WKH³,QVSLUDWLRQDOFRPPXQiFDWLRQ ́GLPHQVLRQ), and intellectual stimulation were found to be more
HIIHFWLYHLQVWUHQJWKHQLQJVXERUGLQDWHV¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQZKHQGLUHFWHGE\WRS-level managers towards
middle managers than when directed by middle managers towards lower-level supervisors. Middle
PDQDJHUV¶KLHUDUFKLFDOFRQWH[WVHHPed WREHPRUHFRQGXFLYHWRWKHHIIHFWLYHQHVVRIWKHLUOHDGHUV¶
visionary, inspirational and intellectually challenging behaviors. No such difference occurred,
however, for individualized consideration VLPLODU WR WKH ³6XSSRUWLYH OHDGHUVKLS ́ GLPHQVLRQ RI
Rafferty and Griffin (2004). Offering individualized support seemed to similarly enhance subordinate
satisfaction irrespective of hierarchical differences. Hence, there is significant evidence that
transformational leadership has a positive relationship with subordinate job satisfaction, yet this
relationship is different depending on the underlying transformational leadership variable considered.
It may be argued that the need for competence and relatedness is highest for subordinates of lower-
level managers and the need for autonomy is higher for subordinates of top-level managers. Hence,
one may hypothesize that in general, transformational leadership is positively related to VXERUGLQDWH¶
job satisfaction, yet that the supervisory behaviors Vision, Inspirational communication and
Intellectual stimulation are more important predictors for the job satisfaction of middle managers and
the supervisory behavior, Supportive leadership is more important for non-manager employees.
H1: Visionary, Inspirational communication and Intellectual stimulation behaviors of top-level
managers are the most significant predictors for job satisfaction of their direct subordinates.
H2: Supportive leadership behaviors of lower-level managers is the most significant predictor for job
satisfaction of their subordinates (non-manager employees).
8.2.2 STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
Strategic leadership is nowadays expected from all organizational levels (Hitt & Ireland, 2002). Upson
et al. (2007), however proposed that when the details of a strategy are left to middle-level managers
and lower-level employees, this may cause role ambiguity. Especially when asked to think
VWUDWHJLFDOO\DQGDFWHQWUHSUHQHXULDOO\UROHDPELJXLW\PD\EHFUHDWHGWRWKHH[WHQWWKDWWKH³HPSOR\HH
feels ill equipped to resolve the VLWXDWLRQ ́(Upson et al., 2007, p.82).
Since the seminal study on organizational stress in role dynamics (Kahn et al., 1964), role stress has
attained substantial research attention (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Oertqvist
& Wincent, 2006). Numerous studies using role theory have demonstrated counterproductive
consequences of role stress, which include low satisfaction, high turnover intentions, low commitment