Antecedents of transformational and transactional leadership behavior

Transformational and Transactional Leadership Theories

Transformational and transactional leadership practices have generated significant attention in the past few years, which has contributed to numerous studies on these theories. The first article or study that will be used in this analysis is Contingent Reward Leader Behaviour: Where Does it Come From? by Joaquin Camps and Federico Torres. The second article is Leading from within: the Effects of Emotion Recognition and Personality on Transformational Leadership Behavior by Robert S. Rubin, David C. Munz, and William H. Bommer.

The purpose of the study by Rubin, Munz & Bommer (2005) is to examine whether the tendency to be more transformational can be accurately predicted and how to do so (p.846). The researchers sought to examine this issue because of the considerable scholarly focus on transformational leadership, which has developed to become the most commonly accepted leadership approach across the world. In contrast, the purpose of the study by Camps & Torres (2011) is to enhance knowledge regarding the origin of contingent reward behavior in transactional leadership (p.224). This purpose was developed because of the existing research gap regarding the determinants of CR transactional leader behavior, particularly with regards to individual and contextual antecedents for such behavior.

The research question in the study by Camps & Torres (2011) is, "Where does contingent reward leader behavior come from?" while the one in the study by Rubin, Munz & Bommer (2005) is, "What are the antecedents to transformational leadership behavior?" While these studies seek to examine the origin of leadership behaviors, they focus on different leadership approaches and style. Camps & Torres (2011) conducted their analysis on a group of 145 managers from a large agricultural/biotechnology firm whereas Rubin, Munz & Bommer (2005) conducted their study on 795 professors from 70 university departments.

As previously mentioned, these studies examine the origin of antecedents for leadership behavior in these different types of approaches to leadership. Consequently, these studies have different findings that can also be attributed to differences in research methodologies, purpose of study, and sample population. Rubin, Munz & Bommer (2005) found that personality traits and emotional recognition are positively associated with transformational leadership behavior. Moreover, they found that transformational leadership behavior is moderately correlated to contingent reward behavior at a high level, which implies overlapping constructs. On the contrary, Camps & Torres (2011) found that the antecedents of contingent reward transactional behavior are organization learning capability and employability. In this case, the organization learning capability is a contextual variable while employability is a subordinate's attribute.

Camps & Torres (2011) have utilized the study by Rubin, Munz & Bommer (2005) despite the different leadership approaches that are examined. The use of the older study is influenced by increased calls for enhanced consideration of personal and contextual antecedents of transformational leadership behavior. In this process, the researchers seek to examine contingent reward behavior antecedents in relation to transformational leadership behavior. The use of the older study is also fueled by the significance of contingent reward, which is examined in the newer study, in transactional leadership behavior.

The older study supports the conclusions of the newer study in relation to the significance of contingent reward in leadership behavior. The older study concluded that there is an overlapping construct between contingent reward and leadership behavior, especially transformational leadership. The newer study seemingly supports these conclusions by suggesting that contingent reward is a crucial antecedent in leadership behavior. This element in leadership behavior is influenced by organizational learning capability and employability.

Camps & Torres (2011) study has several limitations include assumptions regarding its subjectivity or truthfulness of the answers in the questionnaires, the completion of the questionnaires by internal staff which limits external validity, and limitations of the cross-sectional research design utilized in the study. In contrast, the limitations in the other study include difficulties in understanding the direction of causality because of cross-sectional research design, selection of leaders from a single organization, availability of limited number of predictors which threaten internal and external validity. While both studies have validity issues, the newer study only has external validity issues unlike the older one which has internal and external validity concerns.