Introduction to Business Research
Spring 2022
Article Critique Assignment
On a typed word document, type your name, date, section, and the article name.
After reading the article assigned, answer the following questions using complete sentences.
1. What is the overview of this article?
2. What is the research problem?
3. What are the research questions?
4. What is the significance of the research?
5. What are the propositions, hypotheses of the article?
6. What research method are the authors using? Do you think this research method is best fit for
the study? Why or why not?
7. What are the article findings?
8. What are the strengths of the article? List at least 2.
9. What is the weakness of the article? List at least 2.
10. What implications can be made to the article?
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228857668
Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job
Characteristics
Article in The Academy of Management Journal · April 2006
DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079
CITATIONS
READS
1,288
5,145
2 authors:
Ronald F Piccolo
Jason A Colquitt
University of Central Florida
University of Georgia
52 PUBLICATIONS 10,025 CITATIONS
46 PUBLICATIONS 16,765 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Goal setting chapter View project
Meta analysis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ronald F Piccolo on 29 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
? Academy of Management Journal
2006, Vol. 49, No. 2, 327–340.
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND JOB BEHAVIORS:
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF CORE JOB CHARACTERISTICS
RONALD F. PICCOLO
University of Central Florida
JASON A. COLQUITT
University of Florida
Although the effects of transformational leadership on task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are well-documented, the mechanisms that explain those effects remain unclear. We propose that transformational leadership is
associated with the way followers view their jobs, in terms of Hackman and Oldham’s
(1976) core job characteristics. Results of our study support a structural model
whereby indirect effects supplement the direct effects of transformational leadership
on task performance and OCB through the mechanisms of job characteristics, intrinsic
motivation, and goal commitment. Additional analyses revealed that transformational
leadership relationships were significantly stronger for followers who perceived highquality leader-member exchange.
Over the past two decades, transformational
leadership has emerged as one of the most popular
approaches to understanding leader effectiveness.
Transformational leadership theory rests on the assertion that certain leader behaviors can arouse followers to a higher level of thinking (Bass, 1985;
Burns, 1978). By appealing to followers’ ideals and
values, transformational leaders enhance commitment to a well-articulated vision and inspire followers to develop new ways of thinking about
problems. Indeed, the positive association between
transformational leadership and follower behaviors
is well documented (Fuller, Patterson, Hester, &
Stringer, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), and studies have
begun to examine the process by which those effects are ultimately realized (e.g., Bono & Judge,
2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Kark,
Shamir, & Chen, 2003).
A central tenet of the transformational approach
is that such effects are transmitted through follower
reactions to a leader. Early studies of the transformational process, therefore, tended to emphasize
the mediating role of followers’ attitudes toward
leaders, such as trust, satisfaction, personal identification, and perceived fairness (e.g., Kark et al.,
2003; Pillai, Schreisheim, & Williams, 1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
Other studies have suggested that transformational
effects are explained by how followers come to feel
about themselves or their group, in terms of selfefficacy or group potency (Bono & Judge, 2003;
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Sosik, Avolio, &
Kahai, 1997).
We propose a different mechanism for explaining
the effects of transformational leaders— one rooted
not in perceptions of leader or self, but rather,
rooted in the job. One of the more powerful influences a leader can have on followers is in the “management of meaning” (Smircich & Morgan, 1982),
as leaders define and shape the “reality” in which
followers work. Hackman and Oldham’s (1976,
1980) five core job characteristics—variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback— offer
one means of capturing key facets of that reality.
We therefore tested the model shown in Figure 1, in
which the direct effects of transformational leadership on task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are supplemented by effects on followers’ perceptions of core job
characteristics. Those perceptions then go on to
predict intrinsic motivation and goal commitment, which are themselves related to the two
outcomes. This study therefore offers a unique
integration of two of the more visible literatures
in the organizational behavior domain: transformational leadership and job characteristics
theory.
An earlier version of this article was presented at the
2004 annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago. We would like to
thank Dov Eden and three anonymous reviewers for their
guidance during the review process.
327
328
Academy of Management Journal
April
FIGURE 1
Proposed Model of Transformational Leadership and Core Job Characteristic Effects
EXPLAINING TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP EFFECTS
Since its introduction by Burns (1978) and Bass
(1985), transformational leadership theory has
evolved to describe four dimensions of leader behavior. Idealized influence is the degree to which
leaders behave in charismatic ways that cause followers to identify with them. Inspirational motivation is the degree to which leaders articulate visions that are appealing to followers. Intellectual
stimulation is the degree to which leaders challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit followers’
ideas. Individualized consideration is the degree to
which leaders attend to followers’ needs, act as
mentors or coaches, and listen to followers’
concerns.
Of all the transformational leadership effects,
perhaps the most often studied are its associations
with beneficial job behaviors. Transformational
leaders have the ability to raise follower task performance while also encouraging OCB—those “extra-role” behaviors that are discretionary and not
directly recognized by an organization’s formal re-
ward system, and that help improve organizational
functioning (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). As three
separate meta-analytic reviews have summarized
(Fuller et al., 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et
al., 1996), the transformational leadership dimensions have displayed strong and consistent correlations with task performance and OCB across
organizations.
According to Bass (1985), transformational leaders provide constructive feedback to their followers, convince followers to exhibit extra effort, and
encourage followers to think creatively about complex problems. As a result, followers tend to behave
in ways that facilitate high levels of task performance. In addition, transformational leaders make
their organizations’ missions salient and persuade
followers to forgo personal interests for the sake of
the collective. When followers equate their own
success with that of their organizations’ and identify with the organizations’ values and goals, they
become more willing to cooperate in order to make
a positive contribution to the work context (Podsakoff et al., 1990).
2006
Piccolo and Colquitt
Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership is
positively related to follower task performance
and OCB.
Transformational Leadership and Core
Job Characteristics
Of course, the contribution of the present study
lies not in testing Hypothesis 1, but rather in exploring whether core job characteristics provide
one mechanism for explaining those effects. Hackman and Oldham (1976) introduced job characteristics theory to explain conditions in which employees would be intrinsically motivated when
performing a job. According to the theory, organizations can encourage positive work attitudes and
increased work quality by enhancing jobs along
five dimensions. These include variety (the degree
to which a job requires the use of a number of
different skills and talents); identity (the degree to
which the job requires completion of a “whole”
piece of work, or doing a task from beginning to end
with a visible outcome); significance (the degree to
which the job has a substantial impact on the lives
of other people); autonomy (the degree to which the
job provides substantial freedom); and feedback
(the degree to which the job provides clear information about performance levels).
Although perceptions of core job characteristics
are clearly dependent on structural aspects of one’s
formal job description, transformational leaders
can foster such perceptions through their own actions. Smircich and Morgan suggested that leaders
influence followers by “mobilizing meaning, articulating and defining what has previously remained
implicit or unsaid, by inventing images and meanings that provide a focus for new attention, and by
consolidating, confronting, or changing prevailing
wisdom” (1982: 258). Leaders “frame” or “bracket”
followers’ work experiences to create a new point
of reference for understanding the day-to-day flow
of work (Goffman, 1974; Schutz, 1967; Smircich &
Morgan, 1982).
This “management of meaning” perspective on
leadership is similar to the social information processing model introduced by Salancik and Pfeffer
(1978). These authors suggested that individuals
rely on informational cues from their social contexts when making assessments about work environments. Leaders, for example, as central characteristics of a work context, are relevant information
points when followers make judgments about their
jobs. Both Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) and Griffin,
Bateman, Wayne, and Head (1987) argued that job
perceptions do not depend exclusively on objective
characteristics of actual jobs, but instead on social
329
constructions of the information available to workers at the time they make judgments.
Griffin (1981) was among the first to test the
notion that leaders can influence job perceptions
without making any adjustments to objective job
characteristics. He argued that individual task perceptions stem from five basic sources of information: (1) technology, (2) organizational structure, (3)
coworkers, (4) characteristics of a job incumbent
and—most relevant in the current study—(5) an
individual’s immediate supervisor. In Griffin’s
study of leader behaviors and job characteristics,
managers reported the extent to which they exhibited behaviors intended to influence job perceptions. Three months later, subordinates in an experimental group reported higher ratings of core job
characteristics, even though no tangible changes to
their actual jobs had been made. Griffin (1981) explained these results by suggesting that informational cues from supervisors may have caused employees to perceive their tasks differently.
Transformational leaders may play a particularly
strong role in the management of meaning and social information. Shamir and his coauthors (1993)
suggested that leaders who exhibit transformational behaviors can influence how followers judge
a work environment by using verbal persuasion
and by clearly communicating the value of an organization’s mission. Similarly, Bono and Judge
(2003) suggested that transformational leaders help
followers view work goals as congruent with their
own values. There are reasons to expect that the
same management of meaning processes may be
used to influence job perceptions.
In addition, many of the behaviors subsumed by
the transformational pattern have direct implications for levels of core characteristics. Leaders who
utilize intellectual stimulation by seeking new perspectives and developing new ways to perform job
tasks may enhance follower perceptions of variety
and autonomy. Leaders who engage in individualized consideration by coaching and teaching
should have followers who see more autonomy and
feedback in their jobs. When leaders engage in idealized influence (by emphasizing the moral and
ethical consequences of work decisions) or inspirational motivation (by articulating a compelling vision of the future), followers may view their jobs as
more significant. Shamir and colleagues (1993) provided indirect support for these assertions by suggesting that leaders who appeal to ideological values and engage in intellection stimulation interject
meaningfulness into their organization and their
followers’ work.
330
Academy of Management Journal
Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership is
positively related to follower perceptions of
core job characteristics.
Effects of Core Job Characteristics
One of the central predictions of job characteristics theory is that enhanced core job characteristics
are associated with higher levels of what Hackman
and Oldham termed “internal motivation,” described as a “self-perpetuating cycle of positive
work motivation driven by self-generated (rather
than external) rewards for good work” (1980: 72).
The authors likened internal motivation to Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) “flow” concept and Deci’s
discussion of “intrinsic motivation,” described as
involvement in “an ongoing process of seeking and
conquering challenges” (1975: 131). Our model
uses Deci’s intrinsic motivation terminology,
which has come to be the more common label in
the larger motivation literature (e.g., Kanfer, 1991).
Comprehensive summaries of the literature on
job characteristics theory have provided support
for the notion that jobs regarded as challenging,
important, and autonomous are more intrinsically
motivating. For example, Fried and Ferris (1987)
meta-analyzed over 200 studies and reported corrected correlations ranging from .22 to .52 between
the five core characteristics and intrinsic motivation. Path analysis studies have suggested that the
intrinsic motivation effects are driven by multiple
characteristics and are particularly reliant on the
characteristics that create perceived meaningfulness in one’s job (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992).
Hypothesis 3. Follower perceptions of core job
characteristics are positively related to follower intrinsic motivation.
Hackman and Oldham (1980) argued that employees who are intrinsically motivated engage in
higher levels of task performance because performing well creates positive affect. Staw (1977) made a
similar argument, suggesting that intrinsically motivated individuals derive satisfaction from task accomplishment and therefore work harder to excel.
Although these arguments apply most obviously to
work quality, Hackman and Oldham (1980) also
provided conceptual arguments for the effects of
intrinsic motivation on work quantity. Specifically,
the authors argued that intrinsic motivation should
reduce the forms of task withdrawal (e.g., daydreaming, breaks, socializing) that slow work efforts. Kanfer (1991) made a similar point, noting
that one of the key mechanisms for explaining the
performance effects of intrinsic motivation is consistency of task engagement. Intrinsically moti-
April
vated individuals are more likely to choose to work
on particular tasks at a given moment. Indeed, that
engagement not only increases work quantity over
time, but can also improve the acquisition of taskrelated skills, thereby affecting work quality (Kanfer, 1991).
Unfortunately, these types of arguments have received very little empirical testing. Most of the
research on intrinsic motivation in the larger motivation literature has treated it as a dependent variable and used either job characteristics or the presence of extrinsic rewards as predictors of motivated
behavior (see Fried and Ferris [1987] and Deci,
Koestner, and Ryan [1999] for meta-analytic reviews). The most recent studies linking intrinsic
motivation with task performance have come out of
the related area of psychological empowerment
(e.g., Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). For example,
Spreitzer (1995) linked the empowerment version
of intrinsic motivation to subordinate perceptions of
managerial task performance in an industrial firm.
Research relating intrinsic motivation to OCB is
surprisingly rare, yet there appear to be natural
links between the two constructs. Individuals
likely execute discretionary behaviors that go beyond the formal requirements of a job to satisfy
some higher-order individual need or to align work
behavior with individual values. Because such behaviors are less likely to be formally rewarded than
are required job behaviors, they are presumably
performed for self-generated, intrinsic reasons.
Some support for this assertion was found by Lee
and Allen (2002), who linked “intrinsic cognitions”
to some forms of OCB, and by Rioux and Penner
(2001), who linked the outcome to an organizational concern motive that captured, among other
things, having a genuine interest in work.
Hypothesis 4. Follower intrinsic motivation is
positively related to follower task performance
and OCB.
Our model also draws a link between job characteristics and goal commitment in explicating the
reasons for transformational effects. Following
Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981), Hollenbeck, Williams, and Klein defined goal commitment as “the determination to try for a goal and the
persistence in pursuing it over time” (1989: 18). We
are not aware of any research linking the five core
job characteristics to goal commitment, but there
are conceptual reasons to expect a relationship.
Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, and Alge (1999), for
example, identified antecedents of goal commitment beyond expectancy and goal attainment, the
two most proximal drivers of commitment. Among
those antecedents was volition, which overlaps
2006
Piccolo and Colquitt
substantially with autonomy, and performance
feedback, which is a central aspect of job characteristics theory. Both volition and feedback were
proposed to have an influence on goal commitment
through their effects on expectations of goal attainment. Thus, by shaping expectancies for accomplishment of work-related goals, core characteristics appear to be linked to expressions of goal
commitment.
Hypothesis 5. Follower perceptions of core job
characteristics are positively related to follower goal commitment.
In most studies of goal setting theory, goal commitment has been regarded as a moderator of the
relationship between goal difficulty and performance. However, Locke, Latham, and Erez (1988)
suggested that goal commitment would also have a
direct link to performance and introduced a model
of job performance with goal commitment as the
most proximal predictor. Drawing on earlier work
by Salancik (1977), the authors noted that commitment is the binding of individuals to specific behavioral acts. Thus, individuals who are more committed to goals should try harder to achieve them
and persist in that effort longer (Locke et al., 1988).
Such persistence is one of the most powerful drivers of task performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). In
support of this view, two meta-analyses concluded
that goal commitment does indeed have a positive,
moderate relationship with task performance
(Klein et al., 1999; Wofford, Goodwin, & Premack,
1992).
In contrast, the relationship between goal commitment and OCB remains unclear and untested.
On the one hand, many individual goals do not
include a citizenship component, and extra-role
behaviors that distract from goal-based duties
might hinder the achievement of such goals. On the
other hand, group- or organization-level goals inherently encourage cooperation and helping behaviors among employees, and a commitment to those
goals should facilitate altruistic behaviors that are
not directly rooted in an individual’s job description. Indeed, a leader’s ability to foster acceptance
of group goals is a strong predictor of OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).
Hypothesis 6. Follower goal commitment is
positively related to follower task performance
and OCB.
Alternative Models
In summary, we propose that the relationship
between transformational leadership and beneficial
331
job behaviors (task performance and OCB) is partially mediated by perceptions of core job characteristics, which are related to intrinsic motivation
and goal commitment. The model in Figure 1 therefore offers a new, relatively unexplored set of
mechanisms for transformational effects on job behaviors. Of course, one could envision alternate
structures for Figure 1 that could also have merit.
For example, it may be that the job characteristics
mechanisms fully mediate transformational effects,
suggesting that direct paths to task performance
and OCB should be dropped. On the other hand, it
may be that Figure 1 understates the direct effects
of transformational leadership, which may have
direct links with goal commitment and intrinsic
motivation (Shin & Zhou, 2003). We therefore
tested two alternate models that provide different
representations of transformational effects. Figure 2
depicts these alternate models.
Potential Boundary Condition
In addition, we explored a potential “boundary
condition” for transformational effects. In describing leaders as managers of meaning, Smircich and
Morgan noted that some followers can choose to
resist such management, writing that leadership
“involves a complicity or process of negotiation
through which certain individuals, implicitly or
explicitly, surrender their power to define the nature of their experience to others. Indeed, leadership depends on the existence of individuals willing, as a result of inclination or pressure, to
surrender, at least in part, the powers to shape and
define their own reality” (Smircich & Morgan,
1982: 258). This reasoning implies that some followers are resistant to transformational behaviors.
One construct that could capture such resistance is
leader-member exchange (LMX) quality (Graen &
Uhl-Bien, 1995). Followers in high-quality LMX
relationships report high levels of trust in leaders
and commitment to their visions, so they may be
more responsive to transformational behaviors. In
contrast, followers in low-quality LMX relationships have formal, impersonal communication patterns with leaders that could prove insufficient for
transmitting changes in job perceptions.
METHODS
Respondents
Respondents included 283 individuals from a
broad cross-section of job types. The most common
job categories were administration/support (11%),
Web design and computer networking/technology
332
Academy of Management Journal
April
FIGURE 2
Alternate Models of Transformational Leadership and Core Job Characteristic Effects
(10%), and education/training (9%); but as participants were drawn from multiple organizations in
several industries, we cannot assert that the sample
is representative of any definable population. Forty-four percent of the respondents were men, 56
percent were women, and 78 percent were Caucasian. Their average age was 34 years, and their
average tenure in their current jobs was 7 years. We
recruited respondents from the StudyResponse service (Stanton & Weiss, 2002), a nonprofit academic
service that attempts to match researchers in need
of samples with individuals willing to complete
surveys. In exchange for this service, the StudyResponse researchers examine the relationship be-
tween study characteristics (e.g., survey length)
and survey effectiveness (e.g., response rate, missing data rates). As of the most recent update (August 10, 2005), 95,574 individuals had registered
with the StudyResponse service.
For the present study, recruits were limited to
full-time employees who reported to a supervisor.
A random sample of 1,491 such employees was
generated. The StudyResponse staff sent out recruitment e-mails with links to an online survey. In
accordance with our Institutional Review Board’s
protocols, participants were told that the research
was voluntary and that the study pertained to “the
relationship between job attitudes and job behav-
2006
Piccolo and Colquitt
iors.” Respondents were further told that they
would receive a $10 Amazon.com gift certificate if
they filled out the survey and their supervisors
filled out a shorter set of questions. Respondents
signed on to the online survey using their StudyResponse ID number, which was the only identifier
included with their data. Once the participants had
filled out their survey, they e-mailed their supervisors a link to the supervisory survey, so the supervisor data were identified with the same ID numbers. A total of 283 individuals completed the selfsurvey, resulting in a response rate of 19 percent.
Of these, 217 had supervisors who filled out the
supervisor survey; thus, the overall response rate
was 15 percent.
Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all measures used a
response scale in which 1 was “strongly disagree”
and 5 was “strongly agree.”
Transformational leadership. The four dimensions of transformational leadership were measured with items from the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ Form 5X; Bass & Avolio,
1995). Four items were used to measure intellectual
stimulation (e.g., “My supervisor . . . seeks differing perspectives when solving problems”), inspirational motivation (e.g., “. . . articulates a compelling vision of the future”), and individualized
consideration (e.g., “. . . treats me as an individual
rather than just a member of a group”). Eight items
were used to measure idealized influence (e.g.,
“. . . instills pride in me for being associated with
him/her”). Transformational leadership was measured at the individual level because the level of
theory— dictated by the outcome variables—was at
the individual level (Rousseau, 1985).
Job characteristics. The ten Likert items from
the revised form of the Job Diagnostic Survey
(Idaszak & Drasgow, 1987; see Hackman & Oldham,
1974) were used. On a seven-point scale (1, “very
inaccurate,” to 7, “very accurate”), participants indicated the accuracy of statements such as, “The
job requires me to use a number of complex highlevel skills” (variety), “The job provides me the
chance to completely finish the pieces of work I
begin” (identity), “The job is very significant and
important in the broader scheme of things” (significance), “The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the
work” (autonomy), and “After I finish a job, I know
whether I have performed well” (feedback).
Intrinsic motivation. This variable was measured with four items developed by Hackman and
Oldham (1974). Sample items are, “My opinion of
333
myself goes up when I do this job well” and “I feel
bad and unhappy when I discover that I have performed poorly on this job.”
Goal commitment. The five items validated by
Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, and DeShon
(2001), based on the earlier work of Hollenbeck,
Klein, O’Leary, and Wright (1989), were used. Sample items (both reverse-coded) are, “It’s hard to take
my work goals seriously” and “Quite frankly, I
don’t care if I achieve my work goals or not.”
LMX. This was assessed using Graen and UhlBien’s (1995) seven-item scale. Sample items are,
“How would you characterize your working relationship with your supervisor?” (1, “extremely ineffective,” to 5, “extremely effective”) and “How
well does your supervisor recognize your potential?” (1, “not at all,” to 5, “fully”).
Task performance. Supervisors were asked to
complete the seven-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). Supervisors indicated
the extent to which they agreed with statements
about their subordinates’ performance, such as,
“This employee . . . adequately completes assigned
duties” and “. . . fulfills responsibilities specified
in his/her job description.”
OCB. Supervisors also completed the 16-item
measure of OCB published by Lee and Allen (2002),
indicating the extent to which they agreed with
statements about their subordinates’ behavior.
Items included, “This employee . . . helps others
who have been absent,” “. . . assists others with
their duties,” “. . . attends functions that are not
required but that help the organizational image,”
and “. . . offers ideas to improve the functioning of
the organization.”
Measurement model. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed the existence of coding factors in
scales on which minorities of items were worded in
an opposite direction (i.e., were reverse-coded; see
Schmitt and Stults [1985] for a discussion of this
common problem). These items exhibited lower
factor loadings and/or highly correlated error
terms. We therefore dropped the negatively worded
item in the intrinsic motivation scale, both positively worded items in the goal commitment scale,
and both negatively worded items in the task performance scale. Our analyses also revealed an unacceptably low loading for a task performance item
with vague item content (“Engages in activities that
will directly affect his/her performance”), so this
item was also dropped. The four facet scores were
used as manifest indicators of the latent transformational leadership factor, and the same technique
was used to represent job characteristics. Given the
length of the OCB scale, we used four 4-item parcels as manifest indicators of the latent variable.
334
Academy of Management Journal
The resulting measurement model provided an adequate fit to the data (?2[215] ? 467.22; ?2/df ?
2.17; CFI ? .93; SRMR ? .05; RMSEA ? .08).
April
n.s.). Figure 1 therefore displays a more parsimonious model that achieves the same fit level.
As noted in the Introduction, we explored
whether LMX moderated the transformational relationships in Figure 1 using moderated regression.
Transformational leadership explained 10 percent
of the variance in core characteristic perceptions
(p ? .001), with LMX explaining an incremental 1
percent (p ? .10). The product of the two explained
an additional 2 percent (p ? .05). Transformational
leadership explained 9 percent of the variance in
task performance (p ? .001), with LMX explaining
an incremental 2 percent (p ? .05). The product
term explained an incremental 8 percent (p ? .001).
Transformational leadership explained 21 percent
of the variance in OCB (p ? .001), with LMX not
contributing incremental variance. However, the
product term explained an additional 9 percent of
the variance (p ? .05). The plots of these interactions are shown in Figure 3, with each illustrating
that transformational leadership relationships are
stronger when LMX is high rather than low.
RESULTS
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics and
correlations for the study variables. We assessed
the fit of the structural model in Figure 1 by adding
the predicted paths to the measurement model. We
allowed the disturbance terms for task performance
and OCB to covary in order to provide a noncausal
association between the two. The structural model
provided an adequate fit to the data (?2[219] ?
481.93; ?2/df ? 2.20; CFI ? .92; SRMR ? .07;
RMSEA ? .08). The path coefficients in Figure 1
supported all of the hypotheses except for Hypothesis 6 (goal commitment and OCB). Transformational leadership was significantly related to
task performance and OCB and, more important
to this study, transformational leadership was
also significantly related to perceptions of core
job characteristics, which were related to intrinsic motivation and goal commitment. Intrinsic
motivation was then related to both outcomes,
while goal commitment was only related to task
performance.
We compared the fit of our hypothesized model
to the two alternate models in Figure 2. The first
model predicted complete mediation of transformational leadership effects, with no direct paths
between leadership and the outcomes included.
This model exhibited a moderately poorer fit to the
data (?2[221] ? 522.66; ?2/df ? 2.36; CFI ? .91;
SRMR ? .12; RMSEA ? .08), and that difference in
fit was statistically significant (?2[2] ? 40.73, p ?
.001). The second model added two other transformational paths, to intrinsic motivation and goal
commitment. The fit of this model was almost identical to that of Figure 1 (?2[217] ? 476.76; ?2/df ?
2.20; CFI ? .92; SRMR ? .06; RMSEA ? .08), with
the difference in fit nonsignificant (?2[2] ? 5.17,
DISCUSSION
In this study, we introduced and tested a mode