Joiivnal of Ortxptinnrrl rrnd Ovganizutionnl Psyi;holog:j~( 1997), 70, 19-34 Printed i n Gwnt firrtorn 19

0 1997 ’The British Psychological Society

Transactional versus transformational leadership:

An analysis of the MLQ

Deanne N. Den Hartog*, Jaap J. Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman

Department of W’ork and Org~inrzatrona/PJ)ih/fJg), van drr. Boei~horst~tvarrt
1.
I081 BT Atiisterhii. The Nerbrrlundr

A questionnaire used often to measure transformational, transactional and laissez-faire

leadership is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass (Bass &
Avolio, 1989).This study aims to test the factor structure of the MLQ as developed by
Bass & Avolio. The MLQ-BY was analysed using data collected in Dutch organizations.
Seven hundred employees from eight organizations rated their leader’s behaviour with
the MLQ. First, an indication of the internal consistency of the scales developed by Bass
is reporred. The results of subsequent factor analyses show that the three types of
leadership can be found in the data; however, the scales found here are slightly differenr
from Bass’ scales. Especially, the transactional and laissez-faire scales have been altered
on theoretical and empirical grounds. The adapted version of the MLQ covers the
domain with fewer items.

Leadership has been an important topic in the social sciences for many decades. Recently
there has been a renewed interest in leadership. Meindl (1990) notes that this recent resur-
gence of interest in studying the topic of leadership appears to be accompanied by an
acceptance of the distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, with
an emphasis on the latter. Quinn (1988) compares transactional and transformational
leadership with other differentiations in leadership such as relations oriented-task ori-
ented leadership (Fiedler, 1967), consideration-initiating structure (Korman, 1966), and
directive-participative or autocratic-democratic leadership (Heller & Yukl, 1969).Bass
(19906) claims that the transactional-transformational model is a new paradigm, neither
replacing nor explained by other models such as the relations oriented-task oriented lead-
ership model. Some authors describe concepts similar to transformational leadership as
charismatic, inspirational or visionary leadership (Bryman, 1992). Although the termi-
nology used by these authors is different, more similarities than differences seem to exist
between these views of the phenomenon of leadership. Bass inspired and is still one of the
major contributors to this approach that Bryman (1992) calls ‘the New leadership’. ‘The
New leadership’ approach revived leadership as a topic of theory and research, after many
lost interest and faith in this concept (see, for instance, Miner, 1975). ‘The New leader-
ship’ integrates ideas from trait, style and contingency approaches of leadership and also
incorporates and builds on work of sociologists such as Weber (1947) and political scien-
tists such as Burns (1978).

*Requests for reprinrs.

20 Deanne N . Den Hartog,Jaap J , Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman
Transactional leadership
A better understanding of transformational leadership can follow from contrasting it with
transactional leadership. Burns (1978) argues that transactional leadership entails an
exchange between leader and follower. Followers receive certain valued outcomes (e.g.
wages, prestige) when they act according to their leader’s wishes. Taking Burns as his
starting point Bass (1985) notes that leadership in research has generally been conceptu-
alized as a transactional or cost-benefit exchange process. Transactional leadership theo-
ries are all founded on the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of
exchanges or implicit bargains between leaders and followers. The general notion is
that, when the job and the environment of the follower fail to provide the necessary moti-
vation, direction and satisfaction, the leader, through his or her behaviour, will be effec-
tive by compensating for the deficiencies. The leader clarifies the performance criteria, in
other words what is expected from subordinates, and what they receive in return (House,
Woycke & Fodor, 1988).Several transactional theories have been tested extensively. Some
have received considerable empirical support. Examples are path-goal theory (House,
1971; House & Mitchell, 1974; Indvink, 1986) and vertical dyad theory (Graen &
Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987).

Transformational leadership
While the transactional leader motivates subordinates to perform as expected, the trans-
formational leader typically inspires followers to do more than originally expected.
Transformational leadership theories predict followers’ emotional attachment to the
leader and emotional and motivational arousal of followers as a consequence of the leader’s
behaviour (House et al., 1988). Hater & Bass (1988)state: ‘The dynamics of transforma-
tional leadership involve strong personal identification with the leader, joining in a shared
vision of the future, or going beyond the self-interest exchange of rewards for compliance’
(p. 695). Transformational leaders broaden and elevate the interests of followers, generate
awareness and acceptance among the followers of the purposes and mission of the group
and motivate followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of the group
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990; see also Burns, 1978). Yammarino & Bass (1990) also note ‘the
transformational leader articulates a realistic vision of the future that can be shared, stim-
ulates subordinates intellectually, and pays attention to the differences among the subor-
dinates’ (p. 151).Tichy & Devanna (1990)highlight the transforming effect these leaders
can have on organizations as well as on individuals. By defining the need for change, cre-
ating new visions, mobilizing commitment to these visions, leaders can ultimately trans-
form the organization. According to Bass (1985) this transformation of followers can be
achieved by raising the awareness of the importance and value of designed outcomes, get-
ting followers to transcend their own self-interests and altering or expanding followers’
needs.

Relations between trunsfornzational and trunsuctional leadership

As Hater & Bass (1988) point out, contrasting transactional and transformational leader-
ship does not imply that the models are unrelated. Burns (1978) thought of the two types
of leadership as being at opposite ends of a continuum. Bass ( 1 985) however views them
 Tran.wi.tionalus. transforniationaI leadership 21
as separate dimensions, this means a leader can be both transactional and transformational
(Bryman, 1992). Bass (1 985) argues that transformational leadership builds on transac-
tional leadership but not vice versa. Transformational leadership can be viewed as a spe-
cial case of transactional leadership, inasmuch as both approaches are linked to the
achievement of some goal or objective. The models differ on theproiw by which’the leader
motivates subordinates and on the type ofgoals set (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Laissez-faire leadership
Both transformational and transactional leaders are active leaders. They actively intervene
and try to prevent problems. When researching these two active forms of leadership, they
are often contrasted with extremely passive laissez-faire leadership (see, for example,
Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino, Spangler & Bass, 1993). The laissez-faire leader
avoids decision making and supervisory responsibility. This type of leader is inactive,
rather than reactive or proactive. In a sense this extremely passive type of leadership indi-
cates the absence of leadership. Bass (199Oa)reports laissez-faire leadership usually corre-
lates negatively (-.3 to -.6) with other, more active leadership styles. Bass (1990a)
concludes that there is a negative association between laissez-faire leadership and a vari-
ety of subordinate performance, effort and attitudinal indicators. This implies that
laissez-faire leadership is always an inappropriate way to lead. When by ‘laissez-faire’ it is
meant that the leader is not sufficiently motivated or adequately skilled to perform super-
visory duties, this observation seems correct. However, one could probably define situa-
tions in which highly active leadership is not necessary and maybe not even desirable. For
instance, in their substitutes for leadership theory Kerr & Jermier (1978)propose several
subordinate, task, and, organization characteristics that could reduce the importance of
leadership. A less active role of leaders could also lead to ‘empowerment’ of followers
which could even make for a useful component of transformational leadership.

Bass and t h e MLQ

Bass’ framework and programme of research has made an important contribution to the
development of the concept of transformational leadership. Central to his research is the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), developed to measure the transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership concepts described above. The MLQ has been
revised several times and is now widely used. Respondents rate the behaviour of the
leader, usually their superior, by filling out the MLQ (see Method). Bass and associates
define both transactional and transformational leadership as comprising several dimen-
sions. The dimensions vary slightly in different studies. In describing Bass’ transforma-
tional and transactional leadership the basis will be the eight dimensions the MLQ-8Y
form distinguishes, as this is the form used in the current study.

Bass’ transformational leadership has four dinimsions

The first dimension is cbaristua. The charismatic leader provides vision and a sense of mis-
sion, instills pride, gains respect and trust, and increases optimism (Bass & Avolio, 1989;
Bass, 1985).Charismatic leaders excite, arouse and inspire their subordinates (Yammarino
& Bass, 1990).
22 Deanne N . Den Hartog, JaapJ . Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopnzan
The second dimension of transformational leadership is inspiration. This dimension is
concerned with the capacity of the leader to act as a model for subordinates, the commu-
nication of a vision and the use of symbols to focus efforts. In Bass (1 985) inspiration and
charisma formed a single factor but different behaviours were implied. Charisma required
identification with the leader, inspiration did not.
The third dimension is individual consideration. While a leader’s charisma may attract
subordinates to a vision or mission, the leader’s use of individualized consideration also
significantly contributes to individual subordinates achieving their fullest potential
(Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Individual consideration is in part coaching and mentoring,
i t provides for continuous feedback and links the individual’s current needs to the orga-
nization’s mission (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). Individualized consideration is sim-
ilar to the Ohio State notion of consideration (Bryman, 1992). The last dimension of
transformational leadership is intellectuul stimulation. An intellectually stimulating leader
provides subordinates with a flow of challenging new ideas that are supposed to stimu-
late rethinking of old ways of doing things (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990). It arouses
an awareness of problems, of their own thoughts and imagination, and a recognition of
their beliefs and values in subordinates. Intellectual stimulation is evidenced by subordi-
nates’ conceptualization, comprehension, and analysis of the problems they face and the
solutions they generate (Yammarino & Bass, 1990).

Bass’ transactional leadership bas three dimensions

The first dimension of transactional leadership is contingent reinfwcement or contingent
reward. The leader rewards followers for attaining the specified performance levels.
Reward is contingent on effort expended and performance level achieved. There is con-
siderable research and literature on the association between this kind of leader behaviour
and subordinate performance and satisfaction (see Bass, 1 9 9 0 ~ or Yukl, 1994 for a sum-
mary of such research). The second and third dimension of transactional leadership are
two types of management-by-exception. When practising management-by-exception a leader
only takes action when things go wrong and standards are not met (Bass & Avolio, 1989).
Leaders avoid giving directions if the old ways work and allow followers to continue doing
their jobs as always if performance goals are met (Hater & Bass, 1988). There are two
types of management-by-exception, active and passive. The active form characterizes a
leader who actively seeks deviations from standard procedures and takes action when
irregularities occur. The passive form characterizes leaders who only take action after devi-
ations and irregularities have occurred. The difference between the two is that in the
active form the leader searches for deviations, whereas in the passive form the leader waits
for problems to materialize (Hater & Bass, 1988).
Laissez-faire leadership is also measured by the MLQ. In a sense it indicates the absence
of leadership. It is described as the most extreme form of passive leadership or even non-
leadership. Laissez-faire usually correlates negatively with more active leadership styles
(Bass, 1 9 9 0 ~ ) .

Problems investigated in this study

Transformational leaders when compared to transactional and laissez-faire leaders were
shown to have subordinates who report greater satisfaction and more often exert extra
 Transactional vs. transformational leadership 23
effort, and to have higher performing work groups and receive higher ratings of effec-
tiveness and performance (see, for example, Bass, 1985; Bryman, 1992; Hater & Bass,
1988; Yammarino & Bass, 1990; Yammarino et al., 199.3). Although Bass has demon-
strated that transformational leadership is a useful concept which can be operationalized
in the context of organizations, there are several problems which make careful examina-
tion of the results obtained with the MLQ necessary. One problem with the concepts in
the MLQ and their operationalization is the distinction made between passive manage-
ment-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership. Hater & Bass (1 988) state: ‘passive man-
agement-by-exception is not the same as laissez-faire leadership. The status quo is
guarded and respected in passive management-by-exception; the status quo is ignored by
the laissez-faire leader who essentially avoids decision making and supervisory responsi-
bilities’ (p. 697). This distinction between laissez-faire and passive management-by-
exception is not clear when the empirical data are examined. As shown in Bass (1985)
passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership form a higher order factor
in Bass’ data. Also, in a study by Yammarino & Bass (1990), passive management-by-
exception and laissez-faire correlate positively with each other and negatively with the
other leadership dimensions. Especially interesting was the slightly negative correlation
they found between active and passive management-by-exception, supposedly related
concepts. When regarding the items in the MLQ, the distinction between the two types
seems hard to make, both are extremely passive leaders, avoiding rather than tackling
problems.
Another problem with (operationalization o f ) the concepts in the MLQ is pointed out
by Bryman (1992). One of the items that measures inspiration is concerned with whether
the leader has a vision which urges the subordinate on. In view of the centrality of this
notion of vision to charismatic leadership Bryman finds it strange to disentangle vision
from charisma and treat it as indicating inspiration even though, as stated earlier, Bass
holds that the behaviours implied are different. These two issues indicate that refining the
three concepts in the MLQ into eight separate dimensions is not without problems.
Three questions are addressed in this study. The first is whether the three main leader-
ship concepts as defined by Bass (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) can be
found in the collected MLQ data. The second is whether the four transformational and
three transactional dimensions can clearly be distinguished. The third is whether the data
support combining passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership in one
factor for passive leadership.

Method
Sample and procedure
The sample in this study consisted of approximately 1200 employees from eight organizations. The organi-
zations and institutions contributing to the sample are very diverse in their core business activities and size:
Two commercial businesses (catering, fast food), two welfare institutions, two health-care organizations (nurs-
ing home, psychiatric hospital), one local government organization and two departments of air traffic control.
Samples within each organization were created by randomly dividing the employees of participating deparr-
ments in the organization into two groups. One of the two groups in each department received the MLQ, rat-
ing their supervisor. Respondents either received the questionnaire with a reference letter in person at work
or the questionnaire was mailed to the respondent’s home address. Respondents were requested to send the
questionnaire back after completion. The researchers were present in the organizations at various prearranged
24 Deanne N.Den Hartog,Jaap J. Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman
times to answer questions or could be contacted by telephone. The response was approximately 60 per cent
for the total sample (787 questionnaires were returned, not all questionnaires could be used in data analysis
due to missing values). There were considerable differences in response for individual organizations. The low-
est response was 29 per cent (in one of the organizations where the survey was done by mail); the highest
response was 80 per cent (in one of the organizations where respondents were handed the questionnaire in per-
son at work); 55.7 per cent of the respondents were male. The average age of the respondents was 36, ages
ranging from 16 years old to 64 years old. On average the respondents had worked for the organization for
five years. The range in the level and type of education was large, both respondents with a university degree
and respondents with hardly any secondary education are found in the sample.

Questionnaire
In this study a Dutch translation of the MLQ, version UY, was used to assess transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire leadership (following Bass & Avolio, 1989). The questionnaire was first translated from
English to Dutch by a Dutch native speaker then backtranslated by an English native speaker, both experts
in the field of organizational psychology. The questionnaire instructs respondents to judge how often their
manager displays 40 items of behaviour (see Fig. 1 for sample items), using a five-point scale (from 'fre-
quently, if not always' to 'not at all').

Data analysis
The first point of interest was the internal consistency of the MLQ scales for transformational, transactional
and laissez-faire leadership as empirically derived by Bass. Often only Cronbach's a(Cronbach, 195 1) is given
as an indication of internal consistency. This, however, has two problems. First, a is affected by the number
of items in a scale. In the literature (Nunally, 1967) a >.70 has been declared an adequate a.However, the
01 of a scale with many items can be high with a relatively low average inter-item correlation. In a unidi-
mensional scale a relatively high average inter-item correlation would be expected. Secondly, a is affected by
dimensionality within a scale. Although a decreases as a function of multidimensionality, a can be reason-
ably high even when items are somewhat interrelated but multidimensional (Cortina, 1993). Therefore, nor
only was the Cronbach c~calculatedbut also the average and range of inter-item correlations. Next, the cor-
relations between the eight dimensions of the MLQ as defined by Bass were calculated.

Four transformational dimensions (24 items in total):

Charisma (12 items). An example is: 'I am ready to trust the person I am rating to overcome any
obstacle'.
Znspirurron (4 items). An example is: 'In my mind the person I am rating is a symbol of success and
accomplishment'.
lntellecrualstinzulatiun (4 items). An example is: 'The person I am rating shows how to look at problems
from new angles'.
Individual runsidwation (4 items). An example is: 'The person 1 am rating treats me as an individual
rather than just a member of the group'.
Three transactional dimensions (12 items in total):
Cantingenr reuurd (4 items). An example is: 'The person I am rating points out what I will receive if I
do what is required'.
Arrive munugernenr-by-exceprion (4 items). An example is: 'The person I am rating focuses attention on
irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations from what is expected of me'.
Passive nranusen~enr-by-e%repriun(4 items). An example is: 'Problems have to be chronic before the
person I am rating will take action'.
One luissez-fuire dimension (4 items in total). An example is: 'The person I am rating avoids making
decisions'.

Figure 1. The MLQ-8Y measures, and examples of items (Bass & Avolio, 1989).
 Transactional vs. transformational leadership 25
A principal component factor analysis of the MLQ data was done to determine whether the factors as found
by Bass would also be found in our data set. Again Cronbach’s (rand inter-item correlations were calculated.
The aggregate measures for transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership as defined by Bass were
correlated with each other and with the scales derived from factor analysis.
To assess the reliability and internal consistency of the scales several criteria were used. Items thar did not
meet the criteria were left out of subsequent analyses. This was done to increase the homogeneity of the scales.
The criteria used in this study are those more often used in research and literature. T h r first criterion used is
that the Cronbach a of the scale should be >.70 (Nunally, 1067). This seems to reflect the general idea in
literature of what an acceptable a is. The criterion used for average inter-item correlations is thar they should
be >.30. The criterion used in this study for item-rest correlations is that they should be > . 2 0 (Kline, 1086).
Criteria used for the factor loadings are: factor loadings should be > . 3 0 and the difference between factor
loadings of an item on two factors shold be >.20. If items in the scales yielded by the factor analysis did nor
meet the criteria they were removed from the scales. Therefore the scales that were found and adapted in this
study have fewer items than the scales as developed by Bass.

Results
The aggregate measures for transformationul,transactional and laissez-faire leuder.rhip
The scale statistics for the dimensions of transformational, transactional and laissez-faire
leadership as defined by Bass & Avolio (1989) are reported in Table 1. Transformational
leadership was a high a o f .95. However, transformational leadership also has most items.
The for the transactional (.60)and laissez-faire scale (.49)are below the .70 criterion.
T h e reason for the low a of the transactional measure is that passive management-by-
exception is in Bass’ transactional scale, even though the findings of the present study
show that correlations between passive management-by-exception and the other transac-
tional dimensions are negative. W h e n passive management-by-exception is left out of the
transactional scale, the a of transactional leadership increases to .79 (this scale would have
eight items).

Table 1. Scale statistics for Bass’ theoretical scales

I Transformational leadership:
24 items a = .95
Mean = 3.03
SD = .33
average inter-item correlation .44 (variance = .02)
range of item-total correlation .32 to .77
I1 Transactional leadership:
12 items a = .60
Mean = 2.48
SD = .62
average inter-item correlation .12 (variance = .06)
range of item-total correlations - .07 to .46
I I1 Laissez-faire leadership:
4 items a = .49
Mean = 2.34
SD = .59
average inter-item correlation .2 1 (variance = .04)
range of item-total correlations -09 to .44
26 Deanne N . Den Hartog, JaapJ . Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopnzan
Also, when passive management-by-exception is then included in the laissez-faire mea-
sure its a increases to .72 (this scale would have eight items). For the transactional and
the laissez-faire measure several items have item-rest correlations lower than the .20 cri-
terion. These items with the lowest item-rest correlations in the transactional measure are
the passive management-by-exception items.

The subdimensions of transformational and transactional leadership

The scale statistics for the scales measuring Bass’ subdimensions of transformational,
transactional and non-leadership are shown in Table 2. Bass’ transformational leadership
has four subdimensions, charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individual-
ized consideration. The transactional leadership measure has three subdimensions, con-
tingent reward, active management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception.
The non-leadership measure only has one subdimension, laissez-faire leadership. The
laissez-faire measure in Table 2 is therefore identical to the laissez-faire measure given in
Table 1.
All scales for the subdimensions have four items, except for the charisma measure
which has 12 items. All subdimension scales except passive management-by-exception
and laissez-fairehave an a >.70 and the item-rest correlations of items in these scales ate
all above the .20 criterion. Passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire (four items
each) give the least adequate results. The a is below .70 for both and not all the item-rest
correlations are above the specified .20 criterion. The average inter-item correlations of
passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire (.26 and .2 1 respectively) are lower
than the average inter-item correlations of the other scales (ranging from .39 to .52).

Correlations ofthe Bass scales

The correlations between Bass’ MLQ dimensions of transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire leadership are reported in Table 3. Two aspects of the pattern of correlations
between the subscales are especially interesting. The first is that laissez-faire and passive
management-by-exception correlate positively (.47) with each other and negatively
with all other dimensions, including active management-by-exception. The second inter-
esting aspect is that the correlation between the other two dimensions of transactional
leadership, contingent reward and active management-by-exception (.39), is slightly
lower than their correlation with all the transformational dimensions (ranging from .40
to .54). Thus, both the contingent reward subdimension and the active management-by-
exception subdimension correlate at least as high with transformational subdimensions as
with each other (transactional subdimensions).
The correlations between the scales for the aggregated measures of transformational,
transactional and laissez-faire leadership are given in Table 7 . The correlation between
transformational and transactional leadership is positive (.47).The measure for lazssez-
faire leadership correlates negatively with the transformational measure ( - .17) and posi-
tively with the transactional measure (. 18).

Factor analysis and empirical scales

An exploratory factor analysis was done to assess whether the factor structure described
by Bass & Avolio (1989) would hold. Through principal component analysis different
 Transactional vs. transforniational leadership 27
Table 2 . Scale statistics for Bass’ measures of subdimensions of transformational, transac-
tional and laissez-faire leadership

TranJfvrniatronaI.scales
I Charisnia:
12 items a = .93
Mean = 2.89
SD = .32
average inter-item correlation .52 (variance = .03)
range of item-total correlation .30 to . X 1
I1 Inspiration:
4 items a = .72
Mean = 3.20
SD = . I 6
average inter-item correlation .39 (variance = .05)
range of item-total correlations .43 to .58
Ill Intellecttial rtindation:
4 items a=31
Mean = 2.98
SD = .18
average inter-item correlation .52 (variance = .004)
range of item-total correlations .56 to .70
1v Indiuidualizeci consideration:
4 items a = .75
Mean = 3.35
SD = .36
average inter-item correlation .43 (variance = .01)
range of item-total correlations .42 to .59
Transactional .scaIe.r
I Contingent reward:
4 items a = .7n
Mean = 1.75
SD = .22
average inter-item correlation .47 (variance = ,005)
range of item-total correlations .29 to .43
I1 Actiur niana~eniettt-~~-exi.eptioa:
4 items a = .78
Mean = 3.07
SD = .25
average inter-item correlation .48 (variance = .02)
range of item-total correlations .50 to .67
I I1 Pmsiue ii~~na~e,rent-h~-exr.eption:
I items a = .58
Mean = 2.63
SD = 2 9
average inter-item correlation .26 (variance = .01)
range of item-total correlations .23 to .44
Non-leadership (laissez-faire)scale:
I Laissez-faire:
4 items a = .49
Mean = 2.34
SD = .59
average inter-item correlation .21 (variance = .04)
range of item-total correlations .09 to .44
28 Deanne N . Den Hartog,Jaap J . Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopnzan
Table 3. Correlations between theoretical subdimensions of leadership
CHAR INSP INTEL INDC CNTR AMBE PMBE LAIS
~. . ____. -.. ~ -____ ~. . ~~~ ~ ~-
CHAR 1 .oo
INSP .73** 1.00
INTEL .73** .61** 1.00
INDC .75** .61** .67**
1.00
CNTR .49** .40** .50** .40** 1.00
AMBE .54** .50** .48** .47** .39** 1.00
PMBE -.24** -.22** -.13** -.19** -.05 -.25** 1.00
LAIS -.19** -.lo** -.08* -.id** -.oo -.12** .47** 1.00
*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed).
Key. CHAR = charisma; INSP = inspiration; INTEL = intellectual stimulation; INDC = individualized consideration;
CNTR = contingent reward; AMBE = active management-by-exception; PMBE = passive management-by-exception;
LAIS = laissez-faire.

solutions for the number of factors can be obtained. Well-interpretable solutions were the
two-, three- and four-factor solution. When extracting more than four factors they are no
longer interpretable theoretically, although seven factors have an eigenvalue larger than
one. Two factors distinguish between active and passive leadership. The four-factor solu-
tion yields a transformational, a passive and two transactional factors, almost identical to
contingent reward and active management-by-exception. The solution deemed most
important in this study, mainly for theoretical reasons, was the three-factor solution. The
three-factor solution gives three factors that are similar to the factors that Bass and asso-
ciates describe. Thus, a transformational, a transactional and a laissez-faire factor were
found. To avoid confusion the three empiricalfactors will be referred to as inspirational, ratio-
nal-objective and passive leadership instead of transformational, transactional and laissez-
faire leadership respectively.
In Tables 4 , 5 and 6 the loadings of the items on the three empirical factors and the
scale statistics are reported. Items that did not meet the criteria specified earlier, only six
items in total, were discarded. The adapted instrument thus has 34 items. The three-fac-
tor solution explains 46.8 per cent of the total variance, 35.4 per cent is explained by the
first factor, 6.5 per cent by the second and 4.9 per cent by the third. The first factor found
is similar to the theoretical scale for transformational leadership. As stated the scale found
in this study that closely resembles Bass’ transformational leadership will be referred to
as inspirational leadership to avoid confusion. As can be seen in Table 7, the correlation
between Bass’ tranformational scale and the inspirational leadership scale found here is
high, .99. The inspirational scale has fewer items than the transformational scale, 18
items remained after carrying out factor analysis and comparison with the criteria. Factor
analysis put several ‘transformational items’ in the rational-objective factor. Only
one of these met the criteria and is thus regarded as rational-objective, or, transactional
(item 3 5 , Table 5 ) . The scale statistics for inspirational leadership are, as expected
after adapting the scale, slightly better than the same statistics for transformational
leadership.
The a o f inspirational leader&ip is .95, identical to the a o f transformational leadership,
but inspirational leadership has fewer items (18 vs. 24). The average inter-item correla-
 Trmsuctional us. transformational leadership 29
Table 4. Loadings and item-total correlations of the items on Factor 1 (inspirational
leadership, ~1 = .95) and scale statistics
Item Factor Item-rest
number loading correlation
38 I have complete confidence in him/her . . . .82 .77
39 in my mind, he/she is a symbol of success and accomplishment . . . .78 .78
33 engages in words and deeds which enhances his/her image of
competence. . . .75 .78
17 serves as a role model for me . . . .75 .77
32 instills pride in being associated with him/her . . . .75 .74
40 displays extraordinary talent and competence in whatever
he/she decides . . . .75 .76
37 I am ready to trust him/her to overcome any obstacle . . . .73 .72
10 listens to my concerns . . . .72 .66
34 makes me aware of strongly held values, ideals, and aspirations
which are shared in common . . . .72 .77
28 mobilizes a collective sense of mission . . . .70 .72
36 projects a powerful, dynamic, and magnetic presence . . . .68 .72
23 Shows how to look at problems from new angles . . . .63 .70
18 makes me back up my opinions with good reasoning . . . .61 .66
9 articulates a vision of future opportunities . . . .57 .63
16 provides advice when it is needed . . . .57 .6 1
19 introduces new projects and new challenges . . . .55 .58
3 treats me as an individual rather than just a member of the group . . . .55 .43
2 talks optimistically about the future . . . .48 .49
I Inspirationul leadership:
18 items a = .95
Mean = 3.00
SD = .34
average inter-item correlation .50 (variance = 3 1 )
ranee of item-total correlations .43 to .78

tion of inspirational leadership ( S O ) is higher than the average inter-item correlation of

transformational leadership (.44). The lowest item-rest correlation is also higher for
inspirational leadership .46, compared with .32 for transformational leadership.
The inspirational scale thus has a higher internal consistency than the transformational
scale.
The factor found for transactional leadership, named rational-objective leadership,is sim-
ilar to Bass' scale for transactional leadership without passive management-by-exception.
The correlation between the two scales is considerable (.84, see Table 7 ) .After factor.ana1-
ysis and application of the stipulated criteria, nine items are in the rational-objective
scale. The scale statistics for rational-objective leadership are shown in Table 5 . They are
as expected after adapting the scale, better than those statistics for Bass' transactional
leadership. The a of rational-objective leadership is .79, higher than the .60 a of trans-
actional leadership. Rational-objective leadership has fewer items ( 9 vs. 12). The average
inter-item correlation of rational leadership (.30) is not as high as the average inter-item
30 Deanne N. Den Hartog,JaapJ , Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman
Table 5 . Loadings and item-total correlations of the items on Factor 2 (rational-objective
leadership, a = .81) and scale statistics
Item Factor Item-rest
number loading correlation
- ~ . ~ ~

14 focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and

deviations from what is expected of me . . . .69 .46
30 keeps careful track of mistakes . . . .65 .60
20 monitors performance for errors needing correction . . . .63 .62
29 points out what I will receive if I do what is required . . . .58 .54
25 tells me what to do to be rewarded for my efforts . . . .56 .52
7 is alert for failure to meet standards . . . .49 .45
6 works out agreements with me on what I will receive if I do
what needs to be done . . . .49 .45
12 talks about special rewards for good work . . . .45 .36
35 demonstrates a strong conviction in hidher beliefs and values . . . .39 .31

I1 Rational-objrctiue leadership:
9 items ff = .79
Mean = 2.54
SD = .79
average inter-item correlation .30 (variance = .02)
range of item-total correlations .31 to .62

correlation of inspirational leadership, but considerably higher than the average inter-
item correlation of transactional leadership (. 12). The item-rest correlations of ratio-
nal-objective leadership as compared with transactional leadership are also higher. For
rational-objective the range is .31 to .62, for transactional leadership -.07 to .46. The
rational-objective scale thus has a higher internal consistency than the transactional scale.
However, some of the statistics could still be improved upon.
T h e scale found for laissez-faire leadership, named passive leadership, forms a combina-
tion of Bass’ scales for laissez-faire leadership and passive management-by-exception. O n e
item from the subscale of laissez-faire did not meet the stipulated criteria and was left out
of the passive leadership scale, seven items remained. T h e scale statistics for passive lead-
ership are, as expected after adapting the scale, better than the same statistics for Bass’
laissez-faire leadership. The a of passive leadership is .74, considerably higher than the
.49 a of laissez-faire leadership, even though passive leadership has more items (7 vs.
four). T h e average inter-item correlation of passive leadership (.30)is higher than the
average inter-item correlation of laissez-faire leadership (.2 1). The range of item-rest cor-
relations for the passive leadership items is -25 to .57 vs. a range of item-rest correlations
from .09 to .44 for laissez-faire. The passive scale thus has a higher internal consistency
than the laissez-faire scale. Some of the statistics could still be improved upon.

Cowelations between the factors found in this study and Bass’ factors
Table 7 shows the correlations of the three factors found in this study with each other and
Bass’ factors. T h e correlation of inspirational with rational-objective leadership is sub-
stantial, .62. It is higher than the correlation between Bass’ transformational and trans-
 Transactional vs. transformational leadership 31
Table 6. Loadings and item-total correlations of the items on Factor 3 (passive leader-
ship, a = .72) and scale statistics
Item Factor Item-rest
number loading correlation
~ ~ - .- -

21 as long as work meets minimal standards, he/she avoids trying

to make improvements . . . .60 .45
22 avoids getting involved when important issues arise . . . .60 .52
27 problems have to be chronic before he/she will take action . . . .59 .54
4 things have to go wrong for him/her to take action . . . .58 .49
26 avoids making decisions . . . .55 .48
15 if I don’t bother h i d h e r , he/she doesn’t bother me . . . .48 .40
13 shows he/she is a firm believer in ‘If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.’ . . . .47 .28

111 Passive leadership:

7 items a = .74
Mean = 2.40
SD = .43
average inter-item correlation .30 (variance = .01)
range of item-total correlations .25 to .57

actional leadership (.47).T h e reason for the lower correlation between those two is that
the measure for passive management-by-exception, which correlates negatively with the
other transactional and transformational subdimensions, is part of the measure of trans-
actional leadership. This lowers the correlation. W h e n Bass’ transformational scale is cor-
related with r a t i o n a h b j e c t i v e leadership (similar to transactional leadership not
including passive management-by-exception) the correlation is .66, which is slightly
higher than the correlation between inspirational and rational-objective leadership. The
correlation of .62 between inspirational and rational-objective leadership is high but still
leaves 64 per cent of the variance unexplained. The correlation between inspirational and
transformational leadership (.99) is very high, as expected since the measures are very
much alike. The correlations between rational and transactional and between laissez-faire
and passive are somewhat lower (.84 and .76). This was to be expected since these scales
were altered more than the transformational scale was.

Table 7. Correlations between the theoretical leadership scales and the leadership scales
found in this study
TRF TRA LF INSP RATIO PASS
~ ~.

TRF 1.oo
TRA .47** 1.00
LF -.17** .18** 1.oo
INSP .99** .43** -. l 8 * * 1.oo
RATIO .66** .84** -.07* .62** 1.00
PASS -.36** .26** .76** -.37** -.23** 1.00

*p < .05; **p < .01 (two-railed).

Key. TRF = transformational leadership; TRA = transactional leadership; LF = Lnimz-faiw leadership; INSP = inspira-
tional leadership; RATIO = rational-objecrive leadership; PASS = passive leadership.
32 Deanne N.Den Hartog,Jaap J . Van Muijen and Paul L. Kooptaan
Discussion
Three questions were addressed in this study. The first is whether the three main leader-
ship concepts as defined by Bass (transformational, transactional and laissez-faire) can be
found in the data collected with the Dutch version of the MLQ. To answer this question,
first, the scales as developed by Bass were analysed. The analysis of these scales suggested
that i t was desirable to increase the internal consistency of the scales, especially the trans-
actional and laissez-faire scales.

Two or three factors?

An exploratory factor analysis was done to see whether the factor structure as found by
Bass would again appear in these data. One could argue that the only real distinction that
can be found in leadership research is the distinction between the presence and the
absence of leadership. Distinguishing between transactional and transformational leader-
ship would then be an artifact. If a two-factor solution is forced on the data in this study,
this pattern is indeed found, an active and a passive factor. However, more non-trivial fac-
tors can be found in the data. The three-factor solution yields a separate transactional and
transformational factor within the active factor and a passive factor. These three factors
were well interpretable from Bass’ theoretical viewpoint, the Bass’ framework is indeed
found in the data, even through exploratory analyses.
The most important reasons to use the three-factor solution, rather than the mere
active-passive leadership distinctions, are, first, the theoretical importance of the three
factors and, second, the differential effects of the two active types of leadership (transfor-
mational and transactional) which have been found in many studies (see Bryman, 1992).

Can eight separate leahship dimensions be distinguished?

The second question addressed in this study is whether the four transformational and
three transactional dimensions can be distinguished separately. Besides the two- and
three-factor solution only the four-factor solution was interpretable within the Bass
framework. The four-factor solution yields the inspirational, the passive and two transac-
tional factors, namely contingent reward and active management-by-exception. The sub-
dimensions of tranformational leadership as defined by Bass were not found in the data
through exploratory factor analysis, transformational items group together differently.
Although the three-factor solution provides a useful research solution, distinguishing
between different components of transformational leadership may remain useful, partic-
ularly for training purposes. One can use colourful and simple language to be more inspi-
rational without being seen as individually considerate and vice versa. Thus, in certain
circumstances, treating the components separately may be useful even though these
behaviours tend to be correlated.

One factor f i r passive leadership?

The third question was whether the data support combining passive management-by-
exception and laissez-faire leadership in one factor for passive leadership. The data give no
reason to distinguish between the subdimensions laissez-faire and passive management-
 Transactional us. transformational leadership 33
by-exception. The expected grouping of passive management-by-exception and laissez-
faire items is clear from the data, the passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire
items are all in the passive factor. Also Bass’ dimensions of laissez-faire and passive man-
agement-by-exception correlate positively with each other and negatively with all other
subdimensions of transactional and transformational leadership (see Table 3 ) . The theo-
retical distinction between laissez-faire and passive management-by-exception, made by
Hater & Bass (1988), is thus not found empirically in this data set. The same correlation
pattern between pdssive management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership found in
this study has been found in the United States (see Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Therefore,
even if the theoretical distinction is of importance, it either cannot be measured clearly
with the MLQ, or respondents do not perceive the difference. The two types of leadership
are not only empirically but also theoretically related, as they are both extremely passive
in nature, this opposed to all other measured dimensions that are active in nature.

Conclusion
Bass’ framework for examining transformational and transactional leadership has pro-
duced an impressive array of findings over the last decade. Transformational leadership
has been shown to play an important part in many of the outcomes that have tradition-
ally been of interest to organizational researchers as well as practitioners. Central to Bass’
measurement-based framework is the widely used Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
analysed in this study. From the results of this study it can be concluded that the Bass’
framework distinguishing a transformational, a transactional and a laissez-faire factor is
also found through exploratory analysis on a Dutch data set. In this study the internal
consistency of two of the three scales of the MLQ as defined by Bass was not sufficient.
We feel this is a result of the assumption in Bass’ framework that passive management-
by-exception belongs in the transactional and not in the laissez-faire factor. This assump-
tion is not supported by the data. The question remains, can and should new items be
written to distinguish between management-by-exception and laissez-faire leadership?
According to Bass they refer to different components of leader behaviour, however, dis-
criminating among them may call for preparing new items.
The three scales found in this study improve the internal consistency, first and foremost
by combining passive management-by-exception and laissez-faire in one passive factor.
The separate dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership were not found.
The adapted instrument covers the same domain with fewer items.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References
Bass, B. M. (1985).Leadership and Perjoornlance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1 9 9 0 ~ )Bass
. andStogdiNi Handbook ofleadwship: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd
ed. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990b).Editorial: Toward a meeting of minds. Leadership Quarterly, 1 .
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, 8. J. (1989). Manual for the MulttJactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
34 Deanne N.Den Hartog, JaapJ . Van Muijen and Paul L. Koopman
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for indi-
vidual, team, and organizational development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4 , 23 1-272.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: Sage.
Burns, J. M. (1978). hderJhip. New York: Harper & Row.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.JournalofApplied
Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A Theory (#Leadership Efferriveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graen, G. & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmen-
tal approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds), hdership Frontiers. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Graen, G. B. & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings &
B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, C T JAI Press.
Hater, J. J. &Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal ofApplied Psycho/ogy, 73. 695-702.
Heller, F. & Yukl, G. A. (1969). Participation, managerial decision making, and situational variables,
Organizatioinal Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 227-24 1.
House, R. J. (1971). Path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 32 1-338.
House, R. J. & Mitchell, T. R.(1974). Path-goal theory of leadership.jo/maf ofContempurary Business, 5,81-94.
House, R. J., Woycke, J. & Fodor, E. M. (1988). Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders: Differences in
behavior and effectiveness. In J. A. Conger & R. N. Kanungo (Eds), Churismatir Leadership: The Elusive
F a r m in Organizational Ef2ctiueness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Indvik, J. (1986). Path-Goal Theory of h d w s h i p : A Meta-Anafysis. Proceedings. Chicago, IL: Academy of
Management.
Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational
Behavior and Human P w f m n c e , 22, 375-403.
Kline, R. (1986). Handbook of Test Construction. London: Methuen.
Korman, A. K. ( 1 966). 'Consideration', 'initiating structure', and Organizational criteria-A review. Personnel
Psycho/ogy, 19, 349-362.
Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds), Researrh in Organizational Behavior, 12, 159-203.
Miner, J. B. (1975). The uncertain future of the leadership concept: An overview. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson
(Eds), LMderrhip Frontiers, pp. 197-208. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Themy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management. London: Jossey-Bass.
Tichy, N . M. & Devanna, M. A. (1990). The T r u n s ~ r m u f i o n u l h d e rev.
r , ed. (1st ed., 1986). New York: Wiley.
Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Socialand Economic Organization (A. N. Henderson & T. Parsons, eds & trans).
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Yamrnarino, F. J. & Bass, B. M. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects
among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds), Measurn of h d e r s h i p .
West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D. & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance:
A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1),81-102.
Yukl, G. (1994). h d e r s h i p in Organizations, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Received 5 December 1994;final revision received 29 January I996