transformational and transactional leadership do not affect these
constructs. A possible explanation for such a result is the status
and gender of the sample that was drawn. Individuals included in
this sample were predominantly male professionals with expert
knowledge in their respective fields. Perhaps the content and
quality of their work, personal status, reward strategy and
working environment contribute more to their level of job
involvement and job satisfaction than leadership style. In
addition, one wonders whether these results would have been
different if there was an equal number of males and females.

The significant correlation between transformational leadership
and organisational citizenship behaviour was expected. As
suggested in the literature, organisational citizenship is a
behavioural activity in which employees go beyond prescribed
job requirements, an activity that is presumed to be the effect of
a transformational leader. Although Schnake and Dumler (1993)
found transactional leadership to contribute more to the
prediction of organisational citizenship behaviour than did super
leadership (characterised by employee autonomy and control),
this result was unexpected and thought to be the result of the
jobs in the study all being relatively low task scopes. This study
responded to their call to investigate leadership as a predictor of
organisational citizenship behaviour with a sample of jobs higher
in task scope, and consequently supports their initial expectation
of a significant relationship between transformational leadership
and organisational citizenship behaviour.

A number of limitations of the study have been identified. First,
there was a disproportionate number of transformational,
transactional and laissez faire leaders in the sample primarily
because the author did not identify these sample groups prior to
carrying out the study. Future research should evaluate the
relationship between leadership style and employee attitudes and
behaviour using pre-determined sample groups. Second, the use of
a single organisation as the research site is a potential limitation on
the generalisability of these results. Attempts should be made to
replicate these analyses in a number of different industries. Third,
the results were obtained at a time when the company was
experiencing large scale restructuring that could have affected
individual perceptions of each of the variables measured. Future

MESTER, VISSER, ROODT, KELLERMAN80



studies may improve on the current findings by replicating the
research in an organisation where structural changes are minimal.

In summary, this study makes a contribution to our knowledge of
leadership in that it evaluates the relationship between leadership
style and employee levels of organisational commitment, job
satisfaction, job involvement and organisational citizenship
behaviour. Although transformational and transactional
leadership did not correlate significantly with job involvement
and job satisfaction, the study provides evidence of a significant
relationship between transactional leadership and affective
commitment, transformational leadership and affective
commitment (to a lesser degree), normative commitment as well
as organisational citizenship behaviour. The results further
indicate a significant relationship between affective commitment
and normative commitment. It is thus hoped that this study will
stimulate future research into the relationship between
leadership style and employee attitudes and behaviours. 

REFERENCES

Ackermann, C.P., Schepers, J.M., Lessing, B.C. & Dannhauser, Z.
(2000). The factor structure of Bass’s Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire in the South African context. Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 26 (2), 58-65.

Agho, A.O. & Price, J.L. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures
of job  satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative
affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organisational
Psychology, 65 (4), 185-197.

Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organisation. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63 (1), 1-18.

Allen, T.D. & Rush, M.C. (1998). The effects of organisational
citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field of
study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83 (2), 247-260.

Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1999). Re-examining the components
of transformational and transactional leadership using the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of Occupational
and Organisational Psychology, 72 (4), 441-463.

Bailey, D.A. (1999). Strateg y development processes and
participation in decision making: Predictors of role stressors
and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Management Studies,
8, 27.

Barbuto, J.E. (1997). Taking the charisma out of transformational
leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12 (3),
689-690.

Bass, M.B. & Avolio, B.J. (1997). Full range leadership development.
Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
California: Mind Garden.

Bass, M.B. & Steidlmeier, P. (1998). Ethics, character and authentic
transformational leadership. Binghamton Universit y,
Binghamton, New York.

Available: http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html. (25
October 2000)

Bassett, G. (1994). The case against job satisfaction. Business
Horizons, 37 (3), 61-68.

Berg, P. (1999). The effects of high performance work practices
on job satisfaction in the United States steel industry.
Industrial Relations, 54, 111-112.

Blau, G.J. (1985). A multiple study investigation of the
dimensionality of job involvement. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 27, 19-36.

Blau, G.J. (1999). Testing the longitudinal impact of work
variables and performance appraisal satisfaction on
subsequent overall job satisfaction. Human Relations, 52 (8),
1099.

Bleeker, M.M.E. & Roodt, G. (2002). Die verband tussen
werkbetrokkenheid en werkprestasie (The relationship
between work involvement and work performance). SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28 (1), 22-32. 

Boyle, B.A. (1997). A multi-dimensional perspective on
salesperson commitment. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 12 (5-6), 354.

Brooke, P.P., Russell, D.W. & Price, J.L. (1988). Discriminant
validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement,
and organisational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73 (2), 139-145.

Brown, S.P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organisational
research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120 (2),
235-255.

Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A. & O’Reilly, C.A. (1990). Building
organisational commitment: A multiform study. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 245-261.

Cappelli, P. & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and
organisational citizenship: Implications for labor law reform
and ‘lean production’. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
51 (4), 633-654.

Carless, S.A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity of
transformational leader behaviors as measured by the MLQ.
Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 71 (4),
353-358.

Chen, X.; Hui, C. & Sego, D.J. (1998). The role of organisational
citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and
preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83 (6), 922-931.

Covin, T.J. & Kolenko, T.A. (1997). Leadership style and post-
merger satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 16
(1), 22-34.

Cropanzano, R., James, K. & Konovsky, M.A. (1993).
Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and
job performance. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 14, 595-
606.

Deluga, R.J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and
effectiveness ratings. Group and Organisation Management,
23 (2), 189-116.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. & Davis-LaMastro (1990). Perceived
organizational support and employee diligence,
commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75 (1), 51-59.

Elloy, D.F., Everett, J.E. & Flynn, W.R. (1991). An examination of
the correlates of job involvement. Group and Organisational
Studies, 16 (2), 160-177.

Harkins, P.J. (1998). Why employees stay-or go. Workforce, 77
(10), 74-79.

Hartog, D.N. & Van Muijen, J. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal
of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 70 (1), 19-35

Hater, J.J. & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and
subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4),
695-702.

Hodson, R. (1999). Management citizenship behavior: A new
concept and an empirical test. Social Problems, 46 (3), 460-478.

Ironson, G.H., Smith, P.C., Brannick, M.T., Gibson, W.M. & Paul,
K.B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A
comparison of global, composite, and specific measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (2), 193-200.

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality
and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 45 (5), 751-765.

Kanungo, R.N. (1982a). Work alienation. An integrative approach.
New York: Praeger. 

Kanungo, R.N. (1982b). Measurement of job and work
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (3), 341-349.

Keller, R.T. (1997). Job involvement and organisational
commitment as longitudinal predictors of job performance:
A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82 (4), 539-545.

Knoop, R. (1986). Job involvement: An elusive concept.
Psychological Reports, 59, 451-456.

Lease, S.H. (1998). Annual review, 1993-1997: Work attitudes and
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 154-183.

LEADERSHIP STYLE 81



Lee, K., Carswell, J.J. & Allen, N.J. (2000). A meta-analytic review
of occupational commitment: Relations with person-and
work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 (5),
799-811.

Levin, I. & Stokes, J.P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job
satisfaction: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74 (5), 752-758.

Lu, L. (1999). Work motivation, job stress and employee well-
being. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8 (1), 61.

McGee, G.A. & Ford, R.C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of
organisational commitment: Reexamination of the affective
and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72 (4), 538-642.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of
organisational commitment: Some methodological
considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (3), 372-378.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to
organisations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-
component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78 (4), 538-551.

Morrow, P.C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organisational
research: The case of work commitment. Academy of
Management Review, 8 (3), 486-500.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organisational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Organ, D.W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organisational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 775-802.

Paullay, I.M., Alliger, G.M. & Stone-Romero, E.F. (1994).
Construct validation of t wo instruments designed to
measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79 (2), 224-228.

Posdakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). Organisational
citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing Research, XXXI, 351-363.

Posdakoff, P.M.; Ahearne, M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997).
Organisational citizenship behavior and the quantity and
quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82 (2), 262-270.

Posdakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. & Bommer, W.H. (1996).
Transformational leader behavior and substitutes for
leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust and organisational citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Management, 22 (2), 259-289.

Randall, B.D., Dunham, J.A., Grube & Castaneda, M.B. (1994).
Organisational commitment: The utility of an integrative
definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (3), 370-380.

Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of
organisational commitment. Academy of Management
Review, 10 (3), 465-476.

Roodt, G. (1997). Theoretical and empirical linkages between
work-related commitment foci. Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 23 (2), 6-13.

Schnake, M. & Dumler, M.P. (1993). The relationship between
“traditional” leadership, “super” leadership, and
organisational citizenship behavior. Group and
Organisational Management, 18 (3), 352-365.

Shore, L.M., Barksdale, K. & Shore, T.H. (1995). Managerial
perceptions of employee commitment to the organisation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38 (6), 1593-2016.

Shore, L.M. & Wayne, S.J. (1993). Commitment and employee
behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and
continuance commitment with perceived organisational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (5), 774-780.

Somers, M.J. (1993). A test of the relationship between affective
and continuance commitment using non-recursive models.
Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 66 (2),
185-192.

Steel, R.P. & Rentsch, J.R. (1997). The dispositional model of job
attitudes revisited: Findings of a 10-year study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82 (6), 873-879. 

Storm, L. & Roodt, G. (2002). Die verband tussen organisasie-
sosialisering en organisasieverbondenheid (The relationship
between organisational socialization and organisational
commitment). SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28 (1), 14-21.

Tepper, B.J. & Percy, P.M. (1994). Structural validity of the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. Educational &
Psychological Measurement, 54 (3), 734-745.

Tracey, J.B. & Hinkin, T.R. (1998). Transformational leadership or
effective managerial practices? Group and Organisational
Management, 23 (3), 220-237.

Trott, M.C. & Windsor, K. (1999). Leadership effectiveness: How
do you measure up? Nursing Economics, 17 (3), 127-130. 

Van Yperen, N.W. & van den Berg, A.E. (1999). Towards a better
understanding of the link between participation in decision-
making and organisational citizenship behaviour: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organisational Psychology, 72 (3), 377-392.

MESTER, VISSER, ROODT, KELLERMAN82