7KLVGLVWLQFWLRQLQVXERUGLQDWH¶QHHGVWKDWDUHVDWLVILHGE\PHDQVRIWUDQVIRUPDWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLSLV
very valuable to gain insight into why this leadership style can be linked to such a wide variety of
desirable outcomes. However, the above-mentioned studies treated the concept as a singular concept,
whereas according to Yukl (1998) amongst others FRQFOXGHG ³$ YDULHW\ RI GLIIHUHQW LQIOXHQFH
processes may be involveGLQWUDQVIRUPDWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLS ́(p.328). When recalling the finding from
the previous chapter drawn from the second-order factor analysis, where Supportive leadership loaded
on a different factor than Vision and Intellectual stimulation, one may argue that the former plays into
WKH³QHHGIRUUHODWHGQHVVDQGFRPSHWHQFH ́DQGWKHODWWHULQWRWKH³QHHGIRUDXWRQRP\ ́
In this respect, there is evidence that direct subordinates of lower-level managers, such as clerical staff
and front-line employees tend to place more emphasis on the quality of relationships with colleagues
and supervisors (Kalleberg & Griffin, 1978; Ronen et al., 1979; Ronen & Sadan, 1984). Specifically,
Wall et al. (2002) have proposed that because the work processes of managerial jobs are less routine
and that the outcomes are less predictable, the occupants would need more autonomy and discretion.
There is early empirical evidence that work satisfaction of managers is more dependent on
empowering rewards, such as task autonomy, task involvement, and task significance than is the case
for lower-level employees (Kalleberg & Griffin, 1978; Ronen et al., 1979; Ronen & Sadan, 1984).
Moreover, Sashkin and Williams (1990) reported that while middle managers expressed stronger
needs for autonomy and influence, non-supervisory staff tended to pay more attention to relational
aspects of work. Whereas most early studies have focused on the difference between supervisory and
non-supervisory (employees without subordinates) levels, more recent studies have focused on the
difference between managerial levels. Zaccaro (2001) claims that managers at all levels must carry out
the direct leadership roles involved in interpersonal influence as well as the indirect leadership
activities of strategic direction setting and implementation. Likewise, Wang et al. (2011) showed that
behaviors of the CEO did not only influence firm performance, but also the middle managHUV¶
attitudinal responses.
There have been a number of studies that have investigated transformational leadership across
organizational levels (Bass et al., 1987; Bruch & Walter, 2007; Densten, 2003; Lowe et al., 1996;
Oshagbemi & Gill, 2004; Stordeur et al., 2000; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). They examined whether
transformational behaviors differentially influenced the job satisfaction of top-level and middle
PDQDJHUV¶GLUHFWVXERUGLQDWHV7KHLUUHVXOWVVXJJHVWed that hierarchy constitutes a boundary condition
IRUWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIVXFKEHKDYLRUVLQVWUHQJWKHQLQJIROORZHUV¶job satisfaction. Idealized influence
VLPLODUWRWKH³9LVLRQ ́GLPHQVLRQRI5DIIHUW\DQG*ULIILQ(2004)), inspirational motivation (similar to