The motivation for transformational leadership scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address the question of what motivates leaders to engage in effective leadership behaviours by integrating transformational leadership theory and self-determination theory. The authors propose that the type of enacted leadership behaviour is related to level of self-determined motivation. Design/methodology/approach – This study presents validity evidence for an 18-item scale of motivation for transformational leadership based on Gagné and Deci’s (2005) six levels of internalization. A total of 310 employees (mean age=39, 64.5 per cent female, 46 per cent formal leaders) completed the scale, other measures of leadership, and job satisfaction. Findings – Results supported the theorized six-factor structure of the scale and provided evidence for incremental validity in the prediction of job satisfaction and transformational leadership above and beyond another measure of motivation to lead. Research limitations/implications – The lack of amotivation and the presence of autonomously controlled extrinsic motivation are predictive of effective leadership behaviour, a key finding with implications for leadership selection. The study was limited by the use of self-report data. Future studies should examine additional predictors and outcomes of the construct (e.g. subordinate attitudes or performance and leader personality), and whether it is stable over time. Originality/value – Leaders’ motivation for role effectiveness is an unexplored area of research. This study suggests that type of motivation can be important for effective leadership and provides a validated scale for use in future leadership research and selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".