The Influence of Perceptions of Organizational Structure & Culture on Leadership Role...

Extant management researchers have not fully explored the dynamic relationships among organizational context, leadership, personality traits, leadership interpretations, and behaviors. Perrow (1970, p. 6) states that leadership style is a dependent variable that depends on the organizational setting or the task. Selznick (1957, p. 23) claims that, "the theory of leadership is embedded within the organization." Pawar and Eastman (1997) note that there is a close relationship between objective measures of organizational context and leadership by citing the works of Perrow (1970), Selznick (1957), Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch (1980), and Osborn and Hunt (1975). Osborn and Hunt (1975) emphasize the role of macro situational variables (e.g., size, technology, and formal structure) in leadership research, which they believe consistently influence leader behavior.

Hammer and Turk (1987) also explored organizational determinants of leader behavior and found that technology, union strength, and management pressure contributed significantly to responsive leader behavior. Other theoretical models that have incorporated organizational constraints that affect leader behavior include the resource-dependence model of organizational control (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), the multiple influence leadership model (Hunt & Osborn, 1982), and Stewart's (1982) demand-constraints-choices model of managerial jobs. More recently, Green, Anderson, and Shivers (1996) found that the organizational setting presents the leader with various opportunities and constraints that strongly influences the quality of their exchange relationship with their subordinates.

Pillai (1995) argues that future research should be directed at exploring the relationship between personality characteristics (e.g., locus of control, narcissism, self-monitoring, risktaking, need for power) and organizational context in the emergence of leader behavior. Recently, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) and Bommer, Rubin, and Baldwin (2004) have expressed the need for more research on individual and contextual antecedents of transformational leadership. Unfortunately, little existing leadership research has integrated transformational and transactional leadership theories with organization theory research. Consequently, this disconnect has resulted in organization theory and transformational and transactional leadership theories being developed without researchers drawing on and extending each other's areas (Pawar & Eastman, 1997, p. 85; Melcher, 1977).

This study tests propositions made in Shivers-Blackwell (2004) that managers' perceptions of organizational context influence their utilization of transactional and transformational leadership behaviors. Extant research suggests that there is a direct relationship between context and leadership behaviors. Role theory recognizes that some persons will experience organizational role expectations and role pressures differently from others, which ultimately leads them to utilize different leadership behaviors within the same context (Kahn et al., 1964).

This study also recognizes personality as a moderator variable in the relationship between managerial interpretations of organizational context and perceived role requirements. It is believed that due to differences in personality, some managers will experience organizational role expectations and role pressures differently from other managers, which ultimately leads them to utilize different leadership behaviors. Shivers-Blackwell's (2004) proposed model provides testable propositions regarding the various personality characteristics that may moderate the relationship between organizational context and leader behaviors. Shivers-Blackwell (2004) argues that role pressures influence manager's perceptions of the organization's context. These pressures induce within the manager an experience that has both psychological and evaluative properties and leads to either conforming or nonconforming responses. Role senders then evaluate the behavioral responses of the manager, and their expectations and perceptions of the focal person's behavior are subsequently adjusted. This general process is thought to underlie the effects of context on the utilization of transformational and transactional leadership. These leader behaviors are viewed as resulting from perceived role requirements, and have been shaped by the manager's interpretations of his/her contextual environment (ShiversBlackwell, 2004, p. 42).

An empirical test of this model could provide support for Yukl's (1989) model of leader behavior determinants, the role episode model (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964), and Burns and Stalker's (1961) mechanisticorganic structural distinction. second, an empirical test of the model could provide support for the belief that certain personalities are more sensitive to various contexts and tend to adjust their leadership behaviors accordingly, while other personality types are more consistent in their use of leadership behaviors regardless of context (Shivers-Blackwell, 2004, p. 46).

Research on testing these propositions may contribute to understanding why leaders within the same context exhibit different leadership behaviors. Specifically, managers who possess an external locus of control orientation and managers who are high self-monitors may be more likely to adjust their interpretations of their role requirements along the transactionaltransformational continuum depending on their perceptions of the organization's objective context. Therefore, one must have an understanding of psychological context, personality, as well as the appropriateness or importance of various role components linked to the organization's objective context to understand the use of leadership behaviors in organizations (Shivers-Blackwell, 2004, p. 46).

Ferns, Frink, Galang, Zhou, Kacmar, and Howard (1996) indicate that the environments in which people work, and the interpretations of those environments can have considerable effects upon perceptions, attitudes and behaviors toward work and the organization. This suggests that managers respond to what they perceive and that unnoticed events may not affect managerial decisions and actions. Consequently, objective measures of organizational context may not have the direct effects that researchers have established, unless managers' attend to them and perceive them to be significant. In addition, objectives measures of organizational context (i.e., formalization, standardization, status stratification) have been purported to exist for the entire organization, as mentioned above the organization can have various contexts existing simultaneously within different units and jobs. Thus, while one may expect that there is a strong relationship between a single "objective" context and organizational members' perceptions of that context, this assumption may be unfounded.

To further support the study of managerial perceptions of context, Porter (1976) acknowledges that perceptions are important to study and to understand, even if they are misperceptions; and Lewin (1936) argues that people respond based on their perceptions of reality, not reality itself. Therefore, this research emphasizes the importance of studying managers' perceptions of organizational context, in order to emphasize the importance of individual cognitions and experiences in their interpretation of their environment.

Research in Organizational Context, Personality, & Leadership

Organizational Structure

Extant research suggests that organic structures tend to be more effective in unpredictable environments, because these structures permit rapid organizational responses to changing external forces, while mechanistic structures are better suited to more stable environments where immediate organizational responses are not usually required (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Subsequently, it is expected that organic structures will be more effective for organizations operating in unpredictable or even hostile environments, and mechanistic structures would be more effective in predictable and more stable environments. Khandwalla (1977) found that high-performing firms in industries characterized by intense, diverse, and shifting competing pressures tended to adopt organic structures, while high-performing firms in industries with minimal competitive pressure adopted more mechanistic structures (Covin & Slevin, 1989, p. 76). Khandwalla's (1977) study also found that a relationship existed between top management style and organizational structure. He noted that a conservative top management style is most effective for smaller organizations in more stable environments, while an entrepreneurial style, which includes measures of risk-taking, innovation, and proactiveness, is most effective for smaller firms in hostile environments (Covin & Slevin, 1989, p. 78).

Burns and Stalker (1961) note that whether organizations are internally mechanistic or organic should make a difference in leader behavior. Bass (1985) used the mechanistic and organic organizational context categorization to reason that transformational leadership is more likely to appear in organic organizations with less constrictive environments, and that managers in mechanistic environments are more likely to engage in more transactional behaviors. Bass (1985) maintained that private organizations, which often have organic structures because of their market-focus and competitive pressures, may have much less institutionalized substitutes for leadership; therefore, leaders may engage in transformational behaviors to motivate their subordinates to achieve beyond expectations. Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) note that many public (i.e., mechanistic) organizations are enmeshed in contracts as well as departmental norms and traditions, such that change often occurs because of political tradeoffs and much of the leadership is transactional.

Thus, organic structures because of their flexibility, market-focus and competitive pressures may convey to managers that transformational leadership behaviors are required to motivate their subordinates to achieve beyond expectations. However, organizations that aim to replace personal influence with policies and procedures (i.e., mechanistic) may convey that the use of political tradeoffs and other forms of transactional behaviors are more appropriate (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Bass, 1985; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996). Additionally, if one believes that perceptions influence leader behavior, effective managerial leaders should seek to adjust their behaviors in order to meet contextual expectations (Hogg, 2001). Thus,

Hypothesis 1: The more a manager interprets structure as organic, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements.

Organizational Culture

Organizational culture, through its existence and influence on behavior, frames and shapes the use of leader behaviors (Ammeter, Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter, & Ferris, 2002). The definition of culture used in this study is adapted from Schein's (1992, p. 12) definition of "culture." Schein's (1992) definition stresses the importance of an individual's perceptions, instead of emphasizing the importance of having a "shared" meaning:

An individual's basic assumptions-invented, discovered, or developed as he or she learns to cope with problems of external adaptation and internal integration-that have worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems.

Bass and Avolio (1991) define a purely transactional culture as one that focuses on explicit and implicit contractual relationships. Job assignments along with conditions of employment, disciplinary codes, and benefit structures are clearly defined. Commitments are described as being short-term, and individual rewards are contingent upon performance. They also note that management-by-exception is actively practiced, and employees work as independently as possible from their colleagues.

The purely transformational culture is described as having a general sense of purpose and a feeling of family (Bass & Avolio, 1991). Commitments are often long-term and employees share mutual interests and a sense of shared fates and interdependence across vertical hierarchies. Superiors serve as mentors, coaches, role models and leaders, and there is much talk at all levels within the organization about purposes, vision, and meeting challenges. Thus,

Hypothesis 2A: The more a manager interprets culture as transactional, the more likely the manager is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements.

Hypothesis 2B: The more a manager interprets culture as transformational, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements.

While it is important to study the various types of organizational environments that lead to the emergence of effective leadership behaviors objectively, it is also important to study subjective mechanisms that also might influence effective leader behavior. Researchers have found many examples of leaders within the same objective context demonstrating different levels of transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, 1985; Bass, Avolio, & Goodheim, 1987; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Popper & Zakkai, 1994).

Personality as a Moderator

Some researchers suggest that certain critical personality differences in leaders may actually result in the formation of either transformational or transactional leadership styles (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987; Kuhnert & Russell, 1990; Church & Waclawski, 1998). Recently, Bono and Judge (2004) and Judge and Bono (2000) linked traits from the 5-factor model of personality (the Big 5) to transformational leadership behavior. They found that extraversion and agreeableness positively predicted transformational leadership; and that neuroticism and conscientiousness were unrelated to transformational leadership.

This study examines self-monitoring and locus of control. Self-monitoring is examined because of its recognized potential for affecting behavior in organizations (Nelson & Quick, 1994). High self-monitors (HSMs) are described as being attentive to contextual cues and adjusting their behavior accordingly, while low self-monitors (LSMs) tend to act from internal states rather than paying attention to their environment (Nelson & Quick, 1994). A high self-monitoring manager is described as, "...an effective role 'actor' capable of modifying his/her behavior according to role prescriptions and other situational demands regardless of whether the exhibited behavior is congruent with inner feelings, attitudes, or emotions" (Anderson & Thacker, 1985). In contrast, managers characterized as low self-monitoring do not tend to base their behavior on cues from people and situations and are likely to employ internal beliefs as behavioral guidelines (Anderson & Thacker, 1985).

Day, Schleicher, Unckless, and Hiller (2002) summarize research suggesting that high, relative to low self-monitoring individuals are likely to emerge as leaders. Day notes that high self-monitors (HSMs) are likely to emerge as leaders because they tend to be more extraverted than LSMs, are more likely to behave in a situationally appropriate manner, have better control over their expressive behavior, and are flexible and adaptable with regard to their attitudes and behavior (Bedeian & Day, 2004, p. 702). Day further posits that HSMs are likely to emerge as leaders because they do a better job meeting interpersonal expectations and fitting in with organizational norms; additionally, research indicates that HSMs are better at enacting individualized leadership approaches (Bedeian & Day, 2004).

Bedeian, however, suggests that LSMs are more likely to be leaders because they "...obey their internal piloting for gyroscopic direction rather than act according to contextual cues from many directions and sources. Additionally, because of their desire to be good citizens and technical competence, LSMs would seem better leadership role models than HSMs-who may be technically qualified, but concern themselves with important contextual demands only when it is to their personal advantage (Bedeian & Day, 2004)." Since, low self-monitors are seen as relatively insensitive to structural and cultural role expectations and pressures exerted by the organization, they may also be unaware of the value that certain behaviors have for their effectiveness and career progress. Therefore, it is conceivable that low self-monitoring managers in more organic structures and transformational cultures will exhibit transactional behaviors to the extent that they: (1) tend to act from internal states, and are characterized as not being concerned with behaving in a situationally appropriate manner; (2) are insensitive to organizational situational cues (e.g., organizational values, role expectations, role pressures) to behave transformationally; (3) are more introverted; and (4) are not willing to modify their behavior according to role prescriptions due to inner feelings, attitudes, or emotions. Consequently, if their internal states predispose them to behave transformationally, they may be less likely to exhibit transactional leadership behaviors when communicated to them by their environment. Thus,

Hypothesis 3A: The relationship between interpretations of structure and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low.

Hypothesis 3B: The relationship between interpretations of culture and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low.

Researchers examined locus of control because it has been shown to be empirically related to transformational leadership behavior and performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Bass, 1985; Runyon, 1973). Locus of control refers to a generalized belief that a person can (i.e., internal orientation) or cannot (i.e., external orientation) control his or her own destiny. This belief arises from social learning theory and is rooted in general principles of reinforcement. Runyon (1973, p.288) argues that within the context of social learning, individuals experience reinforcement under various conditions. If an individual perceives the reinforcement as being contingent upon his or her behavior, this is termed a belief in "internal" control. However, if an individual perceives the reinforcement as being contingent upon outside forces, it is termed a belief in "external" control. Previous conceptual work has suggested that leaders who have an internal locus of control orientation are more likely to exhibit transformational leadership behaviors than are leaders who have an external locus of control orientation (Howell & Avolio, 1993; Bass, 1981, 1985; Runyon, 1973).

Howell and Avolio (1993) indicated that leaders who have confidence in their ability to influence the direction of organizational events (e.g., internal locus of control orientation) are more likely to exhibit transformational leadership behaviors than are leaders who believe that they do not have the ability to influence the direction of organizational events (e.g., external locus of control orientation). Internally oriented managers exhibit greater confidence in their ability to influence the environment, exhibit more entrepreneurial qualities, are more capable in dealing with stressful situations, place greater reliance on open and supportive means of influence, pursue riskier and more innovative company strategies, and generate higher group and company performance than do externally oriented managers (Miller, Kets De Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Anderson, 1977; Kipnis, 1976). Therefore, it seems likely that managers with an internal locus of control orientation would be less inclined to adjust their behaviors in compliance with the role expectations and role pressures from role senders, than those with an external locus of control orientation. For example, internals may not comply with transactionally-based role requirements to the extent that they: (1) are more inclined to behave transformationally; (2) do not attend to organizational role expectations and role pressures; and (3) are convinced that they can influence their environment. Thus,

Hypothesis 4A: The relationship between interpretations of structure and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when locus of control is external rather than internal.

Hypothesis 4B: The relationship between interpretations of culture and perceived leadership role requirements will be stronger when locus of control is external rather than internal.

Methods

Sample

This study was conducted in a Fortune 500 company in the technology industry (N=118) that had many of the structural characteristics of an organic organization and in a large public university (N= 132) that had many of the structural characteristics of a mechanistic organization; both organizations are located in the Midwest. Structural organizational characteristics suggested by House (1991) and used in the Atwater (1995) study considered relevant to the organic-mechanistic distinction were formalization, task specialization, standardization, and status stratification. These structural variables are used in the interview process in order to gather managerial interpretations of structural characteristics.

Two-hundred and fifty (250) managerial surveys were mailed. The response rate for the Fortune 500 managers was 78% (n=92) and for the university managers was 71% (n=94). The overall response rate was 74% (n=186). A minimum sample size of 160 managers was projected in accordance with the procedures followed by Cohen (1988) for power levels of .84 and .94, alphas=.01 and .05, respectively for correlational and regression analyses.

Procedure

Questionnaires were pilot tested within a state agency in upstate New York prior to beginning data collection for this research. The pilot sample consisted of 30 managers, 55 of their subordinates, 10 of their superiors, and 6 executives. The pilot study was conducted for the purposes of discovering problems in questionnaires and procedures before the main study began. Questionnaires were revised based on feedback from the pilot study. Most revisions concentrated on making the questionnaires easier to comprehend.

Data collection was conducted at two points in time in order to reduce the effects of common method variance. At time 1, managers completed questionnaires asking them to provide information concerning interpretations of their department's structure and culture. At time 2, approximately two weeks after the time 1 data collection, managers completed questionnaires asking them to provide information concerning their interpreted leadership role requirements and locus of control and self-monitoring beliefs.

Measures

Perceptions of Structure

Khandwalla (1976/77) developed the instrument for assessing managers' perceptions of the organization and department structure as either mechanistic or organic. In this study, variable reproducibility and inter-judge agreement were used to measure reliability. The reproducibility and interjudge reliability for the organic variable was .68 and .52 respectively. Covin and Slevin (1989) indicate that in their study the Khandwalla (1976/77) organicity scale had an interitem reliability coefficient of .80.

The seven-item scale asked managers to indicate on a seven-point Likert Scale the extent to which each item characterized the structure of their organization and department. Items included whether or not the department had: (1) highly structured versus open channels of communication; (2) a strong insistence of a uniform managerial style versus managers' operating styles are allowed to range freely from very formal to very informal; and (3) a strong emphasis on getting line and staff personnel to adhere closely to formal job descriptions versus a strong tendency to let the requirements of the situation and the individuals personality, define the proper job behavior. The higher the score, the more the department was perceived to be organic. The coefficient alpha for this variable is 0.79.

Perceptions of Transformational & Transactional Culture

Managers completed Bass and Avolio's (1991) 28-item Organizational Description Questionnaire (ODQ). Fourteen items deal with transactional elements in the culture's assumptions, processes and expectations. For example, (1) everyone bargains with everyone else for resources, and (2) you get what you deserve - no more, no less. The other fourteen items deal with transformational elements of the organization's culture. For example, (1) people go out of their way for the good of the institution, and (2) individual initiation is encouraged. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (5) = strongly agree to (1) = strongly disagree. A higher score indicated perceptions of a more transformational culture. The coefficient alphas for transactional culture are 0.73 and transformational culture 0.90.

Leader's Interpreted Role Requirements

Interpretations of required leader behavior were operationalized as the degree to which managers believed that their work environment influenced the way that they carried out their roles. Managers' expectations of their role requirements were based on Form 5X of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). Thirty-two descriptive statements asked managers to judge the extent to which they are expected to engage in transactional and transformational leadership behaviors. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (5) = strongly agree to (1) = strongly disagree. The coefficient alphas are as follows: leader's interpreted contingent reward role requirements (0.69), leader's interpreted management by exception (passive) role requirements (0.74), leader's interpreted management by exception (active) role requirements (0.60), and leader's interpreted transformational role requirements (0.91). Factor analyses supported the original threefactor transactional measures of the MLQ; however, factor analyses failed to distinguish between the original five-factor structure of transformational measures. Subsequently, the original five-factor model was combined into one transformational leadership factor.

Self-monitoring

Self-monitoring was measured with 13-items taken from Lennox and Wolfe's (1984) scale. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (5) = always true to (1) = always false. Higher scores indicated high self-monitoring. Items 9 and 12 were reverse scored. The coefficient alpha is 0.79.

Locus of Control

Locus of control was measured with 12-items taken from the Rotter's (1966) scale and Kren's (1992) locus of control scale. This shortened Likert scale ranging from (5) = strongly agree to (1) = strongly disagree, was developed based on its relevance to work behavior in organizations. The original 29-item forced-choice locus of control scale developed by Rotter (1966) also contained questions addressing beliefs about teachers, politicians, athletes and how events in society affect different people. These items were considered less relevant to this study and were not included in the 12-item scale. Higher scores indicated an external locus of control. Items 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11 were reverse-scored. The coefficient alpha is 0.71.

Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Data analyses were performed in two major steps. In the first step, factor analyses, correlational analyses, and internal consistencies of all constructs were established. In the second step, multivariate tests of hypotheses were performed. Mediating effects were explored and the moderating effects of locus of control and self-monitoring were established. Moderated hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed to test for the moderating effects of locus of control and self-monitoring. These hypotheses suggest the possibility of multiple interactions all including the same personality variables, thus creating the potential for multicollinearity for hypotheses 3A, 3B, 4A, and 4B. Therefore, a hierarchical stepwise regression analysis procedure was employed when testing for these interactions (Fry & Slocum, 1984; Baron & Kenny, 1986; Collins, Hage, & Hull, 1988; Green, Gavin, & Smith, 1995). Main effects were entered first. The contingency effects of personality were then tested by examining the possible multiple interactions between interpretations of context and personality terms in the second step. If the interaction terms stepped into the regression analysis produced significant standardized regression weights and a significant ?R^sup 2^ at the second step, then personality variables would be identified as moderators. The procedure was terminated when the adjusted R^sup 2^ increment failed to increase significantly (p<.05) with the inclusion of an additional interaction. Interactions were plotted using the following regression equation: Y = b^sub 1^X+b^sub 2^Z+b^sub 3^XZ+b^sub 0^ (Aiken & West, 1991).

In addition, correlations among the interaction terms were examined to assess the extent of multicollinearity. The highest correlation observed among locus of control interaction terms was .52. Correlations for locus of control interactions ranged from r = -.02 to r = .52. The highest correlation observed among self-monitoring interaction terms was .48. Correlations ranged from r = -.25 to r = .48. Given the moderate correlations among interaction terms and the conservative hierarchical stepwise regression procedure, multicollinearity should not bias these findings.

Missing data did not appear to be a serious problem with this data set. Typically, no more than 9% of the data are missing on any given variable. Missing values appeared to be scattered randomly; therefore, missing data were estimated by inserting mean values (Roth, 1994).

Results

Hypothesis 1 states that the more a manager interprets structure as organic, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements. Results indicate that hypothesis 1 was partially supported. see Table 1.

Table 1 reveals managers' interpretations of an organic structure is negatively related to management-by-exception (active) (r = -.17, p<.05). The relationship between interpretations of organicity and interpretations of contingent reward, management-by-exception (passive), and transformational role requirements, however, were not significant. Table 2 also reveals that hypothesis 1 is partially supported. Interpretations of department organicity are negatively related to managers' interpreted contingent reward role requirements (b = -.18, p<.05). This is a centra-hypothesis finding.

Hypothesis 2A states that the more a manager interprets culture as transactional, the more likely the manager is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements. Table 1 provides partial support for this hypothesis. Bivariate relationships reveal that managers' interpretations of a transactional culture are negatively related to their perceptions of a transformational culture (T= -0.65, p<.001). Furthermore, managers' interpretations of a transactional culture are positively related to managers' interpretations of management-byexception, passive (r = .27, p<.001) and management-by-exception, active (r = .20, p<.01) role requirements; and negatively related to managers' interpretations of transformational role requirements (r = -.15, p<.05).

Table 2 also reveals that hypothesis 2A is partially supported. Manager's perceptions of a transactional culture are positively related to managers' interpreted management-byexception (passive) (b = .21, p<.05, overall model F = 5.09, p<.01) and (active) (b = .20, p<.05, overall model F = 3.62, p<.01) role requirements.

Hypothesis 2B states that the more a manager interprets culture as transformational, the more likely the manager is to interpret transformational leadership role requirements, and the less likely he/she is to interpret transactional leadership role requirements. Table 1 provides initial support for the hypothesis. Bivariate relationships reveal that managers' interpretations of a transformational culture are positively related to managers' interpretations of transformational role requirements (r = .24, p<.001); and negatively related to managers' interpretations of management-by-exception, passive (r = -.23, p<.01).

Results from Table 2 also indicate that hypothesis 2 is partially supported. Interpretations of a transformational culture are a positive predictor of the managers' interpreted transformational role requirements (b = .30, p<.01, overall model F = 5.01, p<.01).

Hypothesis 3A states that the relationship between interpretations of structure and perceived leadership role requirements is stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low. Table 1 reveals that there is a nonsignificant relationship between self-monitoring and interpretations of an organic department. There are, however, significant bivariate relationships between self-monitoring and managers' interpretations of their leadership role requirements, contingent reward (r = .15, p<.05), management-by-exception, active (r = .21, p<.01), and transformational (r = .19, p<.01) role requirements. Table 3 also reveals that hypothesis 3A is not supported; there were no significant interactions indicated for organicity and self-monitoring.

Hypothesis 3B states that the relationship between interpretations of culture and perceived leadership role requirements is stronger when self-monitoring is high rather than low. This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant interactions indicated for interpretations of culture and self-monitoring. Table 3, however, indicates that when predicting interpreted management-by-exception (passive) role requirements, interpretations of transactional culture is a significant predictor (b = 0.21, p<.05) in the overall model (R^sup 2^=0.07, F = 3.80, p<.01). When predicting interpreted management-by-exception (active) role requirements, self-monitoring (b = 0.19, p<.01) is a significant predictors in the overall model (R^sup 2^=0.09, F = 4.64, p<.01). Lastly, when predicting interpreted transformational role requirements, interpretations of a transformational culture (b = 0.27, p<.01) and self-monitoring (b = 0.16, p<.05) are significant predictors in the overall model (R^sup 2^=0.10, F = 5.07, p<.001).

Hypothesis 4A states that the relationship between interpretations of structure and perceived leadership role requirements is stronger when locus of control is external rather than internal. Table 4 indicates this hypothesis was partially supported. Interpretations of organicity and locus of control showed significant interactions when predicting managers' interpreted transformational role requirements (b = -1.28, p<.05, overall model R^sup 2^ = 0.18, ? R^sup 2^ = 0.02, F = 7.79, p<.001).

The model shown in Figure 1 illustrates that managers with an external locus of control are more likely to interpret transformational role requirements when they perceive their environment as mechanistic, than managers with an internal locus of control. Managers with an internal locus of control are more consistent in their interpretation of transformational role requirements. That is, regardless of whether they perceive their environment as more organic or mechanistic, they tend to be rather consistent in their interpretations of transformational role requirements. This finding suggests that managers with an external locus of control are more likely to interpret that transformational role requirements are encouraged in a more mechanistic environment, and believe that an organic structure discourages the use of transformational role requirements. In addition, it may be the case that in mechanistic organizations (i.e., strong environments) individual differences may not be of great consequence; however in more organic organizations (i.e., weak environments), individual differences are more likely to be expressed, and thus individual differences may be stronger moderators.

Hypothesis 4B states that the relationship between interpretations of culture and perceived leadership role requirements is stronger when locus of control is external rather than internal. Table 4 indicates this hypothesis was partially supported. Interpretations of a transformational culture and locus of control showed significant interactions when predicting managers' interpreted contingent reward role requirements (b = 1.20, p<. 05, overall model R^sup 2^ = 0.14, ? R^sup 2^ = 0.03, F = 5.82, p<. 001) and managers' interpreted transformational role requirements (b = 1.02, p<. 05, overall model R^sup 2^ = 0.20, ? R^sup 2^ = 0.02, F = 7.32, p<. 001). The first relationship is a contra-hypothesis, and the second relationship is as hypothesized.

The model shown in Figure 2 illustrates that managers with an external locus of control are more likely to interpret contingent reward role requirements when they perceive a transformational culture, than managers with an internal locus of control. Managers with an internal locus of control are more consistent in their interpretation of contingent reward role requirements. They are less likely to interpret contingent reward requirements, regardless of whether they perceive a strong or weak transformational culture. This finding suggests that managers with an external locus of control are more likely to believe that a transformational culture encourages the use of contingent reward behaviors.

Figure 3 illustrates that a stronger relationship exists between interpretations of transformational role requirements and interpretations of transformational culture for managers with an external locus of control as hypothesized. Figure 3 shows that managers with an external locus of control are more likely to interpret transformational role requirements when they interpret a transformational culture. Managers having an internal locus of control are more likely to consistently interpret transformational role requirements, regardless of whether they perceive a high or low transformational culture.

Discussion

Current theory suggests that if structures are seen as organic and perceived as flexible, market-focused and having intense competitive pressures, such psychological structures may convey to managers that transformational leadership behaviors are expected of them. Thus, they may feel encouraged to intellectually stimulate and motivate their subordinates to achieve beyond expectations. If structures are seen as mechanistic, however, and perceived to replace personal influence with policies and procedures, and to be characterized by union rules, contracts and departmental norms and traditions, then such interpretations may convey to the leader that the use of political tradeoffs and other forms of transactional behaviors are considered more appropriate.

Bivariate correlations partially supported this argument in that interpretations of management-by-exception (active) (b=-.17, p<. 05) were negatively and significantly related to perceptions of an organic structure. Regression analyses revealed a contra-hypothesis finding for interpretations of transformational role requirements (b=-.14, F=5.01, p<. 01).

This may suggest that interpretations of an organic structure may increase managers' sensitivity to unclear goals and structure, rapidly changing environments, and informal loose controls; such that they interpret their work environment is communicating an increased need for structure, instead of pressures to utilize inspirational appeals, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration with employees. In organic organizations, jobs were noted, "...to lose much of their formal definition in terms of methods, duties, and powers which had to be redefined continually because of the interaction with others participating in the same task." (Burns & Stalker, 1961, p. 6). It is believed that this continual redefinition process, where all duties and powers need to be spelled out along with conditions of employment, disciplinary codes and benefit structures, may encourage managers to perceive that less transformational behaviors are expected in their working environment.

Results from hypotheses 2A and 2B indicate that interpretations of transactional culture are a positive predictor of managers' interpreted management-by-exception (passive) and (active) role requirements, while interpretations of a transformational culture are a positive predictor of managers' interpreted transformational role requirements. Implications for theory suggest that role pressures and role expectations exerted on the manager by a perceived transactional culture may lead managers to interpret that transactional leadership behaviors are expected of them, particularly management-by-exception (passive) and (active) role requirements. second, role pressures and role expectations exerted on the manager by a perceived transformational culture may lead managers to interpret that transformational leadership behaviors are expected.

Hypothesis 2A also reveals a contrahypothesis finding. Interpretations of a transformational culture are a positive predictor of managers' contingent reward role requirements. Although, this finding is a centrahypothesis, this relationship is understandable since contingent reward and transformational factors were consistently and positively correlated. This relationship suggests that transformational cultures were perceived as supporting the use of contingent reward behaviors. Avolio et al., (1995) state that high correlations between transformational scales and transactional contingent reward leadership are expected for several reasons. First, transactional and transformational leadership symbolize active and positive forms of leadership. second, leaders have been shown in repeated investigations to be both transactional and transformational. Third, Shamir (1995, p. 11) argues that, "the consistent honoring of transactional agreements builds trust, dependability, and perceptions of consistency with leaders by followers, which is a basis for transformational leadership."

Overall, there was no support for self-monitoring as a moderator. It may be the case that high self-monitors (HSMs) would be better able to assess the objective cues in their environments, and that they would not use subjective perceptions of their environment any differently than low self-monitors (LSMs). Bedeian offers an alternative explanation. He notes that HSMs and LSMs process contextual cues in a similar manner, leading one to believe that their interpretations of their environment are similar; however, they are differentially motivated when it comes to using contextual cues in shaping their self-presentational strategies (Bedeian & Day, 2004, p. 691).

There was modest support for locus of control as a moderator. Results indicated that externals were more sensitive to contextual cues than internals. Implications of findings are that the use of role theory modestly helps to explain the link between perceptions of context and leadership role requirements. Furthermore, it is believed that there may be something inherent in externals, such that they are: 1) less likely to interpret transformational role requirements in more organic environments (i.e., weak situations) and 2) more likely to interpret that contingent-reward and transformational role requirements in a transformational culture. It may be the case that organicity, because it is viewed as a weak situation, has implications for the strength of role forces as perceived by externals. Externals may perceive role forces (i.e., psychological forces that result from sent pressures by role senders and are the immediate source of the manager's motivation to behave) exerted by organic environments as weak, thus diminishing the detection and acceptance of those role forces.

Internals appear to be consistent in their interpretations of transformational role requirements, regardless of whether they perceive organicity to be high or low or whether they perceive the culture as more or less transformational. This finding supports the idea that internals are less inclined to adjust their behaviors in compliance with role expectations and role pressures from role senders (Miller, Kets De Vries, & Toulouse, 1982; Anderson, 1977; Kipnis, 1976). Furthermore, it may be the case that internals may resist any outside demands that attempt to influence or induce a particular behavior, such that they are not likely to conform to role sender expectations. Bolstering support for the belief that internals have a major part in determining their role requirements and are self-senders, that is role senders to themselves. Kahn et al., (1964) note that self-senders have a conception of then" job and a set of attitudes and beliefs about how they should behave in their role and what behaviors will fulfill their responsibilities.

Contributions, Implications & Future Research

This research has made several contributions. First, it is an empirical test of and provides partial support for Yukl's (1989) model of leader behavior determinants, the role episode model (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964), and Burns and Stalker's (1961) mechanisticorganic structural distinction. second, this work addresses the role of managers' psychological context by bringing attention to the antecedents of interpretations of transformational and transactional leadership role requirements. This research supports the idea that interpretations of context are significant in that certain personalities are more or less sensitive to various contexts. Specifically, managers who see themselves as internals and those who see themselves as externals vary in their interpretations of their role requirements along a transactional-transformational continuum.

The findings also have a number of organizational implications. First, this line of research seems to suggest that locus of control impacts leadership role requirements through its interactions with psychological context. This finding has implications for influencing managerial interpretations of context through re/designing elements of the organization's inner context (i.e., job characteristics). It is believed that if locus of control can influence managers' interpretations, this has implications for selection processes. For example, selection procedures can be implemented in such a way as to attract, select, and retain an individual with a particular type of personality within a particular organizational context. Reward structures could also be constructed to reinforce certain attitudes and behaviors, and promotion practices could be implemented in order to advance those that will best fulfill the organization's role requirements.

Limitations & Conclusion

Objective ratings of context would have been desirable. However, using objective ratings of structure and culture would have introduced difficult cross-level issues and required the sampling of additional organizations, which was beyond the scope of this study. The use of additional organizations, however, would have allowed for a comparison of organizational structures and cultures across different industries and geographic regions. This would have made the findings of this study more generalizable and would have avoided some common method bias problems.

Causality is a major concern. Furthermore, data were pooled from subjects within two different organizational contexts. Antonakis, Avolio, and Sivasubramaniam (2003) note that pooling data from different contexts may destabilize the factor structure of a leadership survey instrument because of how leadership is demonstrated and/or observed. It is likely that this was a problem within the study as factor analyses supported the original three-factor transactional measures of the MLQ; however, factor analyses failed to distinguish between the original five-factor structure of transformational measures. Furthermore, one reviewer pointed out that since contingent reward behavior does not fit theoretically or statistically with other forms of transactional leadership, hypothesizing relationships concerning transactional and transformational behaviors is challenged by the fact that these behaviors do not fit neatly into different categories.

Although the contributions of this research are modest, they are nevertheless believed to be important. This is the first study to examine role theory and its connection to transactional and transformational leadership behaviors from the manager's perspective. This research has provided some support for strongly held theoretical and speculative relationships concerning role processes, leader behavior determinants, Burns and Stalker's mechanisticorganic distinction, and the existence of a transactional and transformational culture within public and private institutions. Although the relationship between managerial interpretations of organizational context and the utilization of leadership behaviors was not established, the relationship between interpretations of organizational context and its effect on perceived transactional and transformational role requirements was recognized. Furthermore, the relationship between perceptions of context and interpreted role requirements was stronger for externals.

The aim of this research was to introduce self-monitoring and locus of control as moderators in the relationship between leader's interpretations of organizational structure and culture and their perceived transformational and transactional leadership role requirements. The study provides additional insight into why managers may behave differently in similar organizations and within similar jobs. Specifically, managers who possess an internal locus of control orientation and managers who are LSMs are not likely to vary in their interpretations of their leadership role requirements, regardless of their perceptions of the organization's structure or culture. Those with an external locus of control orientation and HSMs vary along the transactional-transformational continuum, depending on their interpretations of organizational structure or culture.

This paper suggests that the utilization of transactional or transformational behaviors extends beyond the organization's objective context. One must also have an understanding of psychological context, personality, and the appropriateness or importance of various role components linked to the organization's objective context. In as such, the results provide modest support for the idea that role expectations are embedded in interpretations of organizational structure and culture. Therefore, if managers desire to develop a transactional or transformational influence within organizations, they must have an understanding of the appropriateness and importance of various role components linked to the organization's context. This suggests that managers may create or induce, through their interpretations of organizational context and personality, the conditions that shape their behaviors and ultimately their performance.