Content uploaded by Stephanie Austin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephanie Austin
Content may be subject to copyright.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement
Social and Motivational Antecedents of Perceptions of
Transformational Leadership: A Self-Determination
Theory Perspective
Sarah-Geneviève Trépanier, Claude Fernet, and Stéphanie Austin
Online First Publication, July 16, 2012. doi: 10.1037/a0028699
CITATION
Trépanier, S.-G., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2012, July 16). Social and Motivational Antecedents
of Perceptions of Transformational Leadership: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0028699
Social and Motivational Antecedents of Perceptions of Transformational
Leadership: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective
Sarah-Genevie`ve Tre´panier, Claude Fernet, and Ste´phanie Austin
Universite´ du Que´bec a` Trois-Rivie`res
The purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding of the social and motivational antecedents
of transformational leadership perceptions. Drawing on self-determination theory, a model was proposed
in which perceptions of quality of relationships predict perceptions of transformational leadership
behaviour through autonomous motivation and self-efficacy. Data were collected from 568 school
principals. Results from SEM analyses provide support for the proposed model. Specifically, results
indicate that the more principals perceive their workplace relationships as positive, the greater are their
autonomous motivation and self-efficacy in managerial abilities, which in turn contribute to self-reported
transformational leadership behaviour. Implications for theories of leadership and management practice
are discussed.
Keywords: transformational leadership, autonomous motivation, self-efficacy, quality of relationships,
self-determination theory
Transformational leadership—a key factor in understanding ef-
fective workplace management (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006)—is
characterised by four dimensions: charisma, inspirational motiva-
tion, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration
(Bass, 1985, 1998). Over the years, transformational leadership
has received much attention because it has been linked to impor-
tant outcomes such as employee job satisfaction and organisational
performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). So far, the literature on
transformational leadership has focused more on its outcomes than
on its antecedents (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). Conse-
quently, little is known about the social and motivational factors
that influence transformational leadership behaviour (Bommer,
Rubin, & Baldwin, 2004). For instance, how do one’s perceptions
of workplace relationships affect one’s perceptions of transforma-
tional leadership behaviour? What are the motivational mecha-
nisms that drive individuals to perceive themselves as displaying
transformational leadership behaviour? A useful theoretical frame-
work for understanding these questions is self-determination the-
ory (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Central to SDT are the concepts of autonomous motivation and
perceived competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Williams, McGregor,
Zeldman, Freedman, & Deci, 2004). Autonomous motivation re-
fers to the sense of volition and self-endorsement of one’s own
behaviour. It involves engaging freely in an action for its inherent
satisfaction (intrinsic motivation) or because one identifies with its
value or meaning (identified regulation). Perceived competence
refers to the perception of being efficient in one’s social interac-
tions and being able to control important outcomes (White, 1959).
It is closely related to the self-efficacy concept (Deci, 1992), which
is more specific in nature because it constitutes a socially acquired
expectancy to successfully perform a given action (Bandura,
1997). In this study, self-efficacy was used to refer to managers’
perceived competence.
According to SDT, individuals are more likely to experience a
wide range of positive psychological outcomes when they are
autonomously motivated and feel competent. In the workplace,
autonomous motivation has been linked to employee performance
(Kuvaas, 2009) and commitment (Gagne´, Chemolli, Forest, &
Koestner, 2008), while self-efficacy has been associated with
organisational commitment (Neves, 2009), job satisfaction, and
performance (Judge & Bono, 2001). Furthermore, SDT posits that
interpersonal relationships are essential to the development of
optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Relationships charac-
terised by meaningful interactions are the bases for well-being and
adaptive functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and as such, are
central to the concept of leadership. Based on trust, respect, and
mutual support, high-quality relationships are the necessary foun-
dation on which efficient leadership develops (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). Managers must feel trusted and supported in order to instill
pride and respect in followers as well as communicate a captivat-
ing vision of the future (Bass, 1985). Indeed, in high-quality
relationships, managers appear more likely to believe that they will
succeed in promoting positive changes and attaining organisational
objectives because they feel that their subordinates will trust them
and adhere to their vision (Gerstner & Day, 1997).
Sarah-Genevie`ve Tre´panier, Department of Psychology, Universite´du
Que´bec a` Trois-Rivie`res; Claude Fernet and Ste´phanie Austin, Department
of Management, Universite´ du Que´bec a` Trois-Rivie`res.
This work was supported by a grant from the Fonds Que´be´cois de la
Recherche sur la Socie´te´ et la Culture and a fellowship from the Fonds de
la Recherche en Sante´ du Que´bec awarded to Claude Fernet.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah-
Genevie`ve Tre´panier, Department of Psychology, Universite´ du Que´bec a`
Trois-Rivie`res, 3351, boul. des Forges, C.P. 500, Trois-Rivie`res (QC) G9A
5H7. E-mail: sarah-genevieve.trepanier@uqtr.ca
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement © 2012 Canadian Psychological Association
2012, Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000 – 000 0008-400X/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0028699
1
Drawing on SDT, we propose that managers’ perceptions of the
quality of interpersonal relationships with superiors and subordi-
nates predict their perceptions of transformational behaviour
through autonomous motivation and self-efficacy.
Motivational Factors and Leadership
Results from recent research suggest that managers motivated
internally at work (i.e., acting out of a sense of enjoyment, trust,
and self-worth) are more likely to use transformational leadership
behaviours (Barbuto, 2005). Furthermore, studies stemming from
the SDT perspective have provided results linking autonomous
motivation and certain leadership actions (e.g., Pelletier, Se´guin-
Le´vesque, & Legault, 2002; Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Standage,
2008). For instance, Taylor et al. (2008) found that autonomously
motivated teachers used more leadership-like strategies in the
classroom such as providing autonomy support (e.g., offering
choices and significant responsibilities to students), more quality
information, instrumental help, and structure, as well as more
involvement with students. As for the relationship between self-
efficacy and leadership, research suggests that leaders’ self-
efficacy is closely related to leaders’ self-perceptions and subor-
dinates’ leadership performance evaluations. In an experimental
study, Fitzgerald and Schutte (2010) found that managers who
took part in an intervention aiming to increase self-efficacy (ex-
perimental group), reported higher transformational leadership
scores than managers in the control group at post test. Further-
more, leaders’ self-efficacy has been found to strongly correlate
with leadership ratings by peers and superiors (Chemers, Watson,
& May, 2000). In light of these findings, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1a: Managers’ autonomous motivation is posi-
tively related to their transformational leadership perceptions.
Hypothesis 1b: Managers’ self-efficacy is positively related
to their transformational leadership perceptions.
Interpersonal Relationships and Motivational Factors
Active support from significant others in the workplace seems
central to employees’ motivational factors (see Gagne´ & Deci,
2005). Growing evidence shows that the quality of workplace
relationships is associated with one’s autonomous motivation
(Fernet, Gagne´, & Austin, 2010; Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand,
2002) and self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). For instance, the
support-efficacy model (Antonucci & Jackson, 1987) proposes that
it is through interpersonal support (i.e., warmth, affection, and
nurturance) that individuals develop the beliefs in their own abil-
ities to meet demands and to successfully master challenges
(Antonucci & Akiyama, 1997; Fiori, Mcilvane, Brown, &
Antonucci, 2006; Saltzman & Holahan, 2002).
Given these findings we predict the following:
Hypothesis 2a: Managers’ perceptions of the quality of rela-
tionships with subordinates and superiors are positively re-
lated to their autonomous motivation.
Hypothesis 2b: Managers’ perceptions of the quality of rela-
tionships with subordinates and superiors are positively re-
lated to their self-efficacy.
On the basis of SDT assumptions (e.g., Fernet, Guay, Sene´cal,
& Austin, 2012; Williams et al., 2004), we also expect that
autonomous motivation and self-efficacy mediate the relationship
between perceived interpersonal relationships and perceptions of
transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 3a: Managers’ autonomous motivation mediates
the link between perceived quality of relationships with their
subordinates and superiors and their transformational leader-
ship perceptions.
Hypothesis 3b: Managers’ self-efficacy mediates the link
between perceived quality of relationships with their subor-
dinates and superiors and their transformational leadership
perceptions.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample was composed of French-Canadian principals and
vice-principals, members of the Fe´de´ration Que´be´coise des Direc-
tions d’E
´
tablissement Scolaire (FQDE; Federation of Quebec
school principals) in the province of Que´bec. In May 2008, all
2154 FQDE members were contacted by mail to complete an
online questionnaire addressing school management issues. A total
of 568 principals participated in the study (26% response rate). Of
the participants, 59% were women (mean age ⫽ 44.94, SD ⫽
5.57), 63% held the position of principals and 37% of vice-
principals, 59% worked in elementary schools and 41% in high
schools. Participants had, on average, 6.27 years (SD ⫽ 5.51) of
experience.
Measures
All measures were administered in French. Properties of all
measures are presented in Table 1.
Quality of relationships with superiors and subordinates.
The five-item Acceptance subscale of the Relatedness Feeling
scale (Richer & Vallerand, 1998) was used to assess managers’
perceptions of the quality of relationships with superiors (e.g.,
“Currently, I feel understood in my relationships with the school
administrators.”) and subordinates (e.g., “Currently, I feel under-
stood in my relationships with the school personnel.”), respec-
tively. Items were scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at
all)to5(extremely). Single items were used as indicators of the
latent constructs of quality relationships with superiors and sub-
ordinates.
Autonomous motivation. The Intrinsic Motivation and Iden-
tified Regulation subscales of the Work Role Motivation Scale for
School Principals (WRMS-SP; Fernet, 2011) were used to evaluate
autonomous motivation related to three work roles (administrative,
instructional leadership, and informational). Participants rated on a
7-point scale, ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all)to7
(corresponds completely), the degree to which the reasons listed
for occupying the position of school administrator corresponded to
their personal situation (“Why do you perform your work roles?”).
For each role, two items evaluated intrinsic motivation (e.g., “For
the pleasure that I get from performing this role.”) and identified
regulation (e.g., “Because this role enables me to achieve my own
2
TRE
´
PANIER, FERNET, AND AUSTIN
work objectives.”). For each role, an autonomous motivation com-
posite score was created by averaging intrinsic motivation and
identified regulation (see Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, &
Deci, 2004).
Self-efficacy. The 12-item School Principals Self-Efficacy
scale (Fernet, Austin, & Dussault, 2009) was used to measure three
dimensions of school principals’ role domains: administrative self-
efficacy (3 items; e.g., “I believe I can be very creative in my
administrative tasks.”), instructional leadership self-efficacy (6
items; e.g., “I believe I can ensure that the staff achieves its work
objectives.”), and informational self-efficacy (3 items; e.g., “I
believe I can play an important role in promoting my school in the
community.”). Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(do not agree at all)to5(completely agree). Using the mean score
obtained on each role domain, three indicators were created to
assess the latent factor of self-efficacy.
Transformational leadership. Perceived transformational
leadership was measured using the 12-item Self-Reported Trans-
formational Leadership scale (Dussault et al., 2010), which is
based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass &
Avolio, 1989) and the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire
(Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001), two widely used
scales in the leadership field (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Three dimen-
sions were evaluated, namely, intellectual stimulation (e.g., “I get
staff involved in the problem-solving process.”), individualized
consideration (e.g., “I listen attentively to others.”), and charisma/
inspirational motivation (e.g., “I communicate my vision of the
future.”). Note that in contrast to Bass’ (1985) conceptualisation,
charisma and inspirational motivation are collapsed in this scale
rather than taken as distinct dimensions. This was done because
current research suggests that these concepts are empirically in-
distinguishable (see Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1985,
1988). Items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (com-
pletely disagree)to4(completely agree). The mean score of each
subscale was used to create an indicator of the latent construct of
transformational leadership. Evidence supports the scale’s factor
structure and its reliability (Dussault et al., 2010).
Statistical Analyses
The adequacy of the proposed model was assessed by structural
equation modelling using EQS (Bentler & Wu, 2004). All models
were tested with standardized coefficients obtained by maximum
likelihood estimation. The goodness-of-fit of the model was eval-
uated using three fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the
non-normed fit index (NNFI), and the root-mean-square error of
approximation (RMSEA). For CFI and NNFI, values greater than
.90 represent an acceptable fit (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). For
the RMSEA, values below .05 indicate a close fit, whereas values
up to .08 represent acceptable errors of approximation (Browne &
Cudeck, 1992). In this study, we calculated Hancock’s coefficients
(also called coefficient H) to determine the reliability of the
measures (Hancock & Mueller, 2001). Computed from standard-
ized factor loadings, this coefficient estimates the stability of the
latent construct across multiple observed variables. As presented in
Table 1, coefficient H values ranged from .85 to .94, satisfying the
.70 cut-off value (Hancock & Mueller, 2001).
Results
Preliminary Analysis
A measurement model was tested and provided a satisfactory fit
to the data,
2
(137) ⫽ 333.297, CFI ⫽ .975, NNFI ⫽ .968,
RMSEA ⫽ .051. All factor loadings were significant, ranging from
.42 to .93. Because all data were self-reported, we ran a single-
factor model to test for common method variance (CMV). This
model provided a poor fit to the data,
2
(147) ⫽ 5546.580, CFI ⫽
.638, NNFI ⫽ .579, RMSEA ⫽ .260. Although this does not
unequivocally rule out the possibility of CMV, the results suggest
that it would be unlikely to confound the interpretation of rela-
tionships among variables. Finally, a multivariate analysis of vari-
ance (MANOVA) was performed to verify whether the model
variables differed according to background variables (gender, age,
school level, job position, and years of experience). Because no
significant differences were found, these variables were excluded
from further analysis.
Testing of the Proposed Model
To determine model adequacy, we tested two contrasting mod-
els: (a) a full mediation model, including indirect paths between
perceptions of relationships with superiors and subordinates to
perceived transformational leadership through autonomous moti-
vation and self-efficacy, and (b) a partial mediation model con-
sisting of the proposed model with the addition of two direct paths
between each perceived workplace relationship and transforma-
tional leadership perceptions. The full mediation model provides a
satisfactory fit to the data,
2
(139) ⫽ 336.431, CFI ⫽ .975,
NNFI ⫽ .969, RMSEA ⫽ .051. Although the fit of the partially
mediated model is almost identical,
2
(137) ⫽ 333.276, CFI ⫽
.975, NNFI ⫽ .968, RMSEA ⫽ .051, adding direct paths does not
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Score Reliabilities, and Correlations Between All Variables
Variable Range MSD 12345
1. Transformational Leadership 1–4 3.54 0.40 (.87)
2. Relationships with superiors 1–5 3.59 0.84 .19
ⴱ
(.94)
3. Relationships with subordinates 1–5 2.78 0.62 .46
ⴱ
.21
ⴱ
(.86)
4. Autonomous motivation 1–7 5.33 0.75 .54
ⴱ
.22
ⴱ
.40
ⴱ
(.88)
5. Self-efficacy 1–5 4.16 0.43 .29
ⴱ
.15
ⴱ
.16
ⴱ
.30
ⴱ
(.85)
Note. Reliabilities (coefficient H values) are shown on the diagonal.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
3
ANTECEDENTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
significantly improve the model fit, ⌬
2
(2) ⫽ 3.16, ns. Moreover,
the direct paths were nonsignificant: perceived quality of relation-
ships with superior to transformational leadership perceptions
(⫽.03, ns) and perceived quality of relationships with subordi-
nates and transformational leadership perceptions (⫽.11, ns).
Thus, in terms of parsimony, the fully mediated model offers the
best-fitting solution. Figure 1 presents the standardized solutions.
All hypothesised path coefficients were found to be significant.
Autonomous motivation and self-efficacy are positively associated
with transformational leadership perceptions, confirming Hypoth-
eses 1a and 1b. Perceived quality of relationships with superiors is
positively associated with autonomous motivation and self-
efficacy. Perceived quality of relationships with subordinates is
significantly and positively related to autonomous motivation and
self-efficacy. Hypotheses 2a and 2b are, thus, also confirmed.
More importantly, autonomous motivation and self-efficacy
fully mediate the relationship between perceived quality of
relationships with superiors and subordinates and perceived
transformational leadership, thereby providing support for Hy-
potheses 3a and 3b. The proposed model explains 71% of the
variance in transformational leadership. To further test the
mediating role (i.e., indirect effect) of the motivational factors,
bias-corrected bootstrap 95% confidence intervals were com-
puted from 100 samples (Mackinnon, Lockwood, & Williams,
2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Results reveal that all mediat-
ing (i.e., indirect) effects are significant (i.e., all confidence
intervals exclude zero; the table can be obtained from Sarah-
Genevie` ve Tre´ panier upon request).
Supplementary Analysis
In order to rule out alternative explanations, we compared the
final model with an alternative model. On the basis of SDT,
perceived competence can act as an antecedent of autonomous
motivation. We thus tested an alternative model including indirect
paths from perceived quality of relationship and self-efficacy to
perceived transformational leadership through autonomous moti-
vation. Results indicate that the full mediation model provides a
better data fit, ⌬
2
(1) ⫽ 34.86, p ⬍ .01, than this alternative
model,
2
(140) ⫽ 371.291, CFI ⫽ .960, NNFI ⫽ .962, RMSEA ⫽
.055.
Discussion
Our study contributes to the transformational leadership lit-
erature in several ways. First, by exploring the link between
interpersonal relationships and perceptions of transformational
leadership, this study contributes to the sparse knowledge of
transformational leadership social antecedents. The results re-
veal that managers who believe that they participate in mean-
ingful relationships at work tend to view themselves as leaders
who can inspire and impart a sense of mission to others. These
results are in line with the leader–member exchange theory
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), which underscores the
importance of interpersonal relationships in successful organi-
sation management. Our findings contribute to this theory by
revealing the importance of motivational factors in the associ-
ation between perceived quality of relationships and perceived
transformational leadership behaviour.
In addition, this study sheds light on two specific motivational
factors involved in transformational leadership perceptions: self-
efficacy and autonomous motivation. Managers who feel efficient
in their management skills are more likely to believe that they
display actions that promote the best interests of the organisation
and its members. These results are in line with past research that
has positively linked self-efficacy and leadership (Chemers et al.,
2000; Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010). Furthermore, by identifying
autonomous motivation as a key factor in transformational lead-
ership perceptions, this study offers an additional explanation as to
why certain managers view themselves as effective leaders. Man-
agers who engage in their job out of pleasure or from a sense of
personal significance perceive themselves as leaders who can
inspire others and stimulate interest.
This study also makes an interesting contribution to the SDT
literature. Indeed, SDT research most commonly utilizes psycho-
logical well-being outcomes when evaluating the importance of
autonomous motivation in the workplace. By showing that auton-
omous motivation contributes to perceptions of transformational
leadership, this study underscores that valuing and enjoying one’s
work is also important in professional functioning.
Although this study offers important information on the ante-
cedents of transformational leadership, it has certain limitations.
First, the use of self-reported measures may have caused common
method bias (CMB), particularly regarding self-reported leader-
ship, which has been shown to sometimes differ from assessments
of others (Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, & Sturm, 2010).
However, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate self-
evaluations of transformational leadership behaviour. Nonetheless,
we tried to reduce CMB by employing certain procedural strate-
gies related to the questionnaire design (e.g., using different scale
formats and anchors) and reducing evaluation apprehension by
Figure 1. Results of the proposed model (standardized path coefficients).
ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01.
4
TRE
´
PANIER, FERNET, AND AUSTIN
protecting respondents’ anonymity (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). Results of the single-factor measurement model
provided some evidence that our findings were not overly affected
by CMB. Nonetheless, future research should evaluate leadership
using other sources besides managers. Second, because the re-
search design is cross-sectional, causal direction cannot be deter-
mined. Future research using experimental or longitudinal panel
designs should attempt to replicate the present results. Third,
transformational leadership behaviour is complex, and factors
other than social ones (e.g., organisational factors) might also
influence leadership perceptions. Future studies should pay atten-
tion to such variables (e.g., job design, stress factors). Finally,
given the fairly low participation rate (26%), future research is
need to confirm that the present results generalise to the overall
school management staff.
Notwithstanding these limitations, our results provide useful
guidelines to organisations wishing to enhance managers’ trans-
formational leadership perceptions. First, changes could be made
to managers’ social context. Our findings suggest that creating an
environment that nurtures and reinforces quality relationships be-
tween managers and their work unit as well as with their superiors
would effectively facilitate perceptions of transformational lead-
ership. By valuing teamwork and respect for others, organisations
can create social conditions that foster high-quality relationships
among members. Another way to promote transformational lead-
ership perceptions would be to place emphasis on managers’
motivational factors (i.e., autonomous motivation and self-
efficacy). This could be achieved by providing managers with a
supportive and informative work context (i.e., providing managers
with choices, acknowledging and accepting their point of views,
offering positive feedback). Past research in SDT has demon-
strated successful interventions on self-motivation in different
social contexts, including the workplace (e.g., Deci, Connell, &
Ryan, 1989).
By revealing the mediating role of autonomous motivation and
self-efficacy in the link between perceptions of high-quality work
relationships and transformational leadership, this study offers
valuable insights into what may make efficient leaders and, more
importantly, how social factors are likely to act upon transforma-
tional leadership behaviour.
Resume´
Le but de cette e´tude e´tait d’en arriver a` une meilleure compre´hen-
sion des ante´ce´dents sociaux et motivationnels des perceptions du
leadership transformationnel. Inspire´delathe´ orie de
l’autode´termination, un mode`leae´te´ propose´ selon lequel les
perceptions de la qualite´ des relations pre´disent les perceptions des
comportements de leadership transformationnel au moyen de la
motivation autonome et de l’autoefficacite´. Des donne´es ont e´te´
recueillies aupre`s de 568 directeurs d’e´ cole. Des re´ sultats
d’analyses de mode´lisation ont permis d’appuyer le mode`le pro-
pose´. Les re´sultats ont re´ve´le´ que plus les directeurs perc oivent
comme positives les relations dans leur milieu de travail, plus ils
te´moignent de motivation autonome et d’autoefficacite´ dans leurs
capacite´s de gestion, ce qui en retour contribue a` un comportement
de leadership transformationnel autorapporte´. Les auteurs dis-
cutent des re´percussions des re´sultats sur les the´ories relatives au
leadership et a` la gestion.
Mots-cle´s : leadership transformationnel, motivation autonome,
autoefficacite´, qualite´ des relations, the´orie de l’autode´termination.
References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B., & Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). The development of
a new Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 74, 1–27. doi:10.1348/
096317901167208
Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1997). Social support and the mainte-
nance of competence. In S. Willis & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Societal
mechanisms for maintaining competence in old age (pp. 182–231). New
York, NY: Springer.
Antonucci, T. C., & Jackson, J. S. (1987). Social support, interpersonal
efficacy, and health: A life course perspective. In L. L. Carstensen &
B. A. Edelstein (Eds.), Handbook of clinical gerontology (pp. 291–311).
New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the
components of transformational and transactional leadership using the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 441– 462. doi:10.1348/
096317999166789
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership:
Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60, 421– 429. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707
.163621
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
W. H. Freeman.
Barbuto, J. E. (2005). Motivation and transactional, charismatic, and trans-
formational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 11, 26 – 40. doi:10.1177/107179190501100403
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1988). The inspirational process of leadership. Journal of
Management Development, 7, 21–31. doi:10.1108/eb051688
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and
educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mah-
way, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. W. (2004). EQS 6.1 for Windows. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software Inc.
Bommer, W. H., Rubin, R. S., & Baldwin, T. T. (2004). Setting the stage
for effective leadership: Antecedents of transformational leadership be-
havior. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 195–210. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua
.2004.02.012
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230 –358. doi:10.1177/
0049124192021002005
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect
and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism,
and efficacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267–277.
doi:10.1177/0146167200265001
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage
approach to leadership within formal organizations—A longitudinal
investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13, 46 –78. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories.
Psychological Sciences, 3, 167–171. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992
.tb00020.x
5
ANTECEDENTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a
work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Dussault, M., Fernet, C., Austin, S., Descheˆnes, A.-A., Frenette, E.,
Tre´panier, S.-G., . . . Clermont, C. (2010). The transformational lead-
ership scale: Testing the factorial structure of a new self-report lead-
ership scale. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Convention of the
Association of Psychological Sciences, Boston, MA.
Fernet, C. (2011). Development and validation of the Work Role Motiva-
tion Scale for School Principals (WRMS-SP). Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly, 47, 307–331. doi:10.1177/0013161X10385108
Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Dussault, M. (2009, Nov.). L’importance de la
spe´cificite´ des roˆles professionnels lors de l’e´valuation de la perception
d’efficacite´ personnelle des directions d’e´cole [The importance of work
role specificity in the evaluation of self-efficacy perceptions among
school principals]. Paper presented at the 31st meeting of l’Association
pour le De´veloppement des Me´thodologies d’E
´
valuation en E
´
ducation
(ADMEE), Que´bec, Canada.
Fernet, C., Gagne´, M., & Austin, S. (2010). When does quality of rela-
tionships with coworkers predict burnout over time? The moderating
role of work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1163–
1180. doi:10.1002/job.673
Fernet, C., Guay, F., Sene´cal, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Predicting intrain-
dividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived work envi-
ronment and motivational factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28,
514 –525. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013
Fiori, K. L., Mcilvane, J. M., Brown, E. E., & Antonucci, T. C. (2006).
Social relations and depressive symptomatology: Self-efficacy as a
mediator. Aging & Mental Health, 10, 227–239. doi:10.1080/
13607860500310690
Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). Increasing transformational lead-
ership through enhancing self-efficacy. Journal of Management Devel-
opment, 29, 495–505. doi:10.1108/02621711011039240
Fleenor, J. W., Smither, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Braddy, P. W., & Sturm,
R. E. (2010). Self-other rating agreement in leadership: A review.
Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1005–1034. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua
.2010.10.006
Gagne´, M., Chemolli, E., Forest, J., & Koestner, R. (2008). A temporal
analysis of the relation between organisational commitment and work
motivation. Psychologica Belgica, 48, 219 –241.
Gagne´, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work
motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. doi:
10.1002/job.322
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–
member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 827– 844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspec-
tive. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247. doi:10.1016/1048-
9843(95)90036-5
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability
within latent systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.),
Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor
of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations
traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emo-
tional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80 –92. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.1.80
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
Kuvaas, B. (2009). A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination
theory among public sector employees. Employee Relations, 31, 39 –56.
doi:10.1108/01425450910916814
Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr3901_4
Neves, P. (2009). Readiness for change: Contributions for employee’s level
of individual change and turnover intentions. Journal of Change Man-
agement, 9, 215–231. doi:10.1080/14697010902879178
Pelletier, L. G., Se´guin-Le´vesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from
above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation
and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186 –
196. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and
job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy
of Management Journal, 49, 327–340. doi:10.5465/
AMJ.2006.20786079
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple me-
diator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 – 891. doi:10.3758/
BRM.40.3.879
Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational
model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,
2089 –2113. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02065.x
Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction et validation de
l’e´chelle du sentiment d’appartenance sociale (ESAS) [Construction and
validation of the feeling of relatedness scale]. Revue Europe´enne de
Psychologie Applique´e, 48, 129 –137.
Saltzman, K. M., & Holahan, C. J. (2002). Social support, self-efficacy,
and depressive symptoms: An integrative model. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 21, 309 –322. doi:10.1521/jscp.21.3.309.22531
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to struc-
tural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination
theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ motiva-
tional strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 30, 75–94.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L.
(2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The syner-
gistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive con-
texts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of compe-
tence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934
Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Zeldman, A., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci,
E. L. (2004). Testing a self-determination theory process model for
promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management. Health
Psychology, 23, 58– 66. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.1.58
Received October 31, 2011
Revision received April 18, 2012
Accepted April 20, 2012 䡲
6
TRE
´
PANIER, FERNET, AND AUSTIN
