Transformational Leadership
Leading to Make a Difference: A Field Experiment on the Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation Nicola Bellé Bocconi University ABSTRACT Scholars have recently begun to investigate job design as one of the contingencies that mod - erates 1 the performance effects of transformational leadership in public sector organizations. Drawing on this stream of research, we used a completely randomized true experimental research design to explore the potential of two extra-task job characteristics—beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions—to enhance the effects of transformational lead - ership on public employee performance. The participants in our field experiment were 138 nurses at a public hospital in Italy. Whereas participants who were exposed to trans - formational leadership manipulation alone marginally outperformed a control group, the performance effects of transformational leadership were much greater among nurses who were also exposed to either beneficiary contact or self-persuasion interventions. Follower perceptions of pro-social impact partially mediated 2 the positive interaction of transforma - tional leadership and each of the two job design features on job performance. Moreover, the performance effects of transformational leadership and the interaction effects of trans - formational leadership and each of the two job design features were greater among partici - pants who self-reported higher levels of public service motivation. The implications of the experimental findings for public administration research and theory are discussed. In TR oDuCTI on Transformational leadership has often been referenced as one of the most power - ful factors motivating purposeful action and high public employee performance (e.g., Paarlberg and Lavigna 2010 ; Park and Rainey 2008 ; Trottier, Van Wart, and Wang This study is part of a joint research project with the Italian National School of Public Administration (Scuola Superiore della Pubblica Amministrazione – SSPA). Address correspondence to the author at [email protected] . 1 A moderator is a variable that affects the strength or direction of the relationship between a predictor and an outcome. In other words, the effect of the predictor on the outcome depends on the level of the moderator.2 A mediator is a variable that accounts for all or some of the observed relationship between a predictor and an outcome.
JPART 24:109–136 doi:10.1093/jopart/mut033 Advance Access publication June 13, 2013© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected] Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 110 2008 ; Wright, Moynihan and Pandey 2012 ; Wright and Pandey 2010 ). However, despite nonexperimental evidence that suggests that transformational leadership is positively correlated with follower performance, experimental and quasi-experimental studies have shown that transformational leaders are not unconditionally successful (Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996 ; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002 ; Grant 2012 ; Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 ). Scholars have recently begun to investigate job design as one of the contingen - cies that may moderate the performance effects of transformational leadership ( Grant 2012 ). This study aims to link this highly promising stream of literature with public administration research and theory. Using a completely randomized true experimen - tal research design, we explored whether, how and under what contingencies two job design features—that is, beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions— enhanced the performance effects of transformational leadership on a group of nurses at a public hospital in Italy. In the following sections, we begin by situating our research within the relevant literature and illustrating our hypotheses. We then go on to describe the experiment that we conducted to test these hypotheses, and we conclude with a discussion of our findings and their implications for research and theory.
THE oRETICAL BACKGR oun D A nD RESEARCH Q uESTI on S Transformational Leadership in the Context of Public Administration The conventional conceptualization of transformational leadership encompasses four behavioral dimensions: inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration ( Bass 1985 ; Burns 1978 ). Inspirational motivation involves articulating a vision of the future that is appealing and inspiring to followers. Idealized influence is associated with charismatic actions and modeling behavior that causes followers to identify with their leader. Intellectual stimulation involves soliciting followers’ ideas and challenging them to question old assump - tions and analyze problems from new perspectives. Finally, individual consideration entails attending to each follower’s needs through mentoring, coaching and other similar activities. At its core, transformational leadership involves motivating followers to tran - scend their immediate self-interest “for the sake of the team, the organization or the larger polity” ( Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993 , 579). As noted by Wright and Pandey (2010) , this emphasis on the mission may make transformational leadership naturally suited to the public sector, whose employees are inherently required to see beyond self-interest to the well-being of the larger community. Wright and Pandey (2010) note that the mainstream leadership literature is pessimistic regarding the potential for transformational leadership behavior in public organizations compared to private ones. These negative predictions are based on the fact that public organi - zations rely heavily on bureaucratic control systems ( Bass and Riggio 2006 ; Howell 1997 ; Pawar and Eastman 1997 ; Shamir and Howell 1999 ), which are expected to inhibit transformational leadership behaviors ( Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996 ). However, empirical research has contradicted the expectations of mainstream leadership theory in this regard ( Dumdum, Lowe, and Avolio 2002 ). Wright and Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 111 Pandey (2010) provide two alternative explanations for the discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the empirical evidence: either public organizations are not as bureaucratic as is commonly thought ( Boyne 2002 ; Pandey and Wright 2006 ; Wright 2004 ), or bureaucratic control mechanisms do not inhibit transformational leadership behavior.
Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership in Public Sector organizations Abundant observational research has shown that transformational leadership predicts higher levels of job performance among followers (e.g., Bass and Riggio 2006 ; Judge and Piccolo 2004 ; Jung and Avolio 2000 ). Public administration stud - ies on this topic have generally reached the same conclusion. For instance, a cross- sectional empirical study that was conducted using more than 6,900 responses to the Merit Principles Survey 2000 has shown that federal employees who perceive their supervisors as displaying more transformation-oriented leadership tend to self-report higher levels of performance and work quality along with higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions ( Park and Rainey 2008 ). Another cross- sectional survey of senior managers working in local US governments has shown that transformational leadership is positively correlated with mission valence— identified as a predictor of higher job satisfaction and work motivation ( Wright 2007 )—through the mediators of public goal clarity and public service motiva - tion (PSM) (Wright, Pandey, and Moynihan 2012 ). A different study based on the same cross-sectional data ( Moynihan, Pandey, and Wright 2012b ) concluded that transformational leaders enhance the use of performance information by their fol - lowers—which is “a form of behaviour that is a logical contributor to both higher individual and organizational performance” ( Moynihan and Pandey 2010 , 859)— through the mediators of goal clarity and organizational culture. Employing the same survey data, Moynihan, Wright, and Pandey (2012) found that perceptions of red tape were lower among agency heads who rated their supervisor, the city manager, as more transformational and that transformational leadership altered perceptions of red tape through the mediators of goal clarity, political support, and internal communication. Despite this nonexperimental evidence suggesting that transformational lead - ership is positively correlated with job performance, experimental studies on this topic have provided mixed results. Both field experimental work ( Barling, Weber, and Kelloway 1996 ; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002 ; Grant 2012 ) and laboratory experiments ( Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 ) have shown inconsistent evidence of the effectiveness of transformational leaders in motivating higher performance among their followers. To our knowledge, apart from a field experiment in the Israeli military (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002 ), no true experimental work on the perfor - mance effects of transformational leadership in public sector organizations has ever been published. Our study takes a step toward filling this gap by testing the following hypothesis using a randomized control group study: H1 Transformational leadership has a positive effect on public employee performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 112 Influence of Transformational Leadership and Job Design on the Performance of Public Employees One possible explanation for the inconclusive results of previous experimental stud - ies of the performance effects of transformational leadership is that transformational leaders are not unconditionally successful in motivating their followers. The contrary has been proposed: that transformational leaders can be effective only insofar as they succeed in moving beyond rhetoric and turning their visions into a tangible reality (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996 ). How can leaders reify their vision? Research has shown that an effective method is to heighten their followers’ awareness of making a positive difference in other people’s lives ( Thompson and Bunderson 2003 ). At its core, transformational leadership entails motivating followers to go beyond their immediate self-interest by linking an inspiring vision to core values ( Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper 1998 ). Research in several disciplines has shown that doing good for others is a fundamental human value across cultures, employment sectors, and typologies of workers. In particular, cultural psychological research has demonstrated that benevo - lence is at the top of the hierarchy of values in many cultures worldwide ( Schwartz and Bardi 2001 ). Similarly, three related fields of study that have blossomed during the last 20 years—that is, pro-social motivation (e.g., Brief and Motowidlo 1986 ), PSM (e.g., Perry and Wise 1990 ), and altruism (e.g., Piliavin and Charng 1990 )—all emphasize the centrality of other-regarding motives ( Perry, Hondeghem, and Wise 2010 ). If orientation toward the other is a relevant determinant of organizational behavior in general ( De Dreu 2006 ; Grant 2007 ; Meglino and Korsgaard 2004 ), the perception of benefiting others plays an even more relevant role for workers who provide public services ( Grant 2008a ; Perry and Wise 1990 ). Consequently, for public leaders who want to make their inspiring messages more concrete in the eyes of their followers, emphasizing the pro-social effects of their vision is particularly important. Recent experimental research has shown that beneficiary contact ( Bellé 2013 ; Grant 2007 ; Grant 2008a ; Grant et al. 2007 ) and self-persuasion interventions ( Bellé 2013 ) may nurture the belief among employees that they make a positive difference in other people’s lives. In light of this evidence, we investigated the moderating effect that beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions may have on the performance effects of transformational leadership.
(a) Beneficiary Contact Relational job design research has shown that giving employees the opportunity to meet the individuals who benefit from their efforts can greatly enhance their motiva - tion and performance ( Bellé 2013 ; Grant 2008a ; Grant et al. 2007 ) by heightening their perception of themselves as making a difference in other people’s lives ( Grant 2007 ). Using quasi-experimental and observational research designs, Grant (2012) has recently demonstrated that giving employees the opportunity to interact with the ben - eficiaries of their efforts—and thus tangibly illustrating how the leader’s vision bene - fits other people—strengthens the performance effects of transformational leadership. To corroborate both the external and the internal validity of these findings, we tested the following hypothesis adapted from Grant (2012) in a different country Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 113 using a different typology of workers and a completely randomized true experimental research design. H2a Beneficiary contact strengthens the effect of transformational leadership on public employee performance. (b) Self-Persuasion Self-persuasion is an indirect persuasion technique that entails “placing people in situ - ations where they are motivated to persuade themselves to change their own attitudes or behavior” ( Aronson 1999 , 875). Research on role-playing has long demonstrated the persuasive effect of self-generated arguments: while trying to convince another person, individuals may end up convincing themselves in the process ( Janis and King 1954 ; King and Janis 1956 ). In a now-classic experiment by Elms (1966), cigarette smokers who were assigned the role of nonsmokers trying to convince a friend to stop smoking found cigarettes more distasteful than did those who received the same information passively. Wright and Grant (2010) have recently urged public administration scholars to examine techniques that have proven effective in inducing self-persuasion, such as idea reflection (e.g., Gregory, Cialdini, and Carpenter 1982 ) and advocacy (e.g., Gordijn, Postmes, and de Vries 2001 ; Miller and Wozniak 2001 ). In a recent randomized control group experiment with nurses working at a public hospital, a self-persuasion manipula - tion had a positive effect on the persistence, output, productivity and vigilance of the participants ( Bellé 2013 ). In light of this research, we investigated if putting followers in situations in which they were compelled to persuade themselves of the pro-social influ - ence of the vision of their leaders could strengthen the performance effects of trans - formational leadership. We therefore formulated and tested the following hypothesis: H2b Self-persuasion interventions strengthen the effect of transformational leadership on public employee performance. Mediating Role of Perceived Pro-Social Impact Several studies have suggested that nurturing the perception of task significance among employees—that is, the employees’ belief that they are making a positive dif - ference in other people’s lives—can enhance their motivation and effort. These studies identify two possible mediators that may explain the effect of task significance on job performance. On the one hand, research that draws from social information process - ing theory ( Salancik and Pfeffer 1978 ) and from traditional models of job design that are focused on the task structures of jobs ( Hackman and Oldham 1976 ; Hackman 1980 ) posits that nurturing employee perceptions of task significance makes them experience their jobs as more meaningful ( Zalesny and Ford 1990 ). This perceived meaningfulness, in turn, can motivate employees to exert more effort ( Fried and Ferris 1987 ; Parker and Wall 1998 ). On the other hand, contemporary research on job design ( Grant 2007 ) focuses on perceived pro-social impact as mediating the impact of task significance on job performance ( Grant 2008b ). Adopting the latter theoretical perspective, we expected Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 114 that both beneficiary contact and self-persuasion would strengthen the relationship between transformational leadership and follower-perceived positive influence on oth - ers, which, in turn, would positively affect job performance. To examine beneficiary contact, we experimentally tested the following hypothesis adapted from Grant (2012) : H3a Public employee perceptions of pro-social impact mediate the moderating effects of beneficiary contact on the relationship between transformational leadership and public employee performance. For the self-persuasion intervention, we formulated and tested the following hypothesis: H3b Public employee perceptions of pro-social impact mediate the moderating effect of self-persuasion interventions on the relationship between transformational leadership and public employee performance. Moderating Role of PSM During the last two decades, PSM research has thoroughly investigated the unique - ness of “motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organiza - tions” ( Perry and Wise 1990 , 368). Vandenabeele describes PSM as “the belief, values and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity” ( 2007 , 547). This conceptualization is closely linked to the construct of transformational leadership, which entails motivating fol - lowers “to transcend their own self-interests for the sake of the team, the organization or the larger polity” ( Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993 , 579). Transformational leadership rests on an assumption regarding employees that contradicts agency theory ( Moynihan, Pandey, and Wright 2012a ; Van Wart 2005 )—the assumption that, in the terms proposed by Le Grand (2006) , individuals are altruistic “knights.” Whereas transaction-based approaches conflict with the other-regarding val - ues of many public employees—and have the potential to turn “knights” into “knaves” by crowding out intrinsic or pro-social motivations ( Le Grand 2006 ; Moynihan 2010 ; Weibel, Rost, and Osterloh 2010 )—transformational leadership may represent a supe - rior fit for a workforce with high levels of PSM. This is particularly the case for public organizations because their employees tend to be motivated by a greater desire to serve others than private sector workers exhibit (e.g., Pandey and Stazyk 2008 ; Steijn 2008 ).
Based on previous theoretical work by Paarlberg and Lavigna (2010) and the limited empirical evidence that is available to date ( Park and Rainey 2008 ; Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey 2012 ), we expected that transformational leadership would be more likely to increase job performance for employees with stronger PSM than for employees with weaker PSM. The rationale governing this hypothesis is that employees with greater PSM care more about doing work that has a positive impact on others ( Perry and Wise 1990 ). The inspiring messages that transformational leaders deliver to motivate their followers to go beyond their own self-interest convey to employees with strong PSM that their jobs have the potential to express and fulfill their values for the benefit of others. Literature on needs-supplies fit posits that workers are more willing to expend Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 115 the effort that is necessary for them to perform effectively when their jobs match their values ( Edwards et al. 2006 ). As a result, we expected that employees with stronger PSM would be more likely to improve their job performance in response to transformational leadership—alone or enhanced by job design interventions—to express and fulfill their aim of helping others. We therefore formulated and tested the following hypotheses: H4 Transformational leadership has a greater performance effect on public employees with stronger public service motivation. H5a The positive interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact has a greater performance effect on public employees with stronger public service motivation. H5b The positive interaction between transformational leadership and self-persuasion interventions has a greater performance effect on public employees with stronger public service motivation. METH oD Participants and Design The participants were 138 nurses from a group of public hospitals belonging to the same local health authority (LHA) in Italy. The 138 nurses had been hired by the LHA during the two previous years and were attending mandatory training for recent hires.
At the beginning of 2011, the LHA joined an international cooperation project that was intended to strengthen the healthcare system in a former war zone. The LHA was contributing to the project by collecting surgical tools and drugs donated by several organizations (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, other hospitals, nongovernmental organizations) and assembling surgical kits that were ready for shipment to health prac - titioners operating in the target area. The 138 recent hires were required to spend four hours on the project as part of their mandatory training.
Procedures Participants were randomly assigned to one of six equal-sized groups of 23 nurses each: control (group 1), transformational leadership (group 2), beneficiary contact (group 3), combined transformational leadership and beneficiary contact (group 4), self-persuasion (group 5), and combined transformational leadership and self-persua - sion (group 6). 3 The six groups attended six separate sessions that were led by the Director of Nursing at the LHA and by her assistant. The Director knew that we were conducting a research project on the performance effects of leadership; however, she was unaware of the specific research hypotheses and experimental procedures.
3 Grant (2012) used a similar experimental design with unequal-sized groups ranging from 12 to 26 participants. Power calculations indicated that the size of our groups was adequate to detect effect sizes similar to those found in previous studies in this research area ( Bellé 2013 ; Grant 2012 ) with statistical power greater than the conventional threshold of .80 at a significance level of .05 ( Murphy and Myors 2004 ). Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 116 Group 1 (Control) The Director of Nursing and her assistant welcomed the participants and showed them a short video that provided basic information about the project’s aims along with informa - tion on how to perform the assigned task. This task consisted of retrieving a list of items (including surgical tools and pharmaceuticals) from shelves and boxes, checking shelf-life labels and verifying product integrity, storing the items inside a case in a specific order and putting a label on each completed case with a signature and the completion time.
Group 2 (Transformational Leadership) In addition to showing the tutorial video, the Director of Nursing, who initiated the project and was its main sponsor, talked for approximately 15 min at our instruction, explaining why the project was meaningful to her and communicating her enthusiasm for the project by telling vivid stories of successful operations performed thanks to the surgical kits that had been assembled during the previous phases. Based on her direct experience assembling the surgical kits, the Director also gave the participants some practical tips and encouraged them to identify ways to improve the assembly process.
She also urged the participants to contact her directly with any feedback or to suggest ideas for improvements.
Group 3 (Beneficiary Contact) In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group, the participants in the beneficiary contact condition were given the chance to have a 15-min meeting with a former patient from the target area, one who had benefited from the surgical kits a few years prior after being injured by an antipersonnel mine. At the time of the experiment, this person was collaborating with the project staff by serving as a liaison with health practitioners operating in the target area thanks to his fluency in Italian.
The beneficiary explained how surgical tools similar to those included in the kits had saved his life. 4 Group 4 (Transformational Leadership × Beneficiary Contact) In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group, the participants first heard the Director’s speech and then received a visit from the beneficiary. While deliv - ering her speech, the Director was unaware that participants would also receive a visit from a former patient from the target area.
Group 5 (Self-Persuasion) In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group, the nurses in the self-persuasion condition participated in a 30-min individual brainstorming session (e.g., Furnham and Yazdanpanahi 1995 ) that was designed and led by a psycholo - gist who was unaware of the research hypotheses. These participants were first asked to write a short essay which they were told would be included in a presentation that would be used to campaign for the project. The assignment was to describe how the 4 Before meeting the experiment participants, the beneficiary signed an informed consent form that stated that his participation in the study was voluntary. The consent form specified that no information identifying him would be disclosed at any time by the researchers. To provide his consent, the beneficiary had to check an opt-in box. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 117 participants thought their efforts would make a concrete difference in the lives of those who received the kits. The nurses were then invited to silently generate and write down a list of arguments and ideas that might convince other hospitals and phar - maceutical companies to participate in the project. We designed this self-persuasion manipulation following Wright and Grant (2010) , who have suggested asking public employees to reflect on the importance of their work and then to explain “why it is critical for each person to engage in public service” (696).
Group 6 (Transformational Leadership × Self-Persuasion) In addition to receiving the same treatment as the control group, the nurses in the combined transformational leadership and self-persuasion condition first heard the Director’s speech and were then asked to do the same things as the nurses in group 5 to induce the process of idea reflection. While delivering her speech, the Director was unaware that participants would also participate in the individual brainstorming session. Except for the Director’s speech, the beneficiary’s visit and the interventions intended to induce reflection, the six sessions were identical. The nurses in the various sessions had exactly the same net amount of time (i.e., three hours) to actually perform the assigned task. The nurses were not assigned any specific target number of surgical kits to assemble and were informed that their performance would not be subject to evaluation. The participants in all of the groups answered a pre-experiment question - naire at the beginning of their session and a postexperiment questionnaire at the end of their shift.
Measures Performance We measured performance as the number of surgical kits that each participant cor - rectly assembled during his or her three-hour shift ( Bellé 2013 ). This metric was meant to capture both participant effort (e.g., Blumberg and Pringle 1982 ; Gneezy and Rustichini 2000 ; Grant 2007, 2008a , 2008b ; Schmidt and Hunter 1983 ) and the participants’ ability to maintain attention and accuracy while performing their jobs (e.g., Brewer and Brewer 2011 ). Whenever possible, we measured variables using multiple-item scales that had been tested and validated in previous studies. Appendix 1 reports the items included in the scales that were employed in our analyses. Unless otherwise indicated, all items used 7-point Likert-type scales with anchors of 0 (disagree strongly) and 6 (agree strongly).
Perceived Pro-Social Impact As a measure of perceived pro-social impact, the postexperiment questionnaire fea - tured three items that had been previously tested and validated by Grant (2008a) . Public Service Motivation We measured participant PSM using a popular five-item version of Perry’s (1996) original scale ( Alonso and Lewis 2001 ; Brewer and Selden 2000 ; Kim 2005 ; Pandey, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 118 Wright, and Moynihan 2008 ; Wright and Pandey 2008 ; Wright, Moynihan, and Pandey 2012 ; Wright, Christensen, and Pandey forthcoming ) that has recently been validated as a multi-item unidimensional measure of PSM ( Wright, Christensen, and Pandey forthcoming ). We measured PSM levels as reported by the participants in the pre-experiment questionnaire.
Manipulation Checks The postexperiment questionnaire featured manipulation checks for transformational leadership, beneficiary contact and self-persuasion (see appendix 1).
Controls In addition to asking questions regarding age, gender and job experience, we con - trolled for conscientiousness ( Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas 2006 ) and intrin - sic motivation ( Ryan and Connell 1989 ). RES uLTS We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using Lisrel 8.80 to construct the latent variables from their respective questionnaire items and assess the validity and reli - ability of the study measures ( Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006 ).5 Appendix 1 reports the standardized factor loading of each item on its expected latent variable ( λ). Appendix 1 also shows the Cronbach’s alpha ( α), the construct reliability estimate ( ρ), and the average variance extracted (AVE) by each construct. Standardized loadings ranged from .64 to .87, and AVE estimates ranged from .62 to .74. These values indicated that the individual scale items converged on their respective latent variables. 6 All of the construct reliability estimates were well above .7, which is usually accepted as the threshold for having good construct reliability. The discriminant validity of the measures appeared to be high because all construct AVE estimates were larger than the corresponding squared interconstruct correlation estimates (SIC). Inferential χ2 statistics and descriptive goodness-of-fit indices suggested that all of the scales used were a reasonable fit for our data ( χ2(303) = 284.37, p > .10; root mean square error of approximation = .06; comparative fit index = .93; Tucker-Lewis index = .92). The six groups did not differ at the .05 level with respect to participant age, gen - der, years of experience in nursing, PSM, conscientiousness or intrinsic motivation (table 1 ). To evaluate the effectiveness of the experimental interventions, we con - ducted analyses of the manipulation checks reported in table 1 . Participants who had heard the Director’s speech (groups 2, 4, and 6) rated her as significantly more trans - formational (M = 4.98, Standard deviation [SD] = 1.37) than did those who had not (M = 3.84, SD = 1.02), p < .05. Nurses who had had the opportunity to meet the beneficiary (groups 3 and 4) perceived themselves as having greater beneficiary con - tact (M = 5.90, SD = .40) than did those who had not (M = 1.62, SD = .65), p < .05. Finally, participants who had participated in the individual brainstorming session (groups 5 and 6) reported higher levels of reflection on the importance and positive 5 Due to the ordinal nature of the data at the item level, we used weighted least squares estimation. 6 To suggest adequate convergent validity, standardized loadings estimates should be .5 or higher, and ideally .7 or higher, and the average variance extracted should be .5 or higher ( Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006 ). Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 119 Table 1 Characteristics of Sample and Manipulation Checks by Condition Condition Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Control TL BC TL × BC SP TL × SP n 23 23 23 23 23 23 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Age 28.39 5.28 27.52 4.07 28.70 4.49 27.87 3.36 28.52 5.33 27.39 4.25 Female (proportion) 0.70 — 0.74 — 0.65 — 0.61 — 0.65 — 0.78 — Years of nursing 4.00 3.10 3.87 2.94 4.09 3.27 4.22 3.16 3.70 2.93 3.78 3.20 Public service motivation 4.55 0.69 4.51 0.74 4.60 0.70 4.57 0.67 4.58 0.67 4.49 0.59 Conscientiousness 4.72 0.69 4.69 0.66 4.78 0.60 4.81 0.63 4.75 0.59 4.67 0.68 Intrinsic motivation 3.67 1.13 3.82 1.24 3.58 1.01 3.61 1.18 3.71 1.11 3.79 1.09 Manipulation checks TL 3.73 1.01 4.74 1.54 3.88 1.04 5.17 1.23 3.91 1.00 5.04 1.33 BC 0.22 0.74 5.87 0.46 5.83 0.58 5.96 0.21 0.26 0.75 0.13 0.63 SP 2.77 1.14 3.01 1.21 2.69 1.09 3.06 1.18 5.70 1.02 5.65 0.71 Note.
TL, transformational leadership; BC, beneficiary contact; SP, self-persuasion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 120 pro-social impact of the project (M = 5.68, SD = .87) than did those who did not (M = 2.88, SD = 1.16), p < .05. These results indicate the validity of our experimental manipulations. Table 2 displays the means and SD for the number of surgical kits assembled correctly by condition. A series of two sample t-tests correcting for unequal variance indicated that all treatment groups but one outperformed the control group at the .05 level of significance. The only exception was the group that was exposed to the trans - formational leadership manipulation alone (group 2), for which the difference in per - formance with respect to the control group was only marginally significant ( p = .069). This result only partially supports hypothesis 1. A 2 (transformational leadership: yes, no) × 2 (beneficiary contact: yes, no) fac - torial analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the performance effect of trans - formational leadership was significantly stronger for nurses who also met a prior beneficiary of such efforts than it was for nurses who did not meet the beneficiary (F(1,88) = 4.63, p = .034). This result provides evidence that supports hypothesis 2a. The positive interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact and their joint influence on participant performance are apparent in the divergence between the two lines in figure 1 . Unlike in a previous quasi-experimental study by Grant (2012) , both transforma - tional leadership (F(1,88) = 13.59, p < .001) and beneficiary contact (F(1,88) = 25.49, p < .001) had a positive main effect 7 on participant performance in this study. Another 2 (transformational leadership: yes, no) × 2 (self-persuasion interven - tion: yes, no) ANOVA showed that the performance effect of transformational leader - ship was greater for nurses who also received the self-persuasion intervention than it was for their colleagues who did not (F(1,88) = 4.43, p = .038). This result supports hypothesis 2b. The positive two-way interaction between the transformational leader - ship and self-persuasion conditions is indicated by the difference in slope between the two lines in figure 2 . Table 2 Average Number of Surgical Kits Assembled Correctly by Condition Group Condition n Mean SD ∆ w.r.t Control 1 Control 23 38.26 8.11 — 2 Transformational leadership (TL) 23 42.91 9.01 4.65* 3 Beneficiary contact (BC) 23 47.04 10.60 8.78*** 4 TL × BC 23 64.74 14.20 26.48**** 5 Self-persuasion (SP) 23 45.78 10.47 7.52*** 6 TL × SP 23 63.43 13.91 25.17**** *p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .001. 7 A main effect is the effect of an experimental manipulation on a dependent variable on average across the levels of the other conditions being experimentally manipulated. A simple effect is the effect of an experimental manipulation on a dependent variable at a single level of the other conditions being experimentally manipulated. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 121 Both transformational leadership (F(1,88) = 13.04, p = .001) and self-persuasion manipulation (F(1,88) = 20.62, p < .001) had positive main effects on participant performance. We tested hypotheses 3a and 3b using a three-step moderated mediation proce - dure suggested by Edwards and Lambert (2007) . Both hypotheses posited first-stage moderation; that is, we expected that both the beneficiary contact condition and the self-persuasion intervention would strengthen the relationship between transforma - tional leadership and perceived pro-social impact, and in turn, perceived pro-social impact would positively affect job performance. For both interaction effects—that is, for transformational leadership × beneficiary contact and transformational lead - ership × self-persuasion—perceived impact may be considered a mediator if (1) the interaction generates an increase in perceived impact, (2) the interaction significantly affects job performance when perceived impact is not controlled for, (3) perceived impact has a significant, unique effect on job performance, and (4) the effect of the interaction on job performance becomes insignificant when perceived impact is added to the model ( MacKinnon and Dwyer 1993 ; MacKinnon, Warsi, and Dwyer 1995 ; Preacher and Hayes 2004 ). Figure 1 Interaction of Transformational Leadership and Beneficiary Contact on Job Performance Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 122 We began the three-step moderated mediation analysis for the beneficiary con - tact condition (hypothesis 3a) by fitting a regression model that predicts perceived pro-social impact. The first column of table 3 indicates the statistically significant interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact as predictors of perceived pro-social impact ( p = .025). In step 2, we fitted a regression model that would predict the number of surgical kits that the participants assembled correctly.
Although the interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary con - tact was positive and significant at the .05 level ( table 3 , middle column), the interac - tion was no longer significant once we had added perceived social impact in step 3 (table 3 , right column). Instead, perceived social impact significantly predicted ( p < .001) the number of surgical kits assembled by the participants when transformational leadership, beneficiary contact and their interaction were all controlled for. We con - ducted further analyses to investigate whether the decrease in the coefficient of the interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact was signifi - cant. Sobel-Goodman tests allowed us to confirm the indirect effect of the interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact on performance through Figure 2 Interaction of Transformational Leadership and Self-Persuasion on Job Performance Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 123 Table 3 Mediation of the Interaction between Transformational Leadership and Beneficiary Contact by Perceived Pro-Social Impact—Robust SE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 DV: perceived pro-social impact DV: surgical kits DV: surgical kits Coef.
SE t P > t Beta Coef.
SE t P > t Beta Coef.
SE t P > t Beta IVs TL 0.12 0.26 0.45 0.654 0.05 4.65 2.53 1.84 0.069 0.13** 3.65 2.77 1.32 0.191 0.10 BC 0.68 0.33 2.07 0.041 0.27** 8.78 2.78 3.15 0.002 0.25*** 2.88 2.83 1.02 0.312 0.08 TL × BC 1.00 0.44 2.29 0.025 0.35** 13.04 6.06 2.15 0.034 0.32** 4.38 4.59 0.95 0.343 0.11 PPI 8.66 1.05 8.24 0.000 0.62**** n 92 92 92 F(df) 16.51 (3, 88) 9.92 (3, 88) 36.32 (4, 87) Prob > F 0.000 0.000 0.000 R-squared 0.33 0.33 0.59 Root MSE 1.05 14.54 11.42 Note.
TL, transformational leadership; SP, self-persuasion; PPI, perceived pro-social impact.
*p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .001. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 124 the mediator of perceived pro-social impact ( p < .001). To reduce concerns about the standard error of the indirect effect, we constructed 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals around the indirect effect by drawing (with replacement) 1,000 random sam - ples from 92 observations from the full sample. The indirect effect of the interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact through the mediator of perceived social impact was significant at the .05 level because the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (8.66, 18.76) did not include zero ( Edwards and Lambert 2007 ; MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz 2007 ). These results support hypothesis 3a. A three-step moderated mediation analysis that we conducted to test hypothesis 3b (self-persuasion) yielded results that were similar to those that we obtained for the beneficiary contact condition. The interaction between transformational leader - ship and self-persuasion, which significantly predicts job performance in the step 2 model ( table 4 , middle column), becomes insignificant after perceived social impact is controlled for in the step 3 model ( table 4 , right column). Sobel-Goodman tests confirmed the indirect effect of the interaction between transformational leadership and self-persuasion on performance through the mediator of perceived social impact (p < .001), and the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (7.85, 17.85) for this indi - rect effect did not include zero. These results support hypothesis 3b. To test hypothesis 4, we investigated whether the performance effect of transfor - mational leadership varied across the levels of PSM that participants self-reported in the pre-experiment questionnaire. In figure 3 , we plotted the simple slopes at one SD above (dotted line) and below (solid line) the mean for PSM ( Aiken and West 1991 ). As indicated by the divergence between the two lines, the transformational leadership manipulation positively interacted with the levels of PSM of the followers in predicting the number of surgical kits that the participants correctly assembled (F(1,42) = 5.61, p = .023). In other words, the performance effect of transforma - tional leadership was stronger for participants who had self-reported higher PSM levels in the pre-experiment questionnaire. This result provides evidence in support of hypothesis 4. To test hypothesis 5a, we investigated whether the two-way interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact varied across levels of PSM. We conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with two between-subject factors (i.e., transformational leadership and beneficiary contact) predicting the number of surgical kits assembled correctly by the participants and a single covariate (mean- centered PSM score). The ANCOVA showed that the positive joint influence of ben - eficiary contact and transformational leadership on job performance was greater for participants who had higher self-reported levels of PSM than it was for nurses who had reported lower levels of PSM (F(1,84) = 5.71, p = .019). This result supports hypothesis 5a. Figure 4 depicts the three-way interaction effect of transformational leadership, beneficiary contact and PSM on job performance. The two lines with hol - low markers represent participants who reported high PSM (one SD above the mean), whereas the two lines with solid symbols represent participants with low PSM (one SD below the mean). It can be noted that the divergence between the two lines—which indicates a two-way interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact—is greater for participants with high PSM than it is for participants with low PSM. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 125 Table 4. Mediation of the Interaction between Transformational Leadership and Self-Persuasion by Perceived Pro-Social Impact—Robust SE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 DV: perceived pro-social impact DV: surgical kits DV: surgical kits Coef.
SE t P > t Beta Coef.
SE t P > t Beta Coef.
SE t P > t Beta IVs TL 0.12 0.26 0.45 0.654 0.05 4.65 2.53 1.84 0.069 0.13** 3.61 2.81 1.28 0.203 0.10 SP 0.62 0.33 1.90 0.061 0.26** 7.52 2.76 2.72 0.008 0.22*** 1.92 2.84 0.68 0.501 0.06 TL × SP 0.93 0.43 2.14 0.035 0.29** 12.48 6.18 2.10 0.038 0.27** 4.66 4.69 0.99 0.323 0.12 PPI 9.01 1.10 8.18 0.000 0.65**** n 92 92 92 F(df) 14.85 (3, 88) 8.27 (3, 88) 32.69 (4, 87) Prob > F 0.000 0.000 0.000 R-squared 0.28 0.30 0.58 Root MSE 1.04 14.81 11.56 Note.
TL, transformational leadership; SP, self-persuasion; PPI, perceived pro-social impact.
*p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .001. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 126 To test hypothesis 5b, we conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with two between-subject factors (i.e., transformational leadership and self-persuasion interventions) predicting performance and a single covariate (mean-centered PSM score). The ANCOVA showed that the positive interaction effect of the transforma - tional leadership and self-persuasion conditions on job performance was greater for participants who had higher self-reported levels of PSM than it was for nurses who had reported lower levels of PSM (F(1,84) = 4.66, p = .034). Figure 5 depicts the three- way interaction effect of transformational leadership, self-persuasion interventions and PSM on performance. As in the previous case, the two lines with hollow markers represent participants who reported higher levels of PSM (one SD above the mean), whereas the two lines with solid symbols represent participants with lower levels of PSM (one SD below the mean). Again, the divergence between the two lines—which indicates the two-way interaction between transformational leadership and self-per - suasion—is greater for participants with high PSM than for participants with low PSM. This result supports hypothesis 5b.
Figure 3 Interaction of Transformational Leadership and Public Service Motivation (PSM) on Job Performance Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 127 Con CL uSIon This study advances our understanding of whether transformational leadership can boost job performance in public sector organizations and of the contingencies that may affect this relationship. In a randomized control group experiment with nurses working at a large public hospital in Italy, we found that the performance effects of transformational leadership were greatly enhanced by two job design manipula - tions—that is, beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions—both of which were intended to heighten the awareness of the participants that they were making a positive difference in other people’s lives. Whereas the group of nurses who were exposed to the transformational leadership manipulation alone marginally outper - formed the control group, the performance effects of transformational leadership were much greater among participants who were also exposed to one of the two job design manipulations. The followers’ sense that they were making a positive difference in other people’s lives mediated the positive interaction of transformational leadership Figure 4 Three-Way Interaction of Transformational Leadership, Beneficiary Contact, and Public Service Motivation (PSM) on Job Performance Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 128 and of each of the two job design conditions on performance. Moreover, the perfor - mance effects and the interaction effects of transformational leadership and each of the two job design manipulations were greater among participants who self-reported higher levels of PSM.
Theoretical Contributions The first contribution of this study is the additional empirical evidence that it has added to the ongoing debate about the performance effects of transformational leadership. Taken together, in the context of public administration, the results of our field experiment corroborate previous mainstream management research that suggests that leaders can be effective only insofar as they succeed in making their messages credible. We identify two specific job design interventions—that is, beneficiary contact and self-persuasion interventions—that public sector leaders can effectively use to turn their visions into a tangible reality. Moreover, we Figure 5 Three-Way Interaction of Transformational Leadership, Self-Persuasion, and Public Service Motivation (PSM) on Job Performance Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 129 illuminate the mechanisms through which these interventions may enhance the performance effects of transformational leadership. Our data provide evidence that supports our hypotheses of first-stage moderation: both beneficiary contact and self-persuasion strengthened the relationship between transformational lead - ership and perceived pro-social impact, and in turn, perceived pro-social impact positively affected job performance. These results contribute to a nascent and highly promising field of study that focuses on job design as one of the contin - gencies that may moderate the performance effects of transformational leader - ship. Our contribution to this stream of research is two-fold. First, our findings corroborate the results of recent empirical work by Grant (2012) that has dem - onstrated the interaction between transformational leadership and beneficiary contact. Our study achieves this by replicating Grant’s results using a completely randomized, true experimental research design in a different country and a dif - ferent industry. Second, to our knowledge, our study is the first to demonstrate that self-persuasion interventions may play a leadership-enhancing role similar to that of beneficiary contact.A second contribution of our research is the evidence that it provides about the moderating role of PSM ( Perry and Wise 1990 ) in the performance effects of transformational leadership. PSM has this effect indepen - dently and when compounded by structural job features that heighten employees’ perception that they are making a difference in other people’s lives. To our knowl - edge, this study has been the first to date that has experimentally investigated the relationship between PSM and transformational leadership. An additional contribution of our research is of a methodological nature and lies in the fact that our study is based on a randomized experiment with real public employees performing a task that was part of their ordinary job. Empirical research in the field of public administration has traditionally relied on correlational designs, which are well suited to testing theoretical predictions in a broad range of popu - lations but fall short with regard to internal validity ( McGrath 1981 ). Although not completely immune to limitations (e.g., external threats to validity, maturation effects and researcher bias), randomized true experimental research is best suited to achieving high levels of internal validity ( Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2002 ). A recent review found only a handful of true experimental studies published in jour - nals that are directly associated with the field of public administration ( Brewer and Brewer 2011 ). Most of these studies were laboratory experiments on decision-mak - ing and used students as surrogates for public sector workers despite of the mixed evidence regarding the external validity of this method (e.g., Fuchs and Sarstedt 2010 ; Peterson 2001 ; Remus 1986, 1989 ). Our study departs from previous experi - mental research in public administration because it was conducted with real workers performing a task that was part of their ordinary job. Field experiments have the virtue of establishing internal validity while maintaining more generalizability and contextual realism than laboratory experiments do, although the latter have other virtues stemming from their artificiality ( Henshel 1980 ). To date, the use of rand - omized field experimental research is almost unprecedented in public administration (Bellé 2013 ). Our study takes a small step toward filling this gap, and we hope that our research design serves as a model for other public management scholars consid - ering field experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 130 Limitations and Future Directions Our findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations that identify ave - nues for future research. First and foremost, the use of temporary and experimentally induced manipulations of transformational leadership, beneficiary contact and self- persuasion does not allow our findings to be generalized to more enduring, naturally occurring variations in these conditions. The peculiar professional nature of nurs - ing constitutes an additional threat to the generalizability of our findings from the nurses who took part in the experiment to other public sector employees. Regarding the external validity of our results, we should also note that the participants were recent hires, and thus, our findings cannot be generalized to employees who have been employed by the organization for a longer period of time. Future research might tri - angulate our results using nonexperimental designs such as longitudinal studies and case studies. Although they are inferior to experiments in terms of internal valid - ity, observational designs may be superior in terms of external validity because they examine intact groups and do not disrupt the preexisting research setting ( Dimitrov and Rumrill 2003 ). Regarding construct validity and measurement issues, we should note that for some of the study variables, there is no single widely accepted measure. This was especially true for PSM, for which several measures have been used in earlier studies. We opted for a widely used, five-item version of Perry’s (1996) original scale that was recently validated as a multi-item unidimensional measure of PSM ( Wright, Christensen, and Pandey forthcoming ). Future research may test whether our results are robust to the use of multidimensional scales (e.g., Kim et al. 2013 ; Perry 1996 ) that may provide a more nuanced understanding of the interplay among transformational leadership, per - ceived pro-social impact and individual subdimensions of the PSM construct.
APPE nDIx 1 Variables and Measurements Variable (source) Measurements Performance Number of surgical kits assembled correctly Age Years of age Gender 0 = male, 1 = female Job experience Years of experience in the field of nursing Likert-type scales (0 = disagree strongly, 6 = agree strongly) λ Perceived pro-social impact ( grant 2008a ) α = .83; ρ = .87; AVE = .68 − I am very conscious of the positive impact that my work has on others .79*** − I am very aware of the ways in which my work is benefiting others .81*** − I feel that I can have a positive impact on others through my work .88*** Continued Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 131 Public service motivation (e.g. Alonso and Lewis 2001 ; Brewer and Selden 2000 ) α = .75; ρ = .89; AVE = .64 − Meaningful public service is very important to me .77*** − I am often reminded by daily events about how dependent we are on one another .81*** − Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievements .86*** − I am prepared to make enormous sacrifices for the good of society .82*** − I am not afraid to go to bat for the rights of others even if it means I will be ridiculed .85*** Tranformational ledership ( Avolio, Bass, and Jung 1999 ; Northouse 2009 ) α = .89; ρ = .93; AVE = .62 − . . . (inspirational motivation) .78*** − . . . (inspirational motivation) .84*** − . . . (idealized influence) .70*** − . . . (idealized influence) .78*** − . . . (intellectual stimulation) .81*** − . . . (intellectual stimulation) .74*** − . . . (individualized consideration) .85*** − . . . (individualized consideration) .81*** Beneficiary contact (Grant 2008c ) α = .81; ρ = .85; AVE = .72 − The project gave me the opportunity to meet the people who benefit from my work .87*** − The project provided me with contact with the people who benefit from my work .85*** Self-persuasion (Gregory, Cialdini, and Carpenter 1982 ; Gordijn, Postmes and de Vries 2001 ) α = .77; ρ = .82; AVE = .69 − Before performing the task, I carefully reflected on the ways in which my effort would benefit others .83*** − Before performing the task, I carefully reflected on why it is critical for other hospitals and pharmaceutical companies to join the project .83*** Conscientiousness (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas 2006 ) α = .85; ρ = .87; AVE = .62 − I get chores done right away .64*** − I often forget to put things back in their proper place (R) .80*** − I like order .85*** − I make a mess of things (R) .84*** Intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Connell 1989 ) α = .88; ρ = .83; AVE = .63 − My job is fun .73*** − I find my job engaging .82*** − I enjoy my work .82*** α = cronbach’s alpha; ρ = composite reliability values; AVE = average variance extracted. *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. APPE nDIx 1 (continued) REFERE nCES Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac - tions . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alonso, Pablo, and Gregory B. Lewis. 2001. Public Service Motivation and Job Performance: Evidence from the Federal Sector. American Review of Public Administration 31:363–80. Aronson, Elliot. 1999. The Power of Self-Persuasion. American Psychologist 54:875–84. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 132 Avolio, Bruce J., Bernard M. Bass, and Dong I. Jung. 1999. Re-examining the components of trans - formational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72:441–62. Barling, Julian, Tom Weber, and E. Kevin Kelloway. 1996. Effects of transformational leader - ship training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 81:827–32. Bass, Bernard M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, Bernard M., and Ronald E. Riggio. 2006. Transformational Leadership. 2nd ed . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bellé, Nicola. 2013. Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Performance. Public Administration Review 73:143–53. Blumberg, Melvin, and Charles D. Pringle 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review 7:560–569. Boyne, George A. 2002. Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies 39:97–122. Brewer Gene A., and Gene A. Brewer Jr. 2011. Parsing Public/Private Differences in Work Motivation and Performance: An Experimental Study. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21:i347–i362. Brewer, Gene A., Sally C. Selden, and Rex L. Facer. 2000. Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review 60:254–64. Brief, Arthur P., and Stephan J. Motowidlo. 1986. Prosocial Organizational Behaviors. Academy of Management Review 11:710–25. Burns, James M. 1978. Leadership . New York, NY: Harper & Row. De Dreu, Carsten K. W. 2006. Rational Self-Interest and Other Orientation in Organizational Behavior: A Critical Appraisal and Extension of Meglino and Korsgaard (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology 91:1245–52. Dimitrov, Dimiter M., and Phillip D. Rumrill Jr. 2003. Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Speaking of Research 20:159–165. Donnellan, M. Brent, Frederick L. Oswald, Brendan M. Baird, and Richard E. Lucas. 2006. The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment 18:192–203. Dumdum, Uldarico R., Kevin B. Lowe, and Bruce J. Avolio. 2002. Meta-Analysis of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Correlates of Effectiveness and Satisfaction: An Update and Extension. In Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead , eds. Bruce J. Avolio and Francis J. Yammarino, 35–65. New York, NY: JAI Press. Dvir, Taly, Dov Eden, Bruce J. Avolio, and Boas Shamir. 2002. Impact of transformational leader - ship on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal 45:735–744. Edwards, Jeffrey R., and Lisa Schurer Lambert. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods 12:1–22. Edwards, Jeffrey R., Daniel M. Cable, Ian O. Williamson, Lisa Schurer Lambert, and Abbie J. Shipp. 2006. The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experi - ence of person– environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology 91:802–827. Elms, Alan C. Influence of fantasy ability on attitude change through role playing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4:36–43. Fried, Yitzhak, and Gerald R. Ferris. 1987. The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 40:287–322. Fuchs, Sebastian and Marko Sarstedt. 2010. Is there a tacit acceptance of student samples in marketing and management research? International Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies 2:62–72. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 133 Furnham, Adrian and Tania Yazdanpanahi. 1995. Personality differences and group versus indi - vidual brainstorming. Personality and Individual Differences 19:73–80. Gneezy, Uri, and Aldo Rustichini. 2000. Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:791–810. Gordijn, Ernestine H., Tom Postmes, and Nanne K. de Vries. 2001. Devil’s advocate or advocate of oneself: Effects of numerical support on pro- and counterattitudinal self-persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27:395–407. Grant, Adam M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review 32:393–417. ———. 2008a. Employees without a Cause: The Motivational Effects of Prosocial Impact in Public Service. International Public Management Journal 11:48–66. ———. 2008b. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology 93:108–12. ———. 2008c. Designing jobs to do good: Dimensions and psychological consequences of prosocial job characteristics. Journal of Positive Psychology 3:19–39. ———. 2012. Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal 55:458–76. Grant, Adam M., Elizabeth M. Campbell, Grace Chen, Keenan Cottone, David Lapedis, and Karen Lee. 2007. Impact and the Art of Motivation Maintenance: The Effects of Contact with Beneficiaries on Persistence Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103:53–67. Gregory, W. Larry, Robert B. Cialdini, and Kathleen M. Carpenter. 1982. Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43:89–99. Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16:250–79. Hackman. 1980. Work redesign . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Henshel, Richard L. 1980. The purpose of laboratory experimentation and the virtues of deliberate artificiality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 16:466–78. Howell, Jane M. 1997. Organization contexts, charismatic and exchange leadership. Kellogg Leadership Studies Monograph. Center for Political Leadership and Participation . College Park, MD: Univ. of Maryland. Janis, Irving L., and Bert T. King. 1954. The influence of role-playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49:211–18. Jöreskog, Karl G., and Dag Sörbom. 2006. LISREL for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Judge, Timothy A., and Ronald F. Piccolo. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology 89:755–68. Jung, Dong I., and Bruce J Avolio. 2000. Opening the Black Box: An Experimental Investigation of the Mediating Effects of Trust and Value Congruence on Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21:949–64. Kim, Sangmook, Wouter Vandenabeele, Bradley E. Wright, Lotte Bøgh Andersen, Francesco Paolo Cerase, Robert K. Christensen, et al. 2013. Investigating the Structure and Meaning of Public Service Motivation across Populations: Developing an International Instrument and Addressing Issues of Measurement Invariance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23:79–102. Kim, Sangmook. 2005. Individual-level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:245–261. King, Bert T. and Irving L. Janis. 1956. Comparison of the effectiveness of improvised versus non- improvised role-playing in producing opinion changes. Human Relations 9:177–86. Kirkpatrick, Shelley A., and Edwin A. Locke. 1996. Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 81:36–51. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 134 Le Grand, Julian. 2006. Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lowe, Kevin B., K. Galen Kroeck, and Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam. 1996. Effectiveness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of the MLQ litera - ture. Leadership Quarterly 7:385–425. MacKinnon, David P., Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz. 2007. Mediation analysis. In Annual review of psychology , vol. 58, eds. Susan T. Fiske, Alan E. Kazdin, and Daniel L. Schacter, 593–614. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. MacKinnon, David P., and James H. Dwyer. 1993. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review 17:144–158. MacKinnon, David P., Ghulam Warsi, and James H. Dwyer. 1995. A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30:41–62. McGrath, Joseph E. 1981. Dilemmatics: The Study of Research Choices and Dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist 25:179–210. Meglino, Bruce M., and Audrey Korsgaard. 2004. Considering Rational Self-Interest as a Disposition: Organizational Implications of Other Orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology 89:946–59. Miller, Richard L. and William Wozniak. 2001. Counter-attitudinal advocacy: Effort vs. self-gener - ation of arguments. Current Research in Social Psychology 6:46–55. Moynihan, Donald P. 2010. A Workforce of Cynics? The Effects of Contemporary Reform on Public Service Motivation. International Public Management Journal 13:24–34. Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2010. The big question for performance management: why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20: 849–66. Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E. Wright. 2012a. Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory: Linking Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use. Governance 25:463–483. Moynihan, Donald P., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Bradley E. Wright. 2012b. Setting the Table: How Transformational Leadership Fosters Performance Information Use. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22:143–164. Moynihan, Donald P., Bradley E. Wright, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Working Within Constraints: Can Transformational Leaders Alter the Experience of Red Tape? International Public Management Journal 15:315–336. Murphy, Kevin R., and Brett Myors. 2004. Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Northouse, Peter G. 2009. Leadership Theory and Practice . Fifth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Paarlberg, Laurie E., and Bob Lavigna. 2010. Transformational Leadership and Public Service Motivation: Driving Individual and Organizational Performance. Public Administration Review 70:710–718. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Bradley E. Wright. 2006. Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and the public manager’s role ambiguity.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:511–32. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Edmund C. Stazyk. 2008. Antecedents and Correlates of Public Service Motivation. In Motivation in Public Management: The Call of Public Service , eds. James L. Perry and Annie Hondeghem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pandey, Sanjay K., Bradley E. Wright, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2008. Public service motivation and interorganizational citizenship behavior: Testing a preliminary model. International Public Management Journal 11:89–108. Park, Sung M., and Hal G. Rainey. 2008. Leadership and Public Service Motivation in U.S. Federal Agencies. International Public Management Journal 11:109–42. Parker, Sharon K., and Toby D. Wall. 1998. Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well- being and effectiveness . London: Sage. Belle Transformational Leadership, Perceived Social Impact, and Public Service Motivation 135 Pawar, Badrinarayan S., and Kenneth K. Eastman. 1997. The nature and implications of con - textual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. Academy of Management Review 22:89–109. Perry, James L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6:5–22. Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50:367–73. Perry, James L., Annie Hondeghem, and Lois Recascino Wise. 2010. Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review 79:681–90. Peterson, Robert A. 2001. On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 28:450–61. Piliavin, Jane A., and Hong-Wen Charng. 1990. Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research. Annual Review of Sociology 16:27–65. Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indi - rect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36:717–731. Remus, William. 1986. Graduate Students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making. Journal of Business Research 14:19–25. ———. 1989. Using Students as subjects in experiments on decision support systems. Proceedings of the 22nd annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science: 176–180. Ryan, Richard M., and James P. Connell. 1989. Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57:749–761. Salancik, Gerald R., and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978. A social information processing approach to job atti - tudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly 23:224–253. Schmidt, Frank L., and John E. Hunter. 1983. Individual differences in productivity: An empir - ical test of estimates derived from studies of selection procedure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology 68:407–414. Schwartz, Shalom H., and Anat Bardi. 2001. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32:268–290. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for generalized causal inference . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Shamir, Boas, and Jane M. Howell. 1999. Organizational and contextual influences on the emer - gence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 10:257–83. Shamir, Boas, Eliav Zakay, Esther Breinin, and Micha Popper. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal 41:387–409. Shamir, Boas, Robert J. House, and Michael B. Arthur. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science 4:577–594. Steijn, Bram. 2008. Person–Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation. International Public Management Journal 11:13–27. Thompson, Jeffery A., and J. Stuart Bunderson. 2003. Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review 28:571–586. Trottier, Tracey, Montgomery Van Wart, and XiaoHu Wang. 2008. Examining the Nature and Significance of Leadership in Government Organizations. Public Administration Review 68:319–33. Van Wart, Montgomery. 2005. Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practice . Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Vandenabeele, Wouter. 2007. Toward a Public Administration Theory of Public Service Motivation: An Institutional Approach. Public Management Review 9:545–56. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 136 Weibel, Antoinette, Katja Rost, and Margit Osterloh. 2010. Pay for Performance in the Public Sector—Benefits and (Hidden) Costs. Journal of Public Administration and Theory 20:387–412. Wright, Bradley E. 2004. The role of work context in work motivation: A public sector application of goal and social cognition theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14:59–78. ———. 2007. Public Service and Motivation: Does Mission Matter? Public Administration Review 67:54–64. Wright, Bradley E., and Adam M. Grant. 2010. Unanswered questions about public service motiva - tion: Designing research to address key issues of emergence and effects. Public Administration Review 70:691–700. Wright, Bradley E., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2008. Public service motivation and the assumption of person-organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society 40:502–21. ———. 2010. Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20:75–89. Wright, Bradley E., Donald P. Moynihan, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Pulling the Levers: Transformational Leadership, Public Service Motivation, and Mission Valence. Public Administration Review 72:206–215. Wright, Bradley E., Robert K. Christensen, and Sanjay K. Pandey. Forthcoming. Measuring Public Service Motivation: Exploring the Equivalence of Existing Global Measures. International Public Management Journal . Zalesny, Mary D., and J. Kevin Ford. 1990. Extending the social information processing perspec - tive: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47:205–246. Copyright ofJournal ofPublic Administration Research&Theory isthe property ofOxford University Press/USA anditscontent maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesor posted toalistserv without thecopyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,users may print, download, oremail articles forindividual use.
