What leadership behaviors do CPA's prefer from their managers? The preferred behaviors most related to quality of relationships.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 11, Number 2, Summer 2014 1

What leadership behaviors do CPA’s prefer from their managers?

The preferred behaviors most related to quality of relationships.

David Notgrass, Ph.D.

Tarleton State University

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between followers’ perception of

quality of relationship with their leaders and followers’ preferred leadership behaviors from their

leaders among 105 Certified Public Accountants working in the United States for U.S. companies

with more than 1,000 employees. Four self-reporting scales were used to measure the study’s

variables: the LMX-7 questionnaire was used to measure followers’ perceived quality of dyadic

relationship with their leader and the MLQ (Form-5X) was used to measure followers’ preference

for transformational leadership behaviors, transactional leadership behaviors, and leadership-

avoidant behaviors from their leader. Pearson correlation (rs) and two-tailed t-tests determined

both positive and negative significant levels of relationship between follower’s perceived quality

of relationship and follower’s preference for specific transformational, transactional, and

leadership-avoidant leadership behaviors. Linear regression testing determined the predictive

values for those behaviors with the highest correlations. Implications for improving leadership

practices for leading CPAs and directions of future research are discussed. The results of the

study determined that followers’ perceived quality of relationship could significantly predict their

level of preference for specific leadership behaviors.

Keywords: Leadership, followership, quality of relationship

INTRODUCTION

Leading professional groups often requires more than just knowing the responsibilities of

the profession. While leading Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) can present both

opportunities and challenges related to their specialized education and responsibilities to their

clients and profession, academic studies can be used to enable leaders to learn and apply

leadership behaviors that can improve their leadership practices. This research study focused on

identifying specific leadership behaviors that have significant relationships with the quality of

relationships between CPAs and their direct supervisors. This is a significant addition to the

findings of previous studies that have identified positive consequences associated with higher

quality relationships that include organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational

commitment, and member satisfaction (Gerstner & Day 1997; Illies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,

2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

In leading CPAs, the Lord and Emrich (2001) words “if leadership resides, at least in

part, in the minds of followers, then it is imperative to discover what followers are thinking” (p.

551). With that perspective in mind, the objective of this research study was to utilize data, from

the perspective of the followers, to test the relationship between CPAs’ (a) perception of the

quality of relationship with their direct supervisor (leader) and (b) their preference for specific

leadership behaviors from that same leader, which had not yet been explored in the research

literature. The data utilized had been gathered for a previous study that determined correlations

at the scale and subscale levels, and this study’s goal was to move the analysis and findings from

a pure research level to a practitioner level. This study utilized data previously gathered from a

test population of 105 Certified Public Accountants. Using the existing data from self-reporting


questionnaires, this study utilized both correlation and linear regression techniques, to determine

significant relationships (both positive and negative) between the perceived quality of

relationship and preference for specific leadership behaviors. The study also strived to determine

if the followers’ perceived quality of relationship with their leaders could predict the followers’

levels of preferences for specific leadership behaviors. The intent of the study was to, through its

findings; contribute to better leadership practices for individuals leading CPAs.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership and Followership

The Hogg (2001) assertion that “leaders exist because of followers and followers exist

because of leaders” (p. 185) illustrates the symbiotic nature of the relationship between leaders

and followers. Most current definitions of leadership also include both leaders and followers with

the concept that leadership is a process whereby leaders influence followers’ thoughts and/or

behavior (Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2002). Kellerman (2008) provided a current definition of

followership as “the response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior

ones (leaders). Followership implies a relationship between subordinates and superiors, and a

response of the former to the latter” (p. xxi).

Although both leaders and followers are essential to the leadership process, there has

been a division in research oriented toward understanding leaders and followers (Baker, 2007;

Burns, 1978; Yukl, 2002). While the definition of leadership includes the existence of followers,

studies of leadership have historically paid little interest to the characteristics of followers (Dvir

& Shamir, 2003; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Yukl, 2002).

Yukl (2002) addressed the lack of research aimed toward followership in his analysis,

“only a small amount of research and theory emphasizes characteristics of the followers” (p. 17).

Vecchio and Boatwright (2002) spoke to the lack of follower-focused research, specifically the

lack of research aimed toward understanding follower preferences of leadership styles in their

description of the state of leadership research: “…there are areas where our knowledge base

remains deficient. One of these areas is the topic of subordinate preferences for styles of

supervision” (p. 327).

This research examined specific leadership behaviors at the practitioner level and their

correlation with perceived quality of relationship. Leadership behaviors can be measured using

questionnaires reflecting transactional, transformational, and leadership-avoidance concepts

(Bass & Avolio, 2004). Leaders using a transactional style, based on material exchange

relationships, help to clarify expectations for follower’s effort and achievement and the

associated contingent rewards. Team leaders that define/update the contingent reward system,

work agenda, work assignments, performance metrics, and timelines are exhibiting transactional

leadership behaviors.

Transformational leadership, representing more of a form of social exchange

relationships, challenges followers to assess higher level values and behaviors. Team leaders that

speak to the significance of the role of the work in relation to the overall profession, the link

between the work and values of the leader, and spend time ensuring the professional

development of the team members are exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors (Bass &

Riggio, 2006; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Bass and Riggio (2006) suggests it is transactional

leadership, through honoring commitments of contingent rewards, creates trust, dependability,


and perceptions of consistency, which in turn allow the augmentation of transformational

leadership. Leaders using a leadership avoidant style may employ a monitoring process and wait

until there is a serious issue that has come to light before they become involved.

Relationship between Leader and Follower

The term relational leadership describes the active roles of both leaders and followers

within two-way influence relationships between leaders and followers (Uhl-Bien, 2006).

Relational leadership is foundationally based in part on the concept of an exchange process

between two parties. Exchange process, as applied in leadership studies, describes relationships

existing as exchanges of desirable outcomes between leaders and individual followers (Blau,

1960, 1986; Cook & Whitmeyer, 1992; Homans, 1958).

Hollander and Julian (1969) included the thought of exchanges as transactions occurring

between leader and follower resulting in a “two-way influence characterizing leader-follower

relations” (p. 387). This two-way influence creates interdependence between leader and follower.

Hollander (1992) suggested this relational interdependence reflects the ability for both leader and

follower to generate rewards that are satisfying to the other. In his review of research recognizing

a more active conception of followers, he warned the leader-follower relationship seems to be

affected by “perceptions, misperceptions, and self-oriented biases on both parts” (p. 43). He also

suggested leaders be aware of and address follower expectations and perceptions.

This study also answered calls for research in regard to relationship development. Graen

and Uhl-Bien (1995) acknowledged the imbalance of research toward the leadership domain and

issued a call for research in their analysis “in leadership research to date, a plethora of studies

have been conducted on the leader, but in comparison there has been a dearth of studies in the

other two areas. Clearly, more research is needed on followers and the leadership relationship”

(p. 222). Schriesheim, Castro, and Cogliser (1999) also issued a call for research that extends

beyond the leader in their words “this review clearly indicates the need for improved theorization

about Leader-Member-Exchange and its basic process” (p. 102).

Consequences of Quality of Relationships

Higher quality of relationships between leaders and followers in organizational settings

has been linked to desired outcomes including enhanced levels of organizational citizenship

behaviors, organizational commitment, and member satisfaction. Gerstner and Day (1997), in

their meta-analysis reviewing level of quality of relationship correlates across 79 independent

studies, found quality of relationship to be more strongly related to subjective outcomes

including member performance ratings, member satisfaction, member organizational

commitment, and member affectivity than objective outcomes such as productivity and turnover.

Citizenship behavior describes behaviors employees engage in beyond their prescribed

roles. These behaviors include individual-targeted, altruistic behaviors providing immediate

benefit to specific individuals and indirect benefit to the organization, and organizational-

targeted behaviors including organizational loyalty, job dedication, and conscientiousness

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Illies, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007), in

their meta-analysis across 50 independent research studies with a combined sample size of 9,324,

found a moderately strong, positive relationship (p =.370) between quality of relationship and

citizenship behaviors.


There has been research aimed toward the relationship between quality of relationship

and followers’ level of organizational commitment. Organizational commitment refers to “the

relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization”

(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p. 226) as reflected through the three general themes of 1)

attachment to the organization (affective commitment), 2) perceived costs in leaving the

organization (continuance commitment), and 3) obligation to remain in the organization

(normative commitment) (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe (2000) found

quality of relationship to be directly related to affective commitment and Lee (2004) found

quality of relationship to have a significant association with both affective and normative

commitment. These results are in line with an earlier study in which Basu and Green (1997),

using an earlier organizational commitment construct, determined a positive relationship

between members’ perceived quality of relationship and organizational commitment.

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES

Based on the discussions concerning the elements of levels of quality of relationship and

leadership behaviors, this study proposed the following research question:

Is there a significant relationship between followers’ perceived quality of relationship

with their direct supervisor and their preferred leadership behaviors from that same supervisor?

In attempt to answer the research question, this study proposed the following hypotheses:

H1 There is a significant relationship between followers’ perceived quality of relationship with

their direct supervisor and their preference for specific transactional behaviors from that

same supervisor.


their direct supervisor and their preference for specific transformational behaviors from

that same supervisor.


their direct supervisor and their preference for specific leadership-avoidant behaviors from

that same supervisor.

The study’s research design, as depicted in Figure 1, called for utilizing data gathered from

the perspective of the followers through the use of the LMX-7 and MLQ-5x (short)

questionnaires. Correlation strength and direction between variables were not assumed and were

the object of the statistical testing.


Figure 1

Research Design

Follower’s perception

of relationship with leader

Independent and Dependent Variables within Research Design

This study’s research design construct used perception as the independent variable and

preference as the dependent variable. The questionnaire was designed to first focus on the

perceived quality of relationship (IV) and subsequently on the preferred of leadership style (DV).

This design sequence reflected the thought that perception predicates preference between two

choices.

Perception is a cognitive process used to interpret and understand surroundings. Object

perception is focused on understanding objects, while social perception is focused on the process

of “how people make sense of other people and themselves” (Kreitner & Kiniki, 2013, p. 181).

The perception process can be described in a four-stage information-processing sequence

consisting of (1) attention through conscious awareness, (2) interpretation through the use of

schema, (3) retention into memory, and (4) retrieval for judgment and decision (Lord, 1985). For

example, social perception allows one to develop an understanding of their relationships with

others within organizational contexts, and this study utilized perception allowing each

respondent to develop a sense of the level of quality of relationship with their supervisor.

Vroom (1964) provided a working definition of preference in his wording “preference,

then, refers to a relationship between the strength of a person’s desire for, or attraction toward,

two outcomes” (p. 15). Given that interpretation and judgments are made in the latter stages of

the perception process, it could be expected that the preference process would utilize those social

perception judgments for the development of strength of attraction toward choices of outcomes.

This study used that line of thought in designing a research construct to determine the

relationship between the independent variable (follower’s perceived quality of relationship with

their leader) and dependent variable (follower’s level of preference for leadership style from that

same leader).

Questionnaire: LMX-7 High Quality

Low Quality

Follower’s perception of quality

of relationship with leader

Low Quality

Follower’s perception of quality

of relationship with leader (IV)

Questionnaire: MLQ-5x (short) Transactional Transformational Avoidant

Behaviors Behaviors Behaviors

High High High

Low Low Low

Level of follower’s preference for

leadership behavior of leader

Low Low

Level of follower’s preference for

leadership style of leader (DV)


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Sample and Data Collection

The population of this study consisted of Certified Public Accountants, employed at U.S.

companies greater than 1,000 employees in size, and are members of the e-Rewards Market

Research Panel. e-Rewards, Inc. provides permission based digital data collection and reporting

services. It offers online sampling and survey data collection services ranging from programming

and hosting to sample delivery and scripting to online reporting for research projects; and

operates various panels that can be designed to fulfill prescriptive research sample requirements.

One hundred and five individuals (all CPAs) participated in the study.

Survey Questionnaires

The study used thirty-two questions from the MLQ (Form-5x short) questionnaire

developed to measure team members’ perceptions of levels of transformational, transactional,

and leadership-avoidant leadership behaviors. Sample transformational leadership behaviors

from the questionnaire include “emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of

mission”, “seeks differing perspectives when solving problems”, and “treats me as an individual

rather than just as a member of a group”. Sample transactional leadership behaviors from the

questionnaire include “discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance

targets”, “keeps track of all (team members’) mistakes”, and “provides me with assistance in

exchange for my efforts”. Sample leadership-avoidant behaviors from the questionnaire include

“fails to interfere until problems become serious” and “waits for things to go wrong before

taking action” (Bass & Avolio, 2004).

The study used the seven item LMX-7 developed to measure the follower’s perceived

quality of their relationship with their direct supervisor, which is the construct recommended by

Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) to measure the quality of dyadic relationships. This questionnaire

uses the follower as the referent to assess the quality of the relationship from their perspective by

rating the seven items. Sample quality of relationship statements from the questionnaire include

“Do you know where you stand with your leader…do you usually know how satisfied your

leader is with what you do?” and “How well does your leader recognize your potential?”

Data Gathering and Testing

The LMX-7 and the MLQ (Form 5X) questionnaires were combined into a single

research instrument and administered through an online survey tool via e- Rewards® Market

Research. The study used the Pearson rs correlation coefficient to determine the strength and

direction of correlation between the variables. The correlation coefficient could range from -1.0

to +1.0 and a level of correlation (rs) of +-.200 was required for the level of correlation to be

determined as significant. After the variables with the highest levels of correlation were

determined, linear regression calculations were performed to determine the levels of predictive

values of the dependent variables.


RESULTS OF THE STUDY

A demographic assessment of the sample revealed that the respondents were

predominantly female (61.9%, n = 65), and between the ages of 25 to 49 years (81.9%, n = 86).

The respondents all held college degrees, predominately at the bachelor’s degree level (58.1%),

with most (66.7%) having reported to their current leader for over one year.

The permissions for using the MLQ (5-x short) do not allow for presenting for publication all of

the questions that make up the questionnaire. Since this is a study that is concerned with

improving leadership practice through determining relationships between followers’ perceived

quality of relationship with their direct supervisor and their preference for specific behaviors

from that same supervisor, the study aggregated for presentation in Table 1 the leadership

behaviors most highly correlated with perceived quality of relationship. Limiting the number of

behaviors reported in Table 1 allowed the researchers to stay within the permissions guidelines,

present hypothesis testing results, and identify behaviors that lead to better leadership practice.

Testing Hypotheses

Table 1 demonstrates the followers’ preferred leadership behaviors having the highest

correlations with the followers’ perceived quality of relationship.

Table 1

Preferred Leadership Behaviors Correlated with Perceived Quality of Relationship

Leadership Behavior Scale r

Positively Correlated

1 - Provides me assistance in exchange for my efforts

2 - Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose

3 - Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished

4 - Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are

appropriate

5 - Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving

performance targets

6 - Spends time teaching and coaching

Contingent Reward1

Idealized Influence(behavior)3

Inspirational Motivation3

Intellectual Stimulation3

Contingent Reward1

Individualized Consideration

.547

.442

.393

.336

.294

.240

Negatively Correlated

1- Waits for things to go wrong before taking action Leadership Avoidant2 -.318

1Transactional

2 Leadership Avoidant

3 Transformational

3

Hypothesis 1 predicted there is a significant relationship between the follower’s

perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and that follower’s

preference for specific transactional leadership behaviors from that same leader. As shown in

Table 1, this study found a positive, significant correlational relationship (rs = .547, .294)

between follower’s perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and

follower’s preference for specific transactional leadership behaviors from that same leader.

These findings provide support for H1 .



preference for specific transformational leadership behaviors from that same leader. As shown

in Table 1, this study found a positive, significant correlational relationships (rs = .442, .393,

http://www.isaca.org/Journal/Past-Issues/2010/Volume-4/Pages/Synthesizing-SAS-70-Audits-and-PMIs-Project-Management-Process-Groups.aspx#2











.336, .240) between follower’s perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct

supervisor) and follower’s preference for specific transformational leadership behaviors from

that same leader. These findings provide support for H2 .



preference for specific leadership-avoidant behaviors from that same leader. As shown in Table

1, this study found a negative, significant correlational relationships (rs = -.318) between

follower’s perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and follower’s

preference for specific leadership-avoidant behaviors from that same leader. These findings

provide support for H3 .

Correlations between Perceived Quality of Relationship and Preferred Leadership Style

The results indicate a positive correlation between perceived quality of relationship and a

preference dominated by transformational behaviors, combined with much fewer transactional

behaviors. This is in line with the Bass and Riggio (2006) concept that transformational

leadership augments, not replaces, transactional behaviors, and the best leaders use a

combination of both transactional and transformational behaviors.

The preferred leadership behavior that is most highly correlated with quality of

relationship is a transactional behavior (contingent reward), based on material exchange; in this

case the exchange of assistance for effort. The other preferred transactional behavior concerns

“discussing in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets” (Bass &

Avolio, 2004). This finding reinforces the concept that contributors place a high value on

knowing what is expected, who is responsible, and what is the reward system. These material

exchange concepts address clarifying the work environment and form the basis for transactional

leadership and these findings provide a level of support for the Bass and Riggio (2006)

suggestion that it is through the keeping of commitments that both the supervisor and individual

contributor builds trust that in turn forms the basis for including transformational behaviors.

Categorically, the most preferred leadership behaviors that are highest correlated with

quality of relationship are transformational behaviors. One preferred behavior come from the

‘idealized influence’ grouping and reflects the concept that individuals wish to see leaders

demonstrate values, sense of purpose, and confidence and want to feel a sense of pride in being

associated with that leader. Another important grouping, ‘individualized consideration’, reflects

the preference to be treated as a unique individual and to see the leader spend some time teaching

and coaching. The highest negatively correlated behavior with quality of relationship comes

from the grouping ‘management by exception - passive’, which is a part of the leadership-

avoidant style of leadership. These leadership behaviors reflect a style where the leader takes

action only in response to errors or issues as they become critical (Bass & Avolio 2004). Table 1

demonstrates the behaviors with the highest level of correlation (both positive and negative)

between CPAs’ preferred leadership style and their perceived quality of relationship with their

direct supervisor.

Linear Regression Results

Linear regression testing established that followers’ perceived quality of relationship with

their supervisor could statistically significantly predict levels of preference for specific


leadership behaviors. The following paragraphs discuss the findings of significant

perception/preference relationships.

Preference for “Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts”

The followers’ perceived quality of relationship score could significantly predict their

preference for the leadership behavior, F(1, 102) = 43.588, p < .0005 and the perceived quality

of relationship accounted for 29.3% of the explained variability in the followers’ level of

preference for the leadership behavior. The regression equation was: predicted level of

preference for leadership behavior = -0.083 + 0.101 x (quality of relationship score).

Preference for “Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose”





preference for leadership behavior = .237 + 0.088 x (quality of relationship score).

Preference for “Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate”





preference for leadership behavior = .996 + 0.057 x (quality of relationship score).

Preference for “Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished”





preference for leadership behavior = 1.212 + 0.062 x (quality of relationship score).

Preference for “Spends time teaching and coaching”


preference for the leadership behavior, F(1, 102) = 8.973, p < .0005 and the perceived quality of

relationship accounted for 7.2% of the explained variability in the followers’ level of preference

for the leadership behavior. The regression equation was: predicted level of preference for

leadership behavior = 0.813 + 0.064 x (quality of relationship score).

Preference for “Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance

targets”


preference for the leadership behavior, F(1, 102) = 9.630, p < .0005 and the perceived quality of

relationship accounted for 7.7% of the explained variability in the followers’ level of preference

for the leadership behavior. The regression equation was: predicted level of preference for

leadership behavior = 1.379 + 0.054 x (quality of relationship score).


Preference for “Waits for things to go wrong before taking action”





preference for leadership behavior = 2.618 - 0.065 x (quality of relationship score).

Using Y = a + b (X) linear regression formula to determine the DV values, the resulting

DV (preference for specific leadership behavior) scores fell into the groupings: >0.0 and <=1.0

(not at all); >1.0 and <=2.0 (once in a while); >2.0 and <=3.0 (sometimes); >3.0 and <=4 .0

(fairly often); and >4.0 and <=5 .0 (frequently, if not always).

LIMITATIONS

This study has several limitations. One limitation is the sample population was from the

U.S. and may disproportionately represent a Western perspective, and by doing so may limit the

ability to generalize the results across more globally diverse cultures. A second limitation is due

to the uniqueness of the sample, which was composed of CPAs, who have had similar

professional group requirements as to education and work roles, and may limit the ability to

generalize the findings across other work groups. A third limitation is the use of the

questionnaires used to measure both quality of relationship and leadership behaviors. While the

questionnaires used are the leading instruments of their type and rate highly in both validity and

reliability, there are other instruments that could be used to measure the same concepts in

different manners.

IMPLICATIONS

This study was enacted to address specific calls for further research into leadership and

dyadic relational concepts from the perspective of the follower, using 105 CPAs as the sample

population. Based on this study’s findings, both positive and negative relationships were found

between the variables and can be used to develop and help guide leadership practice. This study

discusses the academic findings in a practitioner context, helping leaders develop more effective

behavioral practices as they cultivate relationships with CPAs in the organizational leadership

context.

Existing academic work has already established organizational benefits of higher quality

relationships (as measured by the LMX-7) including member satisfaction, citizenship behaviors,

and organizational commitment. The ‘quality of relationship’ in this sense means the level that

the rater perceives that he/she knows where they stand with their leader, their leader recognizes

their potential, and their leader would use their power to help them, even at their own expense.

The LMX-7 measurement itself provides information to leaders as to specific behavioral

outcomes that lead to higher quality relationships. This study adds to that existing work and

provides insight as to specific acts or behaviors that are preferred by the follower and are

correlated to their perception of the level of the quality of the relationship.

This study is unique in that it asked CPAs what they perceived as the quality of

relationship from their direct supervisor and what specific leadership behaviors did they prefer

from that same supervisor. The study’s findings indicate there are specific leadership behaviors


that are both positively and negatively correlated with quality of relationship. The study indicates

that CPAs in higher quality relationships with their supervisors want more from their leaders

than a ‘do your job well and I’ll leave you alone’ style of management. In a workplace

environment where there is often more work than time to do it, leaders often fall into this

management-by-exception approach and this study’s findings indicate those behaviors (identified

as ‘leadership avoidant’) are negatively correlated to quality of relationship.

The behaviors that are positively correlated to quality of relationship indicate that CPAs

prefer to have a combination of more active leadership behaviors that include providing

assistance in exchange for effort, talking enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished,

specifying the importance of having a strong sense of purpose, and discussing in specific terms

who is responsible for achieving performance targets. These behaviors fall across both

transactional and transformational classifications and support the idea the best leaders are both

transactional and transformational. This implies that leaders may want to intentionally include

behaviors that may not naturally be in their skillset.

Leaders wishing to model behaviors with the highest correlation with quality of

relationship should adapt an intentional leadership approach that includes both material and

social exchange elements. For example, leaders could address the material exchange elements

and be specific as to what is expected in regard to specific tasks and objectives, who is

responsible for specific deliverables, what metrics will be applied in determining achievement

levels, and what is the system of rewards and punishment that will be utilized. A leadership tool

that can aid in this level of specificity is the process of crafting and communication of

goals/objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (often

referred to as S.M.A.R.T. format). Additionally, leaders could address the social exchange

elements by including discussions about sense of purpose in both the task and profession

contexts, the importance of the individual in the process, and communicating support for the

individual follower and their development.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future research may focus on several aspects of study to develop a better understanding

of the perception / preference relationship between quality of relationship and leadership

behavior. One recommendation is to construct a similar study including cultures representing

others than a Western perspective. For example, sample sets could be constructed using blended

cultures or leaders and followers from different cultures.

Another recommendation is to construct a similar study using work-group samples that

are dissimilar to CPAs. For example, studies could use sample sets from other professional

groups and non-professional groups, and perform tests for independent means across sample

groups.

A third recommendation comes from the finding that there is a significant relationship

between perceived quality of relationship and preference for leadership behaviors. The

recommendation is to construct a study to determine consequences from having or not having

those preferences met. Dependent variables could include levels of extra effort, affective

component of organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, turnover intentions, and

employee engagement. This type of study helps to fulfill the relevance of the findings of this

study.


CONCLUSIONS

Modern approaches of leadership acknowledge that leadership is a process. This

approach, in turn, gives rise to the concept that leadership skills can be learned and improved.

Previous studies have documented the many positive consequences of high quality relationships

(member satisfaction, organizational commitment, citizenship behaviors, etc.), and this study

provides insight into what CPAs across many organizations have identified as specific leadership

behaviors that are correlated with levels of quality relationships with their direct supervisors.

These finding can help give direction to individuals leading CPAs as to specific behaviors to

incorporate into their daily interactions and increase their leadership practice effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 4(1), 50-60.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2004). MLQ Manual. Retrieved December 26, 2008. Available from

Mind Garden, Inc.: www.mindgarden.com

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd

ed.). New York:

Psychology Press.

Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An

empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member dyads. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477-499.

Blau, P. M. (1960). A theory of social integration. The American Journal of Sociology, 65(6),

554-556.

Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: John Wiley.

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

Cook, K. S., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory

and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 109-127.

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting

transformational leadership: a longitudinal field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,

327-344.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:

correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development

of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

http://www.mindgarden.com/


Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 5(3), 184-200.

Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly,

3(1), 43-54.

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contempary trends in the analysis of leadership

processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387-397.

Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 63(6),

597-606.

Illies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship

behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(1), 269-277.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders.

Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior (10th

ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Lee, J. (2004). Effects of leadership and leader-member exchange on commitment. Leadership

and Organizational Development Journal, 26(8), 655-672.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of

psychological empowerment on the relations between job, interpersonal relationships,

and job outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407-416.

Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and

behavioral measurement in organizations. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),

Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.7 (pp. 87-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking into the box:

Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly,

11(4), 551-579.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12, 389-418.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment. Human Resource Management Review, (1), 61-89.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.


Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX)

research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.

The Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-115.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership

and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K. J. (2002). Preferences for idealized styles of supervision. The

Leadership Quarterly, 13, 327-342.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle Rivers, NJ: Prentice Hall.

About the Author:

David Notgrass is an Assistant Professor of Management and Finance in the College of Business Administration at

Tarleton State University. Dr. Notgrass’s research interest includes leadership studies from the perspective of the

follower. Teaching specialties include Leadership Studies, Organizational Behavior, Corporate Strategy, and

Corporate Finance.

What leadership behaviors do CPA's prefer from their managers? The preferred behaviors most related to quality of relationships.

Documents