Relationship between Self-Efficacy,
Transformational Leadership and Leader
Effectiveness
Jana Mesterova, Jakub Prochazka, and Martin Vaculik
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Email: mesterova@gmail.com, jak.prochazka@mail.muni.cz, vaculik@fss.muni.cz
Petr Smutny
Department of Corporate Economy, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech
Republic
Email: psmutny@econ.muni.cz
Abstract—The aim of this research is to empirically
investigate the relationship between a leader’s self-efficacy,
transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. On the
basis of the literature and current leadership research
review, the theoretical model, in which transformational
leadership mediates the relationship between a leader’s selfefficacy
and effectiveness, is proposed. The research was
conducted within a three-month-long management
simulation game at two Czech universities. A total of 32
leaders participated together with 604 subordinates. The
criteria of leader effectiveness included leadership
emergence and perceived leader effectiveness, both assessed
by the leaders’ subordinates, and objectively measured by
group performance. For the assessment of the
transformational leadership approach of leaders, we
administered a questionnaire based on the transformational
leadership theory to their subordinates. The self-efficacy of
leaders was measured by a self-report questionnaire filled
by leaders. The relationship of self- efficacy to
transformational leadership was not supported, as well as
the association between leader’s self-efficacy and criteria of
leader effectiveness. Therefore, the mediation model with
transformational leadership in the role of the mediator was
not accepted.
Index Terms—self-efficacy, transformational leadership,
leader effectiveness, leadership emergence, group
performance, business simulation

I. INTRODUCTION
In the current competitive environment, organizations
attempt to be as successful as possible. Undoubtedly, one
of the critical variables in determining the success or
failure of an organization is leadership. Thus, leadership
and its effectiveness have been the targets of considerable
research and debate from which more questions have
arisen. What makes some leaders more effective than
others? Is there a characteristic that leaders of the most
successful enterprises have in common? Do effective
Manuscript received April 26, 2014; revised July 5, 2014.
leaders use specific practices in comparison with other
less thriving executives?
In order to find certain answers to the aforementioned
questions, this research attempts to empirically
investigate the relationship between self-efficacy,
transformational leadership and leader effectiveness.
More specifically, we would like to examine the role of a
leader’s self-efficacy in determining leader effectiveness.
In addition to this, we aspire to assess whether the
transformational leadership style contributes to the
association of self-efficacy with leader effectiveness.
A. Leader Effectiveness
Fundamental questions standing behind research of
leader effectiveness are: what makes some leaders more
effective than others and how can we predict their
effectiveness. Even though answers to these questions are
crucial, there has been no consensus among scholars.
Similarly to the topic of leadership, there is neither a
universally accepted approach nor definition. Certainly,
the concept of leader effectiveness is difficult to define
due to its complexity. It attempts to capture numerous
components including multiple organizational
contingencies and various personal and interpersonal
behaviors. Therefore, we shall attempt to present different
perspectives of leader effectiveness in this chapter and
explain how its many components help us grasp this
complex subject.
Different views of the effectiveness of leaders and its
definitions are based on researchers’ individual
perspectives of leadership itself. For instance, Yukl [1]
defines effective leadership as the process of influencing
others to understand and agree about what needs to be
done and how it can be done effectively, and the process
of facilitating individual and collective efforts to
accomplish the shared objectives. One inclusive
definition of Cooper and Nirenberg [2] sees leader
effectiveness as the successful exercise of personal
influence by one or more people that results in
accomplishing shared objectives in a way that is
109
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
doi: 10.12720/joams.3.2.109-122
personally satisfying to those involved. From these two
definitions, it is clear how their authors operationalize
leadership but they do not respond to raised questions.
However, these definitions make a point to stress the
successful and satisfying outcomes effective leadership
should bring. Cooper and Nirenberg [2] noted that
although effective leadership requires the
accomplishment of the organization’s objectives that
serve its vision and mission in a way that it satisfies those
involved, both the degree to which objectives are
accomplished and the satisfaction of those involved are
quite subjective. Indeed, often inherent contradictions and
conflicts make it virtually impossible to please everyone
all the time. For instance, a company that is registering
many new high-tech inventions while its stock price
drops precipitously is experiencing a conflicted state
which could be perceived by some as success (indicative
of effective leadership) and by others as failure
(indicative of ineffective leadership). Thus, the
importance of considering different perspectives of leader
effectiveness is very high and should not be omitted.
1) Factors determining leader effectiveness
In regards to leadership, we might ask why some
people emerge as leaders or why some people are more
effective than others in leadership roles. In the search for
answers to these questions, the role of personality looms
large. A number of empirical studies link personality
traits, such as leader intelligence [3]-[5], emotional
intelligence [6], dominance [7], [5], etc. with leader
effectiveness. Of particular interest in recent years is the
relationship between the Big Five personality traits (i.e.,
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism and openness to experience) and leadership
emergence, effectiveness or transformational leadership
[8]-[10]. Although there were found significant
correlations, this approach earned also a number of
criticisms. From different perspective, another line of
studies focuses more on the personality of followers,
examining how it influences perceptions and evaluations
of leadership.
As perhaps the most apparent individual difference,
gender has captured the attention of researchers in
domain of leader effectiveness. Many gender-based
discussions in leadership research revolve around the
question of whether men and women are equally effective
leaders (for instance [11], [12]). In a quantitative review
of the literature, Eagly, Karau and Makhijani [13] found
that overall leader effectiveness was not dependent on
leader gender, but men and women leaders perform
differently under certain conditions.
Moreover, leaders’ relationship with the followers can
be considered as a factor determining effectiveness of
leaders. Sweetland [14] found that ratings of leader
effectiveness by subordinates and increases in group
productivity were dependent on the interaction between
supervisors and their subordinates. Chemers [15] asserted
that good leader-follower relationships encourage
increased feelings of leader-efficacy and group-efficacy
and subsequently the collective effectiveness of the group.
Poor relationships, on the other hand, had the opposite
effect by introducing role ambiguity [16], alienation [17]
and stress/strain [18].
Although it is clearly established that desired leader
behaviors can differ between situations, there is little
agreement about the nature of the contingencies and not a
lot of research evidence about effectiveness in different
situations. Aspects of the situation such as the nature of
the task [19], [20], subordinate attributes (e.g.,
subordinate job and psychological maturity [21],
subordinate effort and ability [1]), information possessed
by subordinates [22] or type of work organization [1],
[23], [24], belong to the most often suggested situational
variables proven to determine effectiveness.
Among frequently considered determinants of leader
effectiveness are also identity of leader and followers,
self-concept, and social identity. For instance, van
Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer and Hogg
[25] suggested that as followers identify more strongly
with the collective (i.e., group, organization), the extent
to which their leader is perceived to be groupprototypical
(i.e., to represent the collective identity)
becomes more influential in determining leader
effectiveness. This research, among others, is based on
social identity models of leadership (for overviews see
[26]-[28]).
Charisma and its role as a determinant of leader
effectiveness has been the subject of many studies
recently. Theories of charismatic leadership stress that
followers’ perceptions of their leader are the ultimate
determinant of leader influence [29]. Charismatic leaders
communicate symbolically, use imagery, and are
persuasive in communicating a vision that promises a
better future. In this way, they create an intense emotional
attachment with their followers [30]. Charismatic
leadership theories are often associated with theories of
transformational leadership. Charismatic leadership has
much in common with transformational leadership.
However, charisma is only a part of transformational
leadership.
2) Leader effectiveness criteria
Despite the obvious interest of researchers or public in
determining which leaders are effective and which are not,
there has been no consensus on the most appropriate
criteria of leader effectiveness among scholars. Lowe,
Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam [24] distinguished two
general categories of leader effectiveness criterions in
their meta-analysis concentrated on effectiveness
correlates. The first category, organizational measures of
leader effectiveness, represents quasi-institutional
measures of the effectiveness of leaders. Such measures
include both hard measures (e.g., financial performance
of work-unit, percentage of goals met) and soft measures
such as supervisory performance appraisals. The second
category use subordinate measures of effectiveness.
However, subordinate effectiveness measures have been
often criticized on the basis of mono-method bias, as well
as for having a strong impact on findings regarding the
leadership style-effectiveness relationship [31]. On the
other hand, organizational measures, while perhaps
reducing the common method bias problem [32], may not
110
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
be especially valid measures of the effectiveness of the
transformational characteristics of the leader, as they
were often designed to capture primarily transactional
outcomes [24].
Based on the current research trends [4], [33], we focus
on three criteria of leader effectiveness: group
performance, perceived leader effectiveness and
leadership emergence. In respect to Lowe’s, Kroeck’s and
Sivasubramaniam’s [24] differentiation, we consider the
group performance as so-called organizational
effectiveness measures, while perceived leader
effectiveness and leadership emergence as part of
subordinate measures of effectiveness. We decided to use
both categories of indicators of leadership effectiveness
due to the single-method criticism mentioned above.
Similar to the differentiation between hard and soft
organizational measures of leader effectiveness, group
performance can be assessed objectively (units produced,
sales volume, etc.) or subjectively (ratings of
performance) [34]. For the purpose of this study, we
operationalized group performance rather as objectively
measured effectiveness of group/work-unit. Subordinate
measure, perceived leader effectiveness, was considered
as followers’ assessment of leader effectiveness. Ford and
Kiran [35] likewise saw perceived leader effectiveness as
employees’ general evaluation how a leader impacts a
company. Second subordinate measure, leadership
emergence, focuses on the degree to which an individual
is viewed as a leader by others [36], [9], as well as the
extent to which an individual comes to influence the
group [37]. However, it should be noted that leadership
emergence cannot be equated with leader effectiveness.
Leader effectiveness focuses on a leader’s performance in
influencing and guiding the activities of a group toward
the achievement of its goals [9]. Three used criteria
describe different aspects of leader effectiveness.
However, their correlation with each other is moderately
strong to strong [33].
B. Transformational Leadership
Over the years, transformational leadership and
charismatic leadership have been the focus of a great
many research inquiries [38], which have helped shift the
leadership paradigm to what it is today [39]. Three
seminal works are widely credited with initially
advancing theories of transformational leadership: Burns
[40], House [41], and Bass [42]. Thanks to their
contributions, transformational style of leadership has
rapidly become the approach of choice for much of the
research. Why such interest in transformational
leadership? According to Bass and Riggio [43], with its
emphasis on intrinsic motivation and on the positive
development of followers, it represents a more appealing
view of leadership compared to the social exchange
process of transactional leadership. Perhaps it is because
transformational leadership provides a better fit for
leading today’s complex work groups and organizations,
where followers not only seek an inspirational leader to
help guide them through an uncertain environment but
where followers also want to be challenged and to feel
empowered. Bass [44] specified that transformational
leadership occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the
interests of their employees, when they generate
awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of
the group and when they stir their employees to look
beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
Yukl [1] asserted that the transformational leader
articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner,
explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently and
optimistically, expresses confidence in the followers,
emphasizes values with symbolic actions, leads by
example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision.
It is in line with Bass’s components of transformational
leadership. In his full-range leadership theory [42], he
introduced four dimensions of transformational
leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Idealized influence or charisma, as Bass [42] originally
defined it, is the emotional component of leadership,
which is used to describe leaders who by the power of
their person have profound and extraordinary effects on
their followers. Attributional idealized influence refers to
attributions of the leader made by followers as a result of
how they perceive the leader. Behavioral idealized
influence refers to specific behaviors of the leader that
followers can observe directly, although both factors are
essentially concerned with a leader’s charismatic appeal
[30]. Inspirational motivation is leadership that inspires
and motivates followers to reach ambitious goals that
may have previously seemed unreachable. Here, the
leader raises followers’ expectations and inspires action
by communicating confidence that they can achieve these
ambitious goals [45]. Intellectual stimulation is mostly a
rational and nonemotional component. The leader appeals
to followers’ intellects by creating problem awareness
and problem solving, of thought and imagination, and of
beliefs and values [42]. Bass [42] stated that a leader
using individualized consideration provides socioemotional
support to followers and is concerned with
developing followers to their highest level of potential
and empowering them. In this instance, a leader gives
individualized attention and a developmental or
mentoring orientation toward followers. This outcome is
achieved by coaching and counseling followers,
maintaining frequent contact with them, and helping them
to self-actualize [30].
1) Transformational leadership effectiveness
A substantial amount of evidence has been
accumulated in support of the effectiveness of
transformational leadership. There are numerous studies
that support the effectiveness of transformational
leadership over transactional leadership. For instance,
results of meta-analyses [46], [24] supported the belief
that transformational leadership was associated with
work-unit and organizational effectiveness, suggesting
the existence of a positive relationship between
transformational leadership and effectiveness across the
set of examined studies. Within these studies, idealized
influence was the variable consistently most strongly
related to leader effectiveness among the transformational
leadership dimensions. Statistically significant
111
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
relationship between leader effectiveness and
transformational dimensions individualized consideration
and intellectual stimulation were also found. All
transformational dimensions were more highly associated
with effectiveness than the traditional first order changes
resulting from transactional behaviors [24]. However, if
we are talking about effectiveness, types of criterions
used for assessing leader effectiveness should be taken
into account. Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam [24]
reported that they have been different across studies in
the meta-analysis. Some researchers used ratings of
leadership style and ratings of leader effectiveness
completed by subordinates, while other used
organizational measures as their criterion. Both measures
were rarely adopted in the same study.
Moreover, the effectiveness of transformational
leadership can be operationalized also through the
contribution of transformational leaders to follower
commitment, involvement, loyalty, and satisfaction [43].
Transformational leaders can influence and motivate the
behavior of employees in such a way that the resultant
behavior has a positive impact on the organization.
Research has shown that transformational leadership
impacted commitment to the organization [47], [48] and
to organizational change [49]. Bass and Avolio [50]
claimed that transformational leaders influence
subordinates by motivating and inspiring them to achieve
organizational goals. Their direct impact on followers’
empowerment and motivation was proven by Dvir, Eden,
Avolio and Shamir [51]. By showing respect and
confidence in their followers, transformational leaders
create a greater degree of trust and loyalty of the
followers to the extent that followers are willing to
identify with the leader and the organization. This trust
and loyalty result in followers willing to commit to the
organization even under very difficult circumstances [52].
Other empirical studies also showed positive
relationships between transformational leadership and
personal outcomes such as satisfaction and performance
of followers [53], [54], [48]. There is a clear need for
greater attention in this area to understand the
mechanisms through which transformational leadership
influences personal attitudes in order to develop a more
complete understanding of the inner workings of
transformational leadership.
C. Self-Efficacy
Looking around, we can point to many examples of
leaders in management or in political context who are
particularly successful in their leadership roles. But what
make these leaders more effective in comparison with
other men or women in leading positions? An important
contributor to their success might be their beliefs in their
capability to perform a job or particular tasks, in other
words their self-efficacy. These high-efficacy leaders
may be better equipped to handle various situations and
may transfer their efficacy to their followers, resulting in
superior group performance. Thus, the purpose of this
research is to examine the role of self-efficacy in leader
effectiveness.
Self-efficacy is a key construct derived from Bandura’s
[55] social-cognitive theory. During the last decade, it has
been studied extensively in organizational research [56][58].
Self-efficacy has been defined as beliefs in one’s
capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive
resources, and courses of action needed to meet given
situational demands [59]. Chen, Gully and Eden [60]
criticized this formulation for narrowing the focus of the
researchers, who then conceptualize self-efficacy as a
task-specific or state-like construct. More recently,
researchers have become interested in the more trait-like
generality dimension of self-efficacy, termed general selfefficacy
[60]. General self-efficacy captures differences
among individuals in their tendency to view themselves
as capable of meeting task demands in a broad array of
contexts [60]. So, it can be assumed that general selfefficacy
is a belief in one’s own ability to perform across
different situations.
Various studies, for instance [61]-[63], suggested that
general self-efficacy is a motivational trait and taskspecific
or state-like self-efficacy is a motivational state.
It is clear that both of them relate to the beliefs about
ability to achieve one’s goals, but they differ in scope.
They both share similar antecedents such as actual
experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion or
psychological states [60]. Research has indicated that a
strong relationship between general self-efficacy and
task-specific self-efficacy exists [61]. Sherer et al. [64]
asserted that this tendency to feel efficacious across tasks
and situations (i.e., general self-efficacy) spills over into
specific situations. In regard to leaders, we might say that
their general self-efficacy refers to their beliefs in their
general ability to lead. The task-specific self-efficacy of
leader might be, for instance, the leader’s belief in his or
her ability to facilitate efforts of followers to accomplish
the project.
1) Leader’s self-efficacy and leader effectiveness
Given that leadership roles in organizations are
becoming increasingly broad, complex, and demanding,
high general self-efficacy of their chief executives may
be a valuable resource for organizations. It can maintain
leaders’ work motivation throughout rapidly changing
and stressful job demands or circumstances and buffer
them from the potentially demotivating impact of failure
[60]. On the basis of the theory of self-efficacy [56], we
can expect leaders with greater general self-efficacy to be
more effective leaders, because they are inclined to
expend greater efforts to fulfill their roles across
situations and to persevere longer when faced with
difficulties [65]. Even though Bandura [56] did not refer
to the concept of general self-efficacy in his theory, one
may assume that a leader’s belief in his or her ability to
perform across variety of situations plays an important
role in his or her effectiveness. The label of general selfefficacy
is not seen in leader effectiveness literature often.
However, according to the research [61], [64], we might
assume that general self-efficacy is closely related to
different domain-specific self-efficacies. In the context of
leadership, relevant domain-specific type of self-efficacy
might be leadership self-efficacy, defined by Chemers,
112
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
Watson, and May [66] as perceived capabilities of the
individual to perform functions necessary to accomplish
specific leadership roles effectively.
Despite the common sense relevance of a leader’s
perception of his or her capabilities to perform effectively
to leader effectiveness, only a limited number of studies
have examined this relationship. Perceived leader
effectiveness, one of the criteria of leader effectiveness,
was linked to leadership self-efficacy in the research of
Chemers, Watson, and May [66]. They found that
Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets who had higher
levels of leadership self-efficacy were given more
positive leadership ratings by their superiors, peers, and
trained observers in a 6-week leadership training camp.
Paglis and Green [67] similarly found that managers who
displayed higher leadership self-efficacy, whose
confidence in giving direction was greater, and those who
gained commitment, were rated by their subordinates as
having made more attempts at leading change. Therefore,
they found them to be better leaders.
Criterion of leader effectiveness most often associated
with general or leadership self-efficacy is leader and
group performance. In their laboratory experiment, Kane,
Zaccaro, Tremble, and Masuda [68] demonstrated that
leaders with high leadership self-efficacy set higher goals
and had better task strategies, which in turn led to better
group performance. Chemers [69] asserted that leadership
self-efficacy beliefs influence the choices leaders make
and the courses of action they pursue in order to
accomplish tasks. He claimed that leaders’ low leadership
self-efficacy affects their ability to handle challenging
tasks and solve a problem.
Therefore, they fail at completing their tasks. Thus,
their low leadership self-efficacy affects their
performance and in turn performance of their followers.
Wisner [70] indicated that high levels of leadership selfefficacy
improved their effectiveness as leaders. She
found that a leader’s leadership self-efficacy had a
significant effect on the efficacies of his or her followers,
which in turn resulted in higher performance of a group.
Research of general self-efficacy in association with
performance can be found mostly outside the leadership
context. For instance, Raub and Liao [71] found that the
general self-efficacy of employees predicted their
performance and proactive customer service. Messer [72]
investigated whether a relationship existed between
general self-efficacy, academic performance, job
performance and attrition of novice Army mechanics. His
findings indicated that general self-efficacy was a good
predictor of academic performance. The author of the
study asserted that an understanding of this relationship
would be a valuable asset for organizations, which would
be able to reshape job requirements, hiring, training
programs, and job assessment on the basis of the findings.
Furthermore, the study found that training improved
general self-efficacy of respondents [72].
In addition to this, the role of self-efficacy as a
mediator of relationship between personality traits and
work-related performance has been the subject of various
studies. Many researchers work in their studies with the
term self-efficacy exclusively. In general, we can say
these authors’ understanding of self-efficacy is mostly
based on Bandura’s [56] original concept of self-efficacy
as task- or situation-specific. Martocchio and Judge [73],
for example, asserted that task-specific self-efficacy
represented the mechanism through which the
generalized tendencies of conscientiousness were linked
to performance. Chen, Casper, and Cortina [74] tested a
meta-analytic model to determine whether self-efficacy
mediated the relationship of cognitive ability and
conscientiousness to job performance (they considered
both, general and task- specific self-efficacy). These
authors found that the mediation depended on job
complexity. Mediation was stronger for simple jobs than
for complex ones. Moreover, the study of Judge et al. [34]
examined contribution of self-efficacy (as proximal
variable) to work-related performance controlling for
personality, intelligence and job or task experience. Their
presumption was that a relationship of three distal
characteristics cognitive ability, personality (the Big Five
traits) and experience with work-related performance was
mediated by self-efficacy. According to the results of
their meta-analysis, they asserted that self-efficacy
predicted performance in jobs or tasks of low complexity
but not those of medium or high complexity, and selfefficacy
predicted performance for task but not job
performance. Their results also suggested that the
predictive validity of self-efficacy was attenuated in the
presence of individual differences, though this attenuation
did depend on the context. Results of these studies
implied that job/task complexity was a potential
moderator of self-efficacy [74], [34], [58]. Another
potentially important moderator of self-efficacy
predictive validities is feedback. One would expect selfefficacy
to be more valid when such judgments were
informed by feedback on the performance of the task,
especially when the feedback is delivered in a timely
manner [56]. If we take into consideration CEOs, we may
expect them to be informed about progress regularly
during the task-solving process. Thus, they should receive
feedback on a regular basis. Beyond the theoretical
variables discussed above, measurement and study
characteristics also may moderate the self-efficacy
performance relationship. One such moderator is the
measure of self-efficacy [34].
2) Role of self-efficacy in transformational leadership
effectiveness
The role of self-efficacy in transformational leadership
effectiveness has been usually studied from the
perspective of employees’ self-efficacy, which was
enhanced by leader’s transformational approach [75],
[76]. However, there is very little research on the role of
the self-efficacy of leaders in transformational leadership
effectiveness and only a limited number of studies have
researched the link between leader’s self-efficacy and
transformational leadership [77].
Existing theories support the idea that a leader’s selfefficacy
may be related to behaviors indicative of
transformational leadership. Bandura [56] asserted that
high levels of efficacy seem to be associated with higher
113
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
levels of performance on all types of tasks in many
different realms. This effect is partly associated with the
influence which self-efficacy has on personal choice.
Individuals who feel highly efficacious regarding a
particular task will be more likely to choose to perform
that particular task, set high performance goals, and in
turn exhibit higher performance [56]. Transformational
leadership is traditionally associated with challenging the
status quo and instilling confidence in followers that they
can achieve higher levels of performance [78]. It follows
that the leader’s own efficacy may be an important
antecedent of transformational leadership, as individuals
with low levels of efficacy are not likely to take the
initiative in challenging situations and persuade others to
do the same.
3) Self-efficacy, transformational leadership and
leader effectiveness
Based on theories of self-efficacy [56],
transformational leadership [42] and conducted research
connecting these two constructs (e.g., [75], [79]), we can
assume that they are related. Even though there has been
little literature linking self-efficacy of leaders to
transformational leadership style, for instance [80], [77],
one can draw the conclusion that a leader’s higher levels
of efficacy may lead to higher levels of transformational
leadership. Thus, we hypothesize that there should be a
strong relationship between the two.
Hypothesis 1: Leader’s self-efficacy is related to the
extent which the leader exhibits transformational
leadership.
On the basis of the existing research and Bandura’s
theory of self-efficacy [56], it can be expected leaders
with greater self-efficacy will be more effective leaders,
because they are inclined to expend greater efforts to
fulfill their roles and to persevere longer when faced with
difficulties [65].
Leadership emergence, perceived leader effectiveness
and group performance have appeared to be powerful
criterions for leader effectiveness. Therefore, we
hypothesize a leader’s self-efficacy to be significantly
related to leader effectiveness, with leadership emergence,
perceived leader effectiveness and group performance as
leader effectiveness criteria.
Hypothesis 2: Leader’s self-efficacy is related to leader
effectiveness.
Although several studies found a relationship between
self-efficacy and various leader effectiveness criteria [81],
[82], the potential mediating effects of transformational
leadership were not considered. One of the exceptions is
research of Quigly [77], who tried to prove a mediating
effect of transformational leadership on the relationship
between a leader’s efficacy and team efficacy, which then
might translate into performance. However, the mediating
effect was not confirmed.
We think that there is a good reason to believe that a
leader’s self-efficacy is positively associated with leader
effectiveness and the extent to which the leader exhibits
transformational leadership may play an important role in
this link. Leaders are likely to convey their efficacy to
their followers through their behaviors. To the extent that
these behaviors help motivate followers and are
indicative of the confidence the leader has, they may be
the way in which the level of a leader’s self-efficacy is
made clear to followers—which is then likely to result in
higher levels of group performance, leadership
emergence and perceived leader effectiveness. Therefore,
we hypothesize that transformational leadership is a
mediator of the relationship between self-efficacy and
leader effectiveness.
Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership mediates
relationship between self-efficacy and leader
effectiveness.
II. METHODS
Our research was conducted within a standardized
management simulation game. The management
simulation game was played by the students of the
Masaryk University in Brno and the University of
Economics in Prague as a part of their lessons. During
one semester, the students of each seminar group
(approximately 20 students) represented a management of
a fictional car factory, which sold its products on a
computer simulated market. Every car factory was led by
a CEO, who the students elected shortly after the
beginning of a semester. Students were rewarded with
fictional money during the game, based on which they
were awarded the final grade at the end of the semester.
The CEO had a great power which might be delegated to
his or her associates. For example, the CEO had the final
say in a decision on the organizational structure of a
company, the division of work, the dismissal of
employees, the recruitment of employees from other
seminar groups and also in the distribution of (fictional)
money among players. During the game, students had
many opportunities to influence the profitability of their
companies. They decided on the number of cars produced
in each round, optimized production costs, invested in
research, determined the basic car equipment, created
marketing documentation and financial statements, made
analyses of financial markets and negotiated loans with
banks. Given the variety of tasks in the operation of a
company, they needed to involve as many students as
possible, motivate them and coordinate their work. CEOs
were receiving feedback about the profits of their
fictional companies on regular basis throughout the
duration of the simulation game. The managerial game
faithfully simulates an environment of a real economy
and also offers the possibility to compare a large number
of homogeneous companies [83].
The method of management simulation game was
chosen for several reasons. Firstly, the use of the
management simulation game reduces the impact of
external variables. While in a real environment,
competing companies have a different property structure,
history, various political ties and a different product from
the beginning. The management simulation game allows
a putting of all the companies on the same starting line—
starting as same-size companies economically, with
approximately the same number of employees, with the
same product in the same market. Thus, the possible
114
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
influence of the perception of the company manager and
the results by the subordinates is reduced. Furthermore,
thanks to the involvement of students, the management of
a company has approximately the same knowledge and
experience. The environment of the management
simulation game enables to better monitor the impact of
variables related to the characteristics of people in the
fictional companies, especially the impact of the chief
executive’s characteristics. The economic results of the
monitored companies could be then compared, giving the
management simulation game advantages over research
in real-world conditions. Secondly, an access to all data
and to all participants is guaranteed for the organizers of
the management simulation game. In comparison with the
real-world conditions, the simulation game allows for an
obtaining of a large amount of data for the creation of
complex models and also ensured a high return rate of
questionnaires. Thirdly, unlike short-term simulations,
the three-months-long management simulation game
makes it possible to monitor the long-term effects of
quasi-independent variables. This is important because
the CEO may, through his or her personality and attitude,
influence their subordinates for relatively long time.
A. Participants
A total of 32 CEOs/leaders were selected from fulltime
students of bachelor and masters programs at the
Masaryk University in Brno (13 CEOs, namely 41%) and
at the University of Economics in Prague (19 CEOs,
59 %). The average age of the CEOs of the 32 fictional
companies was 21.4 (SD = 1.13). Most of the leaders
were men (72%). Each CEO was evaluated by an average
of 17.42 (SD = 3.32) subordinates.
The CEOs/leaders were evaluated by a total of 604
respondents, their subordinates, who were, at the time of
our study, also the full-time students of bachelor and
masters programs at the aforementioned universities (259
respondents, 43% in Brno; 345 respondents, 57% in
Prague). The subordinates were employees of the 32
fictional companies within the management simulation
game, and they held various positions except for the
CEOs’ positions.
B. Measures
1) Self-efficacy
For the purpose of this research, we utilized the
general Self-Efficacy Scale developed by Sherer et al.
[64]. This 17-item scale measures a general set of
expectations that the individual carries into new situations
[64]. A sample item from the general Self-Efficacy Scale
is “If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I
can.”
Respondents answered using a 5-point Likert response
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Scores range between 17 to 85 and higher scores indicate
greater self-efficacy. Sherer et al. [64] reported an
internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha reliability
coefficient of 0.86. The internal consistency reliability for
the general Self-Efficacy Scale in organizational research
has been moderate to high (α = 0.76 to 0.89; e.g., [84],
[62], [85]). The general Self-Efficacy Scale has
demonstrated construct validity correlating moderately
with several achievement-related demographic variables
such as military rank and educational level [64] and with
such outcomes as leader emergence [85], job search
decisions [84] or the number of training and development
courses attended [86].
2) Leader effectiveness
The criteria of leader effectiveness included leadership
emergence and perceived leader effectiveness, both
assessed by the leaders’ subordinates and objectively
measured by group performance.
For the assessment of the leadership emergence, the
five- item-questionnaire was used. Items were formulated
to capture whether the leader has been considered as a
good or a suitable leader by the followers (subordinates),
whether they have perceived him or her as a “leader type”
or whether his or her role as a leader has left a positive
feeling in them. Each item represents a different
perspective of leadership emergence, i.e. “Throughout the
game, he/she was a real leader (leader and driving force)
of our group” or “I felt respect toward him/her.” The
internal consistency reliability for the leadership
emergence items was excellent (α = 0.97). Criterion
validity was confirmed by comparison with
transformational leadership scale. For each of the
aforementioned items, respondents could choose whether
an item “reflects”, “partially reflects” or “does not
reflect” the perception of the CEO during the
management simulation game. These answers were coded
2; 1; 0. The variable leadership emergence was calculated
as the average rating from all subordinates in all five
items. Thus, it can acquire values from 0 to 2.
To assess the perceived effectiveness of leader, two
items were utilized. The items allowed respondents
(subordinates) to assess the impact of the CEO of their
firm in terms of effectiveness of the results (“He/she
successfully guided our seminar group through the game”)
and effectiveness of the process (“Our company worked
effectively under his/her leadership”). Internal
consistency of perceived leader effectiveness items was
excellent (α = 0.96). Criterion validity was confirmed by
a comparison with transformational leadership scale. The
procedures of item coding and counting of the variable
perceived leader effectiveness were the same as for the
leadership emergence. Thus, the respondents might have
chosen whether each item reflected, partially reflected or
did not reflect the perception of the CEO during the
management simulation game (answers were coded as 2;
1; 0). The variable perceived leader effectiveness was
calculated as the average rating from all subordinates in
all items. Thus, this variable acquired values from 0 to 2.
The performance of the group was measured by the
profitability of each fictional company during the entire
management simulation game. At the beginning of the
simulation game, all companies faced comparable
conditions. Their performance was assessed on the basis
of their profits during the seven game rounds. However,
while companies were operating in different markets,
they might have slightly different conditions during the
game. Therefore, the performance of the company was
115
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
assessed relatively to the average profitability on the
relevant market. We calculated the variable group
performance as the accumulated profit of the enterprise
throughout the game, divided by the average profit of the
companies on the market.
3) Leadership style
Since there is no Czech translation of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire, we used The Leadership Style
Questionnaire to measure leadership style. It is an
original, unpublished Czech method that has been
validated on a sample of 1,093 Czech leaders and their
followers. This questionnaire captures the transactional
and transformational approach to leadership. It contains
eight scales, which correspond to the four components of
transformational leadership (charismatic behavior,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration), the three components of
transactional leadership (contingent reward, active
management by exception, passive management by
exception) and the absence of leadership. Four scales of
transformational leadership can be combined into a single
internally consistent transformational leadership scale.
Our research worked with transformational leadership
scale exclusively (data obtained from other four scales
are not subject of this research).
The questionnaire contains 32 items. Respondents
answered using a 7-point Likert response ranging from
“never” to “always”. Some examples of items are
“He/she takes responsibility for group’s results” or
“He/she makes it clear that he/she believes in team
success.”
The confirmatory factor analysis showed excellent fit
indices. The questionnaire’s CFI 0.96 exceeded the
recommended value and RMSE 0.05 was lower than the
recommended 0.06. The questionnaire has a good
reliability. The internal consistency of all
transformational scales is Cronbach’s α > 0.88. For the
split half reliability, the Guttman coefficient was always
greater than 0.85. Criterion validity was confirmed via
comparison with answers to questions assessing leader
emergence and perceived leader effectiveness.
Transformational leadership scales have moderate to
strong relationship with both criteria. Individual scales of
transformational leadership correlate among each other
and are positively associated to the contingent reward and
negatively to the absence of leadership.
C. Procedure
Data were collected over two consecutive semesters
(spring 2013 - fall 2013) as a part of a broader ongoing
research. In the spring semester, 10 fictional companies
took part in the research within the simulation game, and
22 fictional companies participated during the fall
semester. The companies were divided into two to three
markets in which they competed, while there were always
seven to eight businesses on the market. At the end of the
management game, the students/subordinates were asked
to anonymously complete questionnaires in which they
evaluated a) the transactional-transformational leadership
style of the CEO, b) the effectiveness of the CEO, c) the
managerial skills of the CEO (the analyses of
transactional leadership style and managerial skills are
the subject of another research). They were also requested
to report information about their position and
responsibilities in the management simulation game,
which were needed for further analysis. Filling the
questionnaires might have helped students to receive a
better mark. In order to prevent students from answering
randomly, their filling time was measured. A total of 712
students were asked to complete the questionnaire for the
assessment of their CEOs. Of 634 students, which
submitted the questionnaire, 10 were excluded from
further data processing. Seven respondents were
eliminated due to the filling time less than four minutes
(time needed to read it only). Three respondents, which
attended less than three meetings and therefore were not
able to adequately evaluate their CEO, were disregarded
as well.
A total of 37 chief executives were asked to take part
in the research, from which 32 submitted the
questionnaire. At the end of the management game,
CEOs took part in the psychological testing, where the
Self-Efficacy Scale, intelligence test and personality
questionnaires were administered (intelligence test and
personality questionnaires were not the subject of this
study). For their participation and their approval to use
data for the research, the CEOs received a report with the
results of the psychological assessment.
After the end of the semester and the game, the
economic results of the individual enterprises were
investigated, thus information on group performance was
obtained. Thanks to the use of the management
simulation game, we were able to collect data about
leaders’ self-efficacy, transformational leadership style
and leader effectiveness quickly and easily.
III. RESULTS
The following report of results begins with the
descriptive statistics. We then present the results of
hypotheses testing while using correlation and mediation
analyses.
A. Descriptive Statistics
Table I presents the means, medians, standard deviations
(SD), minimums and maximums for the study
variables. Table II presents the intercorrelations among
all variables. Moreover, we tested our data for normality.
For the assessment of normality, we used the ShapiroWilk
Test [87] as it is appropriate for small sample sizes.
According to the results (p-values ranged from 0.16 to
0.92) and visual inspection of the histograms, normal QQ
plots and box plots, we can conclude that the data were
approximately normally distributed.
B. Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1 stated that self-efficacy is related to the
extent to which the leader exhibits transformational
leadership. Table III presents the intercorrelations
between general self-efficacy and the subdimensions of
116
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
the construct of transformational leadership. Pearson
correlation coefficients (r) are in the table.
TABLE I. MEANS, MEDIANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, MINIMUMS
AND MAXIMUMS OF STUDY VARIABLES
Variable Mean Median SD Min Max
Self-efficacy 70.53 71.00 7.74 55.00 91.00
Transformational
leadership
84.92 84.88 6.88 65.55 97.59
Charismatic
Behavior
23.10 23.6 1.78 16.91 25.91
Inspirational
Motivation
22.75 23.38 2.16 17.82 26.71
Intelectual
Stimulation
21.76 21.26 1.90 18.63 25.48
Individualized
Consideration
17.39 17.30 2.3 12.18 21.73
Leadership
emergence
1.38 1.36 0.33 0.36 1.95
Perceived leader
effectiveness
1.51 1.56 0.37 0.568 2.00
Group performance 1.80 1.40 0.36 0.24 1.99
TABLE II. INTERCORRELATIONS OF STUDY VARIABLES
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Self-efficacy - -0.01 0.08 0.00 -0.11
2. Transformational
leadership -0.01 - 0.76** 0.68** 0.35*
3. Leadership
emergence 0.08 0.76** - 0.75** 0.51**
4. Perceived leader
effectiveness 0.00 0.68** 0.75** - 0.84**
5. Group
performance -0.11 0.35** 0.51** 0.84** Notes:
* p < .05 , **p < .01
Table III shows that self-efficacy was not significantly
correlated with any subcategories of the transformational
leadership in our research. Of the four dimensions of
transformational leadership, two acquired negative values.
To conclude, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.
Hypothesis 2 stated that the self-efficacy of leaders is
related to leader effectiveness. Table II presents Pearson
correlation coefficients among self-efficacy and leader
effectiveness criteria (leadership emergence, perceived
leader effectiveness and group performance). Inconsistent
with Hypothesis 2, there were no significant links
between self-efficacy with neither of the criteria of leader
effectiveness. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Hypothesis 3 stated that the relationship between selfefficacy
and leader effectiveness is mediated by
transformational leadership. As leader effectiveness
criteria leadership emergence, perceived leader
effectiveness and group performance were used. Fig. 1
shows the mediation model we proposed. To examine
hypothesis 3, a nonparametric bootstrapping procedure to
test the data for simple mediation was intended to use. As
with other mediation analyses (i.e., [88]), it is informative
to examine the association between variables in each
pathway of the mediation model (Fig. 1), e.g., between (a)
the independent variable and mediators, (b) mediator and
dependent variable and (c) independent and dependent
variable. As can be seen in Table II and Table III,
correlation analyses do not show significant relationships
between a leader’s self-efficacy and transformational
leadership and its dimensions. On the other hand, Table II
shows that analyses confirmed a significant association
between transformational leadership and all leader
effectiveness criteria. Finally, results presented in Table
II do not show significant relationships between the selfefficacy
and leader effectiveness criteria.
Figure 1. Simple mediation model
By definition, a mediator is a variable that is causally
between independent and dependent variable. In the case
of our data, results show that transformational leadership
is not associated with both. While it was related to
dependent variable leader effectiveness, independent
variable self-efficacy did not associate with
transformational leadership. Therefore, it can be assumed
that transformational leadership is not a mediator of the
relationship between self-efficacy of leaders and their
effectiveness, without utilizing the bootstrapping method
for the assessment of mediation. To conclude, Hypothesis
3 was therefore not supported.
TABLE III. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN SELF-EFFICACY AND DIMENSIONS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
Transformational leadership
Charismatic behavior Inspirational motivation Intelectual stimulation Individualized consideration
Variable r Sig. (2-tailed) r Sig. (2-tailed) r Sig. (2-tailed) r Sig. (2-tailed)
Self-efficacy 0.11 0.55 0.10 0.60 -0.15 0.41 -0.09 0.63
IV. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine relationship
between self-efficacy of leaders, their transformational
leadership style and leader effectiveness within the
117
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
management simulation game. The criteria of leader
effectiveness, leadership emergence, perceived leader
effectiveness and group performance were utilized. This
research did not find support for the following links: (1)
leaders’ self-efficacy to the extent to which leaders’
exhibit transformational leadership; (2) leaders’ selfefficacy
to leader effectiveness. Therefore, we did not
find support for the mediation model, in which
transformational leadership mediates relationship
between leaders’ self-efficacy and leader effectiveness.
As noted above, this research did not confirm the
proposed mediation model with transformational
leadership as a mediator of the link between leaders’
self-efficacy and their effectiveness. We rejected this
model because, on the contrary to the hypothesis, our
study did not find a significant relation between leaders’
self-efficacy and transformational leadership style. Our
assumption that self-efficacy might have been an
antecedent of transformational leadership, as individuals
with high levels of efficacy are likely to take the
initiative in challenging situations and persuade others
to do the same, were based on theories of self-efficacy
[56] and transformational leadership [42]. However, our
presumption was not supported, despite of the results of
studies linking these two constructs [75], [79]. This
may be so for various reasons. Research shows that
leaders with high self-efficacy set higher goals, which in
turn lead to better group performance [68]. However,
some high-efficacy leaders without a sufficient level of
abilities might set goals too high and therefore make
them unrealistic. In return, their followers may perceive
them as neither influential nor charismatic leaders. On
the other hand, leaders’ high levels of self-efficacy
might be related to overconfidence in their own
abilities. Leaders could then make more decisions by
themselves, giving less space to others. So, benefits of
high self-efficacy can be counterbalanced by some
disadvantages, which makes the relationship look like
non-existent. Moreover, general self-efficacy refers to
efficacies across different situations. Thus, it is possible
that a person with high general self-efficacy may not
have high efficacy in relation to the activities which he or
she performs as a leader. Our sample consisted of
students/leaders without experience. They were only
gaining their experience during the game and ensuring
themselves that they can be effective in a leader role.
Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to use a
leadership self-efficacy scale for this sample. Results of
experienced leaders could also be different.
Even though our research did not find evidence of
relationship between self-efficacy of leaders and leader
effectiveness, this link might exist. Leaders who face tasks
as a part of our management simulation game might
perceive the situation at least partly through the lens of
their beliefs in their own general capabilities. Their selfefficacy
may then affect the way they are perceived by
their followers (leadership emergence and perceived
leader effectiveness) and might eventually play role in the
objectively measurable organizational performance (group
performance). Given Hayes [89] approach to mediation,
direct relationship between self-efficacy and leader
effectiveness criteria does not have to manifest
significantly in the statistical analysis. Self-efficacy may
have indirect effect on leader effectiveness through
another variable. One theoretical explanation for our
results might lay in the idea that a mediating mechanism
may exist, linking leaders’ self-efficacy and their
effectiveness, but that mediating mechanism may not be
transformational leadership behaviors. There might be
other behaviors, which are indicative of the different types
of contributions leaders make, but were not examined by
this research. These behaviors might be the true mediators
of the relationship. Some examples of these behaviors
could be leader contributions to problem-solving or
persuasive communication [77]. However, the findings of
our research might not suggest that leader emergence,
perceived leader effectiveness or group performance could
be outgrowths of leader’s self-efficacy.
Another explanation for our unconfirmed presumptions
might lie in the way self-efficacy was captured. From the
nature of general self-efficacy, it can be expected that it is
unitary construct. For its assessment, we decided to use
general Self-efficacy Scale [64]. This method was
examined by Chen, Gully, and Eden [60], who suggested
that a discrepancy may exist between the
conceptualization of general self-efficacy as a
unidimensional construct on one hand and the multifactorial
structure of the general Self-efficacy Scale on the
other. Although general self-efficacy has been conceived
as unidimensional (e.g., [62], [63]) Woodruff and
Cashman [90] found that items of general Self-Efficacy
Scale measure three distinct empirical factors reflecting
self-perceptions of behavior initiation, effort, and
persistence. Woodruff and Cashman’s findings were
replicated by Bosscher and Smit [91] who found the same
three-factor structure. Our findings may suggest that part
of general self-efficacy of leaders might affect leader
effectiveness in a positive way, but another part might
have a negative impact. For instance, a leader with a high
general self-efficacy may act with confidence and
persistence, so his or her followers believe in the goal,
which in turn might translate into better organizational
performance. But, the same high-efficacy leader may
seem in a sense overly capable, that he or she can handle
everything, so the followers leave the important work and
decisions on him or her, what then might have a negative
impact on performance. Thus, three identified factors of
general self-efficacy might have manifested in our results.
For the future research, it may be useful to utilize the
Bosscher’s and Smit’s [91] version of the general Selfefficacy
Scale, which enables researchers to obtain values
for three factors of general self-efficacy and subject them
to analysis in order to determine their impact on leader
effectiveness.
Furthermore, a limitation concerning the design of
study might be a time when leaders’ self-efficacy was
assessed. The CEOs took part in psychodiagnostical
testing at the end of a semester, a few days or week before
the end of the game. Bosscher and Smit [91] stated that
general self-efficacy is generated by various and
numerous experiences of failure and success in different
domains of functioning. Additionally, self-efficacy can
also be moderated by feedback. CEOs were receiving
information about their performance on regular basis
118
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
throughout the game. Thus, the experience gathered
during participation in the simulation and feedback they
received during the game may have had effect on level of
self-efficacy of CEOs. However, that would translate into
higher levels of general self-efficacy for successful leaders
and lower for those who were not so successful. Therefore,
the examined relationship between self-efficacy and
effectiveness would be stronger. As our results did not
confirm this relationship, we do not assume that the time
of measurement of self-efficacy affected validity of our
research.
This research makes several methodological
contributions. First of all, our study was conducted within
a three-months-long management simulation game. This
research design enabled us to reduce the impact of
external variables and compare fictional companies, which
were from the beginning on the same starting line. Thus,
we were able to better monitor the possible impact of the
CEO on his or her followers and the organizational
outcomes. In comparison with real-world organizations,
this simulation game allowed obtaining a large amount of
data. Unlike short-term simulations, the three-months-long
management simulation game made it possible to monitor
how the CEO may or may not, through his or her
personality and attitude, influence their subordinates for
relatively longer time. Although there are undeniable
advantages to the use of simulations in leadership research,
it is also important to question possible drawbacks
connected with the use of management simulation game.
One potential argument against may be that the simulation
game represents an unreal situation and is therefore only a
game. An important issue associated with the use of
games in general is the extent to which participants are
truly engaged in the tasks of a game. Hackman [92], on
behalf of engagement in simulations, notes that groups are
expected to work particularly hard on tasks when the
following conditions are met: the group task requires
members to use a variety of high-level skills; the task is a
whole, meaningful piece of work; outcomes have
significant consequences for the organization; the task
provides a high level of autonomy for the group; and work
on the task generates regular, trustworthy feedback. The
tasks used in the management simulation game met all of
Hackman’s [92] criteria for being engaging enough to be
meaningful. Moreover, observations and small survey
suggested that the majority of participants were highly
engaged in their work on the simulation. Thus, the
engagement of our respondents could be comparable to
the involvement and enthusiasm of employees in the real
organizational context.
In addition to this, we should mention the criterion of
outcomes’ significant consequences [92]. The final grade
of each participant was dependent on outcomes of one’s
fictional company in the game. Within the area of
responsibility of CEOs was to terminate the fictional
employment of their employees if necessary, so negative
outcomes might have had also consequences on individual
level. However, as the termination of employment meant
also failing the course, most leaders were hesitant to
actually terminate someone’s employment, because of
their fear of jeopardizing future social contact with
followers. Though, this fact does not automatically
represent a limitation. On the contrary, in certain
organization cultures, where relationships are more
important than outputs, such as nonprofit organizations or
public administration, an unwillingness to terminate
employment of employees can be also present. Therefore,
our findings could be generalized within certain
organizational contexts, beyond the simulation game.
Another important issue which might abound in the
context of simulations is the nature of the sample. All
respondents in our research were students of bachelors
and masters programs at two Czech universities. Their
participation in the simulation game was a part of the
academic course. The fact that the sample consisted of
students exclusively gave the management simulation
game a certain advantage in comparison to real-life
organizations. We may say that the managements of
fictional companies had approximately the same
knowledge and experience. Thus, the environment of the
management simulation game enabled us to better monitor
the impact of characteristics on the performance of
followers, especially the CEO’s characteristics. However,
we suggest assessing an amount and nature of previous
work experience of the CEOs by several short questions in
the future research, as it might differ among students of
various enrollment years and affect the final results. An
alternative solution might be zero to five months of
previous work experience in leading position as a
condition for inclusion in the research.
Additionally, the sample of students examined in this
study consisted of newly formed groups, which
represented management of fictional companies.
Respondents did not have pre-established roles and also
did not know each other very well prior to the start of their
work on the tasks (as they were from different faculties or
of different enrollment year). These groups did not have
an initially designated leader either. Members of groups
were asked to select their CEO from among themselves at
the beginning of the game. Furthermore, the task our
respondents worked on was very complex. Groups were
operating under a great deal of time pressure and also
knew that they would only be working together for a
limited period of time. These points might seem as factors
distinguishing our simulation from a real-life
organizational environment. However, aforementioned
points match a situation in various types of project teams
in different organizations. Therefore, our findings might
be applicable also for a team environment. Another
important methodological contribution is the use of
different types of leader effectiveness criteria. As
criterions of leader effectiveness, we used both
organizational measure (group performance) and
subordinate measures of effectiveness (perceived leader
effectiveness, leadership emergence).
According to Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam
[24], there have been only a limited number of studies,
which use both types of measures; usually they work with
organizational outcomes measures or subordinates
measures of leader and organizational effectiveness, but
not both.
To conclude, there are some limitations associated with
this research, ranging from issues of generalizability to
methodological issues, as well as important contributions
119
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
such as utilization of the management simulation game
and the use of objective and subjective criteria for
assessment of leader effectiveness in this research. Even
though our assumptions about the nature of relationship
between self-efficacy of leaders, transformational
leadership style and leader effectiveness were not
confirmed in this research, we would like to pursue the
further research of self-efficacy and leadership behavior in
the future. Future research would benefit from a research
sample of larger size, which would allow us to control the
impact of possible intervening variables, moderators and
mediators in the model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This article is a part of the research “Effective
leadership: An integrative approach.” The research has
been funded by the Czech Science Foundation
(P403/12/0249).
REFERENCES
[1] G. A. Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2002.
[2] J. F. Cooper and J. Nirenberg, “Leadership effectiveness,” in
Encyclopedia of leadership, G. R. Goethals, G. J. Sorenson, and J.
M. Burns, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004, pp. 450–457.
[3] F. E. Fiedler and A. F. Leister, “Leader intelligence and task
performance: A test of a multiple screen model,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 1977.
[4] T. A. Judge, A. E. Colbert, and R. Ilies, “Intelligence and
leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical
propositions,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 3, pp.
542–552, June 2004.
[5] R. G. Lord, C. L. De Vader, and G. M. Alliger, “A meta-analysis
of the relation between personality traits and leadership
perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 402–410, Aug.
1986.
[6] D. Rosete and J. Ciarrochi, “Emotional intelligence and its
relationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadership
effectiveness,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 388–399, 2005.
[7] R. K. Hambleton and R. Gumpert, “The validity of Hersey and
Blanchard’s theory of leader effectiveness,” Group &
Organization Management, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 225–242, June 1982.
[8] T. A. Judge and R. Ilies, “Relationship of personality to
performance motivation: A meta-analytic review,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 797–807, Aug. 2002.
[9] T. A. Judge, J. E. Bono, R. Ilies, and M. W. Gerhardt, “Personality
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 765–781, Aug. 2002.
[10] C. Silverthorne, “Leadership effectiveness and personality: A
cross cultural evaluation,” Personality and Individual Differences,
vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 303–309, Jan. 2001.
[11] A. Romano, “Bracing for the gender neutral test,” Newsweek, vol.
150, no. 23, pp. 13, Dec. 2007.
[12] A. Sullivan, “Gender bender,” Time, vol. 24, p. 36, 2008.
[13] A. H. Eagly, S. J. Karau, and M. G. Makhijani, “Gender and the
effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin,
vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 125–145, Jan. 1995.
[14] J. Sweetland, Work in America Institute Studies in Productivity:
Highlights of the Literature: Managerial Productivity, Scarsdale,
NY: Work in America Institute, 1978.
[15] M. M. Chemers, “Leadership research and theory: A functional
integration,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27–43, Mar. 2000.
[16] M. R. Frone, “Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the
occupational role stress strain relationship: A meta-analysis,”
Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 309–320,
July 1990.
[17] G. Harris and J. Hogan, “Perceptions and personality correlates of
managerial effectiveness,” in Proc. 13th Annual Psychology in the
Department of Defense Symposium, Colorado Springs, CO, 1992.
[18] C. C. Bocchino, B. W. Hartman, and P. F. Foley, “The
relationship between person-organization congruence, perceived
violations of the psychological contract, and occupational stress
symptoms,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 203–214, 2003.
[19] R. J. House, “A path goal theory of leader effectiveness,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 321–339,
Sept. 1971.
[20] S. Kerr and J. M. Jermier, “Substitutes for leadership: Their
meaning and measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 375–403, 1978.
[21] P. Hersey and K. H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational
Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1982.
[22] V. H. Vroom and P. W. Yetton, Leadership and Decision-Making,
Pittsburg: University of Pittsburgh, 1973.
[23] Y. Ling, Z. Simsek, M. H. Lubatkin, and J. F. Veiga,
“Transformational leadership’s role in promoting corporate
entrepreneurship: Examining the ceo-tmt interface,” Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 557–576, June 2008.
[24] K. B. Lowe, K. G. Kroeck, and N. Sivasubramaniam,
“Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic review of the mlq literature,” The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 385–425, 1996.
[25] B. van Knippenberg, D. van Knippenberg, D. De Cremer, and M.
A. Hogg, “Research in leadership, self, and identity: A sample of
the present and a glimpse of the future,” The Leadership Quarterly,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 495–499, Aug. 2005.
[26] S. A. Haslam, Psychology in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2001.
[27] M. A. Hogg, “A social identity theory of leadership,” Personality
and Social Psychology Review, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 184–200, 2001.
[28] D. Van Knippenberg and M. A. Hogg, Leadership and Power:
Identity Processes in Groups and Organizations, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 2004.
[29] R. Awamleh and W. L. Gardner, “Perceptions of leader charisma
and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and
organizational performance,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 345–373, 1999.
[30] D. V. Day and J. Antonakis, The Nature of Leadership, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012.
[31] J. F. Binning, A. J. Zaba, and J. C. Whattam, “Explaining the
biasing effects of performance cues in terms of cognitive
categorization,” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 3,
pp. 521–535, Sept. 1986.
[32] B. J. Avolio, F. J. Yammarino, and B. M. Bass, “Identifying
common methods variance with data collected from a single
source: An unresolved sticky issue,” Journal of Management, vol.
17, no. 3, pp. 571-587, Sept. 1991.
[33] J. Procházka and P. Smutný, “Four indicators of effective
leadership,” in Psychology of Work and Organization, E.
Letovancováand E. Vavráková, Eds. Bratislava, SK: UKB, 2011,
pp. 388–397.
[34] T. A. Judge, C. L. Jackson, J. C. Shaw, B. A. Scott, and B. L. Rich,
“Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of
individual differences,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92,
no. 1, pp. 107-127, Jan. 2007.
[35] D. L. Ford and M. I. Kiran, “Perceived leader effectiveness across
organizational roles: Exploratory evidence from central Eurasia,”
Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
131–156, 2008.
[36] R. Hogan and R. B. Kaiser, “What we know about leadership,”
Review of General Psychology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 169-180, June
2005.
[37] E. P. Hollander, Leaders, Groups, and Influence, New York:
Oxford U. Press, 1964.
[38] G. Yukl, “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in
transformational and charismatic leadership theories,” The
Leadership Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 285–305, 1999.
[39] J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, and R. J. Sternberg, “Leadership:
Past, present, and future,” in The Nature of Leadership. London:
Sage, 2004, pp. 3–15.
[40] J. Burns, Leadership, New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
120
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
[42] B. Bass, Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, New
York, NY: Free Press, 1985.
[43] B. M. Bass and R. E. Riggio, Transformational Leadership,
Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press, 2006.
[44] B. M. Bass, “From transactional to transformational leadership:
Learning to share the vision,” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 18,
no. 3, pp. 19–31, 1990.
[45] B. M. Bass and B. J. Avolio, Improving Organizational
Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.
[46] T. A. Judge and R. F. Piccolo, “Transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 755-768, Oct. 2004.
[47] J. Barling, S. Moutinho, and E. Kelloway, Transformational
Leadership and Group Performance: The Mediating Role of
Affective Commitment, Kingston: Queens University, 2000.
[48] W. L. Koh, R. M. Steers, and J. R. Terborg, “The effects of
transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student
performance in Singapore,” Journal of Organizational Behavior,
vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 319– 333, July 1995.
[49] H. Yu, K. Leithwood, and D. Jantzi, “The effects of
transformational leadership on teachers commitment to change in
Hong Kong,” Journal of Educational Administration, vol. 40, no.
4, pp. 368–389, 2002.
[50] B. M. Bass and B. J. Avolio, MLQ, Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Sampler Set: Technical Report, Leader Form, Rater
Form, and Scoring Key for MLQ Form 5x-Short, Mind Garden,
2000.
[51] T. Dvir, D. Eden, B. J. Avolio, and B. Shamir, “Impact of
transformational leadership on follower development and
performance: A field experiment,” Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 735-744, Aug. 2002.
[52] R. J. Givens, “Transformational leadership: The impact on
organizational and personal outcomes,” Emerging Leadership
Journeys, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 4–24, 2008.
[53] P. Bycio, R. D. Hackett, and J. S. Allen, “Further assessments of
Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and
transformational leadership,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol.
80, no. 4, pp. 468-478, Aug. 1995.
[54] J. B. Fuller, C. E. Patterson, K. Hester, and D. Y. Stringer, “A
quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership,”
Psychological Reports, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 271–287, Feb. 1996.
[55] A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986.
[56] A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York:
Macmillan, 1997.
[57] M. E. Gist and T. R. Mitchell, “Self-efficacy: A theoretical
analysis of its determinants and malleability,” Academy of
Management Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 183–211, Apr. 1992.
[58] A. D. Stajkovic and F. Luthans, “Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: A meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 124,
no. 2, pp. 240-261, Sept. 1998.
[59] R. Wood and A. Bandura, “Impact of conceptions of ability on
self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp.
407–415, Mar. 1989.
[60] G. Chen, S. M. Gully, and D. Eden, “Validation of a new general
self-efficacy scale,” Organizational Research Methods, vol. 4, no.
1, pp. 62– 83, Jan. 2001.
[61] D. Eden, “Means efficacy: External sources of general and
specific subjective efficacy,” in Work Motivation in the Context of
a Globalizing Economy, M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, and H. Thierry,
Ed. Erlbaum, 2001, pp. 73–86.
[62] D. G. Gardner and J. L. Pierce, “Self-esteem and self-efficacy
within the organizational context an empirical examination,”
Group & Organization Management, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 48–70,
Mar. 1998.
[63] T. A. Judge, E. A. Locke, and C. C. Durham, “The dispositional
causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach,” Research
in Organizational Behavior, vol. 19, pp. 151–188, 1997.
[64] M. Sherer, J. E. Maddux, B. Mercandante, S. Prentice-Dunn, B.
Jacobs, and R. W. Rogers, “The self-efficacy scale: Construction
and validation,” Psychological Reports, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 663–
671, 1982.
[65] C. L. Hoyt, S. E. Murphy, S. K. Halverson, and C. B. Watson,
“Group leadership: Efficacy and effectiveness,” Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 259-274, Dec.
2003.
[66] M. M. Chemers, C. B. Watson, and S. T. May, “Dispositional
affect and leadership effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem,
optimism, and efficacy,” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 267–277, Mar. 2000.
[67] L. L. Paglis and S. G. Green, “Leadership self-efficacy and
managers’ motivation for leading change,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 215–235, Mar. 2002.
[68] T. D. Kane, S. J. Zaccaro, T. R. Tremble, and A. D. Masuda, “An
examination of the leaders regulation of groups,” Small Group
Research, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 65–120, Feb. 2002.
[69] M. M. Chemers, “Efficacy and effectiveness: Integrating models
of leadership and intelligence,” in Multiple Intelligences and
Leadership, R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, and F. J. Pirozzolo, Ed.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002, pp. 139–160.
[70] M. D. Wisner, “Psychological strengths as predictors of effective
student leadership,” Christian Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 3-4,
pp. 353–375, 2011.
[71] S. Raub and H. Liao, “Doing the right thing without being told:
Joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on
employee proactive customer service performance,” Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 651–667, May 2012.
[72] T. L. Messer, “A study of general self-efficacy: Training, job
performance, and attrition of novice Army* mechanics in a
simulated work environment,” Ph.D. dissertation, Spalding
University, 2007.
[73] J. J. Martocchio and T. A. Judge, “Relationship between
conscientiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating
influences of self-deception and self-efficacy,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 764-773, Oct. 1997.
[74] G. Chen, W. J. Casper, and J. M. Cortina, “The roles of selfefficacy
and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive
ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: A metaanalytic
examination,” Human Performance, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
209–230, 2001.
[75] K. Nielsen and F. Munir, “How do transformational leaders
influence followers’ affective well-being? Exploring the mediating
role of self-efficacy,” Work & Stress, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 313–329,
2009.
[76] R. Pillai and E. A. Williams, “Transformational leadership, selfefficacy,
group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance,”
Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.
144–159, 2004.
[77] N. R. Quigley, “The relationship between leader core selfevaluations,
team feedback, leader efficacy, transformational
leadership, team efficacy, team goals, team action and transition
processes, and team performance,” Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Maryland, 2003.
[78] S. A. Kirkpatick and E. A. Locke, “Leadership: Do traits matter?”
Academy of Management Executive, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 48–60, Feb.
1991.
[79] Y. Bo, “The influence study of transformational leadership in
university on teachers’ organizational commitment: The
construction and verification of a theoretical model,” Canadian
Social Science, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 126-137, 2013.
[80] S. Fitzgerald and N. S. Schutte, “Increasing transformational
leadership through enhancing self-efficacy,” Journal of
Management Development, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 495–505, 2010.
[81] L. Wang, “Sources of leadership self-efficacy: Follower feedback
and group performance outcomes,” International Journal of
Business Research, vol. 7, no. 6, 2007.
[82] S. E. Murphy, “The contribution of leadership experience and selfefficacy
to group performance under evaluation apprehension,”
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1992.
[83] P. Smutny, J. Prochazka, and M. Vaculik, “Learning effectiveness
of management simulation game Manahra,” in Proc. 7th European
Conference on Games Based Learning, C. V. de Carvahlo and P.
Escudeiro, Ed. UK: Academic Conference and Publishing Limited,
2013, pp. 512–520.
121
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing
[41] R. House, “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership
effectiveness,” in Leadership: The Cutting Edge, J. G. Hunt and L.
L. Larson, Eds. Carbondale: University Press, 1977, pp. 189-207.
[84] D. M. Cable and T. A. Judge, “Pay preferences and job search
decisions: A person-organization fit perspective,” Personnel
Psychology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 317–348, 1994.
[85] J. A. Smith and R. J. Foti, “A pattern approach to the study of
leader emergence,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 2, pp.
147–160, 1998.
[86] P. Tharenou, S. Latimer, and D. Conroy, “How do you make it to
the top? An examination of influences on women’s and men’s
managerial advancement,” Academy of Management Journal, vol.
37, no. 4, pp. 899–931, 1994.
[87] S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, “An analysis of variance test for
normality (complete samples),” Biometrika, vol. 52, no. 3/4, pp.
591–611, 1965.
[88] R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173–1182, Dec. 1986.
[89] A. F. Hayes, “Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation
analysis in the new millennium,” Communication Monographs,
vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 408–420, 2009.
[90] S. L. Woodruff and J. F. Cashman, “Task, domain, and general
efficacy: A reexamination of the self-efficacy scale,”
Psychological Reports, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 423–432, Apr. 1993.
[91] R. J. Bosscher and J. H. Smit, “Confirmatory factor analysis of the
general self-efficacy scale,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol.
36, no. 3, pp. 339–343, Mar. 1998.
[92] J. R. Hackman, “The design of work teams,” Ariel, vol. 129, pp.
32–197, 1987.
Jana Mesterova was born in Slovakia. She
received the master degree in Psychology
(MA equivalent, 2014) at Masaryk University,
Brno, Czech Republic. This paper is based on
her master thesis. She focuses on Work
Psychology and Human Resource
Management.
Jakub Prochazka was born in Czech
Republic. He received the master degrees in
Psychology (MA equivalent, 2008), in
Finance (MSc equivalent, 2009) and the Ph.D.
in Social Psychology (2013) at Masaryk
University, Brno, Czech Republic. He works
as an Assistant Professor at the Department
of Psychology and at the Department of
Corporate Economy at Masaryk University,
Brno, Czech Republic. His research focuses
on prosocial behavior and on leadership. Dr. Prochazka is a member of
European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology and an
international affiliate of American Psychological Association.
Martin Vaculik was born in Czech Republic.
He received the master degree in Psychology
(MA equivalent, 1998) and the Ph.D. in
Social Psychology (2000) at Masaryk
University, Brno, Czech Republic. He
habilitated in Social and Work Psychology at
Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia
(2010). He works as an Associate Professor
at the Department of Psychology, Masaryk
University, Brno, Czech Republic. His
research focuses on leadership, assessment
centre and employee selection.
Petr Smutny was born in Czech Republic.
He received the master degree in National
Economy (MSc equivalent, 2001) and the
Ph.D. in Management (2007) at Masaryk
University, Brno, Czech Republic. He works
as an Assistant Professor at the Department
of Corporate Economy and as a vice-dean of
Faculty of Economics and Administration,
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
His research focuses on competency models,
managerial skills and managerial simulation games.
122
Journal of Advanced Management Science Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2015
©2015 Engineering and Technology Publishing