Comparing Leader and Follower Perceptions of Transformational Leadership: Implications for Organizational Commitment and Performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The transformational leadership paradigm has been a focal point in organizational research, but a critical methodological question remains: whose perception of transformational leadership should be relied upon for accurate evaluation? This study addresses this question by examining the differences that arise depending on whether the leader’s or their followers' assessment of the leader's transformational leadership is used. Methodology: Transformational leadership behavior (TLB) perception data were collected from both leaders (n=372) and their followers (n=892) to analyze its impact on organizational commitment (OC) and organizational performance (OP). Structural equation modeling was employed to reveal the impact of TLB on OP from both leader and follower perspectives. Findings: Both leader and follower perception models exhibit a significant positive effect of TLB on OP. However, the mechanisms differ substantially. In the follower perception model, the impact of TLB on OP is almost entirely mediated through OC. Conversely, in the leader perception model, the impact of TLB on OP is split between the direct effect of TLB on OP and the mediated effect through OC on OP. Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice, and Policy: These findings have significant implications for interpreting past research on transformational leadership and future methodologies. The study contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive understanding of the relationships between TLB, OC, and OP, particularly in the public sector, utilizing a large-scale sample.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".