英语论文网

l leadership, leaders emphasize higher motive development,and arouse followers' motivation by means of creating and representing an inspiring vision of the future (Bass, 1997).Second, charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998) describes why followers identify with their respective
leader.
The positive effects of transformational and charismatic leadership on several organizational outcomes underscoretheir relevance (Bass, 1998; Yammarino, Spangler, & Bass, 1993). While these positive effects have been proven in a wide range of applied settings (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe, Kroeck, Sivasubramaniam, 1996), the elementary field of research concerning the constructs oftransformational and charismatic
The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007) 121–133
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 251 8331377; fax: +49 251 8334104.
Author's personal copy
leadership still needs further attention (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Hunt & Conger, 1999; Shamir et al., 1993). The
urgent call for research in this area is summarized by Yukl (1999):
One of the most important conceptual issues for transformational and charismatic leadership is the extent to whichthey are similar and compatible. […] The assumption of equivalence has been challenged by leadership scholars […]who view transformational and charismatic leadership as distinct but partially overlapping processes. (p. 298 ff.).
The instruments to assess these constructs add to the confusion about the underlying meaning of transformationaland charismatic leadership. As an example, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass & Avolio,2000), which is used to assess transformational leadership, includes five subscales of transformational leadership. Of
these five, three subscales were combined into one factor called charisma in earlier versions of the instrument. In turn,the empirical leadership literature uses the terms transformational and charismatic leadership inconsistently andinterchangeably.
Following the arguments made by Yukl (1999) and other leadership researchers (Judge, 2005), the present studyaimed at explicating and demonstrating the relationships of the constructs of transformational and charismaticleadership, as well as their effect on individual (subjective) and organizational (objective) outcomes. In the following
section, we compare and contrast two widely used instruments for assessing these leadership styles, namely the
MLQ-5X and the Conger–Kanungo Scales (CKS). We focus on these instruments as they both represent elaborated
theories and have adequate psychometric properties. We are aware, however, that other approaches to transformational
and charismatic leadership may result in a more elaborated understanding of the subject as well (Rafferty& Griffin, 2004).
1. Comparison of MLQ and CKS
1.1. Similarities
Both the MLQ and CKS belong to what has been labeled “neo-charismatic” leadership theories (Antonakis &House, 2002). Fundamental to the theories of Bass (1985) and Conger & Kanungo (1998) is the representation andarticulation of a vision by the leader (Sashkin, 2004). As a long-term attempt to change followers' attitudes, selfconcepts(House & Shamir, 1993) and motives, this vision is rooted in commonly-held ethics and values (Bass &Steidlmeier, 1999). The ethical foundation of the vision is fundamental to both Bass' and Conger and Kanungo'stheories. Thus, t本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。