Journal of Agricultural Education 50 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP RESEARCH IN
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION: A SYNTHESIS OF THE LITERATURE
Bradley C. Greiman, Associate Professor
University of Minnesota
Abstract
Leadership development is viewed as a foundational component of agricultural education and
has been associated with the field since the early 20th century. An emerging research topic is
leadership style and inquiry that is focused on transformational leadership. In an effort to
contribute to the field’s knowledge base in leadership development and to guide a leadership
research agenda, a synthesis of literature examined transformational leadership. Premier
journals in the field and several affiliated journals published from 1990 to 2008 were selected
for analysis. The study concluded that a small but recent number of articles focused on
transformational leadership and the majority of research was conducted with extension
personnel. Most studies focused on participants from a single state, and almost all of the studies
gathered leadership style data through a self-reported procedure. Demographic variables and
their relationship to leadership style received the most attention of researchers. Compared to the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) normative sample, college of agriculture deans,
extension personnel, and agricultural education teachers perceived they had higher scores for
most leadership factors. Suggestions for future research are presented and draw attention to the
potential that this line of inquiry has for a field that embraces leadership development.
Introduction
Leadership development is viewed as a
foundational component of agricultural
education and has been associated with the
field since the early 20th century. Passage of
the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917 provided
funding to support agricultural education
programs in secondary schools. Developing
leadership skills in students became an
integrated approach within the agricultural
education program when the FFA
organization was established in 1928.
Today, the emphasis on leadership continues
as the FFA organization has a mission of
premier leadership, personal growth, and
career success for students involved in
agricultural education (National FFA
Organization, 2006). As a result, the high
school program has been successful in
assisting students to develop their leadership
skills through the integrated leadership
model (Butters & Ball, 2006; Connors &
Swan, 2006). Further, the teacher who leads
the agricultural education program and the
local FFA chapter has been identified as
having a major impact on students‘
leadership development (Morgan & Rudd,
2006; Vaughn & Moore, 2000).
In addition to leadership being
associated with agricultural education in a
formal context, leadership development
occurs in nonformal and informal settings
such as agribusiness, organizations, and
extension. The Smith-Lever Act in 1914
established the Cooperative Extension
System and resulted in formation of the 4-H
program and its mission of developing
leadership in youth. In addition, adult and
community leadership has been recognized
as a component of extension education
programs and a key aspect of rural
development (Seevers, Graham, Gamon, &
Conklin, 1997). Research findings support
the contribution of extension and 4-H
programs to the economic, social, physical,
and cultural environment of communities
(Seevers et al.).
Leadership development (Buriak &
Shin, 1993; National Research Agenda,
2007; Radhakrishna, 1998) has been
identified as an important area for
agricultural education scholars to fully
develop the knowledge base of the field
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 51 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
(Barrick, Hughes, & Baker, 1991; Williams,
1991). Researchers have conducted
literature reviews focused on the historical
development of leadership activities in the
FFA and 4-H (Hoover, Scholl, Dunigan, &
Mamontova, 2007), the major areas of
leadership development research (Connors
& Swan, 2006), and the development of
leadership skills by FFA members (Butters
& Ball, 2006). Missing from the literature
associated with agricultural education is a
review of leadership style research.
In support of this need, Avolio and Bass
(2004) argued that it is necessary to first
identify and understand one‘s personal
leadership style before an individual can
develop leadership in others. As a result, this
study is being conducted to contribute to
agricultural education‘s knowledge base in
leadership development and to guide a
research agenda focused on transformational
leadership.
Transformational Leadership and Full-
Range Leadership Theory
There are a variety of leadership theories
and corresponding leadership style
instruments that have been advocated by
researchers. However, much of the
leadership research since the late 1980s has
concentrated on the positive effects of
transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999;
Bass, 1985; Lowe & Gardner, 2000; Tickle,
Brownlee, & Nailon, 2005). The most
widely used instrument to assess
transformational leadership style is the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ) (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Hunt, 1999;
Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
Research to determine effective leaders in
organizations such as business, education,
government, medical, military, religious,
and volunteer has relied on the MLQ to
measure leadership style (Bass & Avolio,
1999; Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper,
2001). The first version of the MLQ was
developed over 20 years ago (Bass, 1985),
and the instrument has undergone many
revisions and adaptations. Various versions
of the MLQ have been used in the United
States and more than 30 countries, and
translations of the MLQ have been
completed in numerous languages (Avolio
& Bass, 2004).
The MLQ is grounded in full-range
leadership theory (FRLT) (Avolio & Bass,
1991). Building on the previous work of
leadership scholars (Bass, 1985; Burns,
1978; Downton, 1973; House, 1976), Avolio
and Bass (1991) proposed FRLT. The theory
consists of three constructs which represent
distinct leadership styles: transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire. Further,
FRLT incorporates nine leadership factors
composed of five transformation leadership
factors, three transformational leadership
factors, and one laissez-faire leadership
factor (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio, Bass,
& Jung, 1995).
Transformational leaders are adept at
transforming people from followers into
leaders (van Linden & Fertman, 1998) and
influence followers to transcend self-
interests for the greater good of their
organization (Bass, 1985). Transformational
leaders motivate and inspire followers to
achieve extraordinary goals (Avolio & Bass,
2004), are process-oriented, and focus on
being a leader (van Linden & Fertman).
FRLT posits that transformational leadership
is comprised of five factors (Antonakis,
Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Avolio
& Bass, 2004): (a) Idealized influence
(attributed) refers to the perception that the
leader is charismatic, confident, ethical,
idealistic, and trust worthy; (b) Idealized
influence (behavior) refers to leadership
behavior that results in followers identifying
with and wanting to emulate the leader; (c)
Inspirational motivation refers to leadership
that communicates high expectations,
inspires commitment to a shared vision, and
motivates followers by portraying optimism;
(d) Intellectual stimulation includes
challenging the assumptions, beliefs, and
traditions of followers and organizations,
and stimulating creativity and critical
thinking about problems and solutions; and
(e) Individualized consideration is defined
by considering individual needs of followers
and providing a supportive climate for
individual growth and development.
In contrast, transactional leadership is
contingent on a transaction or exchange
between leader and follower that usually
consists of a reward system (Bass, 1985).
Transactional leaders value problem and
solution identification, are product-oriented,
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 52 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
and focus on doing leadership tasks (van
Linden & Fertman, 1998). Transactional
leadership is theorized to comprise three
leadership factors (Avolio & Bass, 2004):
(a) Contingent reward leadership is a
constructive transaction (i.e., positive
reinforcement) whereby expectations are
clarified and the leader rewards follower
efforts based on fulfilling an agreement or
obligation; (b) Management-by-exception
(active) refers to leaders who monitor
followers‘ performance and take corrective
action (i.e., negative reinforcement) to
ensure that standards are met; and (c)
Management-by-exception (passive) leaders
intervene only after standards have not been
met and mistakes have already happened
(i.e., negative feedback). An even more
passive approach is laissez-faire, which
represents an absence of leadership and
results when the leader avoids making
decisions, does not use his/her authority, and
abdicates responsibility (Bass & Avolio,
1995; Northouse, 2004). Laissez-faire is a
non-leadership approach in contrast to the
more active forms of transformational and
transactional leadership.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study was to
examine transformational leadership
research within the field of agricultural
education. The following research objectives
were addressed in the study:
1. Conduct a literature review to
synthesize the results of leadership
research using the MLQ within the
field of agricultural education.
2. Identify gaps in the transformational
leadership literature within the field
of agricultural education and provide
suggestions for future research.
Methods and Procedures
The author‘s initial task was to
establish criteria for the search process
associated with the literature review
(Torraco, 2005). First, the field of
agricultural education was operationalized
as five broad dimensions (i.e., agricultural
communications, agricultural leadership,
extension and outreach education,
agricultural education in university and
postsecondary settings, and school-based
agricultural education) as identified in the
National Research Agenda (2007). Second,
the literature review investigated premier
journals representing the field‘s dimensions
and several other affiliated journals. Premier
journals selected for analysis were Journal
of Agricultural Education, Journal of
Applied Communications, Journal of
Extension, Journal of International
Agriculture and Extension Education, and
Journal of Leadership Education. Affiliated
journals that agricultural education
researchers utilize to reach a more expansive
readership also were selected for analysis
and included Career and Technical
Education Journal and Journal of Career
and Technical Education.
Third, journals published from 1990 to
2008 were selected for analysis, and articles
chosen for the study were required to have
used the MLQ with a sample or population
representing a dimension of agricultural
education. The researcher consulted journal
web sites and examined publications using
the following search terms: Avolio, Bass, full
range leadership theory, leadership,
multifactor leadership questionnaire, MLQ,
and transformational. In several cases, print
versions of the journals were reviewed if the
electronic versions were unavailable.
Thirteen articles met the criteria for
inclusion in the study.
The analysis procedure consisted of a
staged review of the articles. First, the
abstracts were read as an initial review and
to gather key concepts such as purpose of
the study, participant characteristics,
variables studied, and results. This
information went into a concept matrix.
Next, an in-depth review of each article was
used to fill gaps and add categories to the
concept matrix. Finally, themes were
identified and became the structure for the
findings.
Findings
The literature review is organized by the
themes of participants, leadership style,
demographic variables and leadership style,
leadership style as a predictor, predictors of
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 53 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
leadership style, multi-level observations of
leadership style, performance outcomes, and
gaps in the literature and future research.
Participants
Table 1 identifies characteristics of
participants in transformational leadership
studies using the MLQ. Most of the studies
focused on participants from a single state;
however, there were three national studies
conducted by Jones and Rudd (2008),
Moore and Rudd (2006), and Stedman and
Rudd (2006b), and two regional studies
conducted by Stedman and Rudd
(2005, 2006a). Table 1 reveals that the
majority of transformational leadership
research was conducted with extension
personnel (i.e., extension educators and 4-H
faculty). Limited research focused on
agricultural education teachers (Greiman,
Addington, Larson, & Olander, 2007;
Greiman & Addington, 2008) and
university students (Harms & Knobloch,
2005; Rosenbusch & Townsend, 2004).
No studies were found that involved
agribusiness leaders, agricultural
communicators, international participants,
or youth. The majority of studies involved
relatively small sample sizes (range from
29 to 57) with the exception of four studies
that had more modest participant numbers
(range from 97 to 177): (a) Greiman et al.,
(b) Greiman and Addington, (c) Rosenbusch
and Townsend, and (d) Stedman and Rudd
(2006b).
Leadership Style
Table 2 displays self-reported leadership
style and leadership factor scores from the
MLQ normative sample (N = 3,375)
(Avolio & Bass, 2004) and six studies
conducted in the field of agricultural
education. There were additional articles
that reported leadership style and/or
leadership factor scores, however the
articles did not reveal the complete
leadership data needed for inclusion in
Table 2. Two of the studies were national in
scope and involved different populations:
(a) college of agriculture deans (Jones &
Rudd, 2008) and (b) state extension leaders
(Moore & Rudd, 2006) (Table 2). One
regional and two state studies focused on
extension personnel: (a) southern region 4-H
county faculty (Stedman & Rudd, 2005),
(b) Pennsylvania county extension educators
(Sinasky & Bruce, 2006), and (c) West
Virginia county extension agents (Woodrum
& Safrit, 2003). One of the articles
pertained to Minnesota agricultural
education teachers (Greiman et al.,
2007).
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 54 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
Table 1
Characteristics of Participants in Leadership Studies Using the MLQ
Study
Location of study
Sample
N
Brown, Birnstihl, and Wheeler, 1996
Nebraska
Extension educators
57
Bruce, Webster, and Sinasky, 2006
Northeast state
Extension educators
48
Greiman et al., 2007
Minnesota
Ag education teachers
176
Greiman and Addington, 2008
Minnesota
Ag education teachers
177
Harms and Knobloch, 2005
Midwestern state
Preservice teachers
29
Jones and Rudd, 2008
United States
College of ag deans
56
Moore and Rudd, 2006
United States
Extension leaders
47
Rosenbusch and Townsend, 2004
Land-grant university
University students
108
Sinasky and Bruce, 2006
Pennsylvania
Extension educators
48
Stedman and Rudd, 2005
Southern United States
4-H faculty
34
Stedman and Rudd, 2006a
Southern United States
4-H faculty
34
Stedman and Rudd, 2006b
United States
4-H faculty
97
Woodrum and Safrit, 2003
West Virginia
Extension educators
27
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 55 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
Table 2
Self-Reported Leadership Scores from MLQ Normative Sample and Leadership Studies in
Agricultural Education
National
State
Leadership style
and factor
a
MLQ
normative
sample
College of
ag deans
b
Extension
leaders
c
PA
extension
educators
e
WV
extension
educators
f
MN ag ed
teachers
g
M
M
M
M
M
M
Transformational
3.02
3.28
3.41
3.07
3.79
3.07
II(A)
2.95
3.18
3.16
2.98
3.91
3.00
II(B)
2.99
3.24
3.53
2.96
3.88
2.98
IM
3.04
3.44
3.54
3.09
3.93
3.16
IS
2.96
3.26
3.35
3.05
3.93
2.84
IC
3.16
3.32
3.48
3.28
3.29
3.35
Transactional
1.88
2.24
1.79
1.64
2.83
2.04
CR
2.99
3.13
3.15
3.00
3.95
3.14
MBE(A)
1.58
1.37
1.20
1.37
2.26
1.61
MBE(P)
1.07
1.17
1.02
1.27
2.29
1.37
Laissez-faire
.61
.88
.50
.90
.88
1.03
Note. 5-point scale (0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often,
4 = frequently, if not always).
a
II(A) = Idealized Influence (Attributed), II(B) = Idealized Influence (Behavior), IM =
Inspirational Motivation, IS = Intellectual Stimulation, IC = Individualized Consideration, CR =
Contingent Reward, MBE(A) = Management-By-Exception (Active), MBE(P) = Management-
By-Exception (Passive).
b
Jones and Rudd (2008).
c
Moore and Rudd (2006).
d
Stedman and Rudd (2005).
e
Sinasky and Bruce (2006).
f
Woodrum and Safrit (2003).
g
Greiman et al. (2007).
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 56 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
As shown in Table 2, college of
agriculture deans, extension personnel, and
agricultural education teachers perceived
they were more transformational in their
leadership style in contrast to transactional
and laissez-faire. Within transformational
leadership, inspirational motivation and
individualized consideration received the
highest scores from the respondent groups.
Within transactional leadership, it was found
that contingent reward, management-by-
exception (active), and management-by-
exception (passive) was the relative order
generally preferred by the respondents
(Table 2).
In general (Table 2), college of
agriculture deans, extension personnel, and
agricultural education teachers had higher
self-reported scores than the MLQ
normative sample for transformational and
laissez-faire leadership. The participants
perceived they use idealized influence
(attributed), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, individualized
consideration, contingent reward, and
management-by-exception (passive) more
than the MLQ normative sample.
Management-by-exception (active) was
perceived by participants to be used less
often when compared to the MLQ normative
sample.
Demographic Variables and
Leadership Style
Demographic variables and their
connection to leadership style received the
most attention of research in agricultural
education. Findings focused on gender
revealed conflicting results. Researchers
concluded that female university student
leaders tend to be more transformational
than their male counterparts, while male
student leaders were more transactional
(Rosenbusch & Townsend, 2004). Within
transformational leadership, female teachers
had significantly higher scores on
individualized consideration than did males
teachers (Greiman et al., 2007). Concurring,
Stedman and Rudd (2005) determined that
female 4-H county faculty scored the highest
on individualized consideration. Other
studies revealed contrasting results as males
reported higher leadership scores than did
female respondents among college of
agriculture deans (Jones & Rudd) and
Southern region 4-H county faculty
(Stedman & Rudd, 2005). Yet another study
reported that there was no significant
difference in leadership style by gender of
Minnesota agricultural education teachers
(Greiman et al.).
In addition to gender, agricultural
education research has assessed leadership
style and its connection to age, tenure, and
career choice. Stedman and Rudd (2005)
found differences in the leadership factors of
4-H county faculty by age and tenure within
extension. In contrast, Greiman et al. (2007)
concluded that there was no significant
difference in the leadership style of
Minnesota agricultural education teachers
based on years of teaching experience. In a
study involving university students, Harms
and Knobloch (2005) determined that
leadership style of preservice teachers was
not related to career choice.
Ethnicity and academic status were two
demographic variables that received limited
attention in agricultural education research
involving the MLQ. No significant
difference in leadership style and leadership
factors by ethnicity was found among
college of agriculture deans (Jones & Rudd,
2008). Among Minnesota agricultural
education teachers (Greiman et al., 2007), it
was concluded that there was not a
significant difference in leadership style
based on highest academic degree earned.
However, teachers with bachelor‘s degrees
and those with master‘s degrees differed on
intellectual stimulation (Greiman et al.).
Leadership Style as a Predictor
Greiman and Addington (2008)
identified the importance of leadership style
as a predictor of youth leadership
development self-efficacy (YLD-SE). Their
study introduced YLD-SE as a new
construct for use in leadership research.
Results showed that Minnesota agricultural
education teachers perceived they had quite
a bit of YLD-SE; however, one-fourth of
participants believed they had very little or
some influence on youths‘ leadership
development. Hierarchical regression
analysis revealed that transformational and
laissez-faire leadership style were significant
predictors of YLD-SE. Teachers were
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 57 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
advised to study and adopt a
transformational leadership style and reduce
their laissez-faire leadership style as an
approach to increase their YLD-SE.
A study (Stedman & Rudd, 2006a)
involving 4-H county faculty in the Southern
region of the United States determined that
leadership style was not a significant
predictor of volunteer administration
leadership (VAL). However, it was reported
that organizational culture and age were
independent variables that significantly
predicted VAL.
Predictors of Leadership Style
Extension educators were the only
participant group utilized to examine
predictors of leadership style. In general,
independent variables found to predict
transformational and transactional
leadership style were quite similar and
included tenure in extension, previous
leadership development (i.e., college
leadership courses, participation in
leadership workshops), and VAL
competencies. Moore and Rudd (2006)
conducted a national study of administrators
responsible for the day-to-day operation of
the Cooperative Extension Service within
each state. Using multiple regression
techniques, the study concluded that the best
model for predicting transformational
leadership style included ethnicity, tenure in
extension, and previous leadership
development. Predictors of transactional
leadership style included highest degree
held, tenure in extension, and previous
leadership development.
In a national study of 4-H county
faculty, Stedman and Rudd (2006b)
determined that a significant amount of the
variance in transformational leadership was
explained primarily by two VAL
competencies: systems leadership and
organizational leadership. The study
concluded that organizational leadership was
the best predictor of transactional leadership.
Multi-Level Observations of
Leadership Style
Almost all of the studies obtained MLQ
data through a self-reported procedure.
However, several studies gathered
observations of leadership style from
personnel at a higher or lower organizational
level. Results were mixed regarding the
congruence of self-perceptions with the
perceptions of others. Brown et al. (1996)
exploratory study compared MLQ self-
perceptions of extension leaders with
subordinate colleagues‘ ratings. Results
indicated relatively strong agreement
between self and subordinate MLQ ratings.
In another study, Sinasky and Bruce (2006)
compared MLQ self-perceptions of 4-H
educators to the observations of their
supervisors. The researchers found no
significant difference between scores of
educators and supervisors for transactional
leadership style. However, educators‘
ratings of their transformational leadership
abilities were significantly greater than the
supervisors‘ ratings.
Performance Outcomes
Transformational leadership was found
to be related to performance outcomes (i.e.,
effectiveness, extra effort, satisfaction) in a
study conducted with extension educators in
Nebraska (Brown et al., 1996). The
researchers determined that there were high
positive correlations between
transformational leadership factors and
performance outcomes, less so with
transactional leadership factors, and
generally weak negative association with
laissez-faire leadership style. Other
researchers (Sinasky & Bruce, 2006)
reported that 4-H educators rated
themselves significantly higher for
performance outcomes in contrast to their
supervisors.
Gaps in the Literature and Future Research
It is apparent from the literature review
that research conducted on transformational
leadership is an emerging topic in
agricultural education. A small but recent
number of studies pertaining to
transformational leadership have been
reported in journals within the field and in
affiliated journals. With one exception, all of
the studies were published from 2003 to
2008. Gaps in the literature and suggestions
for future research are presented.
Broaden the scope of transformational
leadership research with additional
participant groups. From the literature
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 58 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
review, it was determined that most of the
research pertaining to transformational
leadership was conducted with extension
personnel. Limited research focused on
agricultural education teachers and
university students. No studies were found
that involved agribusiness leaders,
agricultural communicators, international
participants, or youth. Thus, there are a
number of participant groups that can
benefit from increased involvement in
leadership research.
A natural line of inquiry would be to
involve youth (e.g., high school agricultural
education students, FFA members, 4-H
members) in research focused on their
leadership style. The MLQ is deemed
appropriate for use with youth in high
school (B. J. Avolio, personal
communication, August 15, 2008) and has
been used with raters who have less than a
high school degree (Bass & Avolio, 1994).
However, it is possible that a youth version
of a modified MLQ may prove to be more
suitable; creating a leadership style
instrument intended for youth might parallel
Posner‘s (2004) rationale in developing the
student leadership practices inventory.
Further, longitudinal studies would provide
insights pertaining to changes in youths‘
leadership style, specifically when
contrasted to peers who are not involved
with agricultural education or 4-H. Evidence
to support the youth leadership development
component of agricultural education could
be explored in this manner.
With the increased globalization of the
current business environment, it is becoming
more important to understand the
effectiveness of leadership styles being used
by various cultures (Spreitzer, Perttula, &
Xin, 2005). International agricultural
education should explore the leadership
style of extension personnel and other
agriculturists with cross-cultural research.
Western professionals could benefit from
research results when planning and
delivering leadership development programs
with participants from other countries and
cultures (Ardichvili & Gasparishvili, 2001).
Identify outcome measures and
predictors associated with transformational
leadership. This research objective gets at
the heart of inquiry and challenges
researchers to move beyond descriptive
studies. For example, what are the
advantages of a transformational leadership
style in the context of agricultural
education? What leadership style and/or
leadership factors have a relationship with
and predict youth leadership development or
agribusiness performance? While research
results in other fields have found that
transformational leadership is associated
with performance outcomes (Bass, Avolio,
Jung, & Berson, 2003), this literature review
determined that outcome measures and
predictors were scarcely researched in
agricultural education.
It is recommended that the performance
outcomes (i.e., effectiveness, extra effort,
satisfaction) that are part of the MLQ should
be utilized by agricultural education
researchers. Assuming a positive
relationship is found between performance
outcomes and transformational leadership
style, it seems logical to identify the
predictors of transformational leadership and
the variables that transformational
leadership predicts. Identifying meaningful
variables that might have a relationship with
leadership style is critical to expanding the
knowledge base of leadership development
in agricultural education.
Utilize multi-level raters to gain a
diverse perspective about leadership style.
The literature review revealed that most of
the studies gathered self-reported MLQ data.
While informative and a basic step, it is
recommended that the multi-rater feature of
the MLQ be utilized. For example, students,
peer members in organizations, agriculture
education advisory committee members, and
administrators could provide their
perspectives regarding the leadership style
of the agricultural education teacher.
Determine leadership profiles for
effective professionals in agricultural
education. Research should explore the
relationship and overlap that leadership style
has with related constructs such as
personality, teaching style, and mentoring
style (Xirasagar, Samuels, & Stoskopf,
2005). What leadership factors are most
effective in the role of an agribusiness
leader, agricultural communicator, extension
educator, international educator, or teacher?
Or might there be specific situations that
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 59 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
cross multiple careers and benefit by using a
particular leadership factor.
Gain a deeper understanding of
transformational leadership through mixed-
method approaches. Further studies are
needed that utilize qualitative inquiry to
complement quantitative data from the
MLQ. Additional leadership dimensions
might be explored through the reflective
nature of personal interviews, focus groups,
and case studies. Qualitative research lends
itself to learning more about the challenges
of youth and adults as they attempt to
develop a transactional leadership style as a
foundation for transformational leadership.
Youth and adults who score high on various
leadership factors could be asked to provide
their insights regarding beliefs, actions, and
strategies related to leadership development.
From a relationship perspective, qualitative
research would be helpful to examine the
voice of followers and how the leadership
style of adults and peers impacted their
leadership development. For example, we
know little about how the FFA advisor and
4-H leader serve as a leadership role model
for youth and how peers impact youths‘
views on leadership development in
agricultural education.
Seek to understand the beliefs that
underpin leadership styles and the
intersection of related theories. A line of
inquiry could focus on the beliefs that
individuals have regarding leadership
development; researchers should build on
seminal work by Greiman and Addington
(2008) pertaining to YLD-SE. Extending,
how does the culture of an organization
impact leadership beliefs and interface with
leadership style? Research should examine
the potential overlap that FRLT has with
relationship theories such as social capital
(i.e., social networks), learning theory,
ethics, and mentoring.
Conclusion
The intent of this article was to bring
attention to the potential that
transformational leadership research has for
a field that embraces leadership
development. Torraco (2005) suggested that
literature reviews may address mature topics
or new, emerging topics. The small but
recent number of articles on
transformational leadership is an indication
that this area of research is beginning to
emerge in agricultural education.
References
Ardichvili, A., & Gasparishvili, A.
(2001). Leadership profiles of managers in
post-communist countries: A comparative
study. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 22(2), 62-69.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., &
Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and
leadership: An examination of the nine-
factor full-range leadership theory using the
multifactor leadership questionnaire. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership
development: Building the vital forces in
organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The
full range leadership development
programs: Basic and advanced manuals.
Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio &
Associates.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004).
Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third
edition manual and sampler set. Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D.
(1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire
technical report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind
Garden.
Barrick, R. K., Hughes, M., & Baker, M.
(1991). Perceptions regarding supervised
experience programs: Past and future
direction. Journal of Agricultural Education,
32(4), 31-36.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and
performance beyond expectations. New
York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994).
Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational leadership.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 60 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995).
Multifactor leadership questionnaire leader
form (5X-short). Redwood City, CA: Mind
Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1999).
Manual for the multifactor leadership
questionnaire (form 5X). Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., &
Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.
Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B. J., &
Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between
vision strength, leadership style, and
context. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1),
53-73.
Brown, W., Birnstihl, E. A., & Wheeler,
D. W. (1996). Leading without authority:
An examination of the impact of
transformational leadership cooperative
extension work groups and teams. Journal
of Extension, 34(5). Retrieved June 25,
2008, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1996
october/a3.html
Bruce, J. A., Webster, N. S., & Sinasky,
M. E. (2006). Leadership practices
employed by 4-H youth development
educators in a Northeast state. Journal of
Leadership Education, 5(3), 79-92.
Retrieved June 25, 2008, from http:/
/www.fhsu.edu/jole/issues/Jole_5_3.pdf
Buriak, P., & Shinn, G. C. (1993).
Structuring research for agricultural
education: A national delphi involving
internal experts. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 34(3), 31-36.
Burns, J. M. (1978), Leadership. New
York: Harper & Row.
Butters, K. S., & Ball, A. L. (2006,
May). The development of leadership skills
in agricultural education: A synthesis of
literature. Paper presented at the National
Agricultural Education Research
Conference, Charlotte, NC.
Connors, J. J., & Swan, B. G. (2006). A
synthesis of leadership development
research in agricultural education: 1988-
2003. Journal of Agricultural Education,
47(2), 1-13.
Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel
leadership: Commitment and charisma in a
revolutionary process. New York: Free
Press.
Greiman, B. C., & Addington, L. S.
(2008). Youth leadership development self-
efficacy: An exploratory study involving a
new construct. Journal of Leadership
Education, 7(1), 1-23.
Greiman, B. C., Addington, L. S,
Larson, T. G., & Olander, K. R. (2007).
Preferred leadership style of agricultural
education teachers: An expression of
epistemological beliefs about youth
leadership development. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 48(4), 93-105.
Harms, B. M., & Knobloch, N. A.
(2005). Preservice teachers‘ motivation and
leadership behaviors related to career
choice. Career and Technical Education
Research, 30(2), 101-124.
Hoover, T. S., Scholl, J. F., Dunigan, A.
H., & Mamontova, N. (2007). A historical
review of leadership development in the
FFA and 4-H. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 48(3), 100-110.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of
charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L.
Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge
(pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/
charismatic leadership‘s transformation of
the field: An historical essay. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129-144.
Jones, D., & Rudd, R. (2008).
Transactional, transformational, or laissez-
faire leadership: An assessment of college of
agriculture academic program leaders‘
(Deans) leadership styles. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 49(2), 88-97.
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 61 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000).
Ten years of The Leadership Quarterly:
Contributions and challenges for the future.
The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 459-514.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., &
Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness
correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic
review of the MLQ literature. The
Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.
Moore, L. L., & Rudd, R. D. (2006).
Leadership styles of current extension
leaders. Journal of Agricultural Education,
47(1), 6-16.
Morgan, A. C., & Rudd, R. D. (2006).
Teaching leadership in agricultural science:
behavioral factors that influence secondary
agricultural science leadership instruction.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(3),
33-44.
National FFA Organization (2006).
Official FFA manual. Indianapolis, IN:
Author.
National research agenda: Agricultural
education and communication (2007).
Retrieved June 15, 2008, from
http://aaaeonline.org/files/researchagenda_lo
ng.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership:
Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Posner, B. Z. (2004). A leadership
development instrument for students:
Updated. Journal of College Student
Development, 45(4), 443-456.
Radhakrishna, R. B. (1998, December).
25 years of the national agricultural
research meeting: Analyzing the past to
discover future research priorities. Paper
presented at the National Agricultural
Education Research Conference, New
Orleans, LA.
Rosenbusch, K., & Townsend, C. D.
(2004). The relationship of gender and
organizational setting to transformational
and transactional leadership skills of
selected college student leaders. Journal of
Leadership Education, 3(3), 4-20. Retrieved
March 15, 2008, from http://www.fhsu.edu/
jole/issues/JOLE_3_3.pdf
Seevers, B., Graham, D., Gamon, J., &
Conklin, N. (1997). Education through
cooperative extension. New York: Delmar.
Sinasky, M. E., & Bruce, J. A. (2006).
Supervisors‘ and 4-H youth development
educators‘ perceptions of the leadership
practices employed by educators. Journal of
Extension, 44(3), Article 3FEA6. Retrieved
June 25, 2008, from http://www.joe.org/joe/
2006june/a6.shtml
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H., & Xin,
K. (2005). Traditionality matters: An
examination of the effectiveness of
transformational leadership in the United
States and Taiwan. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 205-227.
Stedman, N. L. P., & Rudd, R. D.
(2005). Volunteer administration leadership
proficiency and leadership styles:
Perceptions of Southern region 4-H county
faculty. Journal of Leadership Education,
4(2), 42-58. Retrieved June 5, 2008,
from http://www.fhsu.edu/jole/issues/Jole
_4_2.pdf
Stedman, N., & Rudd, R. D. (2006a).
Factors contributing to volunteer
administration leadership proficiency of
Southern region 4-H county faculty. Journal
of Agricultural Education, 47(2), 56-66.
Stedman, N. L. P., & Rudd, R. (2006b).
Leadership styles and volunteer
administration competence: Perceptions of
4-H county faculty in the United States.
Journal of Extension, 44(1), Article 1RIB6.
Retrieved June 25, 2008, from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2006february/rb6.sht
ml
Tickle, E. L., Brownlee, J., & Nailon, D.
(2005). Personal epistemological beliefs and
transformational leadership behaviours.
Journal of Management Development,
24(8), 706-719.
Greiman Transformational Leadership Research…
Journal of Agricultural Education 62 Volume 50, Number 4, 2009
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing
integrative literature reviews: Guidelines
and examples. Human Resource
Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.
van Linden, J., & Fertman, C. I. (1998).
Youth leadership: A guide to understanding
leadership development in adolescents. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vaughn, Z. J., & Moore, G. E. (2000,
December). Predictors of FFA program
quality. Paper presented at the National
Agricultural Education Research
Conference, San Diego, CA.
Williams, D. L. (1991). Focusing
agricultural education research: Strategies
for the discipline. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 32(1), 1-12.
Woodrum, W., & Safrit, D. (2003).
Leadership practices of West Virginia
University extension agents working with
the 4-H youth development program.
Journal of Extension, 41(3). Retrieved June
25, 2008, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2003
june/rb3.shtml
Xirasagar, S., Samuels, M. E., &
Stoskopf, C. H. (2005). Physician leadership
styles and effectiveness: An empirical study.
Medical Care Research, 62(6), 720-740.
BRADLEY C. GREIMAN is an Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota,
146 Classroom Office Building, 1994 Buford Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108. E-mail:
[email protected].