Role of transformational leaders as change agents: leveraging effects on organizational climate.
The present study examines the transformational role of leaders that impacts organizational climate with a view to draw on the deeper influences it carries on the culture of the organization. One hundred and thirty-nine participants took part in the study, answering Transformational Leadership Style and Organizational Climate Questionnaires. Leadership Style data earlier subjected to Principal Axis Factoring Technique with varimax rotation procedure yielding 6 factors were related to 5 organizational climate factors obtained in the present study. The findings revealed unequivocal influence of transformational leadership styles over organizational climate dimensions suggesting theoretically a manoeuvring capability of organizational climate with its backward influence over transformational leadership behaviour. Perhaps a more sophisticated design of research is needed to confirm latter's backward influence over organizational leaders' transformational role.

Corporate culture (Analysis)
Leadership (Analysis)
Shanker, Meera
Sayeed, Omer Bin
Pub Date:
Name: Indian Journal of Industrial Relations Publisher: Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Economics Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources ISSN: 0019-5286
Date: Jan, 2012 Source Volume: 47 Source Issue: 3
Geographic Scope: India Geographic Code: 9INDI India
Accession Number:
Full Text:
Transformational Leadership

Transformational leaders encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational environment and its work culture. They empower followers through persuasion and empathic understanding to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of chastisement or ridicule (Kelly 2003, Stone, Russell & Patterson 2003). They tend to nurture the idea of receptivity to organizational transformation process widely and also tend to successfully bring the process to an end. Leadership can be defined as a social process of influencing other people's orientation towards achievement of goals, it is a style that evolves itself around organizational change process directly and transforms individuals (Greenberg et al 2000, Johns & Saks 2001, Yukl 2002). Transformational leadership emerged strongly with the advent of conceptualizing charisma as one of the leadership styles that use emotional upsurge of followers for producing results (Burn 1978, Bryman 1992, Bass 1985). The main framework of transformational leadership mostly relies on trust and commitment created and sustained in the organization (Jung & Avolio 1999). Transformational leadership makes profound positive influence on the subordinates' effort and satisfaction with their various abilities like creativity, team orientation, appreciation of others, teaching/coaching responsibility to others, recognition of work done by subordinates etc. (Bass & Avolio 1990, Bycio, Hackett & Allen 1995, Parry 2000).

Transformational Leadership Dimensions

Bass and Avolio (1989) identified components of transformational leadership as significant and contributing immensely to the nucleated core of the organization. They are: 1) Idealized influence or charisma. The leader provides vision and a sense of mission, instils pride, gains respect and trust. Such leaders excite and inspire subordinates (Stone, Russell & Patterson 2003). 2) Inspirational motivation: The leader acts as a model for subordinates; communicates a vision and uses symbols to focus efforts. This dimension is a measure of his/her ability to engender confidence in leader's vision and values. 3) Intellectual consideration: The leader coaches and mentors. He provides continuous and crucial feedback for subordinate development besides serving linking-pin functions amongst his organizational members so as to lead them forcefully with organizational mission in sight. 4) Intellectual stimulation: The leader stimulates followers to rethink about old ways of doing things and to reassess their basic values and beliefs.

Organizational climate

Organizational climate is a construct that leverages internal processes. It is defined as a global impression of one's organization and seething personal impact of the work environment. It tends to influence employees' work behaviours and perceptions towards organization thereby linking their work performance and job related attitudes (Pritchard & Karasick 1973, Litwin & Stringer 1968). It also reflects workers' emotional responses to the characteristics of the work environment (Glisson & James 2002, James & Sells 1981). Climate is a dimension of organizational characteristics that influence employees' attitudes either directly or through some medium of organizational processes (Aarons & Sawitzky 2006, Carmazzi & Aarons 2003, Glisson & James 2002). The various approaches that have defined organizational climate comprises several schools of thoughts such as structuralist, objectivist, subjectivist, interactivist etc. (Moran & Volkwein 1992, Forehand & Gilmer 1964, Powell & Butterfield 1978, Furnham & Gunter 1993, James, Joyce & Slocum 1988, Ashforth 1985), but irrespective of a given framework organizations can easily be perceived for their created impact on organizational members as implied above. In line with some of the schools of thoughts organizational climate has been measured through certain defined dimensions, such as Structure, Responsibility, Risk, Reward, Warmth and Support, (Litwin and Stringer 1968). Organizational climate is very much influenced by the in-role and extra-role social interaction that takes place in consequence of individuals' interactions within organizational boundaries (Organ 1988).

Leadership & Organizational Climate

Transformational leaders visualize the need for change in organization and operate as per the characteristic situation thrown upon them with its unique expression of climate (Bass 1997). Each component of transformational leadership is manifested differently in different organizational climates/cultures (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili 2001). The success of change strategy of a transformational leader thus depended upon his sensitivity to culture-specific complexities and nuances operating within their organizations (Singh & Bhandarker 1990). Organizational climate, change agent leadership, and decision of change, all the three influence the change process in which if employee response being adequate the transformational leadership plays an important role in guiding change (Elving 2005, Lines 2004, Horwitz & Neville 1996, Phelan 2005). Transformational leaders use their effective interventions after considering underlying needs and values of followers, which can be addressed by understanding employees' cultural background (Brown & Eisenhardt 1997, Eisenbach, Watson & Pillai 1999).

As literature suggests, transformational leaders play a very important role in any organizational change process in any type of organizational climate due to their deeper understanding of leveraging through cultural context. Irrespective of various studies being conducted on transformational leadership styles and organizational climate, there is dearth of research in this area combining two levels of measurement: one is the assessment of leader characteristics done by self and the other being organizational characteristics assessed by those who experience it.

The present study is set out to explore transformational leadership styles and organizational climate to establish empirical connections among these variables and then provide support to the theory (Sayeed and Shanker 2009) as to what is a likely outcome in the process of transforming an organization when its leaders show up some or several of the transformational characteristics in varied organizational contexts.

Objectives of the Study

In view of the above, main objectives of the study were framed as follows:

1. To define Organizational Climate dimensions through Factor Analytic Approach.

2. To establish relationship between various dimensions of transformational leadership styles and the Organizational Climate perceived by subordinates in diverse types of organizational settings.

3. To find out how Organizational Climate that has been transformed exerts influences backwardly in the development of transformational leaders for future research.


Various challenges of organizational culture/climate for transformational leaders include empowering employees, leveraging internal and external knowledge, synthesizing external information, and encouraging creativity (Dess & Picken 2000). The review briefly noted that transformational leadership is more likely to correlate with the components of Organizational Climate (Bass 1997, Ardichvili & Gasparishvili 2001). Specific hypotheses are, therefore, drawn from above noted objectives of the study to test relationship between the two major dimensions of the study besides theorizing how Organizational Climate is likely to influence transformational leadership if the existing Organizational Climate is fully toned up for its sustained effect in organization.

H1. Resolute and Empowering Leadership Style will positively correlate with Organizational Power Direction and Espirit de corps dimensions of organizational climate.

H2: The past researches have demonstrated some of the qualities of transformation leadership being creativity, team orientation, appreciation of others, teaching responsibility and recognition of others' work etc (Bass and Avolio 1990, Howell & Frost 1989, Kirkpatrick & Locke 1996, Parry 2000) besides a point of view that visionary leaders may put the goal very high to be achieved as time passes. It is therefore, hypothesized that Visionary and Futuristic Leadership Style dimensions will show positive relationship with team-centeredness and goal setting freedom dimensions of Organizational Climate.

H3: Leaders use their effective interventions after considering underlying needs and values of followers, which can be addressed by understanding employees' cultural background (Brown & Eisenhardt 1997). In view of the above clue it is hypothesized that Unconventional and Innovative and Achievement focused styles projected by Transformational Leadership will positively correlate with Goal-setting Freedom and Organizational Power Direction.

H4: Nurturant-task leaders, as demonstrated by Sinha (1980), are considerate and affectionate and at times become benevolent if subordinates are task oriented, responsive and hard-working. In view of the above it is hypothesized that Nurturing-task focused leadership style will positively correlate with Trusting Relationship and Team-centeredness dimensions of Organizational Climate.


The study was conducted in organizations located in Western India. The sample was obtained in a manner that ensured sticking to the probability sampling method but with some degree of opportunity sampling bias. The sample represented a cross-section of industries with varied background and differing functional groupings of managers. Some degree of heterogeneity of the sample ensured varying levels of attainments of leaders at different hierarchal levels of the organization. In all, 139 executives responded to the questionnaire, of which 21 per cent belonged to upper and 79 per cent to the middle management cadre. The age of the respondents varied from 22 years to 60 years with median age being 37 years. The work experience ranged from 4 to 23 years (median=16 years).


Development of Transformational Leadership Styles Scale: Using the framework of Multiple Leadership Questionnaire originally developed by Bass (1985) with various dimensions of transformational leadership, namely, idealized attributes and behaviours, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual considerations we made an attempt to redefine, in the Indian context, what has been proposed elsewhere regarding transformational leadership styles. Our effort of redefining and relabelling the Transformational Leadership measures through factorial approach resulted into five main components: 1. Resolute and Empowering Style, 2. Nurturing Task-focused Style, 3.Visionary Style, 4. Futuristic Style, 5.Unconventional and Innovative Style, and 6.Achievement Focused Style (Sayeed & Shanker 2009). For the purpose of having right items in the subscales, the criteria adopted by the researchers of Transformational Leadership Model (Jung & Avolio 1999, Gellis 2001, Kelly 2003, Stone, Russel & Patterson 2003, Hackman & Johnson 1991) were considered crucial. Thus, the 50 items were judged whether or not they are perceived as items of Transformational Leadership. The items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 "Not at all true of me" to 7 "A great extent true of me". The data were then subjected to Principal Axis Factoring Technique with varimax rotation procedure. After a great deal of experimentation, using different number of factors to find an acceptable solution, six dimensions were finally extracted, rotated to a varimax criterion and retained for the purpose of interpretation.

Development of Organizational Climate Scale

The scale consisted of 20 items. Based on the contents of Manifest Need Questionnaire developed by Steers and Braunstein (1976), Pandey (1992) modified and adapted the questionnaire items to organizational situations reflecting organizational needs and presses. The items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 "Not at all true of my organization" to 7 "A great extent true of my organization". The data collected from various levels of managers in the present study were subjected to a Principal Axis Factoring Technique with varimax rotation procedure. A series of factor analyses were performed which allowed us to sift, eliminate, classify and reclassify those items which were appropriate as per the defined semantic space of organizational climate. While setting the criterion value of factor loading being .40 and above for acceptance as a valid and acceptable loading, a five factor solution with all the 20 items was accepted. These factors were defined and labelled as Trusting Relationship, Espirit de corps, Team-centeredness, Goal-setting Freedom, and Organizational Power Direction.


Organizational Climate Measure: Table 1 presents Varimax rotated factor structure comprising five major dimensions of Organizational Climate. The factor structure was extracted several times using varying number of factors so as to accept a given internal structure of organizational climate items that explains maximum percentage of variance and also reflects higher degree of semantic closeness of items within a given factor structure. This strategy helped defining the attributes of Organizational Climate, which, in the final analysis, resulted in five unique but related dimensions of organizational climate as described below.

Factor I: Trusting Relationship: This factor comprised six items and explained Organizational Climate in terms of widespread trust experienced by members of the organization. The subordinates perceived to be respectfully treated, their competencies are considered as a contributing factor to relate professionally with each other and develop trusting relationship within the group. Subordinates perceived their superiors as trustworthy and approachable for discussing and solving a variety of work related problems.

Factor II: Espirit de corps: This factor comprised 5 items and explained how organization is perceived at the macro level representing its strong identity as a corporate body that maintains its prestige and provides organizational leadership to other corporate bodies. Independent of the above characteristics the organization is infused with humane culture with emphasis on continuously improved performance standards.

Factor III: Team-centeredness: This factor is labelled as team centeredness in consequence of perceived importance emphasized by the item contents. Team orientation was perceived to be a common base for labelling this dimension. How the task performance is attained and the group atmosphere evolved itself to be cohesive for higher performance goals was the major consideration here. Since organization seemingly gives high importance to having team players in the organization, the label of this factor is justified.

Factor IV: Goal-setting Freedom: This factor comprised only two items mainly referred to the perception of people related to performance goals and opportunities for independent thoughts and actions that can help them and the organization alike. In view of the contents being suggestive of goal setting process and the degree to which autonomy is seen vested in this process, Goal-setting Freedom is considered to be the right semantic label for this factor.

Factor V: Organizational Power Direction: This factor, based on the con tents of three items, signifies direction of power in channelizing organizational energies. Similarly, due to great show of power or power possessiveness it tends to assign more power to its upper echelon and sets higher standards of performance so as to lead other organizations in the same field as that of the organization itself.

Table 2 presents summary of item analysis carried out on the finally accepted items of Organizational Climate. The reliabilities ranged from a low of .56 for Organizational Power Direction to a high of .80 for Trusting Relationship. The other dimensions such as Espirit de corps, Team-centeredness and Goal-setting Freedom have Alpha Reliabilities of .69, .72 and .77 order respectively.

Table 3 presents stepwise regression results between Transformational Leadership styles and Organizational Climate dimension labelled as Trusting Relationship. The information reported here includes regression coefficients, their significance levels and incremental change in R-square when each of the transformational leadership dimensions is included in the equation in a stepwise mode. Hence, contents of each table depict change in R-square tested for statistical significance at the entry of a variable rather than the significance of R-square generally reported to signify goodness of fit of an equation. It may be noted that Resolute and empowering style, Nurturing task focused style, Visionary style and Futuristic style entered into the equation in that order, explaining 39.8, 8.8, 2.6 and 1.4 per cent of variance (Incremental change in R-square) and they were tested to be significant. The overall explanatory power of four styles taken together showed 52.6 per cent of variance, significantly well beyond the .01 level of confidence. A closer look on standardized regression coefficient also showed strength of the coefficient being statistically significant and followed the pattern of explanatory power referred to above.

Table 4 present Stepwise regression results between Transformational leadership styles and Organizational Climate dimension of Espirit de corps. Regression coefficients were significant beyond the confidence level of one per cent for the Transformational leadership styles and explained, in particular, 22.3 percent of variance for Visionary style and 8.7 percent for Futuristic style (p.<01). Taken together both the transformational styles explained 31 per cent of variance significantly well beyond the .01 level of confidence.

Table 5 portrays regression results between Transformational leadership styles and Organizational Climate dimension using Team-centeredness dimension. Findings revealed that Futuristic and Visionary styles qualified to enter into the equation in that order explaining 26.1 percent and 3.6 per cent of variance respectively. The regression coefficients also followed the same hierarchical pattern as that of their explanatory power. The overall percentage of variance was found to be 29.7 significantly well beyond the .01 level of confidence.

Table 6 presents stepwise regression results obtained between Transformational leadership styles and Goal-setting freedom dimension of Organizational climate. Out of the 6 leadership factors only two that entered into the equation were Unconventional and Innovative styles and Nurturing Task-focused style, explaining 19.9 and 5.2 per cent of variance in the dependent variable. The respective regression coefficients were significant at the .01 level of confidence, suggesting that these styles have created strong impact on organizational climate much more than the other leadership dimensions. Comparing the two styles, Unconventional and Innovative styles showed stronger influence than Nurturing task focused style.

Table 7 provides regression results between Leadership styles and Organizational climate dimensions labelled as Organizational power direction in a stepwise mode. All the six styles entered into equation explaining 40.5 per cent of variance (p<.01) together of which the highest percentage of variance (24.1 percent) was obtained for Nurturing task focused style, whereas lowest percentage of variance was obtained for Futuristic style. The regression coefficients were all positive and significant except Unconventional and Innovative style that tended to show strong negative impact on Organizational power direction.


In the present study Organizational Climate (variables reflecting various cumulative perceptions of interaction among people) were factor-analyzed in order to define the unique pattern that is likely to be influenced by a leader's attempt to be transformational and change oriented. Thus, there was a patterned perception of climate as well as the transformation and change initiated by the organizational leaders. The leadership pattern is enumerated as Nurturing task-focused style, Visionary style, Resolute and empowering style, Achievement-focused style, Unconventional and Innovative style and Futuristic style (Sayeed & Shanker 2009). The pattern of organizational climate, based on factor analysis, included five dimensions termed as: (1) Trusting relationship, (2) Espirit de corps, (3) Team-centeredness, (4) Goal-setting freedom, and (5) Organizational power direction. It is recognized that if the managing components of leadership positions in an organization are fully infused with transformation centric behaviour/ style, these may create a rewarding work environment in which seniors' roles are perceived not necessarily as 'action oriented for results alone' but as caring, empathy exuding and compassionate. This process of compassion, empathy and helpfulness make the transformation practically easy and pragmatically effective. The evidence obtained through Tables 4 to 7 confirmed the hypothesized linkages between transformational leadership behaviour and the pattern of Organizational Climate perceived by subordinates.

Transformation in organizations may also follow another route through HR level policies implemented in organizations. One of them could be developing frontline leaders, strengthening second line of leadership through behavioural skills and augmenting conceptual and thought leadership role on the top. This framework transformation would simply embody itself like a leadership mode or style or intervention in the organization. Since the present study does not seem to assess all levels of leadership, it can only be said to have created its leadership impact through individual level attempts at bringing about change and transforming organization through subordinates. The result will be favourable for the organizations due to constant interventions made by each level of leadership or the leadership clusters.

The factors of Transformational leadership clearly suggested that across all the dimensions certain binding and influencing mechanisms exist that tend to transform the behaviour of people into a factor of desirability. For example Resolute and empowering style clearly determines the degree of firmness within the group and the degree of freedom allowed in getting things done. While perceiving the above noted style they will be motivated to set the ball of transformation process rolling. The resultant is the direct impact on Organizational Climate which is qualitatively different and changing over a period of time. Similarly other dimensions of Transformational leadership (namely, Nurturing task focused style, Visionary style, Resolute and empowering style, Achievement focused style and Futuristic style) carry more or less identical impacts on individuals' behaviour whose interactions ultimately set the mode of Organizational Climate to be value laden.

It is expected that in a changed/ transformed organization, Organizational Climate with its unique dimensions exert influence over the new leaders that enter into organization. They tend to bring along with them whims and fancies of their previous organizations, a style of functioning that may not be appropriate to the transformed organization, and ways of adapting to a less vibrant Organizational culture that was their previous doings. The transformed organization would seemingly stop them from practicing what is undesirable and introduce those elements of practices at the level of leaders that are perceived to be part of the inner values of the organization. The result therefore, is that of backward influence of Organizational Climate lashing out in the open for everybody's benefits. In the present study, it is surmised that since Transformational leadership styles had very strong relationship with Organizational Climate it has deeply permeated down the inner core of organizational values. Thus, it would eventually, generate recessive influence over the newcomers (or new leaders) and make them take a quantum jump mainly due to the dynamism of transformation with strong leanings for new agenda to be set for their effective leadership role in the near future.


Understanding Organizational Climate is a key contributing factor for the leaders to use their leading strategies to bring about changes in organization. Organizational climate perceptions are directly influenced by the leaders due mainly to their involvement. The inclination for accepting the suitable style to work in diversity and make individuals change and transform to the core is the major goal of transformational leaders. The findings revealed a five factor structure of Organizational Climate comprising trusting relationship, espirit de corps, Team-centeredness goal-setting freedom and Organizational power direction. This pattern of Organizational Climate was influenced by Transformational leadership as hypothesized in the present study resulting in best fit of the model and suggests mutuality and continuity between the two concurrent processes of organization, of which one is organization based (climate) and the other is person based (leadership behaviours/styles).


Importance of effective leadership is increasingly perceived in organizations to

meet the new challenges of growth and development. It is equally significant that leader must efficiently perceive, examine and comprehend the Organizational Climate of the type existing in their organization. The present study provides the likely scope for such managers who want to bring about change and sustain it as a way of life through leadership influences. It was proposed that leaders should be able to understand various dimensions of transformation so that these could be prioritized. The success of change strategy of transformational leaders is dependent upon leaders' understanding of complexities and nuances associated with the pattern of climate perceived in organizations and the likely change he may like to infuse into the existing organizational processes.


Aarons, G. A. & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006), "Organizational Culture and Climate and Mental Health Provider Attitudes toward Evidence-based Practice", Psychological Services, 3(1): 61-72.

Ardichvili, A. & Gasparishvili, A. (2001), "Leadership Profiles of Managers in Post-communist Countries: A Comparative Study", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2): 62-69

Ashforth, B.E. (1985), "Climate Formation: Issues and Extensions", Academy of ManagementReview, 10: 387-847

Bass, B. M. (1997), "Does the Transactional Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries"? American Psychologist, 52(2):130-139.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1989), Manual for the Multifactor Questionnaire, Palo Alto Ca. Consulting Psychologist Press.

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

Brown, Shona L.& Kathleen M. Eisenhardt (1997), "The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Timepaced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations", Administrative Science Quarterly.

Bryman, A. (1992), Charisma and Leadership in Organizations, London, Sage

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, New York, Harper and Row.

Carmazzi, A. & Aarons, G. A. (2003), "Organizational Culture and Attitudes toward Adoption of Evidence-based Practice", Paper presented at the NASMHPD Research Institute's 2003 Conference on State Mental Health Agency Services Research, Program Evaluation, and Policy, Baltimore, MD.

Dess, G. & Picken, J. (2000), "Changing roles: Leadership in the 21st Century", Organizational Dynamics, 28 (3):18-34.

Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. & Pillai, R. (1999), "Transformational Leadership in the Context of Organizational Change", Journal of Organizational Change Manage ment,12(2): 80-88

Elving, W.J. (2005), "The Role of Communication in Organizational Change", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10: 129-38.

Forehand, G. A. & Gilmer, B. (1964), "Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behaviour", Psychological Bulletin, 62(6): 361-82.

Furnham, A. & B. Gunter (1993), Corporate Assessment, London, Routledge.

Gellis, Z.D. (2001), "Social Work Perceptions of Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Health Care", Social Work Research, 25 (1): 17-25.

Glisson C. & James L.R. (2002), "The Crosslevel Effects of Culture and Climate in Human Service Teams", Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 23:767-94.

Greenberg, J., Baron, R.A., Sales, C.A.& Owens, F.A. (2000), Behaviour in Organizations, Canada, Pearson Education Inc.

Hackman, M. & Johnson, C. (1991), Leadership. Waveland Press.

Horwitz, P. & Neville, M. (1996), "Organizational Design for Service Excellence: A Review of Literature", Human Resource Management, 35(4):471-92.

Howell, J. M. & Frost, P. J. (1989), "A Laboratory Study of Charismatic Leadership", Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process, 43: 243-69.

James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981), "Psychological Climate: Theoretical perspectives and Empirical Research", in D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Interactional Perspective:(275-450). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

James, L. R., Joyce, W. F. & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1988), "Comment: Organizations Do Not Cognize", Academy of Management Review, 13(1): 129-32.

Johnston, H. R. (1976), "A New Conceptualization of Source of Organizational Climate", Administrative Science Quarterly, 21: 95-103

Johns G. & Saks, A.M. (2001), Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and Managing Life at Work, Toronto, Addition Wesley Longman.

Jung, D.I. & Avolio, B.J. (1999), "Effects of Leadership Style and Followers' Cultural Orientation on Performance in Groups and Individual Task Conditions", Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 208-18

Kelly, M.L. (2003), "Academic Advisers as Transformational Leaders", The Mentor, http://www.psu.deu/dus/_mentor/030101mk.htm./

Kirkpatrick, S. & Locke, E. (1996), "Direct and Indirect Effects of Three Core Charismatic Leadership Components on Performance and Attitudes", Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1): 36-51.

Lapp, J. (1999), "New Models of Leadership", Executive Excellence, 16 (6): 20-21.

Litwin, G.H. & Stringer, R.A. (1968), Motivation and Organizational Climate, Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Moran, E.T. & Volkwein, J.F. (1992), "The Cultural Approach to the Formation of Organizational Climate", Human Relations, 45(1):19-47.

Organ, D. W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington MA, England: Lexington Books/ DC Heath and Com.

Pandey, M. (1992), Managing Superior Subordinate Conflict: Strategies and Some Correlates, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.

Parry, K. (2000), "Does Leadership Help the Bottom Line"? New Zealand Management; 47 (3): 38-41.

Phelan, D. (2005), "Crossing the Generations: Learning to Lead across the Leadership Life Cycle", Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 29(9/10): 783-92.

Powell, G.N.& Butterfield, D.A. (1978), "The Case for Subsystem Climates in Organizations", Academy of Management Review, 3: 151-57.

Pritchard, R. D. & Karasick, B. W. (1973), "The Effects of Organizational Climate on Managerial Job Performance and Job Satisfaction", Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 9(1): 126-146

Sayeed, O.B & Shanker, M. (2009), "Emotionally Intelligent Managers and Transformational Leadership", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44 (4),

Singh, P. & Bhandarker, A. (1990), Corporate Success and Transformational Leadership. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern.

Sinha, J.B.P. (1980), Nurturant Task Leadership, New Delhi: Concept.

Steers, R. & Braunstein, D. (1976), "A Behaviourally Based Measure of Manifest Needs in Work Settings", Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 9: 251-66.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R.F.& Patterson, K. (2003), "Transformational versus Servant Leadership - a Difference in Leader Focus. Servant Leadership Roundtable", October 2003. http://www.regentedu/acad/cIs/ 2003servantIeadershiproundtabIe/ stone.pdf

YukI, G A. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, (5th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Meera Shanker is Associate Professor in OB & HR, Dept. of Management., SNDT Women's University, Mumbai. Email: Meera.shanker Omar Bin Sayeed is 0Professor of Organizational Behaviour/HR, Institute of Management Technology, Hyderabad. Email:
Table 1: Principal Axis Factor Analysis of Organizational Climate
Items with Varimax Rotation

Item                              Trusting   Espirit de          Team-
                              Relationship        corps   centeredness

05) Subordinates trust
statements of superiors                .98        .-.02            .08

06) Superiors listens to
subordinates problem                   .84          .17            .05

01) Superiors treat their
subordinates with respect             ..67          .04            .11

03) Control assigned in
the area of authority                  .60          .01            .04

13) Superiors are friendly
and easy to approach                   .36          .19           ..16

18) Great deal of freedom
to decide how we do our
job                                     37          .17            .15

04) Organization strives
to be in command while
interacting with other
organization                           .31          .51            .17

09) Organization prefers
to be its own boss                     .02          .79            .10

10) It is up to us to
decide how our job best be
done                                   .15          .69            .27

12) Status symbols are
important for this
organization                           .13          .60            .06

02) Feeling of pressure
to improve continuously                .26          .40            .00

14) Discourages taking
increased responsibilities             .07          .18            .92

19) Superiors to pay
attention to what their
subordinates say                       .02          .13            .56

11) Organization wants
team players                           .09          .43            .55

07) This organization
stimulates innovation                  .22          .10            .42

15) People are free to set
performance goals                      .03          .05            .17

16) There are
opportunities for
independent thought and
action                                 .04          .15            .19

20) Provides lot of power
and control to upper level
of management                          .16          .08            .06

17) Organizations directs
and organizes activities
of its members                         .14          .21            .00

08) Organization sets
higher standard of
performance                            .13          .24            .30

Item                          Goal-setting    Organizational
                                   freedom   power direction

05) Subordinates trust
statements of superiors                .08               .22

06) Superiors listens to
subordinates problem                   .05               .03

01) Superiors treat their
subordinates with respect              .01               .13

03) Control assigned in
the area of authority                  .12               .25

13) Superiors are friendly
and easy to approach                   .21              ..00

18) Great deal of freedom
to decide how we do our
job                                    .08               .19

04) Organization strives
to be in command while
interacting with other
organization                           .15               .14

09) Organization prefers
to be its own boss                     .09               .01

10) It is up to us to
decide how our job best be
done                                   .12               .02

12) Status symbols are
important for this
organization                            12               .03

02) Feeling of pressure
to improve continuously                .12               .32

14) Discourages taking
increased responsibilities             .04               .09

19) Superiors to pay
attention to what their
subordinates say                       .09               .20

11) Organization wants
team players                           .11               .04

07) This organization
stimulates innovation                  .14               .14

15) People are free to set
performance goals                      .90               .14

16) There are
opportunities for
independent thought and
action                                 .89               .08

20) Provides lot of power
and control to upper level
of management                          .07               .91

17) Organizations directs
and organizes activities
of its members                         .00               .72

08) Organization sets
higher standard of
performance                            .16               .42

Table 2 Summary of Item Analysis on Extracted Factors of
Organizational Climate

Accepted Factors                  No. of Items   Scale Mean   Scale SD

Trusting Relationship                  6            4.93        .95
Espirit de corps                       5            4.43        .97
Team- orientedness                     4            4.96        1.05
Goal-setting freedom                   2            4.35        1.37
Organizational Power Direction         3            4.66        1.13

Accepted Factors                  Alpha Reliability

Trusting Relationship                    .80
Espirit de corps                         .69
Team- orientedness                       .72
Goal-setting freedom                     .77
Organizational Power Direction           .56

Table 3: Step-wise Regression Analysis between Transformational
Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate Dimension of Trusting

Model                Unstandardized     Standardized   Incremental
                      Coefficients      Coefficients      R-square

                       B   Std. Error           Beta

Constant           3.927        2.206

EMPOWERNG STYLE    2.092         .476           .351       .398 **

FOCUSED STYLE      1.366         .455           .248       .088 **

VISIONARY STYLE     .743         .360           .138       .026 **

FUTURISTIC STYLE    .978         .491           .171        .014 *

a. Dependent Variable: TRUSTING RELATIONSHIP

Table (4): Step-wise Regression Analysis between Transformational
Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate Dimension espirit de

                       B    Std. Error    Beta    Incremental
Constant           7.196         2.001
VISIONARY STYLE    1.541          .362    .338        .223 **
FUTURISTIC STYLE   1.575          .386    .324        .087 **

a. Dependent Variable: ESPIRIT DE CORPS

Table 5 : Step-wise Regression Analysis between Transformational
Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate Dimension

Model               Non-standardized     Standardized    Incremental
                      Coefficients       Coefficients       R Square

                       B   Std. Error            Beta

Constant           8.860        1.231
FUTURISTIC STYLE   1.258         .237            .425        .261 **
VISIONARY STYLE     .578         .223            .208         .036 *

** p>.01; * p<.05

Table 6: Regression Analysis between Transformational Leadership
Styles and Organizational Climate Dimension Goal-setting Freedom

Model                  Non-standardized     Standardized   Incremental
                        Coefficients        Coefficients      R Square

                           B   Std. Error           Beta

Constant               4.207         .819

INNOVATIVE STYLE     .644 **         .189           .304       .199 **

FOCUSED STYLE        .529 **         .175           .268       .052 **

** p<.01

Table 7: Step-wise Regression Analysis between Transformational
Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate Dimension Organizational
Power Direction

el                     Unstandardized    Standardized
                        Coefficients     Coefficients

Error                      B     Std.            Beta

(Constant)              .274    1.647            .166

FOCUSED STYLE           .912     .317            .279

VISIONARY STYLE         .678     .260            .213

EMPOWERNG STYLE         .693     .322            .196

FOCUSED STYLE           .565     .233            .181

AND INNOVATIVE STYLE   -.712     .303           -.203

FUTURISTIC STYLE        .680     .335            .200

el                          t    Sig.    Incremental


(Constant)               .868

FOCUSED STYLE           2.881    .005        .241 **

VISIONARY STYLE         2.603    .010        .077 **

EMPOWERNG STYLE         2.155    .033         .030 *

FOCUSED STYLE           2.430    .016         .019 *

AND INNOVATIVE STYLE   -2.352    .020         .019 *

FUTURISTIC STYLE        2.028    .045         .019 *

a. Dependent Variable: Organizational Power Direction
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.