Transformational leadership,self-efficacy, group

cohesiveness, commitment,and performance

Rajnandini PillaiDepartment of Management, College of Business,

California State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, California, USA

Ethlyn A. WilliamsDepartment of Management, International Business and

Entrepreneurship, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University,Boca Raton, Florida, USA

Keywords Transformational leadership, Self development, Fire services,Autonomous work groups

Abstract We tested a model proposing that transformational leaders build committed and highperforming work groups by enhancing employee self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Questionnaireswere completed by 303 fire department personnel following preliminary in-depth interviews withfire rescue personnel. After accounting for missing data, 271 responses were included in our dataanalysis. Results indicated support for the theoretical model in comparison to three alternativemodels that were considered. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.

The attacks of 11 September 2001 brought into sharp focus the role offirefighters in times of crisis. Perceptions of firefighter heroism were magnifiedas people witnessed several acts of self-less leadership by firemen and womenin New York and Washington. Some have suggested that one of the biggestchallenges that the fire service faces in the 21st century is effective leadershipaimed at retaining fire service men and women (Murphy, 1999). Others haveexamined the importance of leadership interventions to train fire departmentleaders who are then perceived as role models by the fire fighters and whowork to reduce stress in one of the most stressful jobs in America (Beaton et al.,2001). Leadership researchers in recent years have accumulated a large body ofevidence in support of leadership models such as transformational andcharismatic leadership (House and Shamir, 1993). However, few of these studieshave explored or tested the many networks of linkages proposed to explainhow the transformational leadership process works and this has beenparticularly disappointing to researchers of this promising leadershipparadigm (Bass, 1995). Some exceptions in this regard are work by Shamiret al. (1993) who proposed a linkage between charismatic leadership and

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM17,2

144

Received September2002Revised September 2003Accepted December 2003

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagementVol. 17 No. 2, 2004pp. 144-159q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814DOI 10.1108/09534810410530584

followers’ self-efficacy and self-concept and others who have shown a linkagebetween transformational leadership and justice, trust and collectiveself-efficacy (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Podsakoff et al.,1990).

This study focuses on the processes that may explain how transformationalleadership affects outcomes in the context of a fire department. We proposethat perceptions of follower self-efficacy and work group cohesion play animportant role in the relationship between transformational leadership andoutcomes such as commitment and performance. Earlier research has shownthat leader-subordinate and peer-peer relationships play an important role inthe development of burnout among fire-fighters which, in turn, affects theirability to deliver effective services in life-threatening situations (Reichel, 1996).We argue, in this study, that when transformational leaders emerge in suchcontexts or appointed leaders are trained to engage in transformationalleadership interventions, they will motivate their subordinates to higher levelsof service and commitment. Our conceptualization of transformationalleadership is consistent with the prevalent literature that transformationalleaders influence followers to higher levels of commitment and performance byarticulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals and developingindividual group members to reach their highest potential (Podsakoff et al.,1996). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of transformationalleadership in a fire service organization. In the following paragraphs, wedevelop arguments in support of our proposed model.

Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, performance andcommitmentBandura (1997, p. 2) has defined perceived self-efficacy as “. . .beliefs in one’scapabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in managingprospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel,motivate themselves, and act”. Several studies have demonstrated theimportance of self-efficacy for improving performance in the organizationalcontext (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Originally conceived of as a task-specificvariable, support has been shown for general self-efficacy which is adisposition predicting individual behavior across situations (Lennings, 1994).Among the determinants of self-efficacy are enactive mastery (personalattainment), vicarious experience (modeling), verbal persuasion andphysiological arousal; all of which serve to increase self-efficacy perceptions(Gist and Mitchell, 1992).

Schunk (1983) noted that self-efficacy is particularly salient in a crisissituation. The conceptualization of self-efficacy as a stable characteristic thatindividuals possess describes it as “. . .one’s overall estimate of one’s ability toeffect requisite performances in achievement situations” (Eden and Zuk, 1995,p. 629). One’s past experiences will create a general set of expectancies that get

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

145

carried over into new situations. In the context of fire-rescue operations thesituations faced are often critical and unique in many ways and we expect thatthese generalized expectancies will “. . .influence the individual’s expectationsof mastery in the new situations” (Sherer et al., 1982, p. 664).

House and Shamir (1993) have suggested that the primary motivationalmechanism through which transformational and charismatic (or outstanding)leaders influence their followers is by enhancing followers’ self-efficacy andself-worth. Transformational leadership behaviors and its effects, especiallyrole modeling, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal appear to parallelthe determinants of self-efficacy. Podsakoff et al. (1990) suggested thattransformational leaders influence followers by role modeling the appropriatebehaviors. Followers identify with role models who are then perceived in apositive light (Bandura, 1986), this serves to empower them to achieve theleader’s vision through the development of self-efficacy and self-confidence(Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Yukl, 1998). Eden (1992) argued that leadershipwas the mechanism through which managers raised performance expectationsand enhanced self-efficacy which, in turn, increased performance.

Frost et al. (1983) showed that in both military combat and fire-fightingsituations, the leader who set an example by personal risk-taking was judged tobe the most effective. Redmond et al. (1993) also showed that leader behaviouraimed at increasing follower self-efficacy resulted in higher levels ofsubordinate creativity in problem-solving situations. It would, therefore, beimportant for transformational leaders to enhance followers’ beliefs, whichtogether they would be able to find a solution for the problem at hand. Onceself-efficacy is established, followers will begin to trust the leader which willincrease their commitment to the leader and the organization (Yukl, 1998).Thus, we hypothesize that transformational leaders enhance followers’self-efficacy, which in turn, results in higher performance and commitment.

Transformational leadership, cohesiveness, performance andcommitmentFestinger (1950, p. 274) described group cohesiveness as “the resultant forceswhich are acting on the members to stay in a group”. This definition has beenwidely accepted by researchers on group cohesion. Other researchers describecohesiveness as the degree to which group members are attracted to andmotivated to stay with a group (Zaccaro et al., 1995). Earlier research hasshown that leaders who show consideration for their followers cause them tobecome more attached to the group (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Such leaders maythus draw the group closer together towards the attainment of group goals.

The collectivistic focus of groups led by transformational leaders wherethere is a consensual sharing of meaning (Bass, 1985) may be a catalyst ineliciting higher levels of commitment and performance especially given theneed for fire fighters and other emergency personnel to work in closely

JOCM17,2

146

coordinated teams in the face of great personal danger. By using the strategiesof visioning, setting high performance expectations for the group andparticipation in group goal setting, transformational leaders may be successfulin motivating group members to remain attracted to the group, make personalsacrifices and work towards a common goal. Thus, by internalizing the valuesof the leader, followers of transformational leaders identify the visionand become committed to collective interests (Yukl, 1998) which can bringabout the desired organizational change. It therefore, appears that atransformational leader is capable of facilitating the formation of a cohesivegroup which performs at higher levels and is committed to the group andthe organization.

In our theoretical model shown in Figure 1 and consistent with thearguments presented above, direct relationships are specified from leadershipto self-efficacy, cohesiveness, performance and commitment. In the presence oftransformational leadership, cohesive groups with members who have highlevels of self-efficacy are motivated in turn, to perform at higher levels and behighly committed to the organization. We therefore hypothesize the following.

H1. There will be a positive relationship between transformationalleadership and both cohesiveness and self-efficacy.

H2. There will be a positive relationship between both cohesiveness andself-efficacy and the outcome variables of commitment andperformance.

Figure 1.

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

147

H3. There will be a positive relationship between transformational leadershipand both commitment and performance.

H4. The relationship between transformational leadership and theoutcomes of both commitment and performance will be partiallymediated by cohesiveness and self-efficacy. Thus, transformationalleadership will have both direct and indirect effects throughcohesiveness and self-efficacy in predicting commitment andperformance.

We compare four models to give a more rigorous test of our hypotheses (Platt,1964).

(1) A theoretical model (Figure 1) in which transformational leadershippredicts cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unitperformance while cohesiveness and self-efficacy also predictcommitment and perceptions of unit performance (this reflects partialmediation since direct and indirect effects of leadership on commitmentand perceptions of unit performance are predicted).

(2) An unconstrained model in which commitment and perceptions of unitperformance are correlated, transformational leadership predictscohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unitperformance, while cohesiveness and self-efficacy predict commitmentand perceptions of unit performance (this is a less restricted model thanthe theoretical model since it contains more paths).

(3) A direct model in which transformational leadership predictscohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unitperformance.

(4) An indirect model in which transformational leadership predictscohesiveness and self-efficacy and in which cohesiveness andself-efficacy in turn predict commitment and perceptions of unitperformance.

The research contextWe contacted the local fire department and visited several local fire-stationsand the fire department headquarters for extensive interviews in order to gain afuller understanding of the research context. We also obtained permission toride on the fire-trucks to observe on the first hand, how teams from variousfire-stations handled emergencies. Our interviews with the fire-fighters,captains, lieutenants, battalion chiefs and also the Fire Chief established thepivotal role played by the unit leader in motivating fire-fighters, setting aheroic personal example and building a close-knit team. In fact, they told usthat motivation suffers and stress levels increase if they are not part of a groupthat functions like a family: when they are on duty, they live together, eat

JOCM17,2

148

together, interact for long hours within the close confines of the station andhave to depend on each other when they are out handling emergency situations.Several of them observed that they were likely to respect and emulate theirleaders only if they had proved themselves in action. We felt that the kinds ofsituations they faced (e.g. warehouse blazes, aircraft accidents) called forexceptional leadership and teamwork.

MethodSample and procedureThree hundred and three fire rescue employees in active service (working in thefield) completed a survey questionnaire. Respondents were employed at a firedepartment in the southeastern United States and completed questionnaireswhile on duty at their respective fire stations. The authors were available onsite to answer any questions. The Fire Chief sent out memos encouragingemployees to participate, but no incentives were offered. The response rate wasover 95 percent. The fire stations that participated in the earlier interviewswere not included in the study. After accounting for missing data, 271responses were used for our data analysis.

The sample was 85.5 percent male with an average age of 40.2 years.Fifty-eight percent were white, 13.3 percent were black, and 25.2 percent wereHispanic. Average tenure in the fire service was 13 years and 9.3 years in theircurrent jobs. Each station received approximately 13 emergency calls per dayand had an average group size of four (fire rescue personnel on each shift ateach station). Thirty-one percent of respondents had a high school education,56.7 percent had bachelors’ degrees and 4.2 percent had masters’ degrees.All fire rescue employees had received professional emergency managementtraining. Over 56 percent of the respondents were firefighters, 8.5 percent wereparamedics, 21.5 percent were lieutenants, 11.9 percent were fire captains and1.5 percent were battalion chiefs. Thus, we were able to tap various levels ofleadership. Each respondent indicated who they considered as their immediatesupervisor and used this individual as their referent in ratings oftransformational leadership: 36.3 percent indicated that they considered theirlieutenant to be their supervisor, 29.8 considered the fire captain to be theirsupervisor and 24.2 percent considered the battalion chief to be their supervisor(9.7 percent indicated “other”). A reason for this is that we surveyed firefightersat different levels in the organization, but we also observed that for somepeople, the referent was the fire station rather than the immediate group byvirtue of the fact that they worked in different shifts and had different leaderson their assignments. Thus, in order to preserve these distinctions andmaintain consistency with our conceptualization and earlier research thatexamines individual perceptions, all variables were measured and analyzed atthe individual level.

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

149

MeasuresTransformational leadership. The twenty-three item measure developed byPodsakoff et al. (1990) was employed to measure the transformationalleadership. Respondents were asked to describe the behaviors of theirsupervisors in their current work situation using a seven-point scale rangingfrom “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The six key leader behaviorsidentified by Podsakoff et al. (1990) are (examples of behavior in parentheses):identifying and articulating a vision(e.g. “inspires others with his/her plans forthe future”), providing an appropriate model for employees (e.g. “leads byexample”), fostering the acceptance of group goals (e.g. “encourages employeesto be team players”), high performance expectations (e.g. “will not settle forsecond best”), providing individualized support (e.g. “shows respect for mypersonal feelings”), and intellectual stimulation (e.g. “challenges me to thinkabout old problems in new ways”). The coefficient a of reliability for thesesubscales were 0.85, 0.88, 0.93, 0.71, 0.85 and 0.85, respectively. In accordancewith the earlier research on this scale, the composite of these scales was createdby combining them to obtain a global measure of transformational leadership(Pillai and Williams, 1998) which is used in the analyses. The coefficient a ofreliability for this composite was 0.95.

Group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness was measured as individualperceptions of cohesiveness using the six-item scale presented in the study byPodsakoff et al. (1993) in a manner consistent with our conceptualization and itsuse in the earlier study. Respondents were asked to use a seven-point scaleranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to report on the perceivedlevel of trust and cooperation among group members. (e.g. “the members of mywork group know that they can depend on each other”).

Self-efficacy. General self-efficacy was measured using the seventeen-itemscale developed by Sherer et al. (1982). Respondents used a seven-point scaleranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to describe how they feelabout their ability to achieve their goals (e.g. “if I can’t do a job the first time,I keep trying until I can” and “when I make plans I am certain I can make themwork”).

Organizational commitment. Employee commitment refers to thepsychological attachment of workers to their workplaces and was measuredusing the scale developed by O’Reilly and Chatman (1986). Some research hasindicated an inability of this measure to separate the two components ofidentification and internalization (Caldwell et al., 1990). We found that in oursample the correlation between identification and internalization was highðr ¼ 0:68Þ: However, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis on themeasure supported treating them as independent dimensions (the chi-squarechange between a single-factor and a two-factor model was significant at 78.94for a change in 1 degree of freedom). The two-factor model produced agoodness of fit index (GFI) of 0.91 and normed fit index (NFI) of 0.91.

JOCM17,2

150

We employ the internalization dimension of commitment in this research usingthe five-items found in O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) since they assert thatinternalization represents strong attachment, value similarity and extrarolebehavior. This is consistent with Becker’s presentation of internalization:“Internalization occurs when people adopt attitudes and behaviors becausetheir content is congruent with the individuals’ value systems” (Becker, 1992,p. 232). Given that we are interested in the effects of transformationalleadership behaviors, internalization appears to provide a stronger reflection ofan individual’s affiliation with the organization and its leaders (Caldwell et al.,1990). Respondents used a seven-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree”to “strongly agree” to describe how attached they feel toward the organization(e.g. “what this organization stands for is important to me”).

Perceptions of unit performance. Respondents rated the performance of theirgroup using the measure developed by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980). It isimportant to note here that there were no objective measures of performance inexistence. Respondents rated their unit over the previous year in relation toother comparable organizational units. Asking respondents to rate unitperformance rather than individual performance is less likely to result insocially desirable responses. A five-point scale ranging from “far belowaverage” to “far above average” was utilized (e.g. “efficiency of unitoperations”).

Data analysisThe statistical significance of paths specified in the models was tested usingstructural equation modeling with the LISREL 8 program. LISREL allows forthe testing of the “goodness of fit” of the model to the data using indices whichare not dependent on sample size (Medsker et al., 1994). A covariance matrixwas generated using Prelis through the LISREL 8 program (Joreskog andSorbom, 1993). Our model was tested by comparing nested models: theoreticaland alternative models (Bentler and Bonnett, 1980). The change in chi-squaredifference is used as an indicator of comparative model fit, a significantchi-square difference suggests that the less restricted model (the model withmore paths specified) is a better fit. The error variance was set equal to thevariance of the scale value multiplied by one minus the coefficient a ofreliability (Hayduk, 1987).

ResultsMeans, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities of the variables in thestudy are presented in Table I. The zero-order correlations among the keyvariables were positive and statistically significant ð p , 0:01Þ; yet sufficientlylow to indicate construct independence.

Scale reliabilities were above the recommended level (Nunally andBernstein, 1994) at 0.80 or above. Model comparisons and GFIs are presented

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

151

in Table II. The chi-square, root-mean-square-residual (RMSR), GFI,comparative fit index (CFI) and NFI are reported. The recommended valuefor a “good fit” is 0.90 while the RMSR should fall below 0.05. The results of thetheoretical model indicate a good fit ðRMSR ¼ 0:047; GFI ¼ 0:98; CFI ¼ 0:92;NFI ¼ 0:92Þ: The theoretical model is compared to the alternative models toensure that all plausible relationships are examined.

As shown in Table II, the indirect and direct models provided poorer fits incomparison to the theoretical model, with fit indices lower than those for thetheoretical model (Widaman, 1985). The differences in chi-square incomparison to the theoretical model were also significant. Further evidencein support of the theoretical model over the alternative models is providedwhen compared to the unconstrained model. The fit indices were very close;however, there was no significant change in chi-square between the theoreticaland unconstrained models. The additional path over the theoretical model,which specified the correlation between the perceptions of unit performanceand commitment, was not significant. Based on our results, we should notreject the theoretical model in favor of the model which estimates more paths.When the chi-square difference is not significant, including the additional pathin the model does not significantly add to its explanation of the constructcovariances (Anderson and Gerbing, 1998). Thus, our results reveal strongsupport for the fit of the theoretical model to the data.

For the theoretical model the squared multiple correlations were 0.19 for theprediction of group cohesiveness, 0.03 for self-efficacy, 0.17 for commitment,

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

N ¼ 271Transformational leadership 4.81 1.01 0.95Cohesiveness 5.56 1.07 0.42* 0.93Self-efficacy 5.66 0.70 0.14* 0.27* 0.83Commitment (internalization) 4.58 1.13 0.26* 0.35* 0.33* 0.81Perceptions of unit performance 3.78 0.65 0.36* 0.47* 0.28* 0.35* 0.86

Notes: Reliabilities appear in bold along the diagonal; *p , 0.01.

Table I.Means, standarddeviations, andintercorrelations

Model df x 2 Dx 2 RMSR GFI CFI NFI

Theoretical model (partial mediation model) 2 19.01 – 0.047 0.98 0.92 0.92Unconstrained model 1 15.35 3.66 0.044 0.98 0.94 0.93Direct model 6 105.69 86.68 0.110 0.86 0.55 0.55Indirect model (full mediation model) 4 32.57 13.56 0.061 0.96 0.87 0.86

Note: The Dx 2 reported is in relation to the theoretical model.

Table II.Results of modelcomparisons

JOCM17,2

152

and 0.34 for perceptions of unit performance. These results indicate that thepaths specified explain significant variance for each variable. Figure 2 showsthe parameter estimates from a standardized solution. All paths specified in thetheoretical model were statistically significant ðp , 0:05Þ: H1 and H3 aresupported with direct effects of transformational leadership on cohesiveness,self efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unit performance.H2 is supportedwith direct effects of cohesiveness and self-efficacy on commitment andperceptions of unit performance. H4 is supported with transformationalleadership having both direct and indirect effects on commitment andperceptions of unit performance, with cohesiveness and self-efficacy serving aspartial mediating variables.

The conditions for partial mediation are present based on the following threeconditions specified by Baron and Kenny (1986).

(1) The independent variables are significantly related to the dependentvariables and mediators (H1 and H3).

(2) The mediator variables are significantly related to the dependentvariables (H2)

(3) When the independent variables and the mediators are consideredsimultaneously, the direct relationship between the independent anddependent variables decreases by a magnitude that is statisticallysignificant ( p of 0.05) (H4).

Figure 2.

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

153

Full mediation requires that in the presence of the mediators the relationshipbetween the independent and dependent variables are no longer significant.

In the direct model, the parameter estimates of the paths fromtransformational leadership to cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment andperceptions of unit performance were 0.45 ðp , 0:001Þ; 0.18 ðp , 0:01Þ; 0.27ðp , 0:001Þ; and 0.41 ðp , 0:001Þ; respectively. Figure 2 shows that in thepresence of the mediators the parameter estimates of the paths fromtransformational leadership to commitment and perceptions of unitperformance were 0.15 ðp , 0:05Þ and 0.18 ðp , 0:05Þ; respectively.

DiscussionOverall, the results of the study provide support for the model we proposed.Transformational leadership was related to perceptions of unit performanceand commitment through self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Transformationalleadership also influenced commitment and perceptions of unit performancedirectly, consistent with the earlier research (Bass, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996).The importance of self-efficacy and cohesiveness as partial mediating variableswas established by the fact that the data did not provide a good fit to the directmodel in which we showed all paths leading directly from transformationalleadership to self-efficacy, cohesiveness, commitment and perceptions of unitperformance. The current study extends existing knowledge by testing the roleof self-efficacy and group cohesiveness in the transformational leadershipprocess. We believe that this is one of the first such studies carried out in theUS. The study also shows that transformational leadership is effective in yetanother unique setting, namely, a fire rescue organization, one that faces aconstantly changing environment, especially in a post “11 September” worldwith heightened fears with respect to terrorism and requiring innovativeresponses, in which there is a great need for outstanding leadership.Emergency situations such as those often faced by military combat units,police patrols, and fire-fighting units may provide a context in which theeffectiveness of transformational leadership is influenced by variables such asgroup cohesiveness and self-efficacy.

Future research must explore the relationship between leadership andcohesive groups over a period of time. Transformational leaders may be able toinspire group members with their vision for the future in the initial stages ofgroup formation, but what if the vision fails? Does the cohesive group lose faithin and turn against the leader? The fact that we used generalized self-efficacyrather than task-specific self-efficacy may have influenced the relationshipbetween self-efficacy and transformational leadership. The correlation wasweaker than that between transformational leadership and group cohesion.Future studies should explore the role of task specific self-efficacy infacilitating the impact of transformational leadership on individual andorganizational outcomes.

JOCM17,2

154

We also tested the possible moderator effect of cohesiveness on therelationship between leadership and perceptions of unit performance andcommitment because Podsakoff et al. (1996) have suggested that there might besuch an effect although their recent research (Podsakoff and McKenzie, 1997)did not demonstrate it. In our sample, we did not find a significant interactioneffect. However, the results of this research supported the importance of theinclusion of variables that potentially complement leadership variables inleadership models since our finding of partial mediation supports the argumentthat transformational leadership behaviors influence subordinates bothdirectly and indirectly.

Leaders of fire rescue units could be trained to vary the level of theirtransformational behaviors depending on the nature of the situation. Routinesituations may call for development-oriented transformational leadershipbehaviors where subordinates are provided with learning opportunities,whereas emergency situations may call for a display of more heroic leadershipbehaviors to motivate subordinates to emulate their leaders and perform athigher levels. This could be conducted as part of a leadership interventiondesigned to bring about positive work outcomes and also to change the cultureof emergency service departments. Beaton et al. (2001) designed andimplemented just such an intervention in a fire department in WashingtonState using the Leader-Match model. They found positive results on ratings ofimmediate supervisors’ performance and stress-related symptoms 3 monthsafter the intervention.

There are a number of limitations with the current investigation. The firstand most important is that the data are cross-sectional and causality cannot beinferred, although this type of data collection is one of the major researchmethods used in organizational behavior since it is a useful tool in exploratorystudies (Spector, 1994). Although we analyzed the data using sophisticatedstructural equation modeling techniques, causal inferences must await alongitudinal or experimental design.

While our findings reveal some interesting potential relationships amongour variables of interest, this research is based on self-reports which limit theconclusions that can be drawn due to the potential influence of common methodvariance in producing inflated correlations. However, the nature of thevariables was such that it seemed appropriate to obtain ratings from the sameindividuals. Perceptions of cohesiveness, self-efficacy, and commitment areunique to the individual who is therefore the best source for obtaininginformation on these variables. Regarding the leadership ratings of unit leadersat the fire station, we felt that the individuals who worked with these leaders inthe field and were in direct contact with them would be in the best position toassess their leadership ability (Podsakoff et al., 1996). We employed theHarman one-factor test which revealed that there was no single general factorthat best represented these data (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). This supports

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

155

the examination of the study variables as distinct concepts. Future researchshould focus on multiple data sources to further our understanding of therelationships among the study variables.

In order to further assess the severity of common method variance we alsoconducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on competing models(containing all the items measuring our five variables of interest) thatincrease in complexity (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). If a general factor appearsto best represent the data, then common method variance poses a problem inthe model. In order to examine the competing models, a single factor model wascompared with more complex models (increasing the number of factors).Results revealed that the fit of the more complex models was improved over thesimpler models (fewer factors). For example, the chi-square change between thesingle factor and the improved five-factor model was significant (69.17, withchange in degrees of freedom equal to 14) indicating that that method varianceis not a significant problem.

Unfortunately, we were unable to collect objective measures of performance.We used a self-report measure of work group performance because the firerescue organization did not have an objective measure of individual or groupperformance. We did however, employ an established measure of performance.Since respondent reports were confidential, we expected respondents to be lessbiased than if they were being identified (reports on the performance variableranged from 1.71 to 5). The lack of objective performance measures, it appears,is an important concern in the fire service in general as evidenced by thefollowing comment by a 30 year veteran (Crapo, 1998): “When I first begantaking fire science courses in the early ‘70s, I can remember discussing theproblems inherent in rating a department’s performance in the fireground.Today, there is still no such performance measure. We simply go to a fire and,regardless of the outcome, pat ourselves on the back for doing a good job”. Thismay change in future studies.

Among the strengths of this study are the fact that we were able to conductextensive interviews with individuals at all levels within the organization andalso that we were given permission to personally administer thequestionnaires, ensuring a high rate of response. Furthermore, we conductedthis study in a setting in which, to the best of our knowledge, transformationalleadership has never been examined. This setting is particularly suited to theemergence of transformational leadership and presents opportunities forresponding to dynamic situations: leaders are called upon to role model heroicbehaviors and build cohesive teams that are capable of responding in real timewith innovative solutions to life-threatening situations.

In summary, results of the current investigation point to the importance ofexamining the role of mediating variables such as cohesiveness andself-efficacy in the transformational leadership process especially in contextsthat call for extraordinary leadership. We hope this research has laid the

JOCM17,2

156

foundation for a more complete understanding of the transformationalleadership process and that it will motivate further research into othercontexts that might facilitate or retard such leadership. The results of thisinvestigation also point to the need for developing transformational leadershipin fire service departments, possibly through a structured leadershipintervention designed to bring about a positive change in employeeconfidence, attitudes and performance in order to meet one of the criticalchallenges of the 21st century.

References

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1998), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a reviewand recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive View,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (1997), “Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies”, inBandura, A. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 1-45.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological-research – conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-82.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1995), “Theory of transformational leadership redux”, The Leadership Quarterly,Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 463-78.

Beaton, R., Johnson, L.C., Infield, S., Ollis, T. and Bond, G. (2001), “Outcomes of a leadershipintervention for a metropolitan fire department”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 88 No. 3,pp. 1049-66.

Becker, T.E. (1992), “Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinctions worth making?”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 232-44.

Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.

Caldwell, D.F., Chatman, J.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1990), “Building organizational commitment: amulti-firm study”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 245-61.

Crapo, W.F. (1998), “Time for a change”, Fire Engineering, Vol. 151 No. 7, pp. 55-60.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implicationsfor research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 611-28.

Eden, D. (1992), “Leadership and expectations: pygmalion effects and other self-fulfillingprophecies in organizations”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 271-305.

Eden, D. and Zuk, Y. (1995), “Seasickness as a self-fulfilling prophecy: raising self-efficacy toboost performance at sea”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 5, pp. 628-35.

Festinger, L. (1950), “Informal social communication”, Psychological Review, Vol. 57 No. 5,pp. 271-82.

Frost, D.E., Fiedler, F.E. and Anderson, J.W. (1983), “The role of personal risk-taking in effectiveleadership”, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 185-202.

Gist, M. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants andmalleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 183-211.

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

157

Hayduk, L.A. (1987), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Johns Hopkins University,Baltimore, MD.

House, R.J. and Shamir, B. (1993), “Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, andvisionary theories”, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory andResearch: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, pp. 81-103.

Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software,Chicago, IL.

Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002), “Transformational leadership in work groups: the role ofempowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance”,Small Group Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 313-36.

Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismaticleadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51.

Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), “Building commitment, attachment,and trust in strategic decision making teams: the role of procedural justice”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-84.

Lennings, C.J. (1994), “An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale”, Personality andIndividual Differences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 745-50.

Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), “A review of current practice for evaluatingcausal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research”,Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.

Murphy, J. (1999), “Building bridges to the 21st century”, Fire Engineering, Vol. 152 No. 2,pp. 8-10.

Nunally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosaic behavior”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.

Pillai, R. and Williams, E.A. (1998), “Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voterperceptions of candidates’ transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 USPresidential vote”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 283-302.

Platt, J.R. (1964), “Strong inference”, Science, Vol. 146 No. 364, pp. 347-53.

Podsakoff, P.M. and McKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership model:background, empirical assessment, and suggestions for future research”, The LeadershipQuarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-33.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self reports in organizational leader reward andpunishment behavior and research: problems and prospects”, Journal of Management,Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviorsand substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 259-98.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, S.B. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leaderbehaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.

Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Williams, M.L. (1993), “Do substitutes forleadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s

JOCM17,2

158

situational leadership model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 1-44.

Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D. and Teach, R. (1993), “Putting creativity to work: effects ofleader behavior on subordinate creativity”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 120-51.

Reichel, D. (1996), “The roots of burnout”, Emergency, Vol. 28, pp. 30-3.

Schunk, D.H. (1983), “Progress self-monitoring: effects on children’s self-efficacy andachievement”, Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 89-93.

Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:a self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-94.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R. (1982),“The self-efficacy scale: construction and validation”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 51 No. 2,pp. 663-71.

Spector, P.E. (1994), “Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use of acontroversial method”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Ferry, D.L. (1980), Measuring and Assessing Organizations, Wiley,New York, NY.

Widaman, K.F. (1985), “Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitraitmultimethod data”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-26.

Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Zaccaro, S.J., Blair, V., Peterson, C. and Zazanis, M. (1995), “Collective efficacy”, in Maddux, J.E.(Ed.), Self Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application,Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 305-28.

Leadership,self-efficacy and

cohesiveness

159