Transformational Leadership 1

FINAL

Running head: TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Martial Arts

Academic citation: Rowold, J. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership in

martial arts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18 (4), 312-325.

 Transformational Leadership 2

Abstract

This study sought to provide information about both the range and effectiveness of

distinct leadership styles of sport coaches. Examining students’ perceptions (N = 186) of sport

coaches’ leadership behaviors in a martial arts setting, this study tested the factorial validity of

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X), the standard instrument for assessing a

range of transformational, transactional, and nonleadership scales. The results supported a

nine-factor structure of the MLQ-5X, confirming recent empirical analyses (Antonakis,

Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Although transactional leadership was significantly

related to leaders’ effectiveness, transformational leadership added unique variance beyond

that of transactional leadership for predicting leader effectiveness. This lends further support

for the augmentation effect of transformational leadership. In combination, the results allow

for a more thorough description of sport coaches’ effective leadership behaviors.

Key words. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, MLQ, recreational sports,

martial arts
 Transformational Leadership 3

Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Martial Arts

In the past three decades, substantial progress has been made in the identification of

sport coaches’ leadership styles (Horn, 2002; Sullivan & Kent, 2003). For example, Smoll and

Smith (1989) proposed that athletes’ cognitive processes mediate the relationship between

coaches’ behaviors and athletes’ satisfaction. Based on their cognitive-mediational model, the

Coaching Behavior Assessment System (CBAS) was developed. This system primarily

focuses on the assessment, training, and (post-training) re-assessment of feedback and

instructional comments that coaches provide. Studies using the CBAS showed significant

links between coaches’ feedback patterns and athletes’ self-esteem, intrinsic motivation,

perceived competence, and satisfaction. In addition, it was found that the training changed

coaches’ feedback patterns, and, in turn, enhanced athletes’ satisfaction.

Furthermore, Chelladurai (1990) elaborated the Multidimensional Model of

Leadership. For the assessment of several components of the model, the Leadership Scale for

Sports (LSS) was developed (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). It allows for the assessment of five

specific dimensions of coaches’ behaviors (i.e., leadership styles) from the coaches’ and from

the athletes’ perspective. Empirical research provided evidence that several dimensions of the

LSS are significantly related to athletes’ satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, perceived

competence, and performances (Chelladurai, 1993).

The CBAS and the LSS are two examples of how theoretical and empirical research

has advanced scientific as well as practical knowledge about coaches’ leadership behaviors

(see Chelladurai, 1990; Horn, 2002, for reviews). However, several other possible leadership

styles may have been untapped by research (Horn, 2002). More specifically, while

transformational and transactional leadership styles have been explored in various settings,

their application to the field of sports has been very limited (Yukl, 2002). As a consequence,

the present study explores these leadership styles within the domain of sports. First, the theory
 Transformational Leadership 4

of transformational and transactional leadership is described. Next, its relevance for the field

of sports is discussed. Central to this point is the question how specific leadership styles help

coaches to boost athletes’ motivation, satisfaction, and, ultimately, performances. Finally,

empirical data are presented that demonstrate the range and effectiveness of coaches’

transformational and transactional leadership styles.

The Transformational - Transactional Leadership Paradigm

Burns (1978) first drew a distinction between transactional and transformational

leadership. Within transactional leadership, leaders clearly outline tasks and how they should

be performed. Followers agree to complete the assignments in exchange for commensurate

material or psychological compensation (e.g., recognition, awards). After outlining tasks and

rewards, the leader passively monitors how the task is performed by the subordinates. In

contrast, transformational leaders have the ability to inspire followers to go beyond expected

levels of commitment and contribution. This inspirational process relies on emphasizing task-

related values and a strong commitment to a mission. Mission statements communicate the

transformational leader’s long-term vision which is rooted in common-shared values.

Ultimately, the formulation, communication, and representation of a long-term vision

transforms followers’ attitudes. Moreover, followers are motivated to look beyond their own

interests towards those that will benefit the group. Another mechanism of transformational

leadership is that followers are stimulated to view their tasks or challenges from new

perspectives (Bass, 1985).

Over the last twenty years, Bass and his colleagues (Bass, 1985; 1999; Bass & Avolio,

2000) have made considerable efforts to define and assess the aspects of transactional and

transformational leadership. In order to develop a full range of leadership behaviors, several

aspects of transformational and transactional leadership were included in the standard

instrument for measurement of transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership

 Transformational Leadership 5

Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio, 2000). In its current form, the full range leadership

theory represents nine leadership factors comprised of five transformational leadership

factors, three transactional leadership factors, and one nonleadership or laissez-faire

leadership factor (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004; Bass &

Avolio, 2000). What follows is a brief description of these factors.

The first transformational scale is called Inspirational Motivation. Central to this

subscale of transformational leadership is the articulation and representation of a vision.

Consequently, being encouraged to view the future with a positive attitude, followers are

motivated. Idealized Influence-attributed refers to the attribution of the leader’s charisma.

Because of the leader’s positive attributes (e.g., perceived power, focusing on higher-order

ideals, values), followers develop close emotional ties to the leader. Trust and confidence are

likely to be built in the followers. Idealized Influence-behavior emphasizes a collective sense

of mission and values, as well as acting upon these values. Next, Intellectual Stimulation

includes challenging the assumptions of followers’ beliefs, their analysis of problems, and

solutions they generate to solve these problems. Individualized Consideration is defined as

considering the followers’ individual needs and developing their individual strengths.

As for the transactional leadership scales, Contingent Reward is a leadership behavior,

where the leader focuses on clearly defined tasks, while providing followers with rewards

(material or psychological) for the fulfillment of these tasks. In Active Management-by-

Exception, the leader watches and actively searches for deviations from rules and standards in

order to avoid these deviations; if necessary, corrective actions are taken. In contrast, in

Management-by-Exception Passive intervention only occurs after errors have been detected or

if standards have not been met. An even more passive approach is Laissez-Faire, which is

basically defined as the absence of leadership. As such, laissez-faire is considered as a

 Transformational Leadership 6

nonleadership behavior contrasting the more active forms of transformational and

transactional leadership.

Empirical research underlines the importance of assessing a broad range of different

and distinct aspects of leaders’ behaviors in order to analyze the differences between effective

and ineffective leaders in greater detail (Avolio, 1999) and to identify the key components of

successful leadership behavior (Avolio & Bass, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck & Sivasubramaniam,

1996). The MLQ is a valid instrument for assessing several distinct aspects of leadership and

represents the instrument of choice for testing hypotheses concerning a range of leadership

styles, as well as for development and feedback purposes (Antonakis & House, 2002).

Effects of Transformational Leadership

The relevance of transformational and transactional leadership becomes apparent

when empirical results focusing on the relationships between transformational and

transactional leadership styles, respectively, and organizational outcomes are considered. For

example, in a meta-analysis by Lowe et al. (1996), transformational leadership was found to

predict both subjective (e.g., followers’ satisfaction) and objective (e.g., profit) indicators of

leaders’ effectiveness across a wide range of organisational settings. In contrast, these

relationships were typically weak and insignificant for transactional leadership. Laissez-Faire

showed negative relationships to outcome criteria.

The positive impact of transformational leadership on various facets of performance

and on followers’ satisfaction augments the impact of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985). In

statistical terms, transformational leadership adds unique variance beyond that of transactional

leadership for predicting outcome criteria. This augmentation effect has been confirmed in

various settings (Bycio, Hackett & Allen, 1995; Hater & Bass, 1988; Waldman, Bass &

Yammarino, 1990) and is the key component of the external validity of transformational

leadership. The augmentation effect is tested by applying hierarchical regression analysis.

 Transformational Leadership 7

First, the impact of transactional and nonleadership scales on the dependent measure is tested.

In a second step, the transformational leadership scales are included in the regression

equation. The augmentation effect is confirmed if the transformational leadership scales

explain additional variance in the outcome measure (Waldman et al., 1990).

Transformational Leadership in Sports

Summarizing the literature, Bass (1997) claimed that transformational leadership

represents a universal phenomenon. For example, transformational leadership has been

proven to have a positive impact on organizational performance and followers’ satisfaction in

a wide range of different organizations such as profit- and non-profit organizations (Fuller,

Patterson, Hester & Stringer, 1996; Lowe et al., 1996), in educational contexts (Harvey, Royal

& Stout, 2003), the church (Druskat, 1994), the military (Bass, 1998), and sports management

(Davis, 2002; Ristow, Amos & Staude, 1999).

In addition, it is important to study the transformational leadership of sport coaches,

for three main reasons. First, as was described above, transformational leadership has been

proven valid for our comprehension of leadership in a wide range of organizations. Second, as

transformational leadership has been found to be closely associated with outcome criteria

such as followers’ performance and motivation, it seems valuable to learn more about the

effects of this approach to leadership in the sports domain. Third, especially the augmentation

effect seems to be particularly promising in order to learn more about effective leadership

strategies for sport coaches (Lim & Cromartie, 2001). Taken together, transformational

leadership is a useful approach to study sport coaches’ leadership behaviors, as has been

suggested by Jones (2002) and other researchers (Hsu, Bell & Cheng, 2002; Lim &

Cromartie, 2001; Weese, 1994). While these scholars examined the subject of

transformational leadership theoretically, empirical studies are rare.

 Transformational Leadership 8

To our knowledge, only two empirical studies using transformational leadership to

describe sport coaches’ leadership behaviors were conducted. First, using a developmental

approach, Zacharatos, Barling, and Kelloway (2000) examined the impact of adolescents’

leadership styles on subjective performance measures within team sports. Adolescents who

employed transformational leadership were rated as more effective, satisfying, and effort-

evoking by their peers and coaches. However, this empirical investigation combined several

aspects of transformational leadership into one single scale of transformational leadership,

limiting the results. Moreover, the mean age (15.2 years) of the participants further limits the

results.

Second, Charbonneau, Barling, and Kelloway (2001) reported a model of sports

performance of university athletes. Students’ intrinsic motivation moderated the relationship

between coaches’ transformational leadership and students’ sports performances. As in the

Zacharatos et al. (2000) study, the age of participants was young, ranging between 17 and 22

years. The results were further limited because of the use of a single, combined measure of

transformational leadership. Subscales of transformational leadership, as well as transactional

leadership, were omitted from analyses. Given the high impact transformational leadership

has on important outcomes such as performance and followers’ satisfaction, the limited

number of empirical research studies is surprising.

Effective Leadership in Recreational Sports

In this section, we will deal with the explication of performance measures of effective

sport coaches. The present study examined sport coaches’ leadership behaviors in recreational

sports. It has been stated elsewhere (Hawkins & Tolzin, 2002) that sport is an example of

postmodern organizations. This is true for recreational sports, too (Mathews, 1987). Due to

reduced financial support from governmental agencies and dynamic situational contingencies,

sport coaches have to stay flexible in order to lead successfully (Lim & Cromartie, 2001;
 Transformational Leadership 9

Stobart & Johnson, 1991). In this regard, they face the same challenges as leaders in other

non-profit organizations (Egri & Herman, 2000). In accordance to Zacharatos et al. (2000),

several distinct and representational components of leaders’ effectiveness in recreational

sports are defined. First, leaders have to be effective in meeting organizational requirements

(e.g., administration, supplies). Second, leaders have to ensure a high degree of members’

satisfaction. Third, especially in recreational sports which include competition, coaches help

members to develop their physical and mental abilities and to continuously expand their

performance efforts. The last two components of effective leadership will result in satisfied

members who experience a higher degree of quality of life (due to continuous development of

physical capacities). This, in turn, will extend members’ tenures, which is important for the

survival of recreational sport clubs (Mathews, 1987). Fourth, the frequency of members’

attendance at training sessions per month is defined as an indicator of their effort and their

high commitment to their respective sport (Stobart & Johnson, 1991). In combination, these

four components defined coaching effectiveness for the purpose of the present study. It is

acknowledged, however, that other components – which were beyond the scope of the present

study – are important for our comprehension of effective coaching, too (for a review of this

issue, cf. Horn, 2002).

Theory suggests that these performance measures are influenced not only by sport

coaches’ behaviors, but also by a number of additional variables. Most notably, coaches’ and

athletes’ demographic characteristics such as age and gender should be taken into account.

For example, in Smoll and Smith’s (1989) cognitive-mediational model, these variables were

discussed in regards to their relevance for explaining athletes’ evaluative reactions to their

coaches’ behaviors. In addition, Magill (1994) provided empirical evidence that the

effectiveness of coaches’ behaviors varied as a function of athletes’ skill levels. More

specifically, experienced athletes needed different kinds of feedback than novice athletes.
 Transformational Leadership 10

It is reasonable to assume that not only athletes’, but also coaches’ skill levels have an

effect on the evaluation of coaches’ leadership behaviors. More experienced coaches might

possess more positive attributes. In addition, behaviors exerted by more experienced coaches

might be more credible and more valuable to the athletes and thus have a stronger positive

impact on the evaluation of leadership behavior. In sum, while coaches’ leadership behaviors

are important for the explanation of the performance measures discussed above, these control

variables should be taken into account (Horn, 2002).

Study Goals

The present study aimed at extending previous research in two ways. First, it tested if

sport coaches’ behaviors can be described by nine transformational, transactional, and

nonleadership scales (Antonakis et al., 2003). Thus, the complete set of MLQ items was

implemented in a set of sport organizations. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to

determine whether the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X provided an adequate fit to sport

coaches’ leadership behaviors.

Second, this study tested which leadership styles are related to four criteria of

coaching effectiveness. From the review of the literature discussed above it can be proposed

that transformational leadership styles are significantly and positively related to coaching

effectiveness. Regression analysis was used to test if the augmentation effect proved to be

valid in the field of sport coaches’ leadership. In the first step of the regression analysis,

control variables (i.e., students’ and coaches’ demographic variables and skill levels) were

included in the regression. Next, transactional and nonleadership measures were included to

test their effect on the respective outcome measure. Finally, the augmenting effect of

transformational leadership was tested by including transformational leadership scales in the

last step of the regression analysis. Because transformational leadership scales were included
 Transformational Leadership 11

in the last step of the regression analysis, their influence on outcome criteria is tested in a

rigorous way.

Providing future researchers with a broad range of leadership behavior descriptions for

feedback and training purposes, it was hoped that these two extensions to previous research

would yield a more complete, more valid, and more useful understanding of the leadership

process and its impact on effectiveness measures.

Method

The study focused on martial arts sport clubs (traditional karate) for three reasons.

First, within traditional karate, the leadership role is clearly defined and highly visible. The

sport coach (sensei) represents a role model and provides clearly defined examples of required

behavior to the students of martial arts (e.g., new physical capabilities like moves). In the

present study, the terms sensei and coach are used synonymously. Second, traditional karate

requires the student (karateka) to learn a variety of skills and knowledge from the coach. This

includes physical (Columbus & Rice, 1998), mental (Seitz, Olson, Locke & Quam, 1990),

emotional (Layton, 1990), and philosophical (Sylvia & Pindur, 1978) skills and knowledge.

This provides a basis for a multi-layered relationship between coach and student. Third, karate

organizations have a well-defined hierarchy, where students as well as coaches have highly

visible ranks. The rank is in turn related to the respective skill level: Novice students occupy a

lower rank, which is demonstrated by the color of their belt. The novice students advance

from white belt (which corresponds to their 9th grade or Kyu), to yellow (8th Kyu), orange (7th

Kyu), green (6th Kyu), blue (5th Kyu), and purple (4th Kyu) belt. Advanced students wear one

of three possible brown belts (3rd to 1st grade or Kyu, respectively). Masters of martial arts are

easy to recognize by their black belts (ranging from 1st black belt or Dan up to 9th black belt).

This strong prevalence of hierarchy pervades the organizational climate of karate sport clubs
 Transformational Leadership 12

and also each training session, which makes karate ideal to study leadership phenomena (cf.

Sylvia & Pindur, 1978).

Sample Description

Questionnaires were administered by a member of the research team to a random

sample of 200 students of martial arts who belonged to one of 20 martial arts sport clubs

located in a variety of cities in northern Germany. It was explained that the project was

conducted purely for research; anonymity was assured. This resulted in a 95% response rate;

however, after missing data were accounted for, a sample of 186 resulted.

Thirty-six percent of the participants were female and 64% were male; the mean age

was 32 years (SD = 12 years). Twenty-two percent practiced martial arts for less than a year,

45% practiced for 1-5 years, and 33% practiced between 5 and 10 years. Of these participants,

50% were advanced students (4th rank (Kyu) or higher). Participants provided demographic

information about their respective sport coaches. Twenty percent of the coaches were female

and 80% were male. Coaches’ ages were not known to more than 16% of the participants, so

this variable was dropped from the analysis. The coaches ranged from first black belt (1st Dan,

6%), 2nd Dan (21%), 3rd Dan (26%), and 4th Dan (30%) to fifth black belt (5th Dan, 17%).

Measures

Leadership behaviors. To assess the coaches’ leadership behaviors, the MLQ-5X (Bass

& Avolio, 2000) was used. All of the MLQ-5X items were carefully translated from English to

German by a professional and then backtranslated by an English native speaker, both experts

in the field of organizational psychology (Brislin, 1980). The comparison of the two English

translations yielded virtually no differences. Next, the German items were slightly modified to

reflect the students’ positions in sports (Rowold, 2004)1. Students judged how often their

respective coach displayed the behavior identified. A five-point response scale ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was utilized.

 Transformational Leadership 13

Dependent measures. Four measures of coaching effectiveness were outlined in the

introduction. Consequently, this paragraph presents the rationale for the selection of four

indicators. Like in the Zacharatos et al. (2000) study, students were asked to rate the

Effectiveness of coaches’ behaviors (EFF), their Satisfaction (SAT) with their respective

coach, and their Extra Effort (EEF). These 3-item scales ranged from 1 (very low) to 5 (very

high) and are part of the standardized MLQ-5X (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Empirical research

has provided consistent evidence for high validity and reliability of these three dependent

measures (Avolio & Bass, 2004). In addition, respondents indicated their training effort,

defined as the Frequency of training per month (FTM). The scale ranged from 1 (up to 2 times

a month) to 5 (more than 8 times a month). Finally, participants provided demographic

information about themselves and their respective coach.

Analysis

The first main objective of the present study was to test the factorial validity of the

MLQ-5X in the sports domain. While the nine-factor model of the MLQ-5X described above

is the most recent (Antonakis et al., 2003), other research has found support for varying

models (Tejeda, Scandura & Pillai, 2001). Thus, the MLQ has been criticized for problems

with its factorial validity (Den Hartog & Van Muijen, 1997). In addition to the nine-factor

model, a six-factor model is well established (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000). It combines

the first three factors of transformational leadership (Inspirational Motivation, Idealized

Influence-attributed and Idealized Influence-behavior) into a single scale labeled Charisma. In

addition, it combines the scales of Management-by-Exception Passive and Laissez-Faire into

a single scale labeled Passive-Avoidant. The nine-factor and the six-factor model are the two

most common models for describing a full range of transformational, transactional, and

nonleadership behaviors by means of the MLQ-5X.

 Transformational Leadership 14

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) was

used to test the factorial validity of the MLQ-5X. This approach was chosen because it was

sought to confirm the superiority of one of two competing models, the six-factor vs. the nine-

factor model (Heck, 1998). In CFA, various fit indices may be used to evaluate whether a

specified model fits the empirical data (Kline, 1998). In the present study, the following

indices were computed. First, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was

used, which takes sample size as well as the degrees of freedom into account. Values lower

than .08 indicate an adequate fit of the data (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Second, the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) as an approximate fit index was calculated (Bentler, 1990).

Third, the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) was used in addition to the CFI. Given appropriate

sample sizes, both the CFI and the NNFI are valid for comparing different factorial models

(Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 2001). If both the CFI and the NNFI exceed values of .90, the data

show an adequate fit to the respective model (Bentler, 1990). Fourth, because it has been

suggested that the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) is useful to compare the fit of two

competing models (where models with a lower AIC indicate a better fit to the data; Akaike,

1987; Kline, 1998), this index was included in the analysis. Taken together, these four fit

indices provide information in order to evaluate competing first-order CFA models. In

addition, the incremental chi-square (i.e., the likelihood ratio test) was used to decide if one

model fits the data significantly better than another model (Hoyle, 1995).

Hierarchical regression analyses (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2002) were conducted

to test the augmentation hypotheses. Prior to analyses, examination of the data showed that

they upheld the assumptions for CFA and regression analysis (multicollinearity, normality; cf.

Bollen, 1989).

Results
 Transformational Leadership 15

Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the factor structure of the MLQ.

(Table 1). Although the fit indices of the nine-factor model were better, both the six-factor and

the nine-factor model indicated an adequate fit (i.e., the RMSEA was below .08 and the CFI

and NNFI were above .90; cf. Antonakis et al., 2003). However, both the AIC and the

incremental chi-square supported the nine-factor model (i.e., the AIC was lower for the nine-

factor model and the chi-square was significant). These results were in line with a recent

large-scale analysis of the factorial validity of the MLQ (Antonakis et al., 2003).

Consequently, the nine-factor model of the MLQ was used for further analysis.

– insert Table 1 about here –

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations among the measures are

displayed in Table 2. Reliabilities were within the acceptable range (.60 < α < .74). As the

scales analyzed included four or less items, alpha values higher than .60 are acceptable (cf.

Cortina, 1993). However, because of the unsatisfactory internal consistency (α = .45) of

Management-by-Exception Passive, this scale was excluded from further analyses.

– insert Table 2 about here –

Consistent with previous literature (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2000), Contingent

Reward was positively associated with transformational leadership scales. To a lower degree,

Active Management-by-Exception was also correlated to the transactional scales. However,

Laissez-Faire was negatively correlated with the transformational scales, providing limited

support for the divergent validity of the MLQ. The high intercorrelations among the

transformational scales have been reported by other researchers (Tejeda et al., 2001;

Vandenberghe, Stordeur & D'hoore, 2002). However, the intercorrelations in the present study

(.38 < r < .63) were lower than those reported in the MLQ manual (.74 < r < .82; Bass &

Avolio, 2000, p. 39), in meta-analysis (.68 < r < .85; Lowe et al., 1996), or in empirical

research (.84 < r < .93; Vandenberghe et al., 2002). In sum, the relatively low intercorrelations
 Transformational Leadership 16

among the transformational scales of the MLQ-5X used in our study provided further

evidence for the factorial validity of the MLQ-5X (Antonakis et al., 2003).

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the augmentation hypotheses. For

each dependent measure, the independent measures were entered into the regression in three

successive steps. First, demographic information and skill level of both the students and the

coaches were entered. It is important to note that it was controlled for rank (i.e., the status of

students’ belts). The rank is an indicator of students’ skill levels. Second, transactional and

nonleadership scales were entered into the regression. In the third step, the transformational

scales were included. For each step, the amount of variance explained is reported, as is a test

of significant change in variance explained between each step.

– insert Table 3 about here –

As can be seen in Table 3, for each dependent measure, demographic variables and

transactional leadership scales (as well as Laissez-Faire) each accounted for a significant

amount of variance. As predicted, the transformational scales added unique variance with the

dependent measures. The exception was the training effort of students (FTM), which could be

predicted by students’ ranks and one transformational leadership scale (Idealized Influence-

behavior). However, the results generally supported the augmentation hypotheses.

A closer look at Table 3 revealed some patterns of relationship between certain

leadership scales and dependent measures. In sum, transactional and nonleadership scales

were unrelated or negatively related to the dependent measures. In contrast, transformational

leadership scales were generally positively associated with measures of leaders’ effectiveness.

Inspirational Motivation, Idealized Influence-attributed, and Individualized Consideration

showed the strongest impact on dependent measures. FTM was significantly predicted by

Idealized Influence-behavior. In sum, the applied measures of leadership allowed for valid
 Transformational Leadership 17

prediction of leaders’ effectiveness, a fact which is highlighted by a relatively high amount of

variance explained.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was twofold. First, it was tested if a broad range of

transformational, transactional, and nonleadership behaviors were a valid description of sport

coaches’ leadership behaviors. The results support the nine-factor model of leadership, as

measured by the MLQ-5X. In addition, this provides further support for the universality of the

transformational and transactional leadership paradigm. Second, it was tested if

transformational leadership scales accounted for unique variance in sport coaches’ leadership

effectiveness beyond that of transactional and nonleadership scales. While controlling for

students’ and coaches’ demographic variables and skill levels, this augmentation hypothesis

was confirmed for three of the four dependent measures.

Full Range

While the results support the nine-factor model of the MLQ, they are preliminary.

They can be seen as a first insight into the variety of transformational, transactional and

nonleadership behaviors of sport coaches. In contrast to earlier studies (Charbonneau et al.,

2001; Zacharatos et al., 2000), subjects’ ages ranged from 13 to 70 years (M = 32; SD = 12),

providing a more representative sample. Further researchers can build upon these results by

assessing more distinct leadership styles simultaneously, yielding a more complete description

of leaders’ behaviors. This, in turn, may result in a more differentiated picture of leadership

processes within sports. Although the present study identifies a broad spectrum of leadership

styles, other leadership styles, which have been addressed by other scholars (Smoll & Smith,

1989; Chelladurai, 1990), may be important for our understanding of sport coaches’

leadership behaviors. Far more research is needed before concluding that a “full range” of

sport coaches’ leadership styles has been identified (Yukl, 1999).

 Transformational Leadership 18

It is interesting to speculate about the high intercorrelations between Active

Management-by-Exception and the transformational leadership scales. In sports and training

session setting, Active Management-by-Exception is quite elementary. The coach watches out

for students’ mistakes and takes corrective actions to help them improve their physical

abilities. Thus, Active Management-by-Exception mirrors one of trainings’ main functions: to

help students improve by wielding out their mistakes. We propose that Active Management-

by-Exception is an important leadership skill for sport coaches. Moreover, it might be seen as

a prerequisite for transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), because only coaches who detect

students’ mistakes are able to help them to correct these mistakes; while doing this, they

interact with students directly and, therefore, have a better chance to transform their values, as

proposed in transformational leadership theory (Avolio & Bass, 2002). In sum, Active

Management-by-Exception is a valid description of sport coaches’ active behaviors within the

training context. Transformational sport coaches build on Active Management-by-Exception

in order to add to their transformational leadership influencing strategies (Bass, 1985).

Effectiveness

Regression analyses resulted in a pattern of relationships between coaches’ leadership

styles and effectiveness. The impact transactional and nonleadership scales had on leaders’

effectiveness was clearly augmented by the impact of transformational leadership behaviors.

Thus, the augmentation effect of transformational leadership was confirmed. These results are

in line with previous research (Lowe et al., 1996; Waldman et al., 1990).

These results, in turn, can help sport coaches to optimize their leadership role. A closer

inspection of Table 3 reveals that in the martial arts setting, Inspirational Motivation in

particular as well as Idealized Influence (attributed and behavior) are important for effective

leadership. Interestingly, these effects were observed while controlling for demographic

variables as well as students’ and coaches’ skill levels.

 Transformational Leadership 19

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The present study is limited by several factors. First, the research study was

implemented within a single sport setting, i.e., martial arts. More samples in diverse sports are

needed for validation of the results. As the research design was cross-sectional, a longitudinal

design seems warranted to provide stronger support for causal linkages between leadership

and effectiveness measures. The limited internal consistency of one of the transactional

leadership scales (Management-by-Exception Passive) demands further research, also in

different sport settings. At the same time, the factorial validity of the MLQ (nine leadership

scales) has to be reconfirmed (Tejeda et al., 2001). Finally, the study relied on data from a

single source (students of martial arts). To avoid monomethod bias, diverse sources of both

leadership and performance data should be used in future research.

Given the high impact transformational leadership has on performance and followers’

satisfaction, it would be interesting to know if and how it is possible to help coaches to

expand these leadership skills. Although studies in this area are rare, Barling, Weber, and

Kelloway (1996) provided evidence that transformational leadership skills can be trained.

However, as the sample in their study consisted of managers, further research should focus on

evaluating training of sport coaches’ leadership abilities.

Moreover, future research could also link coaches’ leadership behaviors to objective

performance measures such as students’ contest performances and students’ organizational

tenures. This idea may be very useful within the field of competitive sport. Our results, as

well as research within transformational leadership in general (Bass, 1998), suggest the idea

that transformational leadership is likely to help sport coaches to lead in an effective,

satisfying way within competitive sports, too. However, empirical research which includes

objective performance measures is clearly needed.

 Transformational Leadership 20

As a conclusion, the results point to an interesting avenue of research. In contrast to

transactional and nonleadership behavior, sport coaches may benefit from transformational

leadership behavior. As several distinct outcomes of leaders’ behaviors are positively

influenced by transformational leadership behavior, this field of research is interesting for

scientists and practitioners alike.

 Transformational Leadership 21

References

Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 332.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.

Antonakis, J. & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B.

J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: the

road ahead (pp. 3-34). Amsterdam: JAI.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and

Sampler Set. (3rd ed.) Redwood City: Mind Garden, Inc.

Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership.

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership

training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 827-832.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military and educational impact.

Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9-32.

 Transformational Leadership 22

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Redwood

City: Mind Garden.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological

Bulletin, 98, 588-606.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley &

Sons.

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In C.

Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross Cultural Psychology: Vol. 2

Methodology (pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen

& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass (1985)

conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 468-478.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications,

and programming. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and

sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 31, 1521-1534.

Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.),

Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York: Macmillian.

Chelladurai, P. (1990). Leadership in sports: A review. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 21, 328-354.

 Transformational Leadership 23

Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development

of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple

regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Columbus, P. J. & Rice, D. (1998). Phenomenological Meanings of Martial Arts Participation.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 16-30.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Davis, D. J. (2002). An analysis of the perceived leadership styles and levels of satisfaction of

selected junior college athletic directors and head coaches. Sport Journal, 5, 27-33.

Den Hartog, D. N. & Van Muijen, J. J. (1997). Transactional versus transformational

leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational & Organizational

Psychology, 70, 19-34.

Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional

leadership in the roman catholic church. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 99-119.

Egri, C. P. & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the north american environmental sector:

Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571-604.

Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, S. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of

research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78, 271-287.

Harvey, S., Royal, M., & Stout, D. (2003). Instructors' transformational leadership: University

student attitudes and ratings. Psychological Reports, 92, 395-402.

 Transformational Leadership 24

Hater, J. J. & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-

702.

Hawkins, K. & Tolzin, A. (2002). Examining the team/leader interface. Group &

Organization Management, 27, 97-112.

Heck, R. H. (1998). Factor analysis: exploratory and confirmatory approaches. In G. A.

Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 177-215). Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances

in Sport Psychology (pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hsu, C. H., Bell, R. C., & Cheng, D. M. (2002). Transformational leadership and

organizational effectiveness in recreational sports/fitness programs. Sport Journal, 5.

Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport

and business. Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, 268-281.

Jöreskog, K. & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific

Software International Co.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:

Guilford Press.

Layton, C. (1990). Anxiety in black-belt and nonblack-belt traditional karateka. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 71, 905-906.

Lim, J. Y. & Cromartie, F. (2001). Transformational leadership, organizational culture and

organizational effectiveness in sport organizations. Sport Journal, 4, 6-10.

 Transformational Leadership 25

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ

literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425.

Magill, R. A. (1994). The influence of augmented feedback on skill learning depends on

characteristics of the skill and the learner. Quest, 46, 314-327.

Mathews, D. O. (1987). Research and the management of campus recreation. Journal of Sport

Management, 1, 32-36.

Ristow, A. M., Amos, T. L., & Staude, G. E. (1999). Transformational leadership and

organizational effectiveness in the administration of cricket in South Africa. South African

Journal of Business Management, 30, 1-5.

Rowold, J. (2004). MLQ-5X for sport coaches. German translation and adaptation of Bass &

Avolio's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Redwood City: Mind Garden.

Seitz, F. C., Olson, G. D., Locke, B., & Quam, R. (1990). The martial arts and mental health:

The challenge of managing energy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 464.

Smoll, F. L. & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behavior in sport: A theoretical model and

research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522-1551.

Stobart, B. & Johnson, J. (1991). A generation of revenue at college and university

intramural-recreational sport departments with student populations of 5,000 or less.

National Intramural Recreational Sports Association Journal, 16, 47-49.

Sullivan, P. J. & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in

intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1-11.

Sylvia, R. D. & Pindur, W. (1978). The role of leadership in norm socialization in voluntary

organizations. Journal of Psychology, 100, 226.

Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited - Psychometric

properties and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.

 Transformational Leadership 26

Vandenberghe, C., Stordeur, S., & D'hoore, W. (2002). Transactional and transformational

leadership in nursing: Structural validity and substantive relationships. European Journal

of Psychological Assessment, 18, 16-29.

Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1990). Adding to contingent-reward

behavior - the augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group & Organization

Studies, 15, 381-394.

Weese, W. J. (1994). A leadership discussion with Dr. Bernhard Bass. Journal of Sport

Management, 8, 179-189.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285-305.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Development and effects of

transformational leadership in adolescents. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 211-226.

 Transformational Leadership 27

Author Note

Jens Rowold, Department of Psychology II, University of Muenster, Germany.

The assistance of J. Moeritz in data collection is gratefully acknowledged. The author

would like to thank the Associate Editor, two anonymous reviewers, W. Hell, and T. Stumpp

for constructive criticism on earlier drafts of this paper.

 Transformational Leadership 28

Footnote
1
Research Edition Translation performed by Dr. Jens Rowold on July 7, 2004. Translated and

reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, MIND GARDEN, Inc., Redwood City, CA

94061 www.mindgarden.com from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research by

Bernhard M Bass and Bruce J Avolio. Copyright 1995, 2000 by Bernhard M Bass and Bruce J

Avolio. All rights reserved. Further reproduction is prohibited without the Publisher’s written

consent.
 Transformational Leadership 29

Tables

Table 1

LISREL 8 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model χ² df AIC NNFI CFI RMSEA Δ χ² Δdf

Null-model 7545 630 7617 NA NA NA 6577 *** 72

Six factor model 1092 573 1278 0.91 0.92 0.069 124 *** 15
Nine factor model 968 558 1148 0.93 0.93 0.062
Note. NA = not available; Δχ² was calculated by subtracting model χ² from that of the nine-

factor model; likeways, Δdf was calculated by subtracting model df from that of the nine-

factor model.

*** p < .001.

 Transformational Leadership 30

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistency Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations for Key Study Variables (N = 186)

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Transformational

leadership
1. IM 3.61 0.79 (.73)
2. IIa 4.05 0.68 .63 (.70)
3. IIb 3.77 0.77 .47 .48 (.72)
4. IS 3.90 0.64 .53 .63 .58 (.67)
5. IC 3.80 0.61 .43 .61 .38 .56 (.70)
Transactional and

nonleadership
6. CR 3.90 0.65 .63 .62 .50 .58 .55 (.62)
7. AMbE 3.79 0.73 .34 .45 .34 .45 .39 .51 (.71)
8. MbEP 2.24 0.73 .00 -.22 -.02 -.13 -.03 -.10 .04 (.45)
9. LF 1.57 0.63 -.18 -.24 -.08 -.26 -.29 -.24 -.15 .46 (.64)
Dependent measures
10. EEF 4.01 0.77 .57 .58 .29 .43 .44 .52 .28 -.13 -.27 (.74)
11. EFF 3.98 0.71 .63 .73 .45 .64 .65 .54 .39 -.19 -.27 .64 (.78)
12. SAT 4.35 0.67 .52 .67 .35 .56 .66 .51 .41 -.15 -.39 .52 .67 (.60)
13. FTM 4.09 1.08 -.12 .00 .05 .00 -.11 -.12 -.10 .01 .05 -.07 -.14 -.05 -
Note. IM = Inspirational Motivation; IIa = Idealized Influence-attributed; IIb = Idealized Influence-behavior; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; IC =

Individualized Consideration; CR = Contingent Reward; AMbE = Active Management by Exception; MbEP = Management by Exception

Passive; LF = Laissez-Faire. EEF = Extra Effort; EFF = Effectiveness; SAT= Satisfaction, FTM = Frequency of training per month; Values along

the diagonal in parentheses are internal consistency reliability estimates.

 Transformational Leadership 31

All r > .22: p < .05; all r > .18: p < .01.
 Transformational Leadership 33

Table 3

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Results (N = 186)

Dependent measure
EEF EFF SAT FTM
Demographics
Student age -.05 .04 .02 -.12
Student gender -.04 .07 .02 .11
Student rank .11 .00 -.03 .24**
Coach gender .03 -.07 -.05 .09
Coach rank .06 .07 .04 .08
R² .06 .10** .06* .12**
Transactional- and

Nonleadership
CR .17* -.08 -.04 - .10
AMbE -.03 .00 .07 - .12
LF -.12* -.04 -.17** - .03
R² .34 .38 .39 .14
ΔR² .28** .28** .33** .02
Transformational

leadership
IM .30** .25** .13 -.14
** ** **
IIa .24 .30 .31 .07
IIb -.09 .00 -.05 .18*
**
IS .00 .19 .09 .07
IC .10 .25** .32** -.11
Total R² .47 .67 .60 .17
** ** **
ΔR² .13 .29 .21 .03
Note. IM = Inspirational Motivation; IIa = Idealized Influence-attributed; IIb = Idealized

Influence-behavior; IS = Intellectual Stimulation; IC = Individualized Consideration; AMbE =

Active Management by Exception; LF = Laissez-Faire; EEF = Extra Effort; EFF =

Effectiveness; SAT= Satisfaction, FTM = Frequency of training per month; Gender coding:

male = 0; female = 1.

** p < .01; * p < .05.