8.3.2 MEASURES
Leadership behaviors
Klein et al. (1994; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) have pointed out the importance of specifying the level
of analysis at which variables and associations are conceptualized. In this study, transformational
leadership and job satisfaction were examined at the individual level (on the basis of subordinate
scores). Although job satisfaction is clearly an individual-level variable, transformational leadership
has been conceptualized at both the individual and group level (Bass, 1998). Leaders can exhibit a
similar style of behavior toward an entire group of followers resulting in comparable or identical
relationships with each follower in the group (Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974). This model of leader-
follower interactions is referred to as the Average Leadership Style (ALS) approach (Dansereau et al.,
1984). In this case, there is a lack of differences within groups in leader-follower interactions
(homogeneous leader-follower interactions). However, there is empirical evidence that leader-
follower relationships differ across followers. This approach has generally been labeled the Leader-
Member Exchange (LMX) approach. In this case, there are distinct differences in leader-follower
relationships (heterogeneous leader ±follower interactions) (Dansereau et al., 1984). This study uses
the strategic and transformational measures as used before (chapter eight). Yet this time the scores are
based on subordinate ratings (excluding the ratings of superiors and peers). Although, this may cause
a common-method bias, this approach fitted best with the LMX approach.
6XERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ
Subordinate¶ job satisfaction was measureGE\PHDQVRIDVLQJOHLWHP³RYHUDOO,DPVDWLVILHGZLWKP\
MRE ́ 6XERUGLQDWHV VFRUHG WKLV LWHP RQ D ILYH-VWHS /LNHUW VFDOH UDQJLQJ IURP ³WRWDOO\ GLVDJUHH ́ WR
³WRWDOO\DJUHH ́Wanous et al. (1997) published a paper demonstrating that single-item measures of
overall job satisfaction correlated quite highly with multiple-item (or scale measures) of overall job
satisfaction (correlation of ȡ=.63). Moreover, they concluded that single-item measures of overall
satisIDFWLRQ³DUHPRUHUREXVWWKDQWKHVFDOHPHDVXUHVRIRYHUDOOMREVDWLVIDFWLRQ ́(Wanous et al., 1997,
p.250). Wanous et al. (1997) listed several arguments why a single-item measure of overall
satisfaction may be preferable to multi-item scale measures of overall job satisfaction, i.e. (1) single
item measures usually take less space than scale measures, (2) single-item measures may be more
cost-effective, (3) single-item measures may contain more face validity, especially when an
organization has poor employee relations (due to negative reactions to perceived repetitious questions
from scale measures), and (4) single-item measures may be better to measure changes in job
satisfaction. In a review of overall measures of job satisfaction, Scarpello and Campbell (1983) luded