Traditions and possible alternatives of the evaluation of leadership effectiveness in organizational psychology

Straipsnyje analizuojamos vadovavimo efektyvumo vertinimo tradicijos organizacinėje psichologijoje bei siūlomos alternatyvos. Empiriniu tyrimu buvo siekiama atskleisti vadovavimo efektyvumo vertinimo skirtumus, gaunamus vertinant vadovavimo ypatumus elgesiniu ir transformacinio vadovavimo metodu, bei analizuoti vadovavimo efektyvumo (pavaldinių požiūriu) sąsajas su darbo motyvacija ir įsipareigojimu organizacijai.Scientific research in the leadership field has been active for more than a century. Nowadays it still remains relevant in the business world of changes. The evaluation of leadership effectiveness is assigned to long-term organizational perspectives and competitive advantage (Avolio et al., 2009; Gilley et al., 2009; Gowing et al., 2008; Tett et al., 2000). However, researchers and practitioners do not agree about a single and universal system of the evaluation of leadership effectiveness that could satisfy changeable market demands (Anderson et al., 2008; Yukl et al., 2002). Leadership theories are distinguished into traditional and alternative ones according to their interpretation of the evaluation of leadership effectiveness and its influence on subordinates' performance (Avolio et al., 2009). But there is a lack of research that would analyze differences of those two groups of theories. Therefore in this article is presented only an assumption about transformational leadership as a universal and modern measure of leadership effectiveness that could change traditional controversial behavioral evaluation (Avolio et al., 2009a; Bass, Riggio, 2008; Spreitzer et al., 2005). The empirical research presented in this paper aimed to establish differences between behavioral and transformational leadership methods for the evaluation of leadership effectiveness and to analyze leadership effectiveness' (according to subordinates) relations with work motivation and organizational commitment. 112 people, working in various organizations in Lithuania, participated in the survey. Leadership effectiveness questionnaire (Heck et al., 2000) and Global transformational leadership scale (Carless et al., 2000) were used to evaluate leadership effectiveness. Work motivation was evaluated using 10 propositions about employees' motivation to work (Genevičiūtė-Janonienė, 2009) and organizational commitment was assessed by L. W. Porter's et al. (1974) Organizational commitment questionnaire (cit. according to Yousef, 2003). The empirical research denied that different effective and ineffective leaders were identified using traditional (behavioral) and alternative (transformational leadership) methods for the evaluation of leadership effectiveness. The results showed that higher evaluation of leadership effectiveness from Global transformational leadership scale determined higher organizational commitment score. Whereas higher work motivation was predicted by higher results from Leadership effectiveness questionnaire, though the results using different statistical methods were controversial. A complex viewpoint integrating traditional and alternative perspectives should be used for the evaluation of leadership effectiveness in science and practice