Beata Bajcar
Jolanta Babiak- Psychology and Ergonomics Group, Faculty of Management, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X Short) is the most frequently used leadership measure in scholarship and organizational practice. However, so far it has not been validated in the Polish context. Therefore, the present study aimed to validate and shorten the MLQ (5X Short) in the Polish organizational setting. A total sample of 1,065 employees (572 women and 493 men) from different organizations took part in two sessions of an online study. Respondents were between 18 and 70 years old (M = 40.1; SD = 12.9) with an average job tenure of 17.00 years (SD = 12.1). In subsample 1 (n = 539), using exploratory factor analysis, a three-factor structure of the MLQ full form (MLQ-FF) was established, comprising transformational-supportive, inspirational goal-oriented, and passive-avoidant leadership. Based on qualitative (i.e., content analysis) and quantitative criteria (psychometric parameters), we constructed an 18-item MLQ short form (MLQ-SF). Both forms were supported by the confirmatory factor analysis in subsample 2 (n = 526). The MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF factors displayed acceptable to high levels of item-related parameters (e.g., intra-class, inter-item, and item-total correlations), as well as scale-related reliability (e.g., internal consistency, temporal stability). Both forms indicated high convergent and predictive validity examined by correlations with authentic leadership and employee's work outcomes (i.e., work satisfaction, work effectiveness, work engagement, and organizational commitment) (subsample 3; n = 691). Our study provided the full and the short form of the MLQ as reliable and valid instruments, potentially suitable to measure leadership styles in academic research and organizational practice.
Introduction
Transformational leadership theory, also referred to as full range leadership (FRL), has dominated the leadership field for over three decades (Avolio and Bass, 2004). The theory has shifted the long-standing scholarly focus from studying the mere economic goals of organizations to leadership behavior and human relations that play a central role in achieving long-term organizational outcomes (Bass, 1990). Within the scope of the FRL model, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was developed to gauge leaders' behavior, ranging from transformational through transactional to laissez-faire, all of which are fundamental to leadership effectiveness (Bass and Bass, 2008). Transformational leadership pertains to the role modeling behaviors of a leader who seeks to transform her followers' attitudes and behaviors to perform beyond expectations. Transactional leadership is focused on reciprocal relationships of providing benefits for delivering performance. While transformational leadership is morale-uplifting, motivating, and inspiring, the transactional attitude exemplifies rather goal-oriented focus utilizing contingent rewarding. Laissez-faire leadership is usually considered as absence of leadership, and for the most part, is thought to negatively influence followers (Bass and Riggio, 2006).
The MLQ (5X Short), the most frequently used instrument in leadership research, includes nine dimensions of idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, active management-by-exception, passive management-by-exception, and laissez-faire (Avolio and Bass, 2004). It measures five components of transformational leadership, three components of transactional leadership, and a laissez-faire style. The MLQ (5X Short), albeit not free from criticism (van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013; Batista-Foguet et al., 2021), has been primarily acknowledged as reflecting a full spectrum of transformational and transactional leadership styles (Antonakis et al., 2003). However, the structure of the MLQ (5X Short) and its previous versions, subjected to extensive factorial evaluations, has demonstrated inconsistent results across numerous studies that we comprehensively reviewed and presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Factor structure of the MLQ – review of studies.
The findings summarized in Table 1 demonstrate a significant scholarly effort to determine the high level of ecological validity of the MLQ (5X Short) and its previous forms. Some studies, conducted mainly in the North American context, attested the nine dimensions of the MLQ (5X Short) as best describing the theoretical FRL model. Other studies have uncovered different factorial solutions. Overall, they present a multidimensional nature of the transformational-transactional leadership and indicate that one universal model had not been conclusively agreed upon. The inconsistencies among studies' outcomes partly resulted from modifications to the MLQ (5X Short) and previous versions of the instrument. Some researchers merged scales and reassigned items between scales to achieve satisfactory fit indices and find the most suitable solution for their dataset. Attempts were also made to shorten the MLQ (5X Short) scale, and despite satisfactory psychometric properties, the abbreviated solutions were not further tested (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Heinitz et al., 2005; Kanste et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2012).
Consequently, various factors were lost between studies, making it difficult to compare the results. Other sources of low consistency across studies were associated with the contextual characteristics of the research (Bycio et al., 1995; Den Hartog et al., 1997; Edwards et al., 2012). For instance, Antonakis et al. (2003) indicated industry, businesses, groups' heterogeneity vs. homogeneity, and the interactions between the leader and follower gender as potential contexts that influence the variations in the MLQ (5X Short) modeling. In sum, the MLQ (5X Short) received both support and criticism together with claims to refine the factors reflecting transformational and transactional constructs. It thus seems essential to evaluate the relevance and applicability of the MLQ model in a new national and organizational context, specifically to this study – the Polish organizations.
Noteworthy, the FRL model corresponds to other leadership constructs. In particular, the transformational component alludes to servant (Banks et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2020), ethical (Riggio et al., 2010), empowering (Lee et al., 2018), and authentic leadership styles (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Lee et al., 2020). These concepts emphasize strong values, morals, ethics, and leaders' authentic attitudes toward their followers, organizations, and constituents (Banks et al., 2018). However, servant, ethical, and authentic leadership emphasize leader character rather than managerial competencies, whereas transformational-transactional leadership holds both qualities (Bass and Bass, 2008). Furthermore, in some instances, transformational leadership may be less authentic, but may never be inauthentic (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Just as transformational-transactional leadership serves as the facilitator of positive work-related attitudes (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) so has authentic leadership been found to strongly relate to employees' job satisfaction, happiness, greater productivity, trust, and more positive working environment (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Since authentic leadership contributes to open, truthful, and productive work atmosphere (Duarte et al., 2021), we assumed it holds great value for testing the convergent validity of the MLQ (5X Short) in the Polish context.
Thereto, empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated the significant role of the FRL model in predicting employee's outcomes, such as work performance across different types and criteria (Wang et al., 2011; Hetland et al., 2018; Steinmann et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2020; Ge et al., 2022), work satisfaction (Bass et al., 2003; Nohe and Hertel, 2017; Kammerhoff et al., 2019), trust in the leader (Breevaart and Zacher, 2019), work engagement (Tims et al., 2011; Miao et al., 2012), work motivation (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2020), and organizational commitment (Keegan and Hartog, 2004; Cho et al., 2019). The mechanisms explaining these relationships rely on assumptions that transformational-transactional leadership elicits general positive job attitudes of employees (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). In the same vein the exchange processes between leaders and employees are based on mutual trust which develops due to joint experiences (Nohe and Hertel, 2017; Breevaart and Zacher, 2019). In sum, transformational-transactional leadership is acknowledged as the wide-ranging leadership approach that facilitates conditions to create inclusive workplaces and positive outcomes for organizations (Bass and Riggio, 2006). These relationships serve as evidence for predictive validity of the MLQ (5X Short). It is thus our intention to uncover the predictive effectiveness of the FRL model in Polish organizations.
Although the MLQ (5X Short) is the most frequently used leadership measure in contemporary scholarship and practice, it has not been yet validated in the Polish organizational context. Hence, to use the measure in a new non-English-speaking environment we shall not rely on a mere translation but a soundly validated instrument. Furthermore, there is a scant number of studies that have undertaken to shorten the MLQ (5X Short) (e.g., Heinitz et al., 2005; Kanste et al., 2007). Parsimonious research instruments are currently highly valued due to often-imposed time constraints, like in large-scale research projects or hastening managerial practice. Therefore, considering this gap in the literature we aimed at validating and refining the MLQ (5X Short) in a population of Polish employees. Firstly, we assembled a Polish full version of the transformational-transactional leadership measure as the full form, called thereafter the MLQ-FF. We then examined its factorial structure and psychometric properties. Secondly, based on the qualitative (i.e., content analysis) and quantitative criteria (psychometric parameters) of the MLQ-FF we have developed a short version – the MLQ-SF. Next, we investigated the convergent and predictive validity of both forms.
In the light of the findings described above, we predicted significant relationships between the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF and authentic leadership, as evidence of convergent validity. We hypothesized that transformational and transactional subscales would be positively associated with authentic leadership. The laissez-faire leadership would negatively relate to authentic leadership. In addition, predictive validity was established via the associations of the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF with various employee work outcomes, like work engagement, organizational commitment, work effectiveness, and work satisfaction. We hypothesized positive associations between transformational and transactional leadership and work engagement, organizational commitment, work effectiveness, and work satisfaction. Lastly, we assumed that the laissez-faire leadership would negatively relate to work engagement, organizational commitment, work effectiveness, and work satisfaction.
Materials and Methods
Participants and Procedure
A total of 1087 employees from Polish organizations participated in the study. They represented various industries such as office and public administration (22%), services (17%), retail (19%), IT (14%), manufacturing (15%), and other (13%). To avoid the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the study was conducted online in two sessions with a 4-week interval. Complete data were obtained from 1,065 participants (98% return rate; 572 women and 493 men) and included in the analyses. Respondents were between 18 and 70 years old (M = 40.1; SD = 12.9) with an average job tenure of 17.0 years (SD = 12.1). To ensure the external validity of the results and the generalization of conclusions for the study sample, the maximum number of participants in the target population was reached (Westland, 2012). In the first session, respondents completed MLQ (5X Short). The total sample was randomly split into two subsamples following the cross-validation framework to increase the measure's viability (de Rooij and Weeda, 2020). Subsample 1 included 539 individuals (294 women and 245 men), aged 19–70 years (M = 44.2; SD = 9.8), and an average tenure of 20.3 years (SD = 10.6). Subsample 2 consisted of 526 employees (278 women and 248 men) aged 18–70 years (M = 35.87; SD = 14.22), with an average tenure of 13.5 years (SD = 12.6). In the second session, 691 employees (subsample 3, 65% of a total sample) completed the remaining measures. Respondents (371 women; 320 men) were aged 19–70 years (M = 42.5, SD = 11.3) and a mean tenure was 19.1 years (SD = 11.2). Data from subsample 3 were used to examine the convergent and predictive validity of the MLQ.
All participants were informed about the anonymity of the survey and their participation was voluntary. All participants provided informed consent before inclusion in the study. Our study was carried out according to the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association and was approved by the university research ethics committee.
Measures
Transformational-Transactional Leadership
The MLQ (5X Short; Rater Form) - a 36-item questionnaire, was used to measure transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Avolio and Bass, 2004). It consists of nine dimensions: (1) idealized influence attributed (IIA), representing the attribution of charisma; (2) idealized influence behavior (IIB), reflecting the behavioral part of charisma; (3) inspirational motivation (IM), pertaining to the thought-provoking and motivating behavior of the leader; (4) intellectual stimulation (IS), expressing stimulating followers to unconventional and creative thinking; (5) individualized consideration (IC), demonstrating genuine interest in each follower's well-being and tending to their individual needs; (6) contingent reward (CR), representing fair and constructive management processes of rewarding good performance, both financially and psychologically; (7) active management-by-exception (MBEA), reflecting active monitoring of the follower work and taking corrective actions whenever necessary; (8) passive management-by-exception (MBEP), describing leader intervening behaviors upon occurrence of problems; and 9) laissez-faire (LF), expressing the absence of leadership or lack of involvement in leading (Avolio and Bass, 2004).
In this study, we used the Polish translation of the MLQ (5X Short) Rater Form provided by Mind Garden. To ensure conceptual equivalence to the English original version, the English and Polish versions of the questionnaire were verified by three independent expert judges from the psychology field. Then, all three versions were discussed, and differences were resolved. To gain higher confidence regarding item comprehension, five tenured employees appraised the level of difficulty in understanding of all items. Finally, 8 statements were slightly reformulated. After the results were verified, the final version of the Polish translation was agreed upon. The MLQ (5X Short) asked respondents to rate the leadership style of their respective leader using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always).
Authentic Leadership
A Polish validation of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) was used to measure authentic leadership1 (Walumbwa et al., 2005; Wałachowska and Łaguna, 2018). The ALQ consists of four subscales: self-awareness (e.g., “My leader seeks feedback to improve interactions with others”), relational transparency (e.g., “My leader says exactly what he or she means”), internalized moral perspective (e.g., “My leader makes decisions based on his/her core beliefs.”), and balanced processing of information (e.g., “My leader listens carefully to different points of view before coming to conclusions.”). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach's α for the subscales ranged between 0.75 and 0.91, and the total score of the authentic leadership scale was 0.86.
Work Engagement
Work engagement was measured using nine items drawn from the Polish version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-SF; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Szabowska-Walaszczyk et al., 2011). The scale consists of three subscales with three items each: vigor (e.g., “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.”), dedication (e.g., “I am enthusiastic about my job.”), and absorption (e.g., “When I am working, I forget everything else around me.”). A higher total score indicates a higher level of work engagement. Cronbach's α for the subscales ranged between 0.81 and 0.88, and the total score of work engagement was 0.93.
Organizational Commitment
To measure organizational commitment, the Organizational Commitment Scale (Meyer and Allen, 1991), validated in Poland (Bańka et al., 2002), was used. It included three subscales: affective commitment (e.g., “The organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.”), normative commitment (e.g., “This company deserves my loyalty.”), and continuance of commitment (e.g., “It would be very hard for me to leave my company, even if I wanted to do so.”). Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach's α for the subscales ranged between 0.73 and 0.86, and for the total score it was 0.91.
Work Effectiveness
Employee's work effectiveness was assessed with one item, “How would you rate your work effectiveness?” on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
Work Satisfaction
We assessed employee's work satisfaction with one item, “How satisfied are you with your work?” on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (completely unsatisfied) to 5 (completely satisfied).
Analyses
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the various factor solutions of the MLQ (5X Short) established in earlier studies. Next, using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), we identified the MLQ factor structure specific to the Polish organizational context (in subsample 1), which was then verified by CFA (in subsample 2). As suggested by Byrne (2016), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values below 0.08 indicate an acceptable fit, and values below 0.05 indicate a very good fit. The adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI) values higher than 0.90 show a good model fit. Based on the full form of the MLQ (MLQ-FF) factor solution, the short form (MLQ-SF) was developed by conducting an EFA (in subsample 1) and a CFA (in subsample 2). Next, psychometric characteristics of both forms of the MLQ were identified. To examine the measure's scale-level (internal consistency, temporal stability) and item-level reliability indices (item-total, inter-class, and intra-class correlations) were assessed separately in subsamples 1 and 2. In addition, the tests of the differences between women and men in relation to the MLQ dimensions were conducted. Due to not normally distributed data, we used a nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test. The convergent and predictive validity were verified by correlating both forms of the MLQ, authentic leadership and various work outcomes (in subsample 3). As a follow-up study, the temporal stability of the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF was examined. Analyses were performed using the statistical package IBM SPSS 25.0, and the CFA was performed using AMOS 25.0 software.
Results
Confirmation of the Previous Factor Structures of the MLQ (5X Short) in a Total Sample
First, we tested various factor solutions of the MLQ (5X Short) established in earlier studies (see Table 2).
Table 2. The MLQ factor models from previous studies tested in the current study.
The series of conducted CFA indicated that the 9-factor original model and all other tested models resulted in unsatisfactory fit indices (Supplementary Table 1 in the Supplementary Material).
Factor Structure and Reliability of the MLQ-FF and the MLQ-SF – Subsample 1
Given that the previous factor structures of the MLQ (5X Short) were not confirmed in the Polish sample, we were prompted to search for new solutions. We thus performed an EFA in subsample 1 (n = 539). Following Kline's (2016) recommendation and to test the suitability of the data for factor analyses we calculated the overall Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and Bartlett's test of sphericity, which were significant (KMO =0.96; χ2(630) = 13,920.35, p < 0.001). Based on the principal component method, scree plot criterion, and Promax rotation, a two- and three-factor solution was extracted. Items with factor loadings higher than 0.40 were considered for further analysis.
In the two-factor model, all items that represented transformational and transactional leadership loaded on the first factor and explained 41% of the variance. The second factor included 10 items of the passive and avoidant leadership. These two factors accounted for 54% of the total variance. In the three-factor solution (see Table 3), the first factor (13 items) contained all IC items, three items from IA and IS, one item from IB, two items from CR, and it explained 42% of the variance. The core of the first factor was transformational leadership, which emphasized individual support and recognition, so we called it transformational-supportive leadership. The second factor of 14 items combined IM (all items), MBEA (all items), IB (three items), CR (two items), and IS (one item) and explained 12% of the variance. The content of the items implied a leader's inspirational attitude with a strong tendency to complete tasks and accomplish goals. Hence, it is referred to as inspirational goal-oriented leadership. The third factor explained 4% of the variance, included 8 items from the MBEP and LF scales and expressed passive-avoidant leadership. Due to the cross-loading of item 25, we decided to exclude it from further analyses.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, factor loadings, and item-total correlations for MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF in subsample 1.
In total, the three factors explained 58% of the variance. All factor loadings ranged between 0.41 and 0.86. Complete results for the three-factor solution for the MLQ-FF are presented in Supplementary Table 2 in the Supplementary Material.
In the next step, we attempted to shorten the obtained MLQ-FF. Considering both quantitative (i.e., psychometric parameters) and qualitative criteria (i.e., item-content analysis), we have selected items with the highest factor-loadings and item-total correlations that simultaneously represented the content of the nine original MLQ (5X Short) subscales. Two items per each of the 9 subscales were selected, creating an 18-item form– the MLQ-SF. The shortened version was subjected to an EFA in subsample 1, and a three-factor solution with eigenvalues above 1 was extracted, which explained 67% of the total variance (Factor 1: 47%, Factor 2: 14%, Factor 3: 6%, respectively). All factor loadings for the MLQ-SF items ranged from 0.50 to 0.82 (see Table 3).
The subsequent analyses were performed on the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF simultaneously hence, we present these results together. The transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented factors of the MLQ-FF and MLQ–SF were highly intercorrelated (0.84 and 0.77, respectively), and both correlated negatively and slightly to moderately with the passive-avoidant factor (from−0.11 to−0.26). According to Cohen's (1988) interpretation of the magnitude of correlation, correlations in the order of 0.10 are “small,” those of 0.30 are “medium,” and those of 0.50 are “large.” The internal consistency of the MLQ-FF subscales was between 0.84 and 0.96 and of the MLQ-SF between 0.80 and 94. The intraclass correlation (ICC) values ranged between 0.84 and 0.95 for the MLQ-FF and between 0.80 and 0.94 for the MLQ-SF. The item-total correlations ranged from 0.14 to 0.87 for the MLQ-FF and from 0.47 to 0.86 for the MLQ-SF. The inter-item mean correlation ranged from 0.39 to 0.62 for the MLQ-FF and from 0.51 to 0.66 for the MLQ-SF (all inter-item correlations ranged from 0.01 to 0.82 for the MLQ-FF and from 0.34 to 0.79 for the MLQ-SF). All item- and scale-related parameters are presented in Supplementary Table 4 in the Supplementary Material.
Next, a Mann-Whitney U test revealed a significant difference between women and men in passive-avoidant leadership for MLQ-FF (U = 31633.50, z = −2.44, p = 0.015) and for MLQ-SF (U = 32,375.00, z = −2.03, p = 0.042). Men perceived their leaders as displaying passive leadership to a higher extent (MLQ-FF: M = 22.35, SD = 5.52, Mdn = 22.00; MLQ-SF: M = 10.62, SD = 3.19, Mdn = 11.00) than women did (MLQ-FF: M = 21.32, SD = 5.97, Mdn = 21.00; MLQ-SF: M = 10.14, SD = 3.41, Mdn = 10.00). However, there were no significant differences in transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented factors for both MLQ forms (see Supplementary Table 5 in the Supplementary Material). Additionally, the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF factors did not correlate significantly with age (see Table 4).
Table 4. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach α, and correlations for all analyzed variables.
Factor Structure and Reliability of the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF – Subsample 2
The three-factor solution of the MLQ-FF extracted in subsample 1 was tested by CFA in subsample 2. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and the Bartlett's test of sphericity (KMO =0.95, χ2(630) = 10,357.48, p < 0.001) were statistically significant, indicating good suitability of the data for factor analysis. The model fit indices exceeded the recommended cut-off criteria (Byrne, 2016), χ2 = 743.48, df = 477, χ2/df = 1.56, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.033, GFI = 0.93, AGFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.97, TLI =0.97, SRMR =0.052. All standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.14 to 0.83 (see Supplementary Table 3 in the Supplementary Material). The CFA conducted on the MLQ-SF also indicated good fit of the factor model to the data (χ2 = 188.30, df = 111, χ2/df = 1.70, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.036, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.041). All standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.54 to 0.82 (see Supplementary Table 3 in the Supplementary Material).
In subsample 2, the transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented factors of both MLQ forms were highly intercorrelated, and they correlated negatively at a low to moderate level with the passive-avoidant factor. Internal consistency of the MLQ-FF subscales was between 0.83 and 0.93 and between 0.82 and 0.90 for the MLQ-SF. The intraclass correlation (ICC) values ranged between 0.83 and 0.93 for the MLQ-FF and between 0.82 and 0.90 for the MLQ-SF. The item-total correlations were above 0.19 for the MLQ-FF and above 0.48 for the MLQ-SF, the inter-item mean correlation was between 0.38 to 0.49 for the MLQ-FF and between 0.43 and 0.55 for the MLQ-SF (all inter-item correlations ranged from 0.05 to 0.76 for the MLQ-FF and from 0.28 to 0.76 for the MLQ-SF).
In addition, a Mann Whitney test revealed significant differences between women and men in the transformational-supportive leadership in both MLQ forms (MLQ-FF: U = 30376.50, z = −2.35, p =0.019, MLQ-SF: U = 30563.00, z = −2.25, p = 0.025). Men's rating of their leaders' transformational-supportive behavior was higher (MLQ-FF: M = 39.65, SD = 10.22, Mdn = 41.00; MLQ-SF: M = 24.91, SD = 6.76, Mdn = 25.50) than women's rating (MLQ-FF: M = 37.50, SD = 11.36, Mdn = 38.00; MLQ-SF: M = 23.57, SD = 7.41, Mdn = 24.00). Inspirational goal-oriented and passive-avoidant leadership in both MLQ forms were however not significantly different between women and men (see Supplementary Table 5 in the Supplementary Material). All leadership factors of both forms significantly but weakly correlated with age (see Table 4).
Convergent and Predictive Validity of the MLQ-FF and the MLQ-SF - Subsample 3
In this study we examined convergent and predictive validity in subsample 3 (n = 691). Harman's single-factor test using principal component EFA with Kaiser criterion was employed to test for possible common-method bias. The analysis resulted in 12 distinct factors accounting for 65% of the total variance. The first unrotated factor captured 32% of the variance in the data, however no single factor emerged, and the first factor did not explain most of the variance. Thus, we assumed that CMV was not an issue in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Convergent validity was examined in the context of authentic leadership. As shown in Table 4, transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented scales were positively correlated with all authentic leadership dimensions at moderate to high level. The passive-avoidant scale showed moderate to low negative correlation with authentic leadership dimensions. We thus consider the convergent validity of the tested MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF as initially supported.
The MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF factors correlated with employee's outcomes, such as work engagement, organizational commitment, work effectiveness, and satisfaction with work (Table 4). Work engagement dimensions and the total score were positively and moderately related to transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented factors but very weakly to passive-avoidant factor. In addition, transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented were significantly correlated with employee's organizational commitment. In general, the aggregated organizational commitment score was moderately related to transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented factors but non-significantly to passive-avoidant factor. Specifically, transformational-supportive leadership and inspirational goal-oriented were moderately to highly associated with affective commitment, moderately with normative commitment, but very weakly with continuance commitment. Passive avoidant leadership correlated slightly with low employee's affective commitment and with high continuance commitment, whereas it did not significantly correlate with normative commitment. Moreover, self-perceived work effectiveness correlated weakly with high transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented factors and low passive avoidant leadership. Employee's work satisfaction correlated moderately with high transformational-supportive factor, but weakly with high inspirational goal-oriented, and high passive avoidant leadership.
Follow-Up Study and Test-Retest Reliability
A follow-up study was conducted to assess the temporal stability of the Polish version of the MLQ. One hundred sixty-five employees (85 women, 80 men) were recruited from the total sample to complete the MLQ once again after an 8-week time interval. Participants were between 19 and 70 years old (M = 33.2 years; SD = 13.8), with mean job tenure of 10.9 years (SD = 12.2). The correlations between measures in two-time points were from 0.81 to 0.74 for the MLQ-FF and from 0.80 to 0.73 for the MLQ-SF (see Supplementary Table 4 in the Supplementary Material).
Discussion
The first aim of this study was to validate the MLQ (5X Short) in the Polish organizational context. We assembled a Polish version of the transformational-transactional leadership measure called the MLQ full form or the MLQ-FF. Based on the qualitative (i.e., content analysis) and quantitative criteria (psychometric parameters) of the MLQ-FF, we then aimed at constructing a short version of the measure - the MLQ-SF. As a result, we uncovered a two- and three-factor solution of the MLQ. The two-factor solution aligns with earlier findings of active and passive leadership models (Den Hartog et al., 1997). However, we decided not to pursue this solution for the two factors did not adequately reflect the complex nature of the FRL model.
Therefore, we considered a three-factor structure of the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF as more adequately representing specific leadership view among Polish employees. The first factor, transformational-supportive leadership, consisted of individualized consideration, attributed idealized influence, and contingent reward components, all of which reflected transformational and supportive attitudes toward employees and their work. Leaders' behaviors included approaching individuals with genuine interest, recognizing each employee's uniqueness, strength, and need for growth, creating a climate of support, encouraging innovative solutions, and facilitating employee development. The second factor, inspirational goal-oriented, was more heterogeneous and connected inspirational motivation with concern for task accomplishment and reward-for-performance exchange behaviors. Flagship behaviors of inspirational goal-oriented leadership express expectations of commitment to goals, monitoring deviances from standards, inspiring communication style, enthusiasm, and optimism. The transformational leadership items present in this factor attenuated the transactional nature of the remaining items, all of which together created a honed leadership factor of inspirational and optimistic support for the effortful achievement of organizational goals. Overall, this factor reflected behaviors such as setting direction and stimulating intrinsic employee motivation. The third factor, passive-avoidant leadership, was characterized by passive elements of the transactional component, which pertained to delaying reactions unless problems occurred, and laissez-faire behaviors.
The current three-factor structure is distinct from previously proposed three-factor models (Den Hartog et al., 1997; Avolio et al., 1999; Heinitz et al., 2005; Kanste et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2012) in terms of factor content, explained variance, and interpretability. In previous studies, the first factor was most often represented by transformational and CR subscales (e.g., Den Hartog et al., 1997) due to their high intercorrelation (Hoogeboom and Wilderom, 2019). The second factor usually included either MBEA or MBEP items, or the mixture of both (e.g., Kanste et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2012). In our solution, the transformational, CR, MBEA and MBEP subscales are distributed between the first two factors. In effect these factors share the meaning (Batista-Foguet et al., 2021) and are highly intercorrelated (cf. Bycio et al., 1995; Den Hartog et al., 1997; Kanste et al., 2007). Undoubtedly, this result requires further investigation, including refinement of items and scales. Alternatively, the passive-avoidant factor reflected reactive and avoiding leadership behaviors (Kanste et al., 2007; Edwards et al., 2012).
The uncovered three-factor structure of the MLQ-FF was the starting point for shortening the scale. Based on qualitative (i.e., item content analysis) and quantitative criteria (psychometric parameters), we have successfully assembled a shorter, 18-item form of the measure. The MLQ-SF included items representing all nine dimensions of the original FRL model. In fact, the novelty of the MLQ-SF lies in that it contains items from each of the nine original subscales of the MLQ-5X, thus the loss of information is minimal when compared to the full-length scale.
Both, the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF, demonstrated good psychometric properties overall. The scale-level reliability (i.e., internal consistency and temporal stability) displayed acceptable to excellent values and were comparable with those found in previous studies that employed the MLQ (5X Short). Additionally, item-level reliability indices (i.e., item-total, inter-item, and intraclass correlations) indicated an acceptable level of discriminating power for the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF. In sum, only a few earlier studies (cf. Tejeda et al., 2001; Heinitz et al., 2005; Kanste et al., 2007) proposed shorter versions of the MLQ (5X Short). They varied among each other across the number of factors and items considered in the measures. To our knowledge, none of these propositions have been subjected to further verification and validation.
The proposed three-factor solution shall be interpreted bearing in mind Polish contextual dynamics. Polish employees might not be cognizant of highly differentiated leadership. They may discern primarily between broad categories of leadership (Bajcar et al., 2015; Babiak et al., 2017). This mode of perception might facilitate better comprehension of the relevant leader behaviors. Also, it may help them fulfill required tasks and goals when influenced by an inspirational goal-oriented leadership or individually encouraging behaviors reflected in transformational-supportive style. Discriminating between nuanced dimensions of the MLQ (5X Short) scale may be a differentiating factor between individual employees.
Additionally, our results are inconclusive concerning differences in leadership perception in the dependence of age and gender. Undoubtfully, more research is required to test the differences in leadership perception between age groups.
The convergent and predictive validity for both, the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF were supported. As predicted, three factors were significantly associated with authentic leadership, thus initially confirming convergent validity. According to Bass and Bass (2008), transformational and transactional leadership components indicate authenticity and ethics in behavior, consistency, transparency of values, and moral character. These virtues fall into the domain of authentic leadership, which reflects truthfulness, trustworthiness, morality, and employee-focused behavior. The passive-avoidant factor was negatively related to authentic leadership dimensions at the moderate level. Our results align with earlier findings related to associations between transformational-transactional leadership and authentic leadership (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Lee et al., 2020).
In support of the predictive validity, MLQ-FF and the MLQ-SF factors correlated with employee's work outcomes, such as work engagement, organizational commitment, work effectiveness, and work satisfaction. Essentially, we have found positive associations of transformational-supportive and inspirational goal-oriented leadership and negative associations of passive avoidant leadership with work outcomes. The pattern of relationships between the three-factor MLQ and employee's work outcomes corresponds to the results of previous validation studies that included various measures of performance (Wang et al., 2011; Hetland et al., 2018; Steinmann et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2020), work engagement (Tims et al., 2011; Miao et al., 2012), work satisfaction (Bass et al., 2003; Sayadi, 2016; Nohe and Hertel, 2017; Kammerhoff et al., 2019), work motivation (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2020), and organizational commitment (Keegan and Hartog, 2004; Cho et al., 2019). Positively related outcomes may be thought of as psychological benefits that influence employees' overall well-being and work attitudes (Djourova et al., 2020). A rather unusual relationship was revealed between MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF factors and organizational commitment dimensions. Mainly, there are unexpected results that pertain to a very weak positive relationship between the continuance commitment dimension and passive-avoidant leadership. However, these associations are low and require further research. Thus, our findings can be considered as an initial support for the predictive validity of the three-factor MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF in Poland.
There were several limitations associated with this study. Common method variance (CMV; Podsakoff et al., 2003) may have obscured the results due to the cross-sectional design of the study. To reduce the possibility of the CMV, we have measured the variables in two-time points. Harman's single-factor test results (Podsakoff et al., 2003) indicated that CMV had not contaminated the study results. We collected data from a heterogeneous sample that was too small to scrutinize contextual aspects, such as industry, business operations, hierarchical level, age, gender, and tenure. Therefore, future research should be conducted using a larger sample of employees to explore unique leadership contexts. Moreover, the convergent validity of the MLQ-FF and the MLQ-SF need to be verified with other leadership concepts (e.g., servant, ethical, or shared leadership) and respective measures. Similarly, future studies should test the discriminant validity of the Polish version of the MLQ.
The Polish validation of the MLQ (5X Short) has theoretical and practical implications. First, the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF enable an assessment of transformational-transactional leadership in the Polish research and organizational contexts. Scholars can potentially use both the MLQ-FF and MLQ-SF to measure employee's perception of leadership, individual and organizational antecedents, and consequences of transformational and transactional behaviors, which have not yet been investigated in the Polish-speaking population. Furthermore, the MLQ-SF, due to the ease of application and use, may serve the organizational context in the initial selection and evaluation of leaders. Preliminary screening provides a general view of a candidate's leadership potential. The mindset leaders adopt at the start of their careers can have a transformative effect on co-workers and employees. The organizational environment is highly diverse, complex, and subject to constant change. A reliable, valid, and adapted leadership style instrument is needed for practitioners and organizations concerned with effective leadership, a collaborative environment, and committed employees as fundamental elements of sustainable organizational success. Besides, the MLQ-FF may be useful when a more accurate measurement of leadership is needed. In contrast, the MLQ-SF is adequate in time-restricted leader evaluation both in the research area (like large-scale studies) and in the organizational practice (e.g., in the initial preselection of employees).
Conclusions
This study provides academics and practitioners with a reliable, valid, and refined instrument, potentially suitable to measure Polish leaders' transformational-transactional behaviors. To our knowledge, this is the first validation study conducted among Polish employees. Along with the MLQ-FF, a shortened, 18-item form - the MLQ-SF - was proposed. We consider our research an essential part of the continuous effort to unravel the complexity of leadership and emphasize its relevance in enhancing leader-member relations - a vital force in achieving organizational performance.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the Wrocław University of Science and Technology. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
Both authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, and data collection. Analyses were performed by BB. In the first draft of the manuscript, introduction, and discussion was written by JB, and methods and results by BB. Both authors were involved in the discussion and revision of the final manuscript and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.908594/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^The presented Polish version of the ALQ was used with the permission of the Publisher of the measure (Mind Garden Inc.) and is available from the Publisher.
References
Alonso, M. F., Saboya, R. P., and Guirado, C. I. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership: an analysis of the factor structure of the Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) in a Spanish sample. Psicothema 22, 495–501. doi: 10.1037/t83613-000
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Leadersh. Q. 14, 261–295. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Avolio, B. J., and Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and sampler set: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Manual and Sample Set. 3rd ed. Redwood City, CA. Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., and Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Technical Report. Redwood City, CA. Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., and Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 72, 441–462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789
Avolio, B. J., and Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadersh. Q. 16, 315–338. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Babiak, J., Bajcar, B., and Nosal, C. S. (2017). “Heterogeneity of leadership styles as behavioral units: The role of personality in searching for leadership profiles,” in Advances in Human Factors, Business Management, Training and Education. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, eds Kantola, J. I., Barath, T., Nazir, S., and Andre, T,. 1st ed. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 107–120.
Bajcar, B., Babiak, J., and Nosal, C. S. (2015). When leaders become strategists. A new look at determinants of leadership styles through their relationship with strategic thinking. Procedia Manuf. 3, 3669–3676. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.777
Bańka, A., Bazińska, R., and Wołowska, A. (2002). Polska wersja Meyera i Allen Skali Przywiazania do Organizacji [Polish version of Meyer and Allen's Organizational Commitment Scale]. Psychol. J. 8, 65–74.
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., and Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: a review and agenda for the future. Leadersh. Q. 29, 236–251. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.005
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organ. Dyn. 18, 19–31. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 207–218. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B. M., and Bass, R. R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. 4th ed. Riverside: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., and Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., and Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadersh. Q. 10, 181–217. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
Batista-Foguet, J. M., Esteve, M., and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2021). Measuring leadership an assessment of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. PLoS ONE 16, e0254329. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254329
Boamah, S. A., and Tremblay, P. (2019). Examining the factor structure of the MLQ transactional and transformational leadership dimensions in nursing context. West. J. Nurs. Res. 41, 743–761. doi: 10.1177/0193945918778833
Breevaart, K., and Zacher, H. (2019). Main and interactive effects of weekly transformational and laissez-faire leadership on followers' trust in the leader and leader effectiveness. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 92, 384–409. doi: 10.1111/joop.12253
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., and Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 80, 468–478. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.468
Carless, S. A. (1998). Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviour as measured by the MLQ. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 71, 353–358. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1998.tb00681.x
Cho, Y., Shin, M., Billing, T. K., and Bhagat, R. S. (2019). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and affective organizational commitment: a closer look at their relationships in two distinct national contexts. Asian Bus. Manag. 18, 187–210. doi: 10.1057/s41291-019-00059-1
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
de Rooij, M., and Weeda, W. (2020). Cross-validation: a method every psychologist should know. Adv. Meth. Pract. Psychol. Sci. 3, 248–263. doi: 10.1177/2515245919898466
Den Hartog, D. N., van Muijen, J. J., and Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: an analysis of the MLQ. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 70, 19–34. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x
Densten, U., and Sarros, J. (1997). Re-thinking Transformational Leadership Factors. Caulfield East, VIC: Monash University.
Djourova, N. P., Rodríguez Molina, I., Tordera Santamatilde, N., and Abate, G. (2020). Self-efficacy and resilience: Mediating mechanisms in the relationship between the transformational leadership dimensions and well-being. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 27, 256–270. doi: 10.1177/1548051819849002
Druskat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadersh. Q. 5, 99–119. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(94)90023-X
Duarte, A. P., Ribeiro, N., Semedo, A. S., and Gomes, D. R. (2021). Authentic leadership and improved individual performance: affective commitment and individual creativity's sequential mediation. Front. Psychol. 12:675749. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675749
Edwards, G., Schyns, B., Gill, R., and Higgs, M. (2012). The MLQ factor structure in a UK context. Leadership Org. Dev. J. 33, 369–382. doi: 10.1108/01437731211229304
Ge, Y., Jia, W., Li, Z., and Wang, J. (2022). Moderating effects of transformational leadership, affective commitment, job performance, and job insecurity. Front. Psychol. 13:831060. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831060
Geyer, A. L., and Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Appl. Psychol. 47, 397–420. doi: 10.1080/026999498377917
Hater, J. J., and Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 73, 695–702. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.695
Heinitz, K., Liepmann, D., and Felfe, J. (2005). Examining the factor structure of the MLQ. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 21, 182–190. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.3.182
Hemsworth, D., Muterera, J., and Baregheh, A. (2013). Examining Bass's transformational leadership in public sector executives: a psychometric properties review. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 29, 853–862. doi: 10.19030/jabr.v29i3.7785
Hetland, J., Hetland, H., Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2018). Daily transformational leadership and employee job crafting: the role of promotion focus. Eur. Manag. J. 36, 746–756. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.01.002
Hinkin, T. R., Tracey, J. B., and Enz, C. A. (1997). Scale construction: developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 21, 100–120. doi: 10.1177/109634809702100108
Hoogeboom, M. A., and Wilderom, C. P. (2019). Advancing the transformational–transactional model of effective leadership: integrating two classic leadership models with a video-based method. J Leadersh. Stud. 13, 23–46. doi: 10.1002/jls.21655
Howell, J. M., and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 891–902. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891
Judge, T. A., and Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 755–768. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kammerhoff, J., Lauenstein, O., and Schütz, A. (2019). Leading toward harmony – different types of conflict mediate how followers' perceptions of transformational leadership are related to job satisfaction and performance. Eur. Manag. J. 37, 210–221. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.06.003
Kanat-Maymon, Y., Elimelech, M., and Roth, G. (2020). Work motivations as antecedents and outcomes of leadership: Integrating self-determination theory and the full range leadership theory. Eur. Manag. J. 38, 555–564. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2020.01.003
Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., and Kyngäs, H. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire among nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 57, 201–212. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04100.x
Keegan, A. E., and Hartog, D. N. (2004). Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: a comparative study of the leadership styles of project managers and line managers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22, 609–617. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.005
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., and Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. J. Organiz. Behav. 16, 319–333. doi: 10.1002/job.4030160404
Lai, F. Y., Tang, H. C., Lu, S. C., Lee, Y. C., and Lin, C. C. (2020). Transformational leadership and job performance: the mediating role of work engagement. SAGE Open 10, 215824401989908. doi: 10.1177/2158244019899085
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., and Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: a meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 93, 1–44. doi: 10.1111/joop.12265
Lee, A., Willis, S., and Tian, A. W. (2018). Empowering leadership: a meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 306–325. doi: 10.1002/job.2220
Lievens, F., van Geit, P., and Coetsie, P. (1997). Identification of transformational leadership qualities: an examination of potential biases. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psy. 6, 415–430. doi: 10.1080/135943297399015
Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manage. R. 1, 61–89. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Miao, Q., Newman, A., and Lamb, P. (2012). Transformational leadership and the work outcomes of Chinese migrant workers: the mediating effects of identification with leader. Leadership 8, 377–395. doi: 10.1177/1742715012444055
Muenjohn, N., and Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-transactional leadership. Contemp. Manag. Res. 4, 3–14. doi: 10.7903/cmr.704
Nohe, C., and Hertel, G. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analytic test of underlying mechanisms. Front. Psychol. 8:1364. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01364
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., and Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: the leadership virtues questionnaire. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 62, 235–250. doi: 10.1037/a0022286
Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Psychometric properties of the German translation by Jens Rowold. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Sayadi, Y. (2016). The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. J. Manag. Educ. 30, 57–65. doi: 10.1177/0892020615625363
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Edu. Psychol. Meas. 66, 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Steinmann, B., Klug, H. J. P., and Maier, G. W. (2018). The path is the goal: how transformational leaders enhance followers' job attitudes and proactive behavior. Front. Psychol. 9:2338. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02338
Szabowska-Walaszczyk, A., Zawadzka, A. M., and Wojta,ś, M. (2011). Zaangazowanie w prace i jego korelaty: Adaptacja skali UWES autorstwa Schaufeliego i Bakkera [Work engagement and its correlates: an adaptation of Schaufeli's and Bakker's work engagement measure UWES]. Psychologia Jakości Zycia 10, 57–74.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., and Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: psychometric properties and recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 12, 31–52. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00063-7
Tepper, B. J., and Percy, P. M. (1994). Structural validity of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Edu. Psychol. Meas. 54, 734–744. doi: 10.1177/0013164494054003020
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., and Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? Leadersh. Q. 22, 121–131. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.011
Tracey, J. B., and Hinkin, T. R. (1998). Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices? Group. Organ. Manag. 23, 220–236. doi: 10.1177/1059601198233002
van Knippenberg, D., and Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—transformational leadership research: back to the drawing board? Acad. Manag. Ann. 7, 1–60. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2013.759433
Vandenberghe, C., Stordeur, S., and D'hoore, W. (2002). Transactional and transformational leadership in nursing: Structural validity and substantive relationships. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 18, 16–29. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.1.16
Wałachowska, K., and Łaguna, M. (2018). Factorial structure and validity of the short version of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire in Polish samples. Ann. Psychol. 21, 163–184. doi: 10.18290/rpsych.2018.21.2-4
Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., and Shi, K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: the moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures. J. Leadersh. Org. Stud. 11, 2–16. doi: 10.1177/107179190501100301
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., and Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group. Organ. Manag. 36, 223–270. doi: 10.1177/1059601111401017
Westland, J. C. (2012). Erratum to “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling” [Electron. Commerce Res. Appl. 9 (6) (2010) 476-487]. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 11, 445. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2012.06.001
Keywords: transformational-transactional leadership, MLQ, short form, employee's work outcomes, validation
Citation: Bajcar B and Babiak J (2022) Transformational and Transactional Leadership in the Polish Organizational Context: Validation of the Full and Short Forms of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 13:908594. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.908594
Received: 30 March 2022; Accepted: 19 April 2022;
Published: 12 May 2022.
Edited by:
Daniel Roque Gomes, Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, PortugalReviewed by:
Hossam Elamir, Ministry of Health, KuwaitSorush Niknamian, Liberty University, United States
Copyright © 2022 Bajcar and Babiak. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Beata Bajcar, YmVhdGEuYmFqY2FyJiN4MDAwNDA7cHdyLmVkdS5wbA==