I interpret this finding on the basis of social comparison theory,positing that leaders
who are about the same age as the other team members are more likely to be viewed by
similarly qualified team members as lacking the legitimacy to occupy a privileged position.
As a result, the team may identify less with the leader and resist the internalization of the
leader’s vision, values, and ideas. In the absence of these processes, transformational
leadership behaviours are unlikely to engender significant positive effects. Nevertheless,
since I did not directly measure social comparison processes or follower perceptions of the
leader’s legitimacy, alternative interpretations need to be examined.
The non-significant correlations between leader age and both transformational
leadership and team performance indicate that older leaders per se are neither perceived
as more transformational nor are they more effective as leaders than are younger leaders.
Moreover, the non-significant correlation between age difference and team performance
shows that leaders who are of a similar age as the other team members can be as
successful as leaders who are older than their followers. What my finding does suggest,
however, is that leaders of a similar age as the followers are less likely to positively affect
team performance through transformational behaviours. Thus, it may be conjectured
that leaders who are similarly qualified as and older than their group of followers can
more successfully influence team performance through transformational leadership,
while leaders who are of a similar age as the led might be well advised to rely less on
transformational behaviours and more on, for example, contingent reward ( Judge &
Piccolo, 2004) or shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003), both of which have been
shown to be nearly as effective as, and in some cases even more effective than,
transformational leadership.
Aside from the lack of process data to bolster the interpretation I offered,
I acknowledge as a limitation of this study the use of subjective rather than objective
ratings of team performance and the fact that I have studied only one organization.
Moreover, it is important to emphasize some of the particularities of my sample. First,there were no considerable differences between leaders and followers regarding
qualifications and thus theoretical career trajectories. Both leaders and followers had
very high levels of education. Second, the reward systems were based on individual
rather than team-level evaluations. Third, only six of the 49 teams in the sample had a
team leader who was younger than the respective team’s mean age. Moreover, all six of
these leaders were only marginally younger than the mean age of their followers. Fourth,
at the time I conducted the study, the organization from which I drew the sample was
considered as a likely take-over target. Hence, fear of lay-offs may have been on many
participants’ minds . Further research is needed to ascertain the generaliza bility of my
finding to other organizations and other types of teams .
In conclusion, the present study shows that it is worthwhile for theorists and
practitioners alike to pay closer attention to the age relations between leaders and their
followers and to how age differences might affect the influence of a leader’s
transformational behaviours on team performance