at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91

Contents lists available

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

How transformational leadership and employee motivation combineto predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China

Laura M. Graves a,*, Joseph Sarkis a,1, Qinghua Zhu b,2

aGraduate School of Management, Clark University, 950 Main St., Worcester, MA 01610, USAb School of Business Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, Liaoning Province 116024, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 29 May 2013

Keywords:MotivationProenvironmental behaviorSelf-determination theorySustainabilityTransformational leadership

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 508 793 7466; faxE-mail addresses: lgraves@clarku.edu (L.M.

(J. Sarkis), zhuqh@dlut.edu.cn (Q. Zhu).1 Tel.: þ1 508 793 7466; fax: þ1 508 793 8822.2 Tel.: þ86 411 8470 6018; fax: þ86 411 8470 8342

0272-4944/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.002

a b s t r a c t

Seeking to build a deeper understanding of the determinants of employees’ proenvironmental behaviors(PEBs), we tested the linkages between transformational leadership on environmental issues, employees’autonomous and external motivation to perform PEBs, and employees’ PEBs. Data from 294 employees inChina indicated that the environmental transformational leadership provided by employees’ managerswas associated with increases in employees’ autonomous and external motivation. Autonomous moti-vation was, in turn, positively related to PEBs. The relationship between external motivation and PEBswas moderated by environmental transformational leadership. When environmental transformationalleadership was high, external motivation was positively related to PEBs. When environmental trans-formational leadership was low, external motivation was negatively related to PEBs. Environmentaltransformational leadership also had a strong, direct positive relationship with PEBs. Overall, our resultssuggest that interplay of environmental transformational leadership, autonomous motivation, andexternal motivation is important in influencing employees’ PEBs.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today’s organizations are increasingly implementing environ-mental initiatives such as environmental management systems(i.e., total quality environmental management, ISO 14001), greenpurchasing, eco-design, recycling, and energy conservation.Although new processes and technologies are vital to the success ofthese initiatives, the readiness of individual employees to activelyembrace proenvironmental behaviors (PEBs) that sustain the nat-ural environment is also important (Boiral, 2009; Daily, Bishop, &Govindarajulu, 2009). Employees’ PEBs are conceptualized as abroad set of environmentally responsible activities such as learningmore about the environment, developing and applying ideas forreducing the company’s environmental impact, developing greenprocesses and products, recycling and reusing, and questioningpractices that hurt the environment.

To date, the PEBs of individual employees have received limitedresearch attention (Boiral, 2009; Daily et al., 2009); researchers

: þ1 508 793 8822.Graves), jsarkis@clarku.edu

.

All rights reserved.

have focused primarily on organizational-level environmentalstrategies and performance rather than employees’ behaviors.Thus, we seek to enhance understanding of employees’ PEBs byexamining the processes that facilitate such behaviors. In particular,we explore the roles of leadership and employee motivation infostering PEBs.

We focus on the environmental transformational leadershipprovided by employees’ immediate managers. The values-based,inspirational nature of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass,1985; Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996) makes it suitable for stimu-lating environmentally responsible behaviors (Egri & Herman,2000; Fernández, Junquera, & Ordiz, 2006). The leadership pro-vided by immediate managers is especially important; thesemanagers are typically highly visible to employees, and may have asubstantial influence on their PEBs (Anderson, Shivarajan, & Blau,2005; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Robertson & Barling, 2013).

We also introduce employee motivation as a key factor infostering PEBs. Despite its fundamental importance for stimulatingemployee behavior in organizations (Gagné & Deci, 2005),employee motivation has received scant attention in the corporatesustainability literature. We use self-determination theory (SDT)(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) as a framework forstudying employee motivation to engage in PEBs. SDT has beenused to study motivation in the workplace (e.g., Bono & Judge,2003; Gagné, Forest, Gilbert, Aubé, Morin, & Malorni, 2010; Otis &

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e9182

Pelletier, 2005). It has also been applied to environmental behaviorin community settings (e.g., Osbaldiston & Sheldon, 2003; Pelletier,2002; Pelletier, Tuson, Green-Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998).

In our study, we explore how environmental transformationalleadership and employee motivation combine to predict em-ployees’ PEBs. Both the transformational leadership (Bass, 1985;Bono & Judge, 2003) and SDT (e.g., Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Gagné& Deci, 2005; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, & De Witte, 2008)literatures suggest that the interplay of environmental trans-formational leadership and employee motivation is likely to becritical in shaping employees’ PEBs. Integrating these literatures,we posit that environmental transformational leadership,employee motivation, and PEBs are linked through a complex set ofrelationships. In the sections below, we first provide theoreticalbackground on transformational leadership and self-determinationtheory. We then give an overview of our model, followed by a moredetailed discussion of the proposed relationships.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership emphasizes the symbolic behaviorof the leader (e.g., inspirational, visionary messages; values) asopposed to economic transactions between the leader andemployee (Avolio, 1999; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Bass,1985; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders focusemployee attention on the long-term goals of the group or orga-nization, and instill a sense of higher purpose. Employees inter-nalize the values championed by the leader and come to see theirwork as congruent with their own self-concepts (e.g., Bono & Judge,2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Shamir, House, & Arthur,1993). They aremotivated by the desire for self-expression and self-consistency.

Extending the notion of transformational leadership to leader-ship on environmental issues, we would expect managers whoexhibit environmental transformational leadership to communicate aclear and coherent environmental vision for their area of re-sponsibility. They might act as role models for employees bysharing their environmental values, discussing the importance ofsustainability, and taking actions that demonstrate commitment toaddressing environmental problems. They might motivate em-ployees by providing an image of a future where work activities aremore environmentally sustainable, talking about what the em-ployees must do to create this future, and conveying confidence inemployees’ capabilities. Further, environmental transformationalmanagers may encourage employees to question assumptionsabout environmental issues and consider new and diverse ideas forresolving these issues. They might also develop employees’ ca-pacity to address environmental problems by assessing each em-ployee’s development needs and providing individually-appropriate learning opportunities.

2.2. Self-determination theory

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan &Deci, 2002) is a broad theory of human growth and developmentthat focuses on the interplay between the active, growth-orientedindividual and the social environment. SDT posits that the type ofmotivation possessed by individuals is an important determinant ofbehavior. It identifies several types of motivation, and groups thetypes into two categories e autonomous motivation and controlledmotivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999).Autonomous and controlled motivation are not mutually exclusive;they may co-occur.

In autonomous motivation, individuals pursue activities that areconsistent or concordant with the underlying self (Deci & Ryan,2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005;Sheldon & Elliot 1998, 1999). It includes identified motivation,which involves pursuing an activity because it matches one’svalues and goals, and intrinsic motivation, which involves per-forming an activity because it is inherently interesting or plea-surable (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Employees whose PEBs stem fromidentified motivation pursue these behaviors because they arecommitted to environmental sustainability. Employees who areintrinsically motivated to perform PEBs do so because they expe-rience these behaviors as personally interesting or fun (e.g., findingpleasure in redesigning a product to reduce its environmentalimpact).

In controlled motivation, individuals’ actions result from a beliefthat they must or should act (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci,2005; Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). It includesexternal motivation, which involves pursuing an activity because ofexternal contingencies (e.g., pay, approval, or threat of punishment),and introjected motivation, which involves performing an activity tomaintain one’s ego. Employees who are externally motivated toperform PEBs may be attempting to meet job requirements (e.g.,environmental management system requirements), obtain rewardsand approval, or avoid sanctions. Employees whose PEBs stemfrom introjected motivation may be seeking to protect themselvesfrom the negative self-assessments and feelings that might occur ifthey fail to perform PEBs (e.g., believing they are “bad” employees,guilt).

The SDT literature (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Judge et al., 2005)suggests that the self-consistent or self-expressive nature ofautonomous motivation facilitates employee performance. Incontrast, the feeling of being required to act that characterizescontrolled motivation is seen as inhibiting performance. Liketransformational leadership scholars, SDT researchers stress theinfluence of leadership on employee motivation (Baard et al., 2004;Gagné & Deci, 2005; Otis & Pelletier, 2005). In particular, they notethat leader behaviors that support employee autonomy (e.g., givingemployees some choice of tasks, encouraging initiative, informa-tional feedback) encourage autonomous motivation.

In examining employee motivation to engage in PEBs, we focuson autonomous motivation, as well as the external motivationcomponent of controlled motivation. Although SDT scholars ques-tion the value of controlledmotivation, we believe it is important toconsider the effects of external motivation; such motivation islikely to be common among employees if organizations use envi-ronmental management systems and reward programs to motivatePEBs (Anderson et al., 2005; Ramus, 2002).

3. Hypothesized model

Our model, shown in Fig. 1, suggests employees’ PEBs areinfluenced by their immediate managers’ environmental trans-formational leadership and employees’ autonomous and externalmotivation to perform PEBs. We posit that leadership is related toautonomous motivation and external motivation to engage in PEBs,which, in turn, are linked to performance of PEBs. In addition, weexpect environmental transformational leadership to moderate therelationship between external motivation and PEBs. We alsobelieve that leadership will be directly related to PEBs. Thus, ourmodel is a partial mediational model with an additional moder-ating relationship.

Detailed discussion of the relationships shown in the modelis provided below. We focus primarily on the relationshipsbetween managers’ environmental transformational leadershipand employee motivation, as well as the subsequent linkages

Environmental transformational

leadership

Autonomousmotivation

Externalmotivation

PEBs

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91 83

between motivation and PEBs. We briefly discuss the direct rela-tionship between transformational leadership and PEBs.

3.1. Relationship between transformational leadership andautonomous motivation

We posit that environmental transformational leadership willbe associated with increases in autonomous motivation to performPEBs. As noted earlier, transformational leaders enhance em-ployees’ internalization of organizational values and increase theirfeelings of self-expression in the work role (e.g., Bono & Judge,2003; Dvir et al., 2002; Shamir et al., 1993). We believe that envi-ronmental transformational leadership will allow employees toexperience PEBs as self-consistent or self-concordant therebyfacilitating autonomous motivation.

Environmental transformational leaders are likely to talk aboutthe importance of environmental sustainability, present a vision ofa sustainable future, and talk passionately and confidently aboutwhat needs to be accomplished (Daily et al., 2009; Egri & Herman,2000;Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008). They are likely to articulateenvironmental goals by providing ideological explanations thatemphasize higher-order values (e.g., health, a better planet forfuture generations). Employees may accept and internalize thevalues conveyed by leaders, thereby increasing the importance ofthese higher-order values in employees’ identities and makingenvironmental activities more meaningful to employees (Bono &Judge, 2003; Jung & Avolio, 2000; Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir,Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). Ultimately, employees maypersonally “own” proenvironmental values and goals, leading tofeelings of autonomy or personal volition.

Further, the transformational leader’s confidence in the ach-ievability of environmental goals, emphasis on new approaches toenvironmental problems, and efforts to develop each employee’sabilities are likely to increase the degree to which employees feelcompetent to own and address environmental problems (Avolio,Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Also, theleader’s position as a role model on environmental sustainabilityand efforts to strengthen each individual’s capacity to addressenvironmental issues will make it likely that employees will con-nect with the leader and internalize the leader’s environmentalgoals. Overall, environmental transformational leadershipshould allow employees to experience PEBs as congruent withtheir interests, values, and goals, thereby facilitating autonomousmotivation.

Based on the above discussion, we propose that:

Hypothesis 1. Environmental transformational leadership will bepositively related to employees’ autonomous motivation to performPEBs.

3.2. Relationship between transformational leadership and externalmotivation

We posit that environmental transformational leadership willbe positively related to external motivation to engage in PEBs.Although the literature suggests that transformational leadersemphasize internal rewards and motivation (e.g., Bono & Judge,2003; Shamir et al., 1993), it also notes that they may make useof external rewards andmotivation. In fact, some scholars posit thatthe use of external rewards to recognize followers who meet ex-pectations provides the foundation for transformational leadership(Bass, 1998; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Moreover, there is substantialevidence that transformational leadership behaviors co-occur withbehaviors such as setting expectations and administeringperformance-based rewards (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Thus, envi-ronmental transformational leaders may utilize external rewardsand motivation as a means for motivating employees’ PEBs.

Further, some of the elements of environmental trans-formational leadership may enhance external motivation. Forinstance, the environmental transformational leader’s focus ondeveloping employees’ capabilities may facilitate external motiva-tion by increasing competence. Employees who feel competent toperform PEBs may be more motivated by the presence of externalrewards because they believe they can perform the behaviorsrequired to attain them. In addition, employees’ deep connectionswith environmental transformational leaders may increase theirdesire to gain leaders’ approval by performing PEBs.

Based on the above discussion, we posit that:

Hypothesis 2. Environmental transformational leadership will bepositively related to employees’ external motivation to perform PEBs.

3.3. Relationship between autonomous motivation and PEBs

We propose that employees’ autonomous motivation will bepositively related to their PEBs. Autonomously-motivated envi-ronmental activities are consistent with individuals’ values, goals,and interests (Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999). As aresult, employees will engage in PEBs spontaneously and without

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e9184

coercion or reward; their activities will be experienced as volun-tary. The self-consistent, voluntary nature of their PEBs is likely tocreate feelings of personal engagement, which boost task effort,persistence and performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge et al.,2005; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998, 1999).

The positive outcomes of autonomous motivation have beendocumented in educational, health care and work settings (seeBono & Judge, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Studiesof students’ environmental behaviors (e.g., reusing, recycling,buying environmentally friendly products, and energy conserva-tion) suggest that autonomous motivation is positively associatedwith the frequency of environmental behaviors (e.g., Osbaldiston &Sheldon, 2003; Pelletier, 2002; Pelletier et al., 1998).

Autonomous motivation may be important for performance ofPEBs in organizations. Employees’ PEBs are likely to be cognitivelycomplex tasks that demand substantial creativity and innovation,cognitive flexibility, and problem solving (e.g., introducing newenvironmental management systems, designing green products)(Gagné & Deci, 2005). Such tasks require the high levels ofinvolvement and persistence associated with autonomous moti-vation (Pelletier, 2002). Thus, we propose that:

Hypothesis 3. Employee autonomous motivation will be positivelyrelated to employee PEBs.

3.4. Relationship between externalmotivation and PEBsemoderatingrole of leadership

SDT implies that external motivation is detrimental to per-formance of PEBs. It suggests that individuals are unlikely topersist with externally-motivated behaviors because these be-haviors are not “owned” by the individual and depend on thecontinual presence of rewards and punishments (Deci & Ryan,2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot,1998, 1999). In addition, external motivation may create feelingsof pressure that interfere with performance, particularly forcomplex tasks.

Research evidence concerning the link between external moti-vation and performance of PEBs is ambiguous. Organizationalstudies have yielded nonsignificant correlations between em-ployees’ external motivation for work and their job performance(e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Millette & Gagné, 2008). Similarly,community-based studies have found predominantly nonsignifi-cant relationships between residents’ external motivation toengage in environmental behaviors and performance of these be-haviors (e.g., Green-Demers, Pelletier, & Ménard, 1997; Pelletieret al., 1998).

This ambiguity regarding the association between externalmotivation and performance may be due to inadequate attention tothe role of situational factors, particularly leadership.Webelieve thatenvironmental transformational leadership shapes the relationshipbetween external motivation and PEBs (Eisenberger, Pierce,Cameron, 1999; Gagné & Deci, 2005). More specifically, we positthat the relationship between external motivation and PEBs will bemoderated by environmental transformational leadership such thatexternal motivation is positively related to PEBs when environ-mental transformational leadership is high but negatively related toPEBs when environmental transformational leadership is low.

We suggest that environmental transformational leadershipalters the impact of external motivation by influencing employees’interpretations of external rewards, and ultimately, the quality oftheir external motivation. Rewards may be interpreted by em-ployees as controlling (manipulative) or as providing informationabout employees’ competence (Eisenberger et al., 1999; Gagné &Deci, 2005). Rewards are controlling when they create pressure to

achieve specific outcomes and reduce employees’ feelings of au-tonomy or personal causation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Ryan &Deci, 2002). In contrast, rewards provide competence informationwhen they acknowledge superior performance but do not exertcontrol of employees’ thoughts, behaviors, and feelings. Employeesinterpret rewards based on the manner in which they are designedand administered (Deci et al., 1999; Eisenberger et al., 1999; Ryan &Deci, 2002).

Environmental transformational leaders may administer re-wards in a manner that provides employees with competence in-formation. They are likely to ask employees to tackle significant,challenging PEBs. Employees will believe that it is necessary toperform PEBs at a high standard, and will view the receipt ofexternal rewards for performing PEBs as a sign of competence andtask mastery. Thus, employees who are externally motivated in thepresence of environmental transformational leaders may beseeking to confirm their competence and task mastery rather thansimply pursuing rewards or avoiding sanctions (Eisenberger et al.,1999). Seeking feelings of competence and mastery is likely tohave a host of positive effects on performance of PEBs; employeesare likely to set difficult goals, solicit feedback for improving per-formance, experience more positive emotions, persist with thetask, and, ultimately, perform better (McGregor & Elliot, 2002;Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006). The result should be a positive linkbetween external motivation and PEBs.

In contrast, leaders who are low in environmental trans-formational leadership may administer external rewards in amanner that provides employees with little information aboutcompetence and creates feelings of control. Leaders are unlikely toask employees to perform PEBs that stretch their capabilities.Instead, employees may be asked to perform trivial, mundane ac-tivities that are not valued by the leader (Eisenberger et al., 1999).Obviously, obtaining external rewards for performance of such PEBsprovides employees with little information about their competence(Eisenberger et al., 1999). Thus, employees will be seeking externalrewards solely for the sake of the rewards. They may perceive therewards as causing or controlling their behavior and will be un-likely to persist with the performance of PEBs over time. They willalso be unlikely to set difficult goals or seek feedback to improvetheir mastery of PEBs.

Thus, we propose that:

Hypothesis 4. Environmental transformational leadership willmoderate the effect of external motivation on PEBs. When environ-mental transformational leadership is high, external motivationwill bepositively related to PEBs. When environmental transformationalleadership is low, external motivation will be negatively relatedto PEBs.

3.5. Direct relationship between environmental transformationalleadership and PEBs

Although it is not the primary focus of our work, we also expectenvironmental transformational leadership to be directly andpositively linked to employees’ PEBs. The environmental trans-formational leader’s vision, high expectations, and ability to inspireand develop employees should directly enhance employees’ PEBs(Bass, 1985; Bass et al., 1996; Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Ramus &Steger, 2000). Given the importance they attach to environmentalsustainability, environmental transformational leaders may alsofacilitate PEBs by providing employees with the resources (e.g.,people, equipment, processes, and procedures) they need toperform (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Thus, we posit:

Hypothesis 5. Environmental transformational leadership will havea direct positive relationship with employee PEBs.

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91 85

4. Study context

We test ourmodel using data from employees in several Chineseorganizations. Environmental issues are particularly salient toChinese organizations today. The Chinese government has recentlyimplemented numerous environmental regulations and invested inenvironmental technology and support programs (Stalley & Yang,2006; Zhu, Geng, Sarkis, & Lai, 2011). Moreover, the integration ofChina’s economy into global industrial networks and supply chainshas led to international pressure on Chinese organizations toaddress environmental problems (Zeng & Eastin, 2007). An emer-gent middle and upper class in China has also created pressures onorganizations to focus on quality of life issues, including environ-mental concerns (Reusswig & Isensee, 2009).

Given the Western origins of the leadership and motivationconstructs included in our model, some might question the appli-cability of our model in China (Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, & Shi,2004; Wang & Walumbwa, 2007). China is characterized byhigh levels of hierarchy and collectivism, which, at face value,seem antithetical to the notions of transformational leadershipand autonomous motivation. Yet, a growing body of research sup-ports the applicability of both transformational leadership (e.g.,Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen,2005) and SDT (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003; Vansteenkiste,Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005) in China.

5. Method

5.1. Subjects and procedure

We invited 510 employees at four, global organizations in Chinato complete a voluntary, anonymous survey containing the studyvariables. All employees worked in the same geographical area. Across-section of employees was selected by each organizationbased on employee gender, age, and education; employees neededto have a sufficient education to understand the survey. Wereceived 309 (60.5%) responses. Due to missing data, only 294 (165men, 129 women) of the responses were usable.

Therewere 75 respondents froma retailer, 37 respondents fromahigh-tech manufacturer, 96 respondents from an information tech-nology firm, and 86 respondents from an energy supplier. Onaverage, respondents were 31.9 years of age (SD ¼ 7.62) and had 9.7years ofwork experience (SD¼ 7.76). Their average tenurewith theirorganizationswas7.1 years (SD¼7.05). Respondents includedhourlyemployees (37.7%), first-level managers (31.2%), middle managers(23.2%), and senior managers (4.3%) (3.7% chose “not relevant”).

5.2. Measures

The survey items were developed in English and translated intoChinese. The Chinese version was then back-translated into Englishand the discrepancies resolved. Appendix A provides informationabout the items.

5.2.1. Environmental transformational leadershipWe obtained permission to adapt 15 items from the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5x-Short (Bass & Avolio,1995) to measure employees’ perceptions of their immediatemanagers’ environmental transformational leadership. The itemsassessed the various aspects of transformational leadership (i.e.,three items each for idealized influence e behaviors, idealized in-fluence e attributes, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimu-lation, and individualized consideration). Following the MLQinstructions, employees indicated how often their managers dis-played each behavior on a 5-point scale (0¼ not at all, 4¼ frequently

if not always). Consistent with existing research (Judge & Piccolo,2004), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (not reported here)indicated that the items formed a single factor (a ¼ .95).

5.2.2. Autonomous and external motivationWe drew on the SDT literature (i.e., Fernet, Senécal, Guay, Marsh,

&Dowson, 2008;Gagné et al., 2010; Pelletier et al.,1998) to develop 9items measuring employees’ motivation to engage in PEBs at work(See Appendix A). All items were measured on 5-point scales(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Three items measuredexternal motivation. We dropped one of these items due to a lowitem-total correlation (“my work requires it”). Coefficient alpha forthe two remaining items was .76. Six items (a ¼ .80) measuredautonomous motivation (three items each for the identified andintrinsic motivation). A preliminary CFA (not reported here) indi-cated that the six items represented a single factor, rather than twoseparate factors.

5.2.3. Proenvironmental behaviorGiven the absence of established measures of employee PEBs,

we developed 13 items (a ¼ .91) based on existing work onindividual-level environmental behavior (i.e., Boiral, 2009; Daileyet al., 2009; Ones & Dilchert, 2010). Respondents indicated theextent to which they engaged in the behaviors on 5-point scales(0 ¼ not at all, 4 ¼ frequently if not always).

5.2.4. Control variablesIn addition to company, we assessed several demographic var-

iables that might be related to leadership, motivation, or PEBsincluding gender (1 ¼male, 2 ¼ female), age, organizational tenure,and years of work experience.

5.3. Analyses

Wewere interested in testing the relationships at the employee-level. Since there were multiple employees from each of four or-ganizations, it was possible that employees’ responses were notstatistically independent. Thus, we tested for nonindependencedue to company membership by calculating intraclass correlationcoefficients for each survey item (see Kenny & La Voie, 1985). Theresults revealed some nonindependence; the intraclass coefficientsranged from �.01 to .32, and 17 of the 37 were significant. Conse-quently, we accounted for the influence of company before per-forming our analyses. Following Kenny and La Voie (1985), weremoved variation in the data due to company by mean-centeringeach participant’s survey responses using the mean responses forhis/her company.

We conducted latent variable structural equation modeling(SEM) using Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998e2007) to test ourmodel. The initial phase of the structural equation analysis tested aconfirmatory factor analytic or measurement model to verify thatthe indicators reflected their intended latent variables. Using all ofthe survey items as indicators would have resulted in an exceed-ingly large number of parameters relative to the sample size. Thus,we employed sums or parcels of several survey items as indicatorsof some of the latent variables. Parcels are frequently used in SEM.Their usewas appropriate in the present study because our primaryfocus was the links between latent variables rather than the attri-butes of individual survey items (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000; Little,Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).

More specifically, we created parcels of survey items for theenvironmental transformational leadership and PEB constructs,both of which had large numbers of survey items. We used thesingle-factor procedure (Landis et al., 2000) to create the parcels forthese constructs. In this procedure, we performed a factor analysis

Table 1Intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for study variables.

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD

1. Environmentaltransformationalleadership

e 2.33 .75

2. External motivation .26 e 3.05 .873. Autonomous motivation .34 .17 e 3.71 .584. PEBs .75 .18 .44 e 2.51 .705. Gender �.04 �.13 .02 .00 e 1.44 .506. Organizational tenure �.20 �.08 �.10 �.16 �.12 e 7.14 7.05

Notes: N ¼ 294. Means and standard deviations are based on the averages of theitems comprising the scales and were calculated from the raw data (not correctedfor nonindependence). Correlations are based on data that was mean-centeredwithin company. Correlations with an absolute value of .12 or higher are signifi-cant at p < .05. The scales for environmental transformational leadership and PEBsranged from 0 to 4. The scales for the motivation variables ranged from 1 to 5.

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e9186

on the survey items for the construct, specifying a single-factorsolution. The resulting factor loadings were used to determinethe parcels. Survey items were allocated to parcels in a mannersuch that the average factor loadings of the items comprising eachparcel were comparable (see Landis et al., 2000). This procedureallowed us to create three parcels each for environmental trans-formational leadership and PEBs.

We did not form parcels for variables that had relatively fewsurvey items (i.e., autonomous motivation, external motivation).For autonomous motivation, the six survey items served as in-dicators. For external motivation, we used a somewhat differentapproach. Our preliminary analysis indicated that there were onlytwo viable indicators of external motivation. Because having twoindicators of the construct compromised model identification(Kenny, 1977), we used a corrected single-indicator to representexternal motivation (e.g., Rothbard & Edwards, 2003). This indica-tor was the sum of the two viable survey items. We corrected formeasurement error by setting the loading of the indicator on thelatent construct (lambda) to the square root of the reliability of theindicator, and fixing the error variance of the indicator (theta) tothe proportion of error variance in the indicator (1 � a) multipliedby the variance of the indicator. All indicators of the latent variableswere standardized prior to the analysis to facilitate interpretationof the moderating effect of transformational leadership.

The second phase of the structural equation analysis tested therelationships between the latent variables. We first tested a modelconsisting of the linear relationships depicted in Fig. 1. We thenanalyzed a nonlinear model that included the moderating effect ofenvironmental transformational leadership on the relationshipbetween external motivation and PEBs (i.e., the transformationalleadership x external motivation interaction effect for PEBs). Weused Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998e2007) to create a latentvariable representing the interaction of the latent environmentaltransformational leadership and external motivation constructs.We testedwhether the addition of this latent interaction variable tothe model improved fit. The latent interaction variable approachhas been shown to be effective for testing moderating relationshipsin structural equation models (e.g., Klein & Moosbrugger, 2000;Mathieu, Rapp, Maynard, & Mangos, 2010).

Both the linear and nonlinear structural models included twodemographic control variables, gender and organizational tenure.Gender and tenure were represented by observed measures. Theywere purely exogenous and were allowed to influence all of thelatent constructs in the model. Age (.74) and work experience (.84)were highly correlatedwith organizational tenure. Thus, we did notinclude them in our structural models.

To assess fit, we relied on the chi-square statistic, standardizedroot mean square residual (SRMR), and the comparative fit index(CFI) (Bentler, 1990). Consistent with Mathieu and Taylor (2006), weadopted the following cutoff ranges for CFI and SRMR to balanceType I and Type II error: 1) models with CFI values of <.90 andSRMR > .10, deficient; 2) models with CFI values of �.90 and <.95and SRMR > .08 and �.10, acceptable; and 3) models with CFI � .95and SRMR� .08, excellent. We used the change in chi-square valuesto test the relative fit of the nested models. The Sobel test (Sobel,1982) was used to assess the significance of the indirect relation-ships between environmental transformational leadership and PEBs.

6. Results

6.1. CFA

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlationsfor the study variables. The fit of the measurement model wasexcellent, despite a significant chi-square (c2 (60) ¼ 194.21,

p< .001; CFI¼ .95; SRMR ¼ .05). Inspection of the results indicatedthat one indicator of autonomous motivation, “it allows me toachieve goals I consider important,” was highly related to theexternal motivation latent construct. It is possible that participantsconsidered personal financial goals, not just environmental goals,when responding to this item. We removed this item from themodel, leading to an improvement in model fit (c2 (49) ¼ 134.81,p < .001; CFI ¼ .97; SRMR ¼ .04). All of the standardized factorloadings of the latent variables on their indicators were significant(p < .001); they ranged from .54 to .96.

6.2. Structural model

We then tested the linear structural model, adding gender andorganizational tenure to the model. Although chi-square for themodel was significant, c2 (66) ¼ 155.30, p < .001, the remaining fitstatistics indicated that its fit was excellent (CFI ¼ .97, SRMR ¼ .04).Fig. 2 depicts the standardized results for this model.

Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, the immediate supervisor’senvironmental transformational leadership was positively relatedto the employee’s autonomous (B ¼ .38, p < .001) and externalmotivation (B ¼ .30, p < .001). Employees who saw their supervi-sors as displaying environmental transformational leadership re-ported higher levels of both autonomous motivation and externalmotivation to engage in PEBs.

As suggested by Hypothesis 3, autonomous motivation waspositively related to employee PEBs (B ¼ .24, p < .01); employeeswho experienced higher levels of autonomousmotivation to engagein PEBs also reported that they engaged in more PEBs. Externalmotivation, however, was unrelated to employee PEBs (B¼ .00, n.s.).

The indirect effect of environmental transformational leader-ship on PEBs through autonomous motivation was significant(.38� .24¼ .09; Sobel¼ 3.56; SE¼ .04; p< .001). The results for thelinear model also revealed a large direct positive relationship be-tween environmental transformational leadership and employeePEBs (B ¼ .70, p < .001). This finding was consistent withHypothesis 5.

In addition, there were some effects for the control variables.Employee gender was related to external motivation (B ¼ �.15,p < .05); women reported less external motivation than men. Theemployee’s organizational tenure was negatively related to theirperceptions of the supervisor’s environmental leadership (B¼�.21,p < .05). Employees with longer tenure in the organization sawtheir supervisors as engaging in less environmental trans-formational leadership.

Overall, the controls and latent variables accounted for 14.7% ofthe variance in autonomous motivation, 12.6% of the variance inexternal motivation, and 65.8% of the variance in PEBs.

Environmental transformational

leadership

Autonomousmotivation

Externalmotivation

PEBs

Notes: Coefficients in parentheses are for the nonlinear model, which was unstandardized. Other coefficients are standardized. Results for the controls are reported in the text. Residuals for linear model are .96 for environmental transformational leadership, .85 for autonomous motivation, .87 for external motivation, and .34 for PEBs.

.38***

.24**(.35)

.70***(1.57)

.30***

(.35**)

.00(.00)

Fig. 2. Structural model.

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91 87

6.3. Nonlinear model

We then introduced the latent environmental transformationalleadership by external motivation interaction to the model andtested its significance. We found that adding the interaction to themodel resulted in a significant improvement in model fit (Dc2

(1)¼ 17.66, p< .001). The relevant results are shown in parenthesesin Fig. 2; these estimates are unstandardized (standardized esti-mates are not available with this estimation technique). The effectof the environmental transformational leadership by externalmotivation interaction on PEBs was significant (b ¼ .35, p < .01).

We plotted the interaction by using traditional formulas fordepicting relationships at low (i.e., one standard deviation belowmean) and high (i.e., one standard deviation above mean) values ofthe moderated variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Theresulting plot is shown in Fig. 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 4, thelink between external motivation and PEBs was positive whenleadership was high [PEB ¼ 1.57 þ (.35) (external motivation)] andnegative when it was low [PEB ¼ �1.57 þ (�.35) (external

Low High

External motivation

Low

High environmental transformational leadership

Low environmental transformational leadership

High

Employee PEBs

Fig. 3. Environmental transformational leadership by external motivation interactionfor PEBS.

motivation)]. When supervisors provided high transformationalleadership, external motivation was associated with increases inPEBs. When transformational leadership was low, however,external motivation was associated with declines in PEBs.

7. Discussion

Our primary contribution to the literature is our focus on theinterplay of environmental transformational leadership andemployee motivation in facilitating employees’ PEBs in Chineseorganizations. To date, there has been little research on the de-terminants of employees’ PEBs, and no examination of the impactof environmental transformational leadership on employees’autonomous and external motivation to engage in PEBs. Moreover,our work is unique in testing the role of leadership in moderatingthe relationship between external motivation and PEBs; priorresearch has not examined this moderating effect for PEBs or forother behaviors.

Our results provide substantial support for our model. As pre-dicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2, environmental transformationalleadership was positively related to employees’ autonomousmotivation and external motivation to perform PEBs. Consistentwith Hypothesis 3, increases in autonomous motivation wereassociated with increases in PEBs. As suggested by Hypothesis 4,the relationship between employees’ external motivation and theirPEBs was moderated by environmental transformational leader-ship. Specifically, when leadership was high, there was a positiverelationship between external motivation and employee PEBs.When leadership was low, the relationship between externalmotivation and employee PEBs was negative. Consistent withHypothesis 5, environmental transformational leadership had asubstantial direct, positive relationship with PEBs.

7.1. Relationship between environmental transformationalleadership and motivation

Althoughwe cannot establish causality, the positive relationshipbetween transformational leadership and autonomous motivationsuggests that environmentally-oriented transformational leader-ship is critical to autonomous motivation. This finding is in line

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e9188

with the SDT literature on the importance of leader behaviors foremployee motivation (Baard et al., 2004; Gagné & Deci, 2005), aswell as evidence linking general transformational leadership andautonomous motivation (i.e., Bono & Judge, 2003). It is likely thatmanagers who were high in environmental transformationalleadership expressed strong environmental values, and articulatedtheir environmental vision and goals (Daily et al., 2009; Egri &Herman, 2000). Employees may have accepted and internalizedthese values and goals, resulting in increases in the degree towhichenvironmental activities were personally meaningful to employeesand leading to increases in autonomous motivation. Further, envi-ronmental transformational leaders may have also engaged incoaching and mentoring to develop employees’ capacity to addressenvironmental issues, thereby increasing employees’ feelings ofcompetence, and, ultimately enhancing their level of motivation toengage in PEBs.

The positive relationship between environmental trans-formational leadership and external motivation is noteworthy. Itappears that environmental transformational leaders did not limitthemselves to transformational behaviors, but also used externalrewards as a means for encouraging employees to accomplishenvironmental activities and goals (Bass, 1998; Judge & Piccolo,2004). Further, the mentoring, coaching, and stimulation pro-vided by environmental transformational leaders may haveenhanced the extent that employees felt competent to addressenvironmental issues. These feelings of competence may haveincreased employees’ motivation to pursue any rewards that wereoffered by the organization or manager (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Giventhe transformational leader’s probable status as a trusted, rolemodel, employees may also have been motivated by a desire toobtain the leader’s approval.

7.2. Relationship between autonomous motivation and PEBs

As suggested by SDT, autonomous motivation was positivelyrelated to performance of PEBs. This finding is consistent with ev-idence on the beneficial effects of autonomous motivation on per-formance of PEBs in communities (e.g., Pelletier, 2002; Pelletieret al., 1998). The fact that autonomous motivation reflects in-dividuals’ underlying values, goals, and interests may have ledemployees to experience autonomously-motivated PEBs as self-consistent and voluntary (Judge et al., 2005; Sheldon & Elliot,1998, 1999). Hence, employees may have viewed PEBs as expres-sions of their true selves, increasing their feelings of engagement,and, consequently boosting their persistence in performing PEBs.Engagement and persistence may be particularly important if PEBsare cognitively complex, demanding creativity and problem solving(Gagné & Deci, 2005).

7.3. Relationship between externalmotivation and PEBsemoderatingrole of leadership

Our findings suggest that the link between employees’external motivation and PEBs varies as a function of the level ofenvironmental transformational leadership provided by man-agers. External motivation seems to be positively related to PEBswhen managers provide high levels of environmental trans-formational leadership. When environmental transformationalleadership is low, however, external motivation is negativelyrelated to PEBs.

This moderating effect is consistent with literature suggestingthat leaders play a key role in determining the impact of externalrewards on employees’ experiences (Eisenberger et al., 1999; Gagné& Deci, 2005). Further, it provides a potential explanation for thefailure of past research to demonstrate clear links between external

motivation, and either work performance or performance of PEBsin the community (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Green-Demers et al.,1997; Millette & Gagné, 2008; Pelletier et al., 1998).

As noted earlier, one explanation for the moderating effect isthat environmental transformational leadership alters the natureand impact of external motivation by influencing employees’ in-terpretations of external rewards (Eisenberger et al., 1999; Gagné &Deci, 2005). Environmental transformational leaders are likely toask employees to tackle important, challenging PEBs. Employeesmay interpret the rewards that are provided for performing thesePEBs as signals of their own competence and task mastery. Thus,employees who are motivated by external rewards may be seekinginformation about competence and mastery, rather than simplypursuing rewards or avoiding sanctions. Pursuing a sense ofcompetence and task mastery is likely to create feelings and be-haviors (e.g., positive emotions, setting difficult goals, feedback-seeking, and task persistence) that enhance performance of PEBs(McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Pekrun et al., 2006).

In contrast, managers who are low in environmental trans-formational leadership will not communicate the importance ofPEBs; nor will they ask employees to engage in PEBs that stretchtheir capabilities. As a result, employees may view PEBs as unin-teresting activities of little consequence (Eisenberger et al., 1999).Obviously, receiving rewards for completion of such tasks will notprovide employees with feedback about their competence. Conse-quently, employees who are externally motivated in the absence ofenvironmental transformational leadership may pursue externalrewards simply for the sake of the rewards; theywill feel controlledby the rewards. They will not persist with the performance of PEBsover time. Nor will they set difficult goals or seek feedback toimprove their mastery of PEBs.

7.4. Relationship between environmental transformationalleadership and PEBs

We also found a substantial direct positive relationship betweenenvironmental transformational leadership and employees’ PEBs.Clearly, increases in autonomous and extrinsic motivation are notthe sole mechanisms by which environmental transformationalleadership influences PEBs. Consistent with transformationalleadership theory, managers who engaged in high levels of trans-formational leadership may have established a strong environ-mental vision, set high expectations, and helped employees meetthese expectations (Bass, 1985). Moreover, the individualizedconsideration and intellectual stimulation provided by environ-mental transformational leaders may have directly enhanced em-ployees’ abilities to perform PEBs. Further, given their strongcommitment to sustainability, these leaders may have encouragedPEBs by providing more resources (e.g., processes, equipment) toemployees.

7.5. Applicability of model in China

Earlier we noted that there is growing attention to environ-mental sustainability issues in Chinese society and organizations,and argued for the relevance of our theoretical model in China. Ourfindings support the applicability of ourmodel to China and suggestthat immediate managers’ environmental transformational lead-ership, together with employees’ autonomous and external moti-vation, are important predictors of employees’ PEBs in Chineseorganizations. This is consistent with recent work suggesting thatgeneral transformational leadership is associated with positiveresults in China (e.g., Walumbwa and Lawler, 2003; Wang et al.,2005), as well as research demonstrating the applicability of SDTin Asia (e.g., Chirkov et al., 2003).

3 The environmental transformational leadership items were adapted from theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire with permission form Mindgarden. We areunable to reproduce all the items here. For information, please contact Mindgardenat www.mindgarden.com.

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91 89

7.6. Implications for research and practice

Our findings imply that environmental transformational lead-ership and employee motivation have important effects on em-ployees’ PEBs and suggest several areas for future research. First,additional research is needed to confirm our findings. Longitudinalresearch would be especially useful in establishing causality, aswould data from multiple levels of the organization (e.g., organi-zational environmental management system, manager, andemployee).

Moreover, the model might be expanded in several ways tomore fully explain PEBs. The conceptualization of PEBs might beenhanced by distinguishing between simple, routine activities andcognitively complex activities (Gagné & Deci, 2005), and perhapsvoluntary and required activities (Boiral, 2009). Leadership mightbe expanded to include the other aspects of behavior (i.e., trans-actional and laissez-faire leadership, see Egri & Hermann, 2000). Itwould also be useful to assess employees’ interpretations ofexternal rewards for performing PEBs so that the role of these in-terpretations in the moderating effect of transformational leader-ship could be assessed. Cross-level models including company-(e.g., size, industry, environmental strategy and policy, organiza-tional values and commitment) and country-level variables (e.g.,cultural values, economic development, and regulatory environ-ment) could also be tested.

Continued exploration of the interplay of environmental leader-ship and employeemotivation to engage in PEBswould be desirable.Building on ambiguous research evidence regarding the potentialeffects of externalmotivation on PEBs, we focused on the interactionof external motivation and leadership in determining PEBs. Futureresearch might consider whether autonomous motivation andleadership interact to determine PEBs. Another issue that might beexplored is the long-term impact of environmental transformationalleadership on the nature of employee motivation to engage in PEBs.SDT (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005) suggests thatexternal motivation may be transformed into autonomous motiva-tion over time, particularly in the presence of supportive leadership.Thus, it would be useful to explore whether environmental trans-formational leadership results in changes in the relative amount ofexternal and autonomous motivation over time.

Although it is premature to offer firm recommendations forpractice, our results suggest that the manager’s environmentaltransformational leadership is critical to facilitating the pro-environmental behaviors of employees, whether they are autono-mously or externally motivated. Organizations that want toencourage employees to engage in PEBs should ensure that man-agers have the ability to provide transformational leadership onenvironmental issues.

8. Limitations and conclusions

Our study has several limitations common to field research. Thecross-sectional design of our study made it difficult to establishcausality. We also relied on employees’ self-reports, increasing thechance that the relationships between the constructs weremagnified by response bias. However, the moderating effectrevealed by our study could not have been a function of responsebias. The presence of this effect enhances the credibility of ourwork. Further, scholarship on employees’ environmental behaviorsis in its early stages; our work may be valuable in facilitatingadditional theory and research, despite concerns about the natureof the data.

Interpretation of the results may also be limited by the fact thatour respondents worked in China; our results may have beenaffected by China’s unique political, economic, business, and

cultural environment. Further, respondents came from a small setof organizations that were amenable to participation in the study;these organizations may not be representative of the broaderpopulation of organizations. Additional research with other sam-ples will help address these questions of generalizability.

In conclusion, we proposed that employees’ PEBs are importantto the success of corporate sustainability efforts. Seeking toenhance understanding of PEBs, we examined how the immediatesupervisor’s environmental transformational leadership and theemployee’smotivation combine to predict PEBs. Our results suggestthat environmental transformational leadership is of criticalimportance for encouraging PEBs. Such leadership appears tofacilitate the employee’s autonomous motivation, which, in turn, isassociated with increases in PEBs. Further, environmental trans-formational leadership seems to be linked to increases in the em-ployee’s external motivation and may moderate the relationshipbetween such motivation and PEBs. These unique and interestingfindings set the stage for advancing understanding of the linkagesbetween transformational leadership, employee motivation, andPEBs. Overall, our work increases understanding of employees’PEBs and suggests that further examination of the factors thatencourage PEBs would be fruitful.

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by grants to the third author from theNational Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of China(71025002), National Key Basic Research Program of China (973Program, 2011CB013406), and Natural Science Foundation of China(71033004).

Appendix A. Survey items.

Environmental transformational leadership (sample items)3

My manager:

1. Displays confidence about environmental issues (idealized in-fluence e attributes).

2. Talks about the importance of protecting nature (idealized in-fluence e behaviors).

3. Talks enthusiastically about what we need to do to protectnature (inspirational motivation).

4. Gets me to look at environmental problems in new ways (in-tellectual stimulation).

5. Provides teaching and coaching on environmental issues(individualized consideration).

Autonomous motivation

I would engage in green behaviors at work because:

1. It allows me to achieve goals I consider important (identifiedmotivation).

2. It fits my own values (identified motivation).3. It is personally important to me (identified motivation).4. I enjoy it (intrinsic motivation).5. Of the pleasure I get from doing it (intrinsic motivation).6. It is fun (intrinsic motivation).

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e9190

External motivation

I would engage in green behaviors at work because:

1. My job requires it. (dropped)2. I will be rewarded for doing it.3. I am paid to do it.

Proenvironmental behaviors

At work, I:

1. Try to learn more about the environment.2. Find ways of working that are better for the environment.3. Offer ideas for reducing our impact on the environment.4. Share my knowledge about the environment with others.5. Apply new ideas for reducing our impact on the environment.6. Help create green processes and products.7. Perform environmental tasks that are not required by my

company.8. Question practices that are likely to hurt the environment.9. Recycle and reuse materials.

10. Try to reduce my energy use.11. Join in environmental activities that are not required bymy job.12. Encourage others to think about the environment.13. Help others solve environmental problems.

References

Anderson, L., Shivarajan, S., & Blau, G. (2005). Enacting ecological sustainability inthe MNC: A test of an adapted value-belief-norm framework. Journal of BusinessEthics, 59, 295e305.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,

research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421e449.Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and

organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951e968.Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). The relation of intrinsic need satis-

faction to performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 34, 92e98.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: FreePress.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educationalimpact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City,CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactionalleadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review,45(1), 5e34.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 238e246.

Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship be-haviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221e236.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Towards understandingthe motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of ManagementJournal, 46, 554e571.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy fromindividualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective oninternalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 84, 97e110.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model fororganizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Businessand Society, 48, 243e256.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experimentsexamining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. PsychologicalBulletin, 125, 627e668.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Humanneeds and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227e268.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformationalleadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment.Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735e744.

Egri, C. P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmentalsector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders andtheir organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 571e604.

Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J. (1999). Effects of reward on intrinsicmotivation e negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, andRyan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 677e691.

Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ profile in environmentalstrategy: A review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-ronmental Management, 13, 261e274.

Fernet, C., Senécal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dowson, M. (2008). The work tasksmotivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assessment, 16,256e279.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331e362.

Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). Themotivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 70, 628e646.

Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Ménard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioraldifficulty on the saliency of the association between self-determined motiva-tion and environmental behaviors. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 29,157e166.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and joband life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journalof Applied Psychology, 90, 257e268.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: Ameta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,755e768.

Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investi-gation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on trans-formational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,949e964.

Kenny, D. A. (1977). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339e348.Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent

interaction effects with the LMS Method. Psychometrika, 65, 457e474.Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming

composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational ResearchMethods, 3, 186e207.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or notto parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural EquationModeling, 9, 151e173.

Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., Maynard, M. T., & Mangos, M. M. (2010). Interactive effectsof team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers’collective efficacy and effectiveness. Human Performance, 23, 22e40.

Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points formediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 27, 1031e1056.

McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors ofachievement-relevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 94, 381e395.

Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motiva-tion, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics onvolunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 11e22.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998e2007). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). LosAngeles: Muthén and Muthén.

Ones, D. S., & Dilchert, S. (April 2010). Green behaviors among employees. In Paperpresented at the society for industrial and organizational psychology, Atlanta, GA.

Osbaldiston, R., & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Promoting internalized motivation forenvironmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmentalgoals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 349e357.

Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). A motivational model of daily hassles, physicalsymptoms, and future work intentions among police officers. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 35, 2193e2214.

Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discreteachievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 98, 583e597.

Pelletier, L. G. (2002). A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental behaviors. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 205e232). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.

Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Green-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Whyare you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the envi-ronment scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 437e468.

Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What com-panies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37, 151e164.

Ramus, C. A., & Killmer, A. B. C. (2007). Corporate greening through prosocialextrarole behaviours e A conceptual framework for employee motivation.Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 554e570.

Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors andenvironmental policy in employee “eco-initiatives” at leading-edge Europeancompanies. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 605e626.

Reusswig, F., & Isensee, A. (2009). Rising capitalism, emerging middle classes andenvironmental perspectives in China: A Weberian approach. In H. Lange, &L. Meier (Eds.), The new middle classes. Globalizing lifestyles, consumerism andenvironmental concern (pp. 119e142). Heidelberg: Springer.

L.M. Graves et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 35 (2013) 81e91 91

Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influ-ence on employees’ proenvironmental behaviors. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 34, 176e194.

Rothbard, N. P., & Edwards, J. R. (2003). Investment in work and family roles: A testof identity and utilitarian motives. Personnel Psychology, 56, 699e730.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation ofintrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55, 68e78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potential: A review ofresearch on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology,52, 141e166.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: Anorganismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook ofself-determination research (pp. 3e33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charis-matic leadership: A self-concept theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577e594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismaticleader behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics,and superiors’ appraisals of leader performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 41, 387e409.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparingautonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort andattainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546e557.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinalwell-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 76, 482e497.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structuralequation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290e312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Stalley, P., & Yang, D. (2006). An emerging environmental movement in China?China Quarterly, 186, 333e356.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & De Witte, H. (2008). Self-determinationtheory: A theoretical and empirical overview in occupational health psychol-ogy. In J. Houdmont, & S. Leka (Eds.), Occupational health psychology: Europeanperspectives on research, education, and practice (pp. 63e88). Nottingham:Nottingham University.

Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of auton-omy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal ofEducational Psychology, 97, 468e483.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadershipweaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identificationand efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793e825.

Walumbwa, F. O., & Lawler, J. J. (2003). Building effective organizations: Trans-formational leadership, collectivist orientation, work-related attitudes andwithdrawal behaviors in three emerging economies. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 14, 1083e1101.

Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. L., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective ef-ficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work out-comes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515e530.

Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-memberexchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leader-ship and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior.Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420e432.

Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizationalcommitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformationalleadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397e427.

Zeng, K., & Eastin, J. (2007). International economic integration and environmentalprotection: The case of China. International Studies Quarterly, 51, 971e995.

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., & Lai, M. (2011). Evaluating green supply chain man-agement among Chinese manufacturers from the ecological modernizationperspective. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,47, 808e821.