Avolio and Howell in their article suggest that transformational leadership has three measures that define the performance of managers and these measures are linked with local of control and innovation. The article also discusses how transactional leadership is connected to manager performance but is negatively linked unlike transformational leadership.
Dubinsky and Yammarino suggest in their article that that transformational leadership can be studied at the level of individuals, dyads and groups to understand how their performance is impacted by this leadership method.
Dubinsky and Yammarino further define four hypotheses for their levels of analysis or evaluation on how transformational leadership is based on and is affected by individual differences, differences in dyads within groups, differences between dyads and between each of them, cross level:
“Hypothesis 1: Relationships derived from transformational leadership theory (five previously stated expectations) will hold at the individual level of analysis; that is, they are based on individual differences”
“Hypothesis 2: Relationships derived from transformational leadership theory will hold at the dyads-within-groups level of analysis; that is, they are based on differences among dyads within groups.”
“Hypothesis 4: Relationships derived from transformational leadership theory will be cross-level in nature, holding at three levels of analysis; that is, they are based on individual differences, between-dyads differences, and differences among dyads within groups.”
To understand how business performance can be impacted through transformational leadership and whether performance is a direct result of transformational leadership, the following hypotheses have been designed by Avolio and Howell:
Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c: Charismatic leadership, leadership based on intellectual stimulation, and leadership based on individualized