Developmental and instrumental leadership: interrelationship and individual profiles Open Access

The transformational leadership model (Bass, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1994) has dominated the scientific literature on leadership in the last decades (Gardner et al., 2010, 2020; Lowe and Gardner, 2001). Combined, transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership forms the Full Range of Leadership Theory (FRLT) (Bass, 1985). However, in recent years criticism has emerged against the FRLT arguing that it focuses too much on interpersonal aspects of leadership and too little on task- and performance-related issues (Antonakis and House, 2014). Following from this, a model named instrumental leadership was developed, which, combined with the FRLT forms an extended conceptualization of leadership – eFRLT (Antonakis and House, 2014). The combined approach has attracted followers and can be claimed to represent a current front-line in terms of general leadership theory (see, e.g. Benedetti Chammas and da Costa Hernandez, 2019; Poethke et al., 2022; Rowold, 2014; Rowold et al., 2017). However, the combined idea has a history going back to the end of World War II, where leadership studies suggested broad behavior categories mainly divided into one relationship-related dimension (consideration) and one task- and performance-related dimension (initiating structure) (Fleishman and Harris, 1962).

Instrumental leadership is defined as follows by Antonakis and House (2014): “the application of leader expert knowledge on monitoring of the environment and of performance, and the implementation of strategic and tactical solutions” (p. 749). Thus, leaders, and particularly higher-level and middle managers, should monitor the environment and identify working strategies. From a follower perspective, leaders should provide necessary resources, give direction and feedback and monitor performance (Antonakis and House, 2014).

Antonakis and House (2014) point to a need for further research on instrumental leadership and its relationship to the FRLT in a variety of organizational contexts. The setting in the present study is basic military training for conscripts and voluntarily employed soldiers. This has been described as a low-control context (Buško and Kulavenović, 2003). It is also recognized as a male-dominated environment characterized by masculinity norms (Elder et al., 2017). Given that most research on the eFRLT has involved leaders at higher hierarchical levels in the business sector, low-level military conscripts and soldiers could provide new knowledge.

Previous studies indicate that there is a relatively strong correlation between transformational and instrumental leadership (Antonakis and House, 2014; Rowold, 2014). This result has been interpreted as both leadership styles being important dimensions of effective leadership. Whether this also applies in a low-level military context is an unresolved issue. However, based on the extant research the following hypothesis was formulated:

Another unresolved issue concerns how much of the variance in outcome indicators such as performance and job satisfaction that can be attributed to transformational and instrumental leadership styles respectively (Pizzolitto, 2022). The dominant pattern in the existing research appears to be that both leadership styles have positive effects on both these outcomes (Antonakis and House, 2014; Benedetti Chammas and da Costa Hernandez, 2019; Pizzolitto, 2022; Rowold, 2014), but that transformational leadership shows stronger association with the followers’ job satisfaction, while instrumental leadership is stronger related to performance (Antonakis and House, 2014; Rowold, 2014). Drawing on these findings, the following two hypotheses were formulated:

In the current study, the FRLT was replaced by the leadership model, as developed by Larsson et al. (2003, 2018), which is a Scandinavian adaptation of the FRLT. The adaptation mainly includes the following four changes: (1) the addition of the interactional person-situation paradigm (Endler and Magnusson, 1976); (2) an expansion of laissez-faire leadership to a system of destructive leadership behaviors (Larsson et al., 2012); (3) a division of a conventional leadership dimension into two positive and two negative factors has yielded higher reliability scores than has usually been found in research on transactional leadership without such a subdivision and (4) the concept of charisma, which is central in the writings on transformational leadership, was regarded as unsuitable in an egalitarian Scandinavian leadership culture because here it appears to evoke negative associations of elitism and a glorifying of the leader. This means that Yammarino’s (1993) claim that charisma is a necessary but not sufficient condition for transformational leadership, can be highly questioned and even be seen as counterproductive in the Scandinavian context.

In the present study one leadership style from the leadership model was used – developmental leadership. This style corresponds to the leadership style transformational leadership in the FRLT. The leadership style developmental leadership has a hierarchical model structure and includes the following three factors and their subordinate factors: Exemplary, authentic model, with the subfactors Value base, Role model and Responsibility, Individualized consideration with the subfactors Support and Confront and Inspiration and motivation with the subfactors Promote participation and Promote creativity (Larsson et al., 2003, 2018). Thus, the factors and subfactors included in the leadership style development leadership fairly well correspond the content of the leadership style transformational leadership. The exception is the concept of charisma which has been dropped from development leadership for reasons presented above.

Summing up, the present study explored the relationship between developmental and instrumental leadership in a hitherto unstudied group of military conscripts and voluntarily employed soldiers during their basic military training. Two different study approaches were used. First, a conventional variable-oriented approach including correlational and regression-based analyses. Second, a person-centered approach which focuses on the heterogeneity among subgroups of participants. The person-centered approach allows for the study of groups, or profiles, of individuals exhibiting similar response patterns in some key dimensions (Howard and Hoffman, 2018; Morin et al., 2018). In addition to the core leadership variables, we also wanted to include two variables regarded here as outcomes of leadership: performance and job satisfaction.

Following from this, the aim of the study was twofold. First, to examine the relationship between developmental leadership and instrumental leadership, as well as the relationship between these leadership variables and indices of performance and job satisfaction in an organizational low-level military context.

The second aim was to identify individual longitudinal patterns regarding developmental and instrumental leadership, and to explore how such patterns relate to traditional background variables and to indices of performance and job satisfaction. Regarding the second aim, the study was purely explorative as there was no basis in the extant research for specific predictions.

Questionnaire responses were obtained from conscripts and voluntarily employed soldiers during their basic military training in the Swedish Armed Forces. The participants came from six different units, two represented the Army, two the Navy and two the Air Force. Data was collected after the first month of service, in the middle of the service period and during the last month of the nine months basic training. At each of the three measurement occasions, a brief text was included at the beginning of the questionnaire outlining ethical considerations, confidential data handling and voluntary participation, along with contact information for the research team. Participants were also asked at the beginning of the questionnaire to provide written consent for the use of their social security numbers, enabling the matching of the three measures.

Self-report details were collected using paper-and-pen questionnaires. The data collection process took place in military lecture rooms. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, officers at the respective units managed the questionnaires. Each questionnaire was handed out together with a reply envelop so that the participants could seal their responses immediately after completing the questionnaire. All sealed envelopes were sent to the principal author at the Swedish Defence University, which is an independent university under the Ministry of Education and thus not connected to the Swedish Armed Forces.

Altogether, 880 individuals were invited to join the study. The response rate was 76% at T1 (n = 667), 57% at T2 (n = 503) and 63% at T3 (n = 554). The mean age of the responding sample was 23.7 years (SD = 6.1) at Time 1, 81% were men and 19% women, 94% had completed high school and 6% had a university education and 63% were conscripts and 37% were voluntarily employed soldiers.

The measures originally developed in English were translated into Swedish by a research colleague who is bilingual in Swedish and English. The Developmental Leadership Questionnaire (DLQ) (Larsson, 2006) was used to assess the three factors that build up the dimension developmental leadership. Exemplary, authentic model was assessed with nine items (Cronbach alpha = 0.89 T1, 0.91 T2 and 0.92 T3). Example: My nearest commander acts in accordance with the opinions he or she expresses. Individualized consideration was measured with six items (Cronbach alpha = 0.86 T1, 0.89 T2 and 0.89 T3). Example: My nearest commander takes time to listen. Inspiration and motivation finally, was assessed with six items (Cronbach alpha = 0.91 T1, 0.90 T2 and 0.92 T3). Example: My nearest commander creates enthusiasm for a task.

Respondents were asked to assess how frequently their nearest commander engaged in the specific behavior described by each item. Each behavior was rated on a six-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never, or almost never) to 6 (always, or almost always). A don’t know alternative was also provided on each item. Scale scores were computed by adding the raw scores of the items representing a scale and dividing the sum by the number of items in the scale (scale scores could range from 1 to 6).

Instrumental leadership was measured using the factor scales presented by Antonakis and House (2014). Environmental monitoring was assessed with two items (Cronbach alpha = 0.67 T1, 0.78 T2 and 0.76 T3). Example: Our nearest commander senses what needs to be changed in our organization. Strategy formulation and implementation was measured with two items (Cronbach alpha = 0.72 T1, 0.80 T2 and 0.79 T3). Example: My nearest commander ensures that his/her vision is understood in specific terms. Path-goal facilitation was assessed with two items (Cronbach alpha = 0.73 T1, 0.80 T2 and 0.79 T3). Example: My nearest commander ensures that I have sufficient resources to reach my goals. Outcome monitoring finally, was measured with two items (Cronbach alpha = 0.79 T1, 0.80 T2 and 0.83 T3). Example: My nearest commander helps me correct my mistakes. Response choices and scale score computations – see developmental leadership above. However, on instrumental leadership a five-point scale was used and there was no don’t know alternative.

Performance was measured with nine items developed by Puente Palacios et al. (2016) (Cronbach alpha = 0.88 T1, 0.90 T2 and 0.92 T3). Example: This group is productive. Responses were entered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (fully agree). A scale score was computed by adding the raw scores of the nine items and dividing the sum by nine.

Job satisfaction was measured with the following single item developed by Ahronson and Cameron (2007): I enjoy the things I do on the education/work. Responses were entered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (fully agree).

SPSS Statistics version 25 was used in the statistical analyses. Analyses-of-variance, repeated-measures design, which were complemented by t-tests (paired) in case of an overall significant difference of means, were used in order to assess mean changes on the study variables across the three measurement occasions. Bivariate associations (Pearson) followed by a power analysis and multiple relations between the variables (regression analysis) were computed on each occasion. In the regression analyses, ratings of performance and job satisfaction were used as dependent variables.

A cluster analysis (K-means) based on nearest centroid sorting (Anderberg, 1973) of the leadership scales was used to identify profiles of response patterns. Comparisons between profiles were made using one-way analysis of variance, t-tests and chi-square tests.

List-wise deletion of missing responses was used. Due to fewer respondents at T2 and T3, these analyses are based on fewer cases than all respondents at T1 (see each table in the Result section). Statistical significance was assumed at p < 0.05.

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Swedish Research Ethics Authority (Protokoll Dnr 2020–03394). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

The outcome of the ANOVA tests, repeated-measures design, accompanied by t-tests (paired), is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 shows overall mean score differences across the three measurement occasions for all study variables. The ratings of the developmental leadership factor Exemplary model, and all four instrumental leadership scales, show statistically significant differences between Time 1 and Time 2, with higher mean scores at Time 1. Mauchly’s test (not shown in the table) indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated on the following five variables: Exemplary model, Individualized consideration, Strategy formulation and implementation, Path-goal facilitation and Outcome monitoring. Following from this, the significance tests on these scales should be interpreted with caution.

The bivariate correlations (Pearson) between the developmental and instrumental leadership scales at each measurement occasion are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that all correlations between the two sets of leadership scales are high and they are all statistically significant (p < 0.001). The correlations between the total developmental and instrumental leadership scales were as follows: 0.81 T1, 0.83 T2 and 0.82 T3. In the absence of prior estimates of effect size, and given the number of study participants, most of the statistically significant correlations indicate a large effect size for a power of 0.80 and a significance level of 0.05 (Polit and Beck, 2008).

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were carried out at each measurement occasion with the performance and the job satisfaction scores as dependent variables. All leadership scales were entered simultaneously.

Table 3 shows that the developmental and instrumental leadership scales combined explained 9–21% of the variance in performance scores and 10–18% of the variance in job satisfaction scores. Significant predictors of performance were Inspiration and motivation, Path-goal facilitation and Strategy. Regarding job satisfaction, Inspiration and motivation, Path-goal facilitation, Exemplary model, Individualized consideration and Strategy were significant predictors (the two last-mentioned were negatively associated with job satisfaction). A pattern was found showing that both Inspiration and motivation and Path-goal facilitation seemed to be particularly important at the beginning of the military training, both for ratings of performance and job satisfaction. It should also be noted that the developmental leadership scale Inspiration and motivation contributed significantly to the amount of explained variance on each measurement occasion regarding job satisfaction.

The participants’ scores on the three developmental leadership scales and the four instrumental leadership scales were entered into a cluster analysis (K-means) on each assessment occasion. Three unique profiles regarded as meaningful were identified, which are shown in Table 4. A consistent pattern across time was found. Profile 1 is characterized by lower scores on all scales at each measurement occasion. Profile 2 has medium high scores and profile 3 constantly shows higher mean scores. A one-way analysis of variance for each of the seven variables was run and significant F values (p < 0.001) were obtained. This indicates that the means of the profiles differ significantly on all seven variables. The individuals in the respective profiles were compared and the result is presented in Table 5.

According to Table 5, there are statistically significant overall mean score differences between the three profiles on the ratings of performance and job satisfaction at each measurement occasion. Post-hoc tests also reveal that almost all pair-wise differences are statistically significant. The participants in profile 1 show the lowest mean scores on performance and job satisfaction and the members of profile 3 show the highest mean scores.

The three profiles were also compared on the background variables sex, education and military branch (chi-square tests). No differences in proportions between the three profiles were found on any measurement occasion regarding sex and education. Concerning military branch, the members of profile 1 deviated from the others by reporting a higher proportion with an army background (chi-square (2) = 30.04, p < 0.001).

The main findings in the variable-oriented analyses were: (1) high observed correlations between the developmental and instrumental leadership scales which confirms the first hypothesis, and (2) a low to moderate amount of variance explained by these variables in regression analyses with performance and job satisfaction as dependent variables. The tendency in the multiple regression analyses was that transformational leadership was stronger related to job satisfaction and that instrumental leadership accounted for a higher proportion of the variance regarding performance. However, the tendency was not clear-cut, and, therefore, the second and third hypotheses can only be evaluated as partly confirmed.

The main finding in the person-centered approach was the identification of three similar profiles on each of three measurement occasions, one profile with lower leadership ratings, one with medium ratings and one with higher. The participants in the lower ratings profile consistently scored lowest on performance and job satisfaction, while the members of the higher ratings profile consistently scored highest.

In the following, the variable-oriented approach will be discussed first, followed by comments on the person-centered profile approach. Finally, methodological aspects and practical implications will be discussed.

The bivariate correlations between the developmental leadership and the instrumental leadership factor scales were consistently high across all three measurement occasions. The 36 pair-wise correlations ranged between 0.51 and 0.73 (see Table 2). The total developmental and instrumental leadership scales were even stronger associated with correlation coefficients above 0.80 on each occasion. The magnitude of the factor-level correlations resembles the result reported by Antonakis and House (2014), where the coefficients ranged between 0.43 and 0.66 (p. 760). However, the magnitude of the correlations is still below the limits regarding concern for unidimensionality (Field, 2005). Therefore, developmental and instrumental leadership can be considered as two separate concepts, albeit related. This is in line with previous research (Antonakis and House, 2014; Benedetti Chammas and du Costa Hernandez, 2019; Pizzolitto, 2022; Rowold, 2014).

A possible underlying confounder behind the high correlations is common method variance (CMV) (Podsakoff et al., 2003). An emotional like-dislike mindset regarding the rated leader could affect the responses to both kinds of leadership scales. In the present case, there was no variable controlling for CMV, so this remains to be addressed in future studies. An alternative explanation is that the conscripts and soldiers were young and had limited experience and that more experienced subordinates would be able to make more nuanced and differentiated evaluations. However, it could also be the case that both developmental leadership and instrumental leadership are actually perceived as effective among followers. Hence, leaders perceived as good might have been given high ratings on both leadership scales by their subordinates (Antonakis and House, 2014; Rowold, 2014).

The finding that the developmental leadership factor scale Inspiration and motivation contributed significantly to the amount of explained variance on the job satisfaction scale on each occasion is in line with a previous study of soldiers where the leadership scale Inspiration and motivation was the best predictor of job satisfaction (Fors Brandebo et al., 2018). The finding seems logical, an inspiring and motivational leadership could be assumed to contribute to higher job satisfaction. The conceptual replacement of “charisma” with the less spectacular “inspiration” in the developmental leadership model, may also appeal to a wider range of leaders as something that can be learned and developed.

The significant contribution of the instrumental leadership scale Path-goal facilitation at Time 1 to the ratings of performance as well as job satisfaction is also noteworthy. It could indicate that the combination of a more structured leadership and an inspirational one is particularly important early on in the military training. Furthermore, regarding performance, instrumental leadership seems to be important throughout the training of military personnel. Strategy and Path-goal facilitation were the only significant predictors of performance at Time 2 and Time 3. The contribution to performance of a leadership characterized by path-goal facilitation seems logical during military soldiers’ basic training. The contribution of the perceived quality of the leaders’ strategy formulation and implementation is interesting. Antonakis and House (2014) argue that these leadership aspects are mainly relevant to higher- and mid-level managers. In the present study it was rated as relevant also at the lowest organizational level. Combined with high observed correlations between the subscales within the instrumental leadership concept (not shown in the tables), the findings indicate that the theoretical subdimensions overlap to a high degree, although they are statistically unique.

In summary, the low to moderate overall adjusted R² coefficients indicate that the leadership of one’s nearest commander had an effect, although a limited one. Other potential explanatory variables such as peer relationships and group cohesion (Severt and Estrada, 2015) and objective service conditions (Larsson et al., 2022), may play an equally important role as leadership during soldiers’ military basic training.

Finally, the lower leadership scores on Time 2 and Time 3, compared to Time 1, could indicate a lowered motivation on part of the conscripts and soldiers midway through the compulsory service. Such reduced motivation during military training has been previously found by Bourne (1967). However, it should be noted that the absolute level of the leadership ratings was fairly high also at the second and third measurement occasions.

Cluster analyses resulted in three distinct profiles on each measurement occasion. The consistency across time between the three profiles and their respective members’ mean scores on the performance and job satisfaction scales is noteworthy. As shown in Table 5, there were overall statistically significant differences between the three profiles on all assessments and 16 of 18 paired t-tests were significant. In summary, we feel that the profile scores based on all leadership factor scales provide a meaningful addition to knowledge gained from the conventional variable-centered approach as they indicate a considerable temporal consistency, at least at the group level. This finding challenges the generality of Poethke’s et al. (2022) claim that leadership behavior is not consistent, but subject to fluctuations. One possible interpretation in this case is that the leadership of military conscripts is more standardized and less affected by contextual dynamics than the challenges faced by most organizational high-level leaders. An alternative explanation is that we focused on leadership styles rather than individual leadership behaviors. The latter are quite likely to be less consistent across different single situations.

More background data on the profile members such as personality and other previous work-related experiences would have been desirable. In the present case there were no differences between the three profiles regarding gender and educational level. The higher proportion of participants in the lower leadership ratings profile doing their service in the Army, could indicate a lower motivation among these conscripts and soldiers compared to those in the Navy and Air Force.

Methodological strengths include the longitudinal study design, the comparatively large sample size and the selection of measurement scales. The factor scales from the DLQ may be less well known than the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1994), which is designed to measure transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. However, the DLQ is adapted to the Scandinavian culture which increases its validity and has been used in numerous internationally published papers.

A further methodological strength is the use of a person-centered profile approach (Mäkinkangas et al., 2018; Oberski, 2016). The DLQ factor scales had high reliability, while the instrumental leadership factor scales had acceptable to high Cronbach alpha coefficients. The later was probably a consequence of the scales being built up by two items only. Given the present general difficulties to get high response rates in questionnaire studies, where many individuals experience a “survey fatigue”, we still think that the obtained response rates over a period including three measurements are acceptable. Therefore, we argue that the results can be generalized to military conscripts and voluntary soldiers during basic military training, at least in the western countries.

Study weaknesses include the already mentioned need for additional background or antecedent variables. Another shortcoming is that the study is based on self-ratings only. Finally, the present study group is unusual from a general work and organization perspective.

Practical implications include education focusing on an increased awareness of the importance of both interpersonal and instrumental leadership aspects (Poethke et al., 2022). As pointed out by Rowold et al. (2017), there is also a need for development of leadership training fostering leaders’ instrumental leadership skills (see, e.g. Day et al., 2014). In particular, interventions focusing on leadership behaviors reflecting inspiration and motivation, as well as path-goal facilitation and strategy, are recommended. This should partly be possible using conventional feedback and coaching interventions. However, as pointed out by Antonakis and House (2014), some instrumental leadership skills such as environmental monitoring may take years to develop and require leader growth in natural context (see e.g. Larsson et al., 2006).

Three main conclusions can be drawn based on the present study of young, Swedish conscripts and voluntarily recruited soldiers. First, there is a considerable association between perceptions of developmental and instrumental leadership. Thus, both leadership styles might be seen as important factors in military organizations. Second, both these forms of leadership had a positive but limited effect on self-rated performance and job satisfaction. Third, a more nuanced and meaningful picture emerged with three intra-individual profiles on the leadership variables. Our main suggestion for further research is to continue exploring the relationship between developmental/transformational leadership and instrumental leadership in different organizational contexts using both variable-oriented and person-centered study approaches. It is also desirable to include the transactional dimension of the FRLT model (Bass, 1985), as well as indicators of the dark side of leadership (cf. the writings on destructive leadership by Einarsen et al., 2007; Fors Brandebo et al., 2016; Larsson et al., 2012).

Funding: This research was funded by the Swedish Armed Forces.