Pseudo-Transformational Leadership: Model Specification and Outcomes1

Abstract

A model of pseudo‐transformational leadership was tested in 4 experiments. Pseudo‐transformational leadership is defined by self‐serving, yet highly inspirational leadership behaviors, unwillingness to encourage independent thought in subordinates, and little caring for one's subordinates more generally. Study 1 (N = 167) used vignettes to differentiate among transformational, pseudo‐transformational, and laissez‐faire leadership styles. Study 2 (N = 179) replicated this model using ratings of characters in the film 12 Angry Men (Fonda, Rose, & Lumet, 1957). Study 3 (N = 120) tested the model, controlling for participant perceptions of leader affect and prototypical leadership behaviors. Study 4 (N = 127) extended the ecological validity of the model and range of outcomes. Across the studies, support was obtained for the model.

The relationship between transformational leadership and follower sickness absence: the role of presenteeism

“…Attempts to use existing scales to define pseudotransformational leaders have focused on leaders being rated high or low on specific dimensions of transformational leadership, e.g. low on idealized influence and high on inspirational motivation (Barling, Christie, & Turner, 2008, Christie, Barling, & Turner, 2011, but the content of the scales have not been changed. Additionally, no existing measures explicitly capture the health and wellbeing side of transformational leadership.…”

Development and initial validation of an indirect measure of transformational leadership integrity

“…In the development and validation of this new instrument, the present research has answered Christie, Barling and Turner's (2011) call for a measure of transformational leadership integrity that is (1) capable of identifying self-attitudes towards transformational leadership integrity, and (2) robust to the self-presentational issues associated with such a socially sensitive construct. Initial development and validation of the TLI-IAT suggests the instrument is capable of addressing each of these issues.…”

“…Initial development and validation of the TLI-IAT suggests the instrument is capable of addressing each of these issues. Until the studies presented here, empirical research has exclusively examined the concepts of transformational leadership integrity as an deliberate, effortful, and controlled process (Barling et al, 2008;Christie et al, 2011). However, such an approach appears to conflict with Bass and Steidlmeier's (1999) framework, which states transformational leadership integrity is based on the leader's moral character.…”

The evolving field of entrepreneurial leadership: an overview

“…Common to both the entrepreneurship and leadership literatures is a widespread neglect of the importance of power relations and unethical behaviour (Howell and Avolio, 1992); an under emphasis of the pursuit of self-serving, self-interested behaviour at the expense of followers' interests (Christie et al, 2011); a continuing lack of clarity and agreement on conceptual definitions and models linking influences on mediating processes and outcomes (van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013); and an implicit contextless universalism. Further, much current theorizing is still leader-centric and based on highly gendered, heroic images of the Great Man.…”