Conceptualizing and Measuring Transformational and Transactional Leadership

• Author: Ann-Louise Holten,Anne Bøllingtoft,Allan Würtz,Louise Ladegaard Bro,Niels Westergård-Nielsen,Tine Louise Mundbjerg Eriksen,Poul Aaes Nielsen,Christian Bøtcher Jacobsen,Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen,Jacob Ladenburg,Ulrich Thy Jensen,Lotte Bøgh Andersen
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399716667157
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716667157

Administration & Society

2019, Vol. 51(1) 3 –33

© The Author(s) 2016

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399716667157

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Conceptualizing

and Measuring

Transformational and

Transactional Leadership

Ulrich Thy Jensen1, Lotte Bøgh Andersen2,4,

Louise Ladegaard Bro2, Anne Bøllingtoft2,

Tine Louise Mundbjerg Eriksen2,

Ann-Louise Holten3, Christian Bøtcher Jacobsen2,

Jacob Ladenburg4, Poul Aaes Nielsen5,

Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen6,

Niels Westergård-Nielsen7, and Allan Würtz2

Abstract

Existing conceptualizations and measures of transformational and transactional

leadership have unclear theoretical bases, confound leadership and its effects,

and are not necessarily suitable for public organizations. Overcoming these

problems is necessary to test how leadership affects performance. Many public

administration scholars apply the concepts, emphasizing the need to ensure

that the concepts are applicable in both public and private organizations. The

article reconceptualizes transformational and transactional leadership and

develops and tests revised measures that can be employed on employees and

leaders, are robust in terms of repeated use by the same respondents, and

are applicable to public and private organizations alike.

1Arizona State University, AZ, USA

2Aarhus University, Denmark

3University of Copenhagen, Denmark

4Danish Institute for Local and Regional Government Research, Copenhagen, Denmark

5University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

6Aalborg University, Denmark

7Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Corresponding Author:

Ulrich Thy Jensen, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

Email: ulrichthy@gmail.com

667157AASXXX10.1177/0095399716667157Administration & SocietyJensen et al.

research-article2016

4 Administration & Society 51(1)

Keywords

transformational leadership, transactional leadership, measurement validity,

public organizations, private organizations

Introduction

Public administration research often suggests that improving leadership in

the public sector is a key to increasing organizational performance (Moynihan,

Pandey, & Wright, 2012; Rainey, 2014; Van Wart, 2013). Boyne (2003) finds

that managerial variables are a stronger source of performance improvement

than resources, regulation, market structure, and organization, a finding that

is also supported by other studies (Fernandez, 2005; Hassan & Hatmaker,

2015; Moynihan & Ingraham, 2004; Moynihan et al., 2012; Parry & Sinha,

2005; Trottier, Van Wart, & Wang, 2008; Van Wart, 2013). However, to com-

prehend the full potential of leadership in public organizations, we need to

identify relevant leadership strategies for this sector.

There are several indications that transformational and transactional lead-

ership are relevant. First, transformational leadership is the most researched

leadership theory in both generic leadership literature (Judge & Piccolo,

2004) and public administration research (Vogel & Masal, 2015). This raises

the question whether this great interest also reflects best research practice.

Second, the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership strate-

gies have in multiple studies been related to employee well-being and perfor-

mance (Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Recent public

administration studies (e.g., Andersen & Pallesen, 2008; Bellé, 2014) have

confirmed that these strategies can indeed increase goal attainment in public

organizations, but the extent to which the strategies affect many other rele-

vant outcomes remains unexplored. Third, the proposition that these two

leadership strategies should be more effective in private organizations has

been challenged (e.g., Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012, p. 207; Wright &

Pandey, 2010). This makes it particularly relevant to revise the conceptual-

izations and measures of these two leadership strategies with the purpose of

applying them in future empirical research in both sectors.

However, generic leadership research has subjected the leadership strate-

gies to a fundamental critique concerning conceptual and methodological

problems with the generally applied “full-range leadership theory” and its

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) measure (Van Knippenberg &

Sitkin, 2013). To argue for and test these leadership strategies in public

administration research and practice, we need to address these fundamental

problems by revising their conceptualization and operationalization. While

we respond to the problematic issues raised in the generic leadership