hubungan pemimpin dan kinerja (1)

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ
32,6

628

Relationship between leadership
behaviors and performance
The moderating role of a work team’s level of
age, gender, and cultural heterogeneity
Jens Rowold

Received September 2009
Revised June 2010
Accepted November 2010

TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
Abstract
Purpose – In today’s organizations, the heterogeneity of work teams is increasing. For example,

members of work teams have different ages, genders, and/or cultural backgrounds. As a consequence,
team leaders have to face the challenge of taking into account the various needs, values, and motives of
their followers. However, there has been very little empirical research to test whether the influence of
leadership behaviors on performance is moderated by facets of team heterogeneity. This paper aims to
address this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – The leadership behaviors of transactional and transformational
leadership, laissez-faire, consideration, and initiating structure, as well as three facets of heterogeneity
(i.e. age, gender, and culture) were assessed in an empirical study based on a sample of n ¼ 283 members
of German fire departments. These team members also provided self-ratings for their performance.
Findings – The results revealed that the relationship between three leadership behaviors
(i.e. transformational leadership, laissez-faire, and consideration) and performance was being
moderated by facets of team members’ heterogeneity.
Practical implications – Both transformational leadership and consideration work best when the
work team is heterogeneous with regard to gender.
Originality/value – The importance of the contextual influences of team members’ heterogeneity for
effective leadership processes was explored theoretically, and subsequently, demonstrated empirically
for the first time.
Keywords Leadership, Heterogeneity, Team, Performance management
Paper type Research paper

Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 32 No. 6, 2011
pp. 628-647
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437731111161094

Introduction
Over the last decade, important advancements have been made contributing to our
understanding of effective leadership. For example, we know a great deal about the
effectiveness of various leadership behaviors, based on results of meta-analysis
(Dumdum et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2004). However, although recent theoretical works
have emphasized the context sensitivity of leadership (Conger, 2007; Hunter et al.,
2007), empirical research in this field is still rare. That is, the contextual conditions
under which the leadership-effectiveness relationships hold true are not yet fully
explored. As a consequence, scientists as well as practitioners still cannot recommend
specific leadership behaviors to organizational leaders for certain situations with any
Part of this research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, No. Ro
3058/2-1, principal investigator: Jens Rowold). The author would like to thank Christina Wohlers

and Kathrin Staufenbiel for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

great certainty, as knowledge in this field is fragmentary (Yukl, 2002). This gap in the
literature calls for research on the important area of the contextual dimensions of
organizational processes such as leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003; Rousseau and
Fried, 2001). The present study addresses this gap by exploring the moderating effects
of different contexts on the relationship between leadership behaviors and
performance. More specifically, the focus is on the work team’s level of age, gender,
and cultural heterogeneity as potential moderators of the leadership-performance
relationship.
In general, leadership research focuses on one leadership paradigm at a time,
although the considerable theoretical overlap between these theories has been discussed
(Rowold and Heinitz, 2007; Graen et al., 2010). Thus, recent calls for research strongly
suggested the need to compare and contrast leadership theories with each other
(Yukl, 1999, 2002). It should be noted that in contrast to virtually all prior empirical
studies, the present one includes several leadership paradigms. Most researchers agree
that one specific leader can exhibit several leadership behaviors over time, although
in one specific situation, the focus is typically on one leadership behavior (Bass, 1985;
Blake and Mouton, 1964).
First, we discuss the leadership behaviors relevant for the present study. Second,

as the present paper focuses on the heterogeneity of the work team, this context factor
is introduced. Next, the contextual sensitivity of the leadership behaviors is explored.
Furthermore, a theoretical model is developed, proposing both:
.
the main effects of leadership behaviors; as well as
.
the interaction of these leadership behaviors with contextual factors on
performance.

Leadership
behaviors and
performance
629

This model is shown in Figure 1. Finally, an empirical study testing this model is
conducted. In sum, the present study contributes to our understanding of a hitherto
unexplored context factor, namely, facets of heterogeneity of the work team.
Two leadership paradigms
Transformational leadership. Currently, transformational leadership is the most
dominating leadership paradigm (Hunt and Conger, 1999; Judge and Piccolo, 2004;

Rowold and Heinitz, 2007). Among others, the articulation and representation of a vision
based on leaders’ values and ethics is central for this approach to leadership (Bass, 1985;
Turner et al., 2002). The transformational leader influences his/her followers by means
of a variety of behaviors, so that followers’ values and interests are transformed.
Work team’s heterogeneity:
Age, Gender and culture

Leadership
Transformational
Transactional
Laissez-Faire
Consideration
Initiating structure

Performance

Figure 1.
Summary of hypothesized
relationships between the
study’s key variables

LODJ
32,6

630

Ultimately, the followers buy into their leader’s vision and perform beyond expectation.
In this process of transformation, the leader has to take the varying values and interests
of his/her followers into account. In contrast, transactional leadership has its focus on
clearly defined transactions between leaders and followers. For example, the leader
defines the task and if the follower accomplishes this task, a previously defined reward is
granted. There is now considerable evidence from meta-analysis (Dumdum et al., 2002;
Judge and Piccolo, 2004) that both transactional and transformational leadership are
positively related to various indicators of individual and organizational performance;
however, transformational leadership was more strongly associated with performance
than transactional leadership. A third leadership behavior, laissez-faire or absence of
leadership behavior, was included in the transformational-transactional leadership
paradigm (Antonakis and House, 2002). Meta-analysis clearly documented negative
relationships between laissez-faire and indicators of performance. Some research exists
exploring the contextual boundaries of the effectiveness of transformational leadership.

For example, meta-analysis provided evidence for the notion that female leaders exhibit
slightly more transformational leadership than their male counterparts (Eagly et al.,
2003; Powell, 1990). With regard to culture and cultural values, it was found that the
effectiveness for transformational leadership is somewhat greater in western countries
than in non-western countries (Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003). Finally, empirical
research consistently found that the effectiveness of transformational leadership
depended on followers’ personality characteristics (Awamleh and Gardner, 1999; Felfe
and Schyns, 2005).
Consideration and initiating structure. In the two decades prior to the rise of
transformational leadership theory, several important leadership theories such as
Fiedler’s (1967) contingency approach, House’s (1971) path-goal theory, consideration and
initiating structure (Fleishman, 1973) dominated the field. However, because the inclusion
of all of these theories was beyond the scope of the present study, the focus was on the
paradigm of consideration and initiating structure. The key characteristic of consideration
is the supportive, “people-oriented” behavior the leader shows toward each follower.
This implies positive attributes such as trust, respect and open communication
in the relationship between leader and led. In contrast, initiating structure emphasizes
behaviors, such as structuring the work task, making assignments, and setting
task-related goals. In a recent meta-analysis, it was found that both leadership behaviors
have positive criterion-oriented validity (Judge et al., 2004). Also, it was revealed that with

regard to subjective performance indicators, consideration had roughly the same
criterion-oriented validity as transformational leadership. Thus, the question emerges
whether the leadership behaviors of transformational leadership and consideration might
rely on partly identical motivation processes (e.g. considering followers’ needs). However,
before firm conclusions can be drawn, more integrative research is needed to compare and
contrast the rivaling effects of these two leadership behaviors on criteria of effective
leadership (Judge et al., 2004; Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Little empirical research has explored the context sensitivity of consideration and
initiating structure. For example, the meta-analysis conducted by Judge et al. (2004)
found that the criterion-oriented validity of both leadership behaviors was neither
moderated by:
.
leader’s hierarchical level in the organizations; nor
.
the type of organization.

However, considerable theoretical work which suggests additional context factors
(e.g. characteristics of the work team) for both consideration and initiating structure,
have not been tested yet (Judge et al., 2004; Schruijer and Vansina, 2002; Yukl, 2002).
Overview of the theoretical model

Comparing leadership styles. The model guiding the development of hypotheses of the
present study is shown in Figure 1. As can be seen, direct relationships between
leadership behaviors and performance were included in this model. Thus, the following
hypothesis is in accordance with prior theoretical and empirical research (Judge et al.,
2004; Judge and Piccolo, 2004):
H1. Five leadership behaviors are significantly associated with performance.
For transactional (H1a), transformational (H1b), consideration (H1d ), and
initiating structure (H1e), this relationship will be positive, while for laissez-faire
(H1c), it will be negative.
This hypothesis compares the competing effects of several leadership behaviors on
performance. For example, it has been argued from theory that considerable overlap
between transformational leadership and consideration exists ( Judge, 2005; Judge et al.,
2004; Yukl, 2002). In fact, one facet of transformational leadership is labeled
“individualized consideration” and mainly reflects the content of the leadership
behavior of consideration. Thus, it might be asked critically whether the strong direct
effects of the leadership behaviors of transformational leadership on performance
might be at least partially redundant to the direct effects of consideration. Owing to the
fact, that the critical question concerning the amount of overlap between the leadership
behaviors has not yet been tested empirically, research in this area seems warranted.
Thus, H1 explores the unique, relative criterion validity of five leadership behaviors.

In addition to these unique relationships between leadership behaviors and
performance, the present study explored whether these relationships are moderated by
a contextual factor, namely, heterogeneity of the work team.
Facets of heterogeneity of the work team as a context factor
In general, there has recently been an increase in research activity regarding context
and leadership. However, we are still far from having a thorough understanding of
the effects of context factors and how they moderate the relationship between
leadership behaviors and outcome criteria (Yukl, 2002). One reason for this is that
numerous contextual factors exist. Among others, examples of contextual factors are:
characteristics of the organizations (e.g. profit vs non-profit; Rowold and Rohmann,
2009), the leader (e.g. communication skills, Frese et al., 2003; gender, Rohmann and
Rowold, 2009), the follower (e.g. cultural orientation, Walumbwa et al., 2007).
Additionally, characteristics of the work team have been discussed by leadership
researchers (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008) as an important contextual factor.
One characteristic of the work team is their respective level of heterogeneity. Over the
last decades, work teams have become more and more heterogeneous, yielding new
problems for organizational leaders and leadership scholars. An example is the problem
of intragroup conflicts, lack of mutual trust, and miscommunication hampering the
performance of heterogeneous teams. Thus, far, a few empirical studies have addressed
this leadership challenge. First, Mayo et al. (1996) found heterogeneous work teams

Leadership
behaviors and
performance
631

LODJ
32,6

632

having lower performance, as rated by the respective leader, than homogeneous work
teams. Also, the amount of heterogeneity of work teams was negatively related to
leader’s self-efficacy. Second, based on a sample of primary care work teams working in
public hospitals, Somech (2006) reported that within highly functionally heterogeneous
teams, participative leadership behavior was positively associated with team reflection
and innovation, which are two indicators of team performance.
Boone et al. (2005) studied managers participating in a simulation exercise and
found that high locus of control heterogeneity of work team impacts performance. In
sum, these studies demonstrate the importance of the context factor of team
heterogeneity (Shin and Zhou, 2007; Somech, 2006). However, we have very cursory
knowledge about the relationship between leadership behaviors and performance
moderated by this context factor. Thus, research seems necessary to demonstrate to
scientists and practitioners which leadership behavior is effective for heterogeneous
work teams.
Heterogeneity of the work team can be defined by various characteristics. For the
purpose of the present study, we focused on three facets of heterogeneity: three facets of
heterogeneity, i.e. team members’ age, gender, and cultural background, have recently
been discussed in the literature (Yukl, 2002). Likewise, as a consequence of recent
demographic and labor market trends, these facets of the work team’s heterogeneity are
relevant for almost all kinds of modern organizations. As for age, the current workforce
is getting increasingly older. This development means that organizational behavior
research is challenged to test whether hitherto established relationships between
constructs hold for teams, which are:
.
on average, older; or
.
heterogeneous with regard to age (Maurer, 2001; Warr and Fay, 2001).
Next, an increasing proportion of female employees can be found in today’s
organizations. Also, due to global markets and international joint ventures, the number
of employees with different cultural backgrounds working together in teams has been
increasing.
How do leadership behaviors operate in heterogeneous work teams?
This section provides rationales for the expected moderating effects of a work team’s
heterogeneity on the relationship between the above-mentioned leadership behaviors
and performance. For each leadership behavior of transactional and transformational
leadership, laissez-faire, consideration and initiating structure, it is described why
heterogeneity of the work team might impact the effectiveness of the respective
leadership behavior.
Transactional leadership. Typically, transactional leaders set explicit, work-related
goals and the rewards that can be expected as a result of performing successfully.
Within this definition of transactional leadership, it is the implication that this is not done
proactively and in close cooperation with each team member (Avolio and Bass, 1995).
As each team member has different needs and abilities, especially in heterogeneous work
teams, the leader should set clear and explicit goals with each team member individually.
However, high demands and workloads often prevent transactional leaders from
providing this individual considerate behavior (Bass, 1985). Thus, goals and rewards are
often communicated for the group as a whole. As the work team’s heterogeneity increases,

this may lead to misunderstandings on the part of the team members, as each individual
team members may have different backgrounds, experiences, values, and work routines
(Erdogan et al., 2004). It might therefore be difficult to understand the goal thing
communicated by the leader, thus resulting in low performance. In contrast, in
homogeneous work teams, goals can be presented efficiently, as every team member
shares the same background of, experience and values, among others. In sum, it was
expected that transactional leadership works best in homogeneous work teams:
H2. The relationship between transactional leadership and performance will be
moderated by work team heterogeneity, so that the relationship will be
stronger in homogeneous teams than in heterogeneous ones.
Transformational leadership. In contrast to their transactional counterparts,
transformational leaders communicate higher order values and explicit work tasks to
each team member individually (Bass, 1985). The leader assesses each team member’s
background, values and motives in order to formulate a common vision of a better
future. Likewise, individual differences are acknowledged and appreciated. This implies
that in heterogeneous work teams, where each team member has different backgrounds,
values, and motives, the leader tries to find the common ground and thus, establishes
values for an optimal cooperation between the members of the work team. These values
typically transcend age groups and other demographic characteristics. For example, the
ideal of fairness is valid for most employees, regardless of demographic characteristics.
By means of this transformational process, team members find orientation and are
provided with a set of values. Consequently, these explicated, commonly shared,
work-related values help them when making difficult decisions under conditions of high
uncertainty (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). In the long run, this process may well yield
high performance.
These ideas are supported by the team diversity literature. For example, Polzer et al.
(2002) found that heterogeneous teams are likely to develop into cohesive teams. Jehn
et al. (1999) made the distinction between social category (e.g. demographic
characteristics), value, and information diversity. These authors reported that social
homogeneity had a positive impact on teams’ levels of morale. Also, this study found
that teams with heterogeneous values had lower levels of team commitment (Harrison
et al., 2002). Owing to the fact that transformational leaders focus on commonly shared
values and foster the acceptance of group values, this leadership behavior represents a
way to foster positive team outcomes such as commitment and performance.
It has been noted that heterogeneous work teams have the opportunity to provide a
competitive advantage over and above homogeneous work teams, if these
heterogeneous teams are managed properly (DiTomaso et al., 1996; Haro, 1993).
Transformational leadership is one effective way to manage heterogeneous work
teams, as the potential of the heterogeneous team members is acknowledged, valued,
and utilized to attain high performance ( Jung and Avolio, 2000). As an example,
transformational leaders display intellectually stimulating behavior in order to reach
high-performance goals. In the process of intellectual stimulation, each team member’s
own way of thinking and solving problems is encouraged and used to find new
solutions for work-related problems. As the probability of finding new solutions
increases with the degree of team members’ heterogeneity (e.g. way of thinking),
transformational leadership is more effective in heterogeneous work teams:

Leadership
behaviors and
performance
633

LODJ
32,6

634

H3. The relationship between transformational leadership and performance will
be moderated by work team heterogeneity, so that the relationship will be
stronger in heterogeneous teams than in homogeneous ones.
Laissez-faire leadership. As was stated above, laissez-faire is basically the absence
of leadership. Teams which are not led face considerable difficulties (Yukl, 2002).
Often, these teams have to compensate for the missing leadership in order to reach
goals. It might be argued that due to their team members’ wide ranges of skills,
abilities and experiences, heterogeneous leaderless teams can compensate better for the
absence of leadership than their homogeneous counterparts:
H4. The relationship between laissez-faire and performance will be moderated by
work team heterogeneity, so that the relationship will be stronger in
heterogeneous teams than in homogeneous ones.
Consideration. Considerate leaders can help each subordinate individually to understand
goals, tasks, etc. yielding higher performance. Heterogeneous team members act upon and
utilize considerate leadership behavior from their respective team leaders, because each
team member with his/her respective values and abilities needs individualized help in
reaching goals and completing tasks. For example, young workers who have not been
acquainted with certain work routines need explicit guidance and leadership from their
leaders, while older workers have enough experience to solve work-related problems with
less help from their supervisor. In this scenario, the supervisor needs to act with
individualized consideration. In contrast, in homogeneous teams, consideration might not
be necessary since all team members need the same kind of guidance or leadership
behavior in order to reach work-related goals:
H5. The relationship between consideration and performance will be moderated
by work team heterogeneity, so that the relationship will be stronger in
heterogeneous teams than in homogeneous ones.
Initiating structure. Like transactional leadership, initiating structure focuses on
defining tasks, routines, structures (e.g. scheduling) and rewards. For homogeneous
teams where each team member has the same experiences and background, this
leadership behavior may be sufficient. In contrast, in the case of heterogeneous teams,
the definition of task, etc. might lead to confusion if team members are not guided
individually. Thus, it is expected that only in work teams characterized by low
heterogeneity, will the leadership behavior of initiating structure result in high
performance:
H6. The relationship between initiating structure and performance will be
moderated by work team heterogeneity, so that, the relationship will be
stronger in homogeneous teams than in heterogeneous ones.
Controlling for leader’s hierarchical level
Finally, the factor of leader’s hierarchical level was included in the present study as one
of the control variables that have been discussed in the leadership literature (Antonakis
and Hooijberg, 2007; Antonakis and House, 2002; Yukl, 2002). For example, empirical
research exists which has found varying levels of transformational leadership on

different levels of the organization (Lowe et al., 1996). For this reason, this context
factor is controlled for in the analyses.
Methods
Sample and procedure
A research assistant prepared a list with information about 700 fire departments in
Germany, based on data from a web search. These departments were contacted and
information about the background and the goals of the study was provided. Surveys were
sent to the n ¼ 426 departments who agreed to take part in the study. Participants were
members from various levels of these fire departments. A total of n ¼ 283 individual
subjects from the various departments responded (response rate ¼ 66.4 percent). These
participants assessed the leadership behavior of their respective direct leader. The mean
age of the participants was 33.8 years (SD ¼ 11.6); their mean tenure was 14.3 years
(SD ¼ 10.9); 88.9 percent were male. Overall, 54.5 percent had a junior and 24.4 percent a
senior high school diploma. Also, 21.1 percent had a university degree. As for the leaders,
96 percent were male; these leaders had an average tenure of 23.8 years (SD ¼ 10.8).
Overall, 10.1 percent of the leaders were first-level supervisors. These supervisors led, for
example, one fire truck team. Nearly one fourth (24.9 percent) of the leaders were
branch-level supervisors and had responsibility for one field of expertise (e.g. material
support, engineering, etc.). Finally, the remaining 63.6 percent of the leaders were heads of
the respective departments, guided their respective branch-level supervisors and had
additional administrative responsibilities. For reasons of confidentiality and anonymity,
neither the name of the participant nor the name of the respective fire department was
assessed, so that, individual responses could not be assigned to one specific department.
Instruments
Transactional and transformational leadership. Four items from a German validated
version (Heinitz and Rowold, 2007) of the transformational leadership inventory
(Podsakoff et al., 1996b; TLI; cf. Podsakoff et al., 1990) were utilized to assess transactional
leadership (sample item: “[. . .] provides me with positive feedback if I perform well”). Also,
22 items from the TLI were utilized for the assessment of transformational leadership
(sample item: “[. . .] has inspiring plans for the future”).
Laissez-faire. For the assessment of laissez-faire, four items were newly designed
(sample item: “[. . .] tries to avoid decisions”).
Consideration and initiating structure. The leadership behavior of consideration was
assessed by 22 items from a German validated version (Fittkau-Garthe and Fittkau,
1971) of the SBDQ (Fleishman, 1953) (sample item: “[. . .] shows interest in the individual
well-being of his/her subordinates”). Finally, initiating structure was assessed by 12
items from the same questionnaire (sample item: “[. . .] assigns specific tasks to his/her
subordinates”). For all leadership items, the frequency of observed leadership behavior
was assessed using a five-point Likert-scales (1 – never, 5 – always).
Performance. Four items were newly constructed in order to assess subordinates
self-rated performance (e.g. “My job performance is high”). The five-scale anchors
ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).
Facets of heterogeneity. Each facet of work team heterogeneity was assessed by one
dichotomous item, respectively. Thus, participants revealed whether their respective
work team had low or high levels of:

Leadership
behaviors and
performance
635

LODJ
32,6

.
.
.

636

age heterogeneity;
gender heterogeneity; and
cultural background heterogeneity.

Discriminant validity of constructs
In order to provide insight into the relative independence of the construct utilized in the
present study, confirmatory factor analysis was applied. A measurement model was
tested that included each of the leadership constructs and performance (i.e. in sum, six
constructs), with their respective indicators. To assess the condition of multivariate
normality of the data, an omnibus test based on Small’s statistics (Looney, 1995) was
performed. The results showed a significant violation of the multivariate normality
(x 2 ¼ 864.02, df ¼ 132, p , 0.001). To account for the missing multivariate normality,
the parameters of the proposed model are estimated using the unweighted least
squares discrepancy function (Byrne, 2001; Ximénez, 2006). The fit indices revealed
that the proposed measurement model showed a good fit to the data (x 2 ¼ 1,536.63,
SE ¼ 8.32; df ¼ 2,071; GFI ¼ 0.96; AGFI ¼ 0.96; cf. Hu and Bentler, 1999). A more
parsimonious one-factor model also yielded a good fit to the data (x 2 ¼ 1,474.56,
SE ¼ 7.61; df ¼ 2,079; GFI ¼ 0.95; AGFI ¼ 0.95). However, in comparison, the
absolute fit indices of GFI and AGFI were in support of the measurement model
(Cheung and Rensvold, 2002). While the x 2-difference test revealed no significant
differences between these two models (Dx 2 ¼ 62.07, Ddf ¼ 8, p . 0.05), it should be
noted that this test has been criticized because it might be biased with regard to sample
size (Bentler, 2004). Thus, it was concluded that the various constructs used in the
present study had adequate discriminant validity.
Results
Table I contains descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of the study’s variables.
The internal consistency estimates for leadership behaviors and self-rated performance
were satisfactory. As can be seen from this table, four of the five leadership behaviors
were positively associated with self-rated performance. One might ask whether
differences in performance exist between heterogeneous versus homogeneous teams.
However, no significant effects in levels of performance were detected. for any of the
three facets of heterogeneity.
Multiple regression analysis was performed to test the influences of leaders’
hierarchical level, contextual factors, leadership behaviors, and the interaction terms
between contextual factors and leadership behaviors on performance. In accordance
with the methodological standards of regression (Cohen et al., 2002), the leadership
behaviors and context factors were standardized prior to computing their interactions,
which were subsequently entered into the regression analysis. No signs of
multicollinearity were detected (i.e. the VIF was below or equal 5; cf. Belsey et al.,
1980; Cohen et al., 2002).
The results of the multiple regression analyses were summarized in Table II. None
of the control variables was significantly related to performance. Furthermore, the only
leadership behavior that was associated with performance was initiating structure.
Thus, only H1 was confirmed. Concerning the interactions between leadership
behaviors and facets of work teams’ heterogeneity, several hypotheses could be
confirmed. First, the interaction between transformational leadership and gender was

Variable

MW

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

(1) Heterogeneity age
(2) Heterogeneity gender
(3) Heterogeneity culture
(4) Level
(5) Transactional leadership
(6) Transformational leadership
(7) Laissez-faire
(8) Consideration
(9) Initiating structure
(10) Performance

1.91
1.47
1.15
2.55
3.15
3.28
2.09
3.42
3.36
4.07

0.29
0.50
0.36
0.67
1.01
0.78
1.10
0.85
0.68
0.65

–
0.22 * *
0.06
0.18 * *
0.06
0.04
20.04
0.05
0.08
0.05

–
0.11
0.16 * *
20.08
20.13 *
0.03
20.07
20.10
0.03

–
2 0.04
2 0.03
2 0.10
0.05
2 0.09
2 0.10
2 0.05

–
20.05
20.08
0.10
20.06
0.03
0.02

0.83
0.77 * *
20.37 * *
0.71 * *
0.70 * *
0.15 *

0.94
2 0.47 * *
0.76 * *
0.81 * *
0.14 *

0.90
20.55 * *
20.51 * *
20.11

0.95
0.79 * *
0.12 *

0.85
0.19 * *

0.82

Notes: n ¼ 283; values along the diagonal represent internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s a)

Leadership
behaviors and
performance

637

Table I.
Descriptive statistics and
inter-correlations of study
variables

LODJ
32,6

638

Table II.
Summary of multiple
regression analysis for
the effects of contextual
factors, leadership
behaviors, and their
interactions on
performance

Independent variable
1. Heterogeneity age
2. Heterogeneity gender
3. Heterogeneity culture
4. Level
5. Transactional leadership
6. Transformational leadership
7. Laissez-faire
8. Consideration
9. Initiating structure
10. Transactional leadership £ heterogeneity age
11. Transactional leadership £ heterogeneity gender
12. Transactional leadership £ heterogeneity culture
13. Transformational leadership £ heterogeneity age
14. Transformational leadership £ heterogeneity gender
15. Transformational leadership £ heterogeneity culture
16. Laissez-faire £ heterogeneity age
17. Laissez-faire £ heterogeneity gender
18. Laissez-faire £ heterogeneity culture
19. Consideration £ Heterogeneity Age
20. Consideration £ heterogeneity gender
21. Consideration £ heterogeneity culture
22. Initiating structure £ heterogeneity age
23. Initiating structure £ heterogeneity gender
24. Initiating structure £ heterogeneity culture

B

SE B

b

0.12
0.04
2 0.08
2 0.03
0.07
2 0.09
2 0.02
2 0.07
0.24
0.02
2 0.03
2 0.01
0.06
2 0.18
0.02
0.01
2 0.05
0.13
2 0.05
0.16
2 0.02
0.07
0.02
0.06

0.15
0.08
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.04
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07

0.05
0.03
2 0.04
2 0.03
0.11
2 0.11
2 0.04
2 0.10
0.26 *
0.03
2 0.04
2 0.02
0.09
2 0.28 *
0.03
0.01
2 0.08
0.21 *
2 0.09
0.25 *
2 0.02
0.10
0.03
0.10

Notes: *p # 0.05 and * *p # 0.01; R 2 ¼ 12.3 percent; n ¼ 283

significant, lending support to H3. As Figure 2 shows, high levels of heterogeneity and
high levels of transformational leadership led to higher levels of performance.
Second, H4 gained support from the data as well: the interaction between work team
heterogeneity (culture) and laissez-faire led was significant. As Figure 3 shows, high
levels of laissez-faire and high heterogeneity led to high performance.
Finally, the interaction between consideration and gender was significant,
supporting H5. The combination of high levels of consideration and heterogeneity
(gender) led to increased performance (Figure 4).
Altogether, 12.3 percent of the variance in performance was explained by context
factors, leadership behaviors, and their interactions.
Discussion
Integrative discussion of main results
In general, important contextual conditions of the leadership process have been
neglected in prior studies. Addressing this gap, the present study focused on one
particular context factor, namely, heterogeneity of the work team. The results revealed
that the relationship between several leadership behaviors and performance is
moderated by the heterogeneity of the work team.
First, transformational leadership worked best for teams with both male and female
employees (i.e. high levels of heterogeneity with regard to gender). It might be argued
that transformational leaders can easily create a vision which is based on values that

4.30

Leadership
behaviors and
performance

Heterogeneity gender
Low
High

Performance

4.20

639
4.10

4.00

Low

High

Transformational leadership
Note: With regard to gender

Figure 2.
Interaction effect for
transformational
leadership and
heterogeneity

Performance

4.20

4.00

3.80
Heterogeneity culture
Low
High

3.60

High

Low
Laissez-Faire
Note: With regard to culture

men and women share. For example, values that are highly prevalent in modern day
organizations, such as fairness and high quality, could be communicated to both sexes.
The paradigm of transactional-transformational leadership prevailed in the leadership
literature in the last two decades (Bass, 1998). Interestingly, the level of work teams’
heterogeneity also increased in the same n period. The results of the present study
suggest that transformational leadership is one way of dealing with heterogeneous

Figure 3.
Interaction effect for
laissez-faire and
heterogeneity

LODJ
32,6

4.30

640

Performance

4.20

4.10

4.00
Heterogeneity gender
Low
High

3.90

Figure 4.
Interaction effect for
consideration and
heterogeneity

High

Low
Note: With regard to gender

Consideration

work teams, because transformational leadership interacts with work teams’
heterogeneity to account for variance in performance.
Second, the present study detected an interaction between laissez-faire and work
teams’ heterogeneity (i.e. with regard to culture). This implies that culturally
heterogeneous work teams still can perform well, even if the leader is absent (i.e.
laissez-faire). These heterogeneous teams compensate for missing leadership – when,
due to a high level of laissez-faire, no leadership and guidance is available from the
(formal) leader. Third, the interaction between consideration and work teams’
heterogeneity (i.e. with regard to gender) was significantly related to performance. As a
speculation, team members of heterogeneous work teams not only elicit individualized
considerate behavior from their leaders, but also utilize this one-on-one guidance to
achieve work-related goals and high performance. On the other hand, in homogeneous
work teams, leaders do not have to act with such consideration, because work-related
goals and procedures can be communicated to the group.
Implications for theory
Boundary conditions of effective leadership. The conducted regression analysis
represents a more realistic approach to relationships between leadership behaviors and
performance, as contextual factors were accounted for. Thus, the present study adds to
our knowledge about contextual or boundary conditions for leadership effectiveness.
The model that was proposed from theory and shown in Figure 1 is partially supported
by the results of the present study. For the advancement of leadership theory, the results
of the present study might be utilized to explicate the boundary conditions of the
effectiveness of these leadership behaviors: First, in contrast to other leadership styles,
transformational leadership is unique, due to its emphasis on vision formulation and
communication. This vision process is especially effective if teams consist of both
women and men: typically, visions transcend gender-specific roles and cognitions

(e.g. stereotypes), because visions are rooted in commonly-held values that are behind (or
beyond) roles.
Second, the absence of leadership (i.e. laissez-faire) might be compensated for if
teams are heterogeneous with regard to cultural background. In general, this result is
in line with the theory of substitutes for leadership (Podsakoff et al., 1996a), which
suggests that certain conditions (e.g. intrinsically satisfying tasks) substitute
leadership behaviors. However, the results of the present study went beyond prior
research by demonstrating for the first time that cultural heterogeneous teams can
compensate for leadership. As a speculation, culturally heterogeneous teams which
suffer from laissez-faire, have the potential to form a vision by themselves, because
their competing values (e.g. from various cultures) are so predominant. This vision, in
turn, yields high team performance. Another possible explanation is that in cultural
heterogeneous teams emergent informal leadership is encouraged because the need to
find some direction (e.g. basic rules of communication) is highly visible as a
consequence of team members’ heterogeneous values.
Third, the core element of consideration (i.e. treating team members on an
individual basis), is effective for teams that are heterogeneous with regard to gender.
The different gender-specific values, roles, and stereotypes can be addressed by
considerate leaders. Individually considerate communication, in particular, helps
leaders to assess followers’ values, etc. in the first place. Consequently, the leader can
understand and develop means to lead his/her followers to high performance.
As a conclusion, future theoretical work should further develop these preliminary
ideas regarding boundary conditions of effective leadership. More specifically,
theoretical work should include elements, such as:
.
leadership styles;
.
followers’ characteristics (e.g. gender); and
.
motivational mechanisms (e.g. followers’ stereotypes, leaders’ communication).
Comparing various leadership styles. Prior research demonstrated direct effects of
transactional and transformational leadership, laissez-faire, consideration and initiating
structure on performance (Dumdum et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2004). In general, the results
(i.e. zero-order correlations) from Table I are in line with these meta-analytic results.
However, empirical studies that compared the relative contribution of these leadership
behaviors on performance have been rare. The results of the regression analysis
(Table II) suggest that these five leadership behaviors might be partially redundant, as
not all five behaviors were necessary to explain variance in performance. Interestingly,
only one leadership behavior (i.e. initiating structure) showed a direct relationship with
performance. As a speculation, both conceptually and empirically, initiating structure is
a much broader construct than transactional leadership (while both constructs focus
on clarifying tasks and deadlines). Thus, initiating structure dominated transactional
leadership in the regression analyses, rendering the latter construct redundant.
Redundancy of leadership styles might be responsible for another result:
Transformational leadership did not reveal a direct relationship with performance,
partially because one of its main components (i.e. individualized consideration) is
redundant with consideration. In the regression analyses, both constructs partialled out
their respective potential main effects. Interestingly, for future endeavors which aim at
integrating various theories of leadership styles, this would imply that at least one

Leadership
behaviors and
performance
641

LODJ
32,6

642

component of transformational leadership is redundant, and could thus be neglected, at
least when defining a comprehensive set of effective leadership styles. Excluding
redundant leadership styles would enhance the level of parsimony; thus, it might be
valuable to explore the theoretical overlap between the leadership behaviors of:
.
transactional and transformational leadership; and
.
consideration and initiating structure.
Implications for practice
In general, the present study highlights the utility of four leadership behaviors.
While initiating structure is closely related to performance regardless of the situation,
three leadership behaviors depend on certain contextual conditions. That is to say,
transformational leadership works best when the work team is heterogeneous with
regard to gender. In this situation, leaders could formulate a vision that transcends
gender-specific values. Next, if leaders are often absent and thus, “display” laissez-faire
behavior, performance still can be high, provided that the work team is heterogeneous
with regard to cultural characteristics. Organizations that put high demands on their
leaders (e.g. high work load) should enrich their work teams with substitutes for
leadership, such as rules and/or heterogeneous work teams (Podsakoff et al., 1996a).
Finally, besides transformational leadership, considerate behavior is another leadership
behavior closely related to performance in heterogeneous (i.e. with regard to gender)
work teams. For example, organizations might want to invest in leadership development
programs which aim at fostering consideration (Petty and Pryor, 1974) in order to help
their leaders to deal with the gender heterogeneity of their respective work teams.
Limitations and directions for future research
The present study was limited to Germany and to public organizations. Thus, future
research should replicate the results of the present study in other countries and in other
types of organizations. Furthermore, the data of the present study were collected from
the same source, leaving room for common-source bias. However, prior research has
demonstrated that significant relationships between leadership behaviors and outcome
criteria are only somewhat larger in studies that rely on common-source data than
in studies that implement multiple sources of data. (Avolio et al., 1991). Also, the
correlations in Table I revealed that performance was not very strongly correlated with
the other constructs. One possible explanation might lie in common-source effects
being negligible for the data of the present study.
The cross-sectional study design prevents us from drawing causal inferences.
Only longitudinal or experimental studies would allow for causal interpretation of
the relationships between leadership behaviors and performance. Thus, future
research should implement these kinds of methodological “strong” designs. Another
methodological advancement would be the application of multi-level techniques which
can account for variance being due to the common department level. For example,
it might be possible that several subjects participating were from the same fire
department. Thus, their similar responses might be in part due to common work
situations (e.g. same supervisor, team size) and might have influenced the results.
While the present study relied on a convenience sample where full anonymity was of
paramount importance (and thus, no information about the departments was collected),
future research should aim at gathering data from the department level.

Although the present study went beyond prior research by including several
leadership behaviors, other theoretical approaches to leadership should be included
into future studies. As an example, important leadership behaviors such as managerial
control strategies (Gavin et al., 1995) or leadership phenomena such as
leader-member-exchange (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden and Graen, 1980) should
complement the leadership behaviors which formed the focus of the present study. In
the present study, each facet of work team heterogeneity was assessed by a single
dichotomous item. This approach represents a simple method for the assessment, and
future studies should aim at implementing more sophisticated instruments (e.g.
validated surveys with adequate psychometric properties).
As the context factors of work are numerous, the present study is limited by
focusing only on one single factor (i.e. heterogeneity of the work team). Practitioners
may suspect that heterogeneity interacts with other contextual factors. Thus, the
boundary conditions for effective leadership may be much more complex than the
model that guided the present study suggested. For example, it has been suggested
that the context factors of followers’ skills, task structure, and organizational cycle
may well moderate the relationship between leadership behaviors and effectiveness.
Considerable more research is needed to explore these context factors. These additional
factors were beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, because the present study
tested the moderating effect of work teams’ heterogeneity for the first time, the results
demonstrate the importance of this single context factor. As such, they are one, –
perhaps small, but important step towards a more complex and thus, realistic
leadership theory.
References
Antonakis, J. and Hooijberg, R. (2007), “Cascading vision for real commitment”, in Hooijberg, R.,
Hunt, J.G., Antonakis, J., Boal, K.B. and Lane, N. (Eds), Being There Even When You are
Not: Leading through Strategy, Structures, and Systems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 231-44.
Antonakis, J. and House, R.J. (2002), “The full-range leadership theory: the way forward”, in
Avolio, B.J. and Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership:
The Road Ahead, JAI Press, Amsterdam, pp. 3-34.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), “Context and leadership:
an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor
leadership questionnaire”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14, pp. 261-95.
Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (1995), “Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:
a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership”,
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 199-218.
Avolio, B.J., Yammarino, F.J. and Bass, B.M. (1991), “Identifying common method variance with
data collected from a single source: an unresolved sticky issue”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17, pp. 571-87.
Awamleh, R. and Gardner, W.L. (1999), “Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the
effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance”, Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10, pp. 345-73.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military and Educational Impact,
Lawrence-Erlbaum, Mahway, NJ.

Leadership
behaviors and
performance
643

LODJ
32,6

644

Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10, pp. 181-217.
Belsey, D.A., Kuh, E. and Welsch, R.E. (1980), Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data
and Sources of Collinearity, Lawrence-Erlbaum, New York, NY.
Bentler, P.M. (2004), “Rites, wrongs, and gold in model testing”, Structural Equation Modeling,
Vol. 7, pp. 82-91.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J. (1964), The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence,
Golf Publishing, Houston, TX.
Boone, C., van Olffen, W. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2005), “Team locus-of-control composition,
leadership structure, information acquisition, and financial performance: a business
simulation study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp. 889-909.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Lawrence-Erlbaum, New York, NY.
Cheung, G.W. and Rensvold, R.B. (2002), “Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 9