Despite the fact that organizational level did not fulfil the role of moderator, a different pattern could
be observed across organizational levels. In terms of the correlation of transformational leadership
dimensions RQ VXERUGLQDWH¶ MRE VDtisfaction, the most important differential between the
organizational levels was that Intellectual stimulation was important for the job satisfaction of non-
manager employees (partially rejecting H1), whereas Vision was considered important for the job
satisfaction of middle managers (partially confirming H1). The latter is in line with the expectations,
visionary aspirations may be less directly relevant for subordinates of lower-level managers.
Organizational visions that focus on overarching goals may have limited relevance for the day-to-day
work of these employees and may appear abstract, unrealistic, and unconnected to their actual tasks.
The finding regarding Intellectual stimulation was, however unexpected. This surprising finding may
be due to the fact that the sample included highly educated subordinates in knowledge-intensive
industries. For these individuals, Intellectual stimulation may enhance their job satisfaction by
strengthening their sense of significance and autonomy and enhancing their task variety (Bass, 1985;
Judge et al., 2001). Likewise, non-manager employees were largely motivated by externally oriented
strategic leadership behaviors, Organizational creativity and Business development of their superiors.
An important finding was that the job satisfaction of lower-level managers was unrelated to the
leadership behaviors of middle managers. When considering the ambivalent role of middle managers
between top-level managers and lower-level managers, holding both prominent strategic leadership
and supervisory leadership roles, one may argue that middle managers overemphasize their strategic
leadership role, neglecting their supervisory role. Moreover, middle managers seemed to be more in
need of structure (in terms of Operational efficiency) (partially confirming H3). One may argue that
this is due to the role-stress middle managers experience. Middle managers have been portrayed as de-
energized and emotionally stricken in the face of the overwhelming power and drive of turnaround
executives (O'Neill et al., 1995). Most normative models of strategy tend to accord middle
management a supporting role at best (Shrivastava, 1986); executives are advised to reduce
equivocalness so that middle managers can act on clear instructions. 1H[W WR WKH μQHHG IRU
UHODWHGQHVV¶μQHHGIRUFRPSHWHQFH¶DQGμQHHGIRUDXWRQRP\¶(Kovjanic et al., 2012), one may add the
μQHHGIRUFODULW\¶HVSHFLDOO\DSSOLFDEOHWRPLGGOHPDQDJHUVLQWKHFXUUHQWWLPHIUDPH
In conclusion when considering organizational level, it can be said that both strategic leadership and
WUDQVIRUPDWLRQDOOHDGHUVKLSDUHLPSRUWDQWIRUVXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQ,IWKHDLPLVWRLQFUHDVH
VXERUGLQDWH¶MREVDWLVIDFWLRQWRS-level managers should perform Visionary behaviors and Operational
efficiency behaviors, middle managers should not perform Supportive leadership behaviors and lower-