Page Title

Transformational Leadership and Work-Related Attitudes: The Moderating Effects of Collective and Self-Efficacy Across Cultures

May 24, 2006 

"Efficacy beliefs have been a focus of organizational research for nearly three decades (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2000; Luthans, 2002a, 2002b).  The theory of charismatic/transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993) as well as empirical studies (e.g., Chen & Bliese, 2002; Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & shi, 2004) suggest that efficacy beliefs would mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work-related attitudes, while leaving the interactive effects of these two constructs.

Self-efficacy represents an individual's belief in his or her capabilities to successfully accomplish a specific task or set of tasks (Bandura, 1986).  Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker (1994) defined collective efficacy as each individual's assessment of their group's collective capability to perform job-related behaviors.  Life self-efficacy, evidence from past research suggests that collective efficacy is positively related to performance, problem-solving, and work-related attitudes (Gully, et al., 2002).

The U.S. represents a well-developed economy and a culture that is highly individualistic.  China is among the world's most rapidly developing economies and is predominantly characterized as a collectivist society (Triandis, 1995).  India is also considered a predominantly collectivist and hierarchical society (Triandis, 1995).

Bandura (1986) has posited four categories of the determinants of self-efficacy, including enactive mastery (actual performance or beliefs about performance), modeling (vicarious experience), verbal persuasion, and physiological (emotional) arousal.  Although these determinants of self -efficacy generally parallel the qualities of transformational leadership, to date there has been no conclusive empirical evidence supporting the interactive effects of transformational leadership with self-efficacy on followers' work-related outcomes.  We expect groups of individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy to more readily embrace visionary statements, set higher performance expectations, and to express greater confidence in their abilities to contribute to the mission and goals of the organization.  Hypothesis 1: The impact of transformational leadership on organizational commitment and job satisfaction is moderated by self-efficacy: When self-efficacy is higher, transformational leadership has a stronger positive impact on followers' work-related attitudes than when self-efficacy is low.

According to attribution theory (Martinko, 1995), people make two types of attribution: dispositional and situational.  Dispositional attributions ascribe a person's behavior to internal factors such as personality traits or ability, while situational attribution ascribes a person's behavior to external factors such as to social influence (i.e., leadership).  Transformational leaders point out what each individual can contribute to the potential of their group, and by doing so they show how the individual's strengths can be collectively applied to achieve higher levels of performance.  Hypothesis 2:  The impact of transformational leadership on organizational commitment and job satisfaction is moderated by collective efficacy: When collective efficacy is higher, transformational leadership has a stronger impact on work-related attitudes than when collective efficacy is low.

This study was carried out in 37 different bank branches in China, India, and the U.S., and involved collecting ratings of leadership of unit supervisors, as well as ratings of efficacy beliefs, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.  In China and India, the survey was administered on-site individually in 23 branches.  A senior manager was asked to assist in the initial distribution of the survey; however, the completed surveys were collected by one of the research team members (86% response rate).  In the U.S., the survey was sent to potential participants in 14 bank branches in the Midwest through the bank's internal mailing systems.  Respondents were provided with confidential envelopes to seal their responses and were asked to return completed surveys directly to the first author (91% response rate).  The total number of respondents obtained was 208 in China, 194 in India, and 242 in the U.S. Average age of participants was 34.88, (China = 32.32, India = 34.12, U.S. = 37.81), and 53% were women (China = 39%, India = 55%, and U.S. = 62%). 

Twenty items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5x (Bass & Avolio, 1995) were used to measure transformational leadership.  Because our hypotheses made no distinction between the component factors of transformational leadership, we combined the four dimensions of transformational leadership into one single factor (Bass, 1998).    Efficacy beliefs were measured using items adapted from Riggs et al. (1994).  Organizational commitment was measured using 10 items adapted from Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979).  We used nine items take from Smith, Kendall, and Hulin's (1969) Job Descriptive Index (JDI) to measure satisfaction with work in general.

The U.S. means were significantly higher than the combined means of China and India on self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and job satisfaction.  There was no significant difference in the means of transformational leadership and organizational commitment between the U.S. means and the combined means of China and India. 

We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to analyze our data (see Raundenbush & Bryk, 2002).  Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that collective and self-efficacy beliefs will moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and work-related attitudes.   Results from descriptive statistics revealed the means of collective and self-efficacy differed significantly for the U.S. and the combined Chinese and Indian samples.

Results from analyses examining the moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy showed that both variables had modes relationships with transformational leadership - work-related attitudes.  Our results also suggest that efficacy plays a complex, but important role in transformational leadership influence on followers. 

Results of this study have a number of research and practical implications.  First, the idea that our findings showed significant interactive effects between transformational leadership and efficacy beliefs, suggests that we may want to include in future theoretical models of leadership the combined effects of individual and group motivation as noted above.  From a design perspective, the present findings suggest that future studies might consider using efficacy as a moderating variable especially where leadership, efficacy and performance data are collected over time (Beehr & Newman, 1978).  Our findings also indicate that the impact of leadership depends at least in part on its relationship to 'internal' processes such as collective and self-efficacy, while also being an integral part of a larger cognitive, social and contextual system in which each is embedded within the other at subsequently higher levels of analysis. 

From a practical perspective, our findings suggest that training programs designed to increase transformational leadership, collective and self-efficacy at the same time may prove to be an effective strategy to enhance employee commitment and satisfaction.  Finally, the present study contributes to the leadership and motivation literature by showing that the effects of transformational leadership on work-related attitudes may differ depending on each individual's level of efficacy (self and collective) belief (Walumbwa, Lawler, Avolio, Wang, & Shi, 2005, p. 2-16)."

Reference:  Reference:  Walumbwa, F.O; Lawler, J.J.; Avolio, B.J.; Wang, P.; & Shi, K.; (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: the moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures.  Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3. 

The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies is available on loan from the Ohio State University Leadership Center.  To borrow this resource or any other resource please go to the resource search page  http://164.107.48.88/winnebago/index.asp?lib=???

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: 2007-08-28, Updated: 2009-02-17