The DOI matches its Crossref record.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP THEORY: USING LEVELS OF ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to refine understanding of transformational leadership theory by a specification and test of boundary conditions. Multiple levels of analysis (individual, dyad, and group) were used to identify conceptually and assess empirically the potential bounds on transformational leadership theory. Multi‐source data were collected from a sample of 105 salespersons and their 33 sales supervisors, and within and between analysis (WABA) procedures were conducted. Contrary to higher‐level (dyad, group) and cross‐level assertions in the literature, transformational leadership results were based solely on individual differences. That is, in this sales setting, transformational leadership theory was determined to be an individual‐level theory bounded by individuals' (superiors' and subordinates') perceptions and not holding at higher levels of analysis. Implications of the findings for future leadership research and practice are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601111401017 · Cited by 1,315
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43669971 · Cited by 1,094
Muenjohn, D. N., & Armstrong, P. A. (2008) · Contemporary Management Research · doi:10.7903/cmr.704 · Cited by 224
Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building
Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., & Kohles, J. C. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259086 · Cited by 217
Self-citationThe folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. (., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(01)00095-9 · Cited by 168
Self-citationA 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research
Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., Kim, D. H., & Yammarino, F. J. (2014) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.002 · Cited by 141
Self-citationSeeing eye to eye: A meta-analysis of self-other agreement of leadership
Lee, A., & Carpenter, N. C. (2018) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.06.002 · Cited by 137
How emotional is transformational leadership really?: Some suggestions for a necessary extension
Küpers, W., & Weibler, J. (2006) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/01437730610677972 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- YAMMARINO, F. J., & DUBINSKY, A. J.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-12
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 787-811
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2027125009
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
