Page Title

Using Role Theory to Examine Determinants of Transformational and Transactional Leader Behavior

September 30, 2004 

"Associated with every work environment is a set of activities or roles that are defined as potential behaviors to be performed in accordance with a specific job.  To understand and describe the process of how work environments engender certain behaviors, a number of role-related concepts will be examined: role set, role expectations, sent role, role pressures, role forces, and role behavior (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964).

 Role set refers to any feature of the organization that is able to send role expectations/requirements and role pressures to the manager.  Role expectations refer to the degree to which all members of the manager's role set develop beliefs and attitudes about what the manager should and should no do as part of his/her role (Kahn et al., 1964).  Sent role refers to the fact that role expectations are sent to the focal person (e.g., manager).  Role pressures refer to the numerous influence attempts directed at the focal person that make up the process of role sending.  Role pressures refer to the numerous influence attempts directed at the focal person that make up the process of role sending.  Role forces are regarded as psychological forces of some magnitude and direction that result from sent pressures by role senders and are the immediate source of the manager's motivation to behave.  Lastly, Kahn et al. (1964, p. 18) define role behavior as a system relevant behavior that is performed by one who is an accepted member of the system, and whose behavior is reinforced by the formalities of the organization.

 The transformational leader has been described as one who articulates a vision of the future that can be shared with peers and subordinates, intellectually stimulates subordinates, pays attention to individual differences among people, is likely to use personal resources including time, knowledge and experience, and serves as a coach, teacher and mentor (Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1989).  Unlike transformational leaders, transactional leaders exchange rewards contingent upon performance and use positional resources in order to encourage desired behaviors (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978).  Given that ther is no generally accepted set of contextual factors available for the study of both transformational and transactional leadership, a set of contextual factors was derived from the literature (c.f., Merton, 1957; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Yukl, 1989; House, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

 Proposition 1:  The more a manager interprets structure as organic, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements.    Proposition 2:  The more a manager interprets culture as transformational, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements.  Proposition 3:  The more a manager interprets superior role expectations to be transformational, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements.

 Some researchers have suggested that certain critical personality differences in leaders may actually result in the formation of either transformational or transactional leadership styles (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Kuhnert & Russell, 1990; Church & Waclawski, 1998).  Self-monitoring is one such personality characteristic that should be examined in terms of its moderating impact on leader behavior.  High self-monitors are described as being attentive to contextual cues and adjusting their behavior accordingly, while low self-monitors tend to act from internal stats rather than paying attention to their environment (Nelson & Quick, 1994).

 Proposition 4A: The relationship between interpretations of structure and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low.  Proposition 4B:  The relationship between interpretations of culture and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low.  Proposition 4C: The relationships between interpretations of superior expectations and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low. 

 Locus of control may also be a potentially valuable characteristic to address because it has been empirically correlated with leadership behavior and performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Bass, 1981, 1985; Runyon, 1973).  Proposition 5A: The relationship between interpretations of structure and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when locus of control is external rather than internal.  Proposition 5B:  The relationship between interpretations of culture and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when locus of control is external rather than internal.  Proposition 5C: The relationship between interpretations of superior expectations and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when local of control is external rather than internal.

 Extant research suggests that there is a direct relationship between context and leadership behaviors.  Role theory recognizes that some persons will experience organizational role expectations and role pressures differently from others, which ultimately leads them to utilize different leadership behaviors within the same context (Kahn et al., 1964).  The proposed model provides testable propositions regarding the various personality characteristics that may moderate the relationship between organizational context and leadership behaviors within the same context (Kahn et al, 1964).  Research on testing these propositions will contribute to understanding why leaders within the same context exhibit different leadership behaviors.  Specifically, managers who possess an external locus of control orientation and managers who are high self-monitors may be more likely to adjust their interpretations of their role requirements along the transactional-transformational continuum depending on their perceptions of the organization's objective context.

 Organizational implications include influencing managerial interpretations of context through direct communication by superiors or indirectly via the culture and by re/designing elements of the organization's structure.  Recruitment and selection procedures could be implemented in such a way as to attract, select, and retain specific personality types.  Reward structures could be designed to reinforce certain leadership behaviors, and promotion practices could be implemented in order to advance those that best fulfill the organization's role requirements (Shivers-Blackwell, 2004, p. 41-50)."

 Reference:  Shivers-Blackwell, S.L.,  (2004). Using role theory to examine determinants of transformational and transactional leader behavior.  Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2004, 10, (3).

 If this is the first time you have borrowed resources from the OSU Leadership Center, please contact us at 614-292-3114 and we will register you in our library system.  Once you have been added to the system, you may request resources via the website.

 Learn how the Ohio State University Leadership Center is strengthening tomorrow's leaders today at http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu

Back to Top >

Created: 2007-11-13, Updated: 2009-02-17