Moreover each dimension seems to bear several sub-GLPHQVLRQV 7KH GLPHQVLRQ ³individualized
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ ́Kolds both a supporting and developing sub-dimension which may have a different
impact on subordinates (Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Nemeroff, 1979). Developing implies that one
coaches subordinates, while supporting subordinates implies being considerate.
Besides, there are high inter-correlations between the dimensions hampering the construct validity of
transformational leadership. Various studies have found that the transactional leadership dimension of
contingent reward loads on the transformational leadership factor and that active management by
exception and passive management by exception are a factor (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Lievens et al.,
1997; Yammarino & Bass, 1990)³,QWHOOHFWXDOVWLPXODWLRQLVGHILQHGDVstimulating subordinates to
question traditional beliefs, to look at problems in a different way, and to find innovative solutions for
problems ́(Yukl, 1999a, pp.288-289). Intellectual stimulation partially resembles individualized
consideration or inspirational motivation. The notion of focus on innovation is what make this
dimension distinct of the other dimensions.
Transactional leadership involves a set of leader-subordinate exchange behaviors that ³lack any clear
common denominator ́(Yukl, 1999a, p.289). Contingent reward implies leader behavior that
stimulate subordinate behavior in terms of incentives and rewards. Recognition is also considered part
of the contingent reward dimension, yet recognition could also be considered a transformational
leadership behavior (Yukl, 1998).
On the basis of the above, a set of items is formulated. Given that the questions concerning leadership
behavior were only a sub-part of the total questionnaire, a limited number of items could be included.
Table A.2 presents the behavioral items that have been included in the measurement.
Table A.2: Behavioral items included in measurement