International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No.

11; September 2013

Leadership and Mobile Working: The Impact of Distance on the Superior-Subordinate

Relationship and the Moderating Effects of Leadership Style 1

Eric BRUNELLE, PhD

Associate Professor
HEC Montréal
Department of Management
3000 Côte-Sainte-Catherine Road
Montreal, Quebec H3T 2A7, Canada.

Abstract
Mobile work is a form of work organization that is gaining ground and affecting many organizations. Mobility
increases distance in interpersonal relations. The distance that it generates has major consequences for
organizations and for leadership dynamics. This article presents the results of a study that tested the impact of
physical distance and psychological distance on the quality of the superior-subordinate relationship. It also
aimed to assess the moderating effect of the supervisor’s level of transformational leadership. Statistical analyses
were done on data gathered from 286 respondents at an international management and information technology
consulting firm. These analyses indicate that physical distance and psychological distance have a negative impact
on relational quality, while the supervisor’s level of transformational leadership moderates this relation by
mitigating the negative effects. The implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords: Mobile work, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, physical distance, psychological distance,
transformational leadership, e-leadership

Introduction
A recent survey by IDC 2 indicated that, by 2013, 1.2 billion workers around the world – one-third of the global
workforce – will be mobile workers. Mobile work means that work can be done at a distance, that is, outside
conventional offices, at any time and in any place (Perez, Martinez-Sanchez, Carnicer, and Jimenez, 2007).
Although the mobility resulting from this kind of work organization creates many advantages, such as reduced
real estate costs, better work-life balance for employees, access to a larger pool of workers, and overall improved
employee productivity, the distances that it generates have major consequences for organizations and for
leadership dynamics (Antonakis and Atwater, 2002; Avolio, Kahai, and Dodge, 2000).
For example, distances have a big impact on communication channels, which must become more electronic and
asynchronous (Kirkman and Mathieu, 2005; Shekhar, 2006). This complicates communicative processes among
individuals, increases conflict management, makes it more difficult to create a climate of trust and employee
cohesion, and creates major coordination challenges (Maruping and Agarwal, 2004; Siha and Monroe, 2006;
Zaccaro and Bader, 2003). From the perspective of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, studies have shown
the importance of relational quality between superiors and subordinates in distance relationships such as virtual
teams and different kinds of mobile work.
For example, in a context where employees are located at a distance, the quality of the superior-subordinate
relationship may explain leadership effectiveness, employees’ satisfaction with their jobs, staff retention, workers’
performance, and employees’ commitment to their organization (Golden, 2006; Golden and Veiga, 2008).
However, very few studies as yet have attempted to understand the impact of distance on leadership dynamics.
Among others, we should note the work by Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999), Howell, Neufeld, and Avolio
(2005) and Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, and Lowe (2009), which tested the impact of physical distance on
business units’ performance and the effect of power distance on the perception of procedural justice and on
organizational citizenship behavior.

1
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

However, no previous study has examined the impact of distance and these dimensions on the quality of the
superior-subordinate relationship. Thus, continuing along the same lines as the work mentioned above and
applying LMX Theory, this article presents the results of a study that had the primary objective of empirically
testing the relation between distance and superior-subordinate relational quality.
In addition, the literature is unanimous about one aspect of mobile work management: managers of mobile
workers must demonstrate leadership if they wish to profit from all of the benefits offered by mobility (Fisher and
Fisher, 2001; Garton and Wegryn, 2006). Given the central position that managers play in mobile work
organization design and the dynamics of this work organization – by transferring a certain amount of power to the
workers – the leadership exercised by the manager plays a key role (Avolio and Kahai, 2003; Collinson, 2005).
From this perspective, then, this study had the second objective of examining the impact of the superior’s
leadership style on the relation between distance and superior-subordinate relational quality.
The article is structured as follows. First, the theoretical underpinnings of this study are presented. LMX Theory,
the concepts of physical and psychological distance, transformational leadership theory and our hypotheses
concerning the relationships between these constructs are set out in the following section. Next, we will present
the methodological framework of this study, discussing the procedure we applied and the data collection tool we
used. Thirdly, the sample will be described and the results of the study presented. Finally, we will discuss the
results we obtained, the limitations on this study and future research avenues resulting from our findings.
Theories and Hypotheses
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory is rooted in social exchange theory, which states that all social relations
are based on individual subjectivity, which colors the quality of relations (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell,
2005). According to LMX, the quality of a relationship will be better or worse depending on the level of mutual
trust, respect and obligation that exists between the individuals (Bolino and Turnley, 2009). In this sense, LMX
theory maintains that superiors have relationships of different qualities with each of their subordinates and that the
quality of these relationships will influence each worker’s performance and the effectiveness of the supervisors’
leadership. The rationale behind this theory is as follows:
when the relationship between a superior and a subordinate is good, the subordinate benefits from a favorable
attitude on the part of the superior and from preferential treatment, manifested in more communication, more
formal and informal rewards and recognition, easier access to the superior, and more feedback, enabling the
subordinate to continuously improve and the leader to influence the subordinate more effectively (Elicker, Levy,
and Hall, 2006). Conversely, when the quality of this relationship is poor, the supervisor offers only limited
emotional support, little trust, and no additional benefits on top of what is included in the work contract, which
has the effect of reducing both the worker’s performance and the supervisor’s leadership effectiveness (Gerstner
and Day, 1997).
Studies have validated this theory in numerous contexts and shown that good-quality relationships have a positive
impact on leadership effectiveness and many performance indicators such as employee performance, turnover, job
satisfaction, commitment to the organization, job atmosphere, level of innovation, etc. (Graen and Uhl-Bien,
1995). In short, research shows that relational quality is an excellent predictor of managers’ performance.
Consequently, it is important to understand its background. In particular, given the trend for organizations to
engage in mobile work practices, which create distance in relationships between superiors and subordinates, it is
valuable to understand the impact of this kind of distance on relational quality.

The concept of distance

Distance refers to the gap separating two persons (Napier and Ferris, 1993). Although no studies to date have
specifically examined the relation between distance and relational quality, several findings lead us to believe that
the distance separating a superior and a subordinate is likely to affect the quality of their relationship.

2
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 11; September 2013

For example, research has shown that distance between individuals creates major new communication challenges
(Jacobs, 2004), difficulties understanding other people (Kirkman et al., 2009) and emotions likely to affect the
nature of relationships such as feelings of isolation and insecurity on the part of the employee (Cooper and
Kurland, 2002; Lim and Teo, 2000). In short, several studies tend to support the idea that distance has major
impacts on interpersonal relationships, which are the very foundation of the exercise of leadership (Yukl,
O’Donnell, and Taber, 2009). From this perspective, it is clearly relevant for us to examine the concept of
distance and its connection to relational quality.
Several dimensions must be considered in studying the concept of distance. Needless to say, if we wish to
understand the impact of distance on relational quality, the first factor we must investigate is the physical distance
between superior and subordinate. Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) and Howell et al. (2005) tested this factor,
among other things. However, as the literature indicates, it is also important to pay attention to the worker’s
perception of this distance. Indeed, several studies suggest that this perception plays a key role in understanding
leadership dynamics (Antonakis and Atwater, 2002; Brunelle, 2009). The perception of distance refers to
psychological distance, which corresponds to the second factor to be considered (Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, and
Jett, 2008).
As Wilson et al. (2008) explain, an employee or colleague may be located physically close to us but, despite this
physical proximity, may appear to be far away. Conversely, an employee or colleague may be physically distant
but, despite this physical distance, may seem to be very close to us. These paradoxical situations, where perceived
distance does not correspond to observable physical distance, are examples illustrating the difference that can
exist between psychological distance and physical distance. As well, it is important to point out that the results of
some studies indicate that physical distance is largely distinct from psychological distance (Dow, 2000; Halford
and Leonard, 2006).
Indeed, as Coshall and Potter (1987) observed, physical distance explains no more than half of psychological
distance. These observations mean that using physical distance as the sole measurement of distance is not
sufficient to understand the impact of distance on relational quality. It is therefore important to look at
psychological distance as well. In relation to the objectives of this study, the following sections present these two
dimensions of the concept of distance in more detail, and set out our hypotheses concerning the relation between
each of these distance dimensions and relational quality between a superior and a subordinate.
Relational quality and physical distance
Physical distance corresponds to the observable gap separating two people in space (Napier and Ferris, 1993). It is
possible to measure this distance in meters, for example. Physical distance has a major influence on interpersonal
relations and modes of communication (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001). We therefore believe that it will have an
impact on the quality of the relationship between superiors and their subordinates. We explain this as follows.
First, the physical distance resulting from different kinds of mobile work has the effect of reducing, or even
eliminating, the informal meetings, “corridor meetings,” social events, etc., that exist in conventional forms of
work organization (Fisher and Fisher, 2001).
These spontaneous and unplanned meetings are known to be good ways of facilitating closeness and the
development of good-quality relationships (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), because these kinds of informal
encounters play an important role in constructing individuals’ emotional attachment (Meyer and Allen, 1997).
Emotional attachment is one of the bases for a good-quality relationship (Bolino and Turnley, 2009). Moreover,
studies indicate that long-distance interactions reduce the emotional content of discussions and communications,
which thereby lessens the possibilities of emotional attachment (Napier and Ferris, 1993). Thus, from the
perspective of LMX Theory, since physical distance limits opportunities for informal meetings between superiors
and subordinates, and thus reduces the possibility that an emotional attachment will develop between them, we
believed that physical distance would complicate the development and maintenance of good-quality relationships.
In addition, research has shown that the use of technologies in interpersonal relationships creates emotional
detachment in individuals (Hasty, Massey, and Brown, 2006; Shepherd and Martz, 2006). Since electronic
technologies are widely used in mobile work design, we view this as an additional explanation of the negative
impact physical distance has on the superior-subordinate relationship.
3
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

The emotional detachment caused by the use of electronic media may be explained by the fact that they are poor
on the communication richness scale (Trevino, Webster, and Stein, 2000). Communication richness refers to the
ability to convey certain types of information and is determined by the capacity for immediate feedback, multiple
cues and senses involved, language variety, and personalization (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Electronic media such
as emails, instant messaging and shareware limit the richness of interactions because they favor more
asynchronous communications, with less immediacy and less possibility of feedback (Brunelle, 2009). This
results in more ambiguity and uncertainty in interpreting the messages exchanged (Lengel and Daft, 1988) and
makes communication more complicated (Otondo et al., 2008).
Consequently, because dyads with more physical distance use leaner media to communicate, the possibilities of
building an emotional attachment are limited and the chances of misunderstandings increase, meaning that it
becomes more difficult to develop a good-quality relationship. We therefore believed that physical distance would
have a negative effect on relational quality between a supervisor and a subordinate, leading us to formulate the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Increased physical distance between superior and subordinate will have a negative impact on their
relational quality.
Relational quality and psychological distance
Psychological distance is defined as the feeling of separation that an individual has in relation to another person
(Salzmann and Grasha, 1991). In other words, it is the individual’s perception of feeling close to or far from
another person. Two dimensions must be considered to understand an individual’s perception of distance from
another individual (Vaughn and Baker, 2004). First, the perceived gap may be attributed to a difference in status
between the individuals. In addition, the perception of distance may be related to one person’s affectivity toward
the other. Since this is a perceptual construct, even if the physical distance separating individuals is the same, the
psychological distance is not necessarily identical, depending on the individual who is evaluating it (Hess, 2003).

Psychological distance is based essentially on identification (Mortensen and Hinds, 2001; Wiesenfeld, Raghuram,
and Garud, 2001). The more an individual identifies with another individual, that is, the more points in common
this person feels that they share, the greater the feeling of closeness and the smaller the psychological distance
will be (Napier and Ferris, 1993). The literature tells us that identification phenomena have a major impact on the
quality of interpersonal relations (Hekman, Steensma, Bigley, and Hereford, 2009; Sluss and Ashforth, 2007).
When identification exists, it reduces the uncertainty concerning the other person’s intentions, facilitates mutual
understanding in communication and improves the effectiveness of discussions, by allowing more personalized
relations to develop.
As well, identification facilitates “connectedness” between individuals, which enhances the level of interpersonal
attraction. Thus, since psychological distance is based essentially on identification, and identification favors good
relationships, we believed that psychological distance would have an impact on relational quality among
individuals. Thus, we formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Increased psychological distance between superior and subordinate due to (a) status and (b) affect
will have a negative impact on their relational quality.
The impact of leadership style: The moderating role of transformational leadership

The literature informs us that a superior’s leadership style is a determinant of the success of mobile work (Gibson,
Blackwell, Dominicis, and Demerath, 2002; Hambley, O’Neill, and Kline, 2007). A good leadership style can
reduce, or even eliminate, the negative effects of distance (Avolio and Kahai, 2003; Konradt and Hoch, 2007;
Neufeld and Fang, 2005). In this regard, the model offered by transformational leadership theory offers an
interesting approach, which several researchers have suggested applying in studying the impact of leadership style
in a mobile work context (Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe and Gardner, 2000; Whitford and Moss, 2009).
The theoretical bases of transformational leadership were formulated by Bass (1985).

4
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 11; September 2013

As Yukl (1999) summarizes the matter, transformational leadership is interested in the effect that a superior has
on the people who follow him or her and in the behaviors adopted by the superior to achieve that effect. In an
organizational context, when transformational leadership is effective, subordinates feel trust, admiration, loyalty
and respect for the superior. The influence process underlying transformational leadership is based on the
superior’s capacity to motivate others, make them aware of the consequences of their tasks, and help them to align
their personal needs with those of the organization. Transformational leadership is distinguished from
transactional leadership, which focuses more on the execution of the superior’s requests and the respect of
administrative and organizational rules.
The context of mobile work – one in which the superior must be able to influence subordinates by means of
asynchronous, remote communications – is very comparable to the context of indirect leadership (Larsson,
Sjöberg, Nilsson, Alvinius, and Bakken, 2007). Both share a very limited level of face-to-face contacts and
interactions. Studies show transformational leadership effectively support the exercising of indirect leadership
(Avolio, Zhu, Koh, and Bhatia, 2004; Larsson, Sjöberg, Vrbanjac, and Björkman, 2005). Thus, as Yammarino
(1994) puts it, by working more to develop a corporate and/or team culture, communicating a vision, creating
meaning, empowering employees and delegating a lot – in short, by exercising transformational leadership – the
superior can exercise effective indirect leadership. This is explained by the fact that transformational management
practices improve subordinates’ mental representations of the behaviors to be adopted and facilitates the process
of identification with the organization or the superior (Larsson et al., 2007).
From this perspective, and in relation to the research on indirect leadership, we believe that, by exercising
transformational leadership, the superior is able to reduce, and even eliminate, the negative impacts of distance on
the subordinate’s perception of relational quality. This happens because, by exercising transformational
leadership, the leader favors the development of clear mental representations in subordinates of the work
processes and behaviors to be adopted (Brunelle, 2010; Larsson et al., 2007). Clear and shared mental
representations improve mutual understanding during discussions, which facilitates effective communications
(Hathi, 2008), and consequently can reduce the impact of distance (Purvanova and Bono, 2009). This background
led us to formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: A superior’s transformational leadership level will moderate the correlation between (a) physical
distance, (b) psychological distance due to status, c) psychological distance due to affect and the relational quality
between superior and subordinate.
1. Methodology
3.1 Sample and procedure

This study was carried out at a large management and information technology consulting firm. Although we do
not have precise data on the rate of mobile work conducted there, management confirmed to us that a very high
proportion of the firm’s employees – more than half, at the very least – worked in mobile mode. With the
approval of senior management and a research ethics committee, an invitation was e-mailed to 780 employees.
This invitation provided information about the goals of the study, namely to better understands leadership
mechanisms in a mobile work context, and provided a link that led to the study’s online questionnaire. Of the
people contacted, 304 accessed the site to respond to the questionnaire and 286 completed it correctly, for a
response rate of 36.6%. The respondents’ mean age was 47 years old (ranging from 20 to 79), and 58% of them
were men.
As anticipated, the sample had a high level of education: 33.6% of respondents had a graduate university degree,
35.3% an undergraduate degree, and only 8.7% had less than a college-level diploma. The sample was made up of
employees with different jobs: 31.2% of respondents were consultants, 30.1% project managers, 25.9% customer
service representatives/advisors, 10.1% technical specialists, and 2.7% administrative employees. Our analyses
did not reveal any significant differences between the different employee groups’ means for the various constructs
of the study. Finally, our respondents informed us that they performed a mean of 60.4% of their tasks remotely
(13.7% on the road, 35.2% at home, 11.5% at clients’ premises

5
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

3.2 Measures
The questionnaire was developed according to the procedure suggested by Churchill (1979). Thus, the items used
came from measures presented in the literature that had already been validated. The following subsections discuss
the measures used for each construct.
3.2.1 Relational quality (LMX quality)

Over the years, several measures have been developed to measure relational quality. However, the LMX-7 is the
best known and most widely used. The meta-analysis presented by Gerstner and Day (1997) proved the tool’s
psychometric properties. Following their examination of different LMX measures, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)
concluded that the LMX-7 is “the most appropriate and recommended measure of LMX.” We therefore decided to
use this 7-item measure. Moreover, as Graen and Scandura (1987) recommended in instances of a one-time
measurement of LMX, a condition that characterizes the present study, we only used the member questionnaire.
The reason for this recommendation is that leaders are more likely to provide socially desirable answers about
relationships with followers (i.e., that they treat them all the same) when surveyed on one occasion and,
consequently, serious biases could arise.
3.2.2 Physical distance
We applied the approach used by Howell and Hall-Merenda (1999) and Howell et al. (2005) to measure physical
distance. Thus, an item that asks respondents to indicate the physical difference separating them from their
immediate superior was used, with a 5-point ordinal scale ranging from very close to very distant.
3.2.3 Psychological distance
To measure psychological distance, we used the 3-item status subscale and the 11-item affect subscale of the
Grasha-Ichiyama Psychological Size and Distance Scale (GIPSDS) developed and validated by Salzmann and
Grasha (1991) and then used in a number of studies including the one by Vaughn and Baker (2004), which
demonstrated that it has good psychometric properties. Thus, we asked respondents to use 7-point Likert scales to
assess a series of statements describing their interactions with their immediate superior. An example of an item
from the status subscale is: “[…] When interacting with my immediate superior, I feel like I have [Much
less/Much more] expertise.” An example from the affect subscale is: “[…] When interacting with my immediate
superior, I usually feel [Not at all/ Very] close.”
3.2.4 Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was measured with the 20-item Multifactorial Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x
Short). This measure is the most widely used for the purpose and its psychometric properties are recognized by
the scientific community (Avolio and Bass, 2004).
3.2.5 Control variables
On the basis of previous studies, data was also collected in order to assess the results as a function of the duration
of the relationship between superior and subordinate (dyad tenure), the number of months of experience in the
present job, the percentage of work carried out remotely, and the respondent’s age and gender (Golden, 2006b;
Golden and Veiga, 2008; Golden, Veiga, and Dino, 2008).

2. Results
4.1 Data analysis
Several analyses were carried out to verify the psychometric properties of our measures. Table 1 presents the
means, standard variations and correlations for each measure. To determine whether there were multicollinearity
effects, we also calculated the variance inflation factors (VIF) for all relationships. All VIFs were lower than 2.5,
which is far lower than the acceptance criterion of 10 and indicates that there was no multicollinearity problem
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1998). Then, using Cronbach’s alphas, we evaluated construct reliability.

6
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 11; September 2013

The Cronbach’s alphas for all constructs were higher than 0.90. 3 We then carried out confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA) to verify the constructs’ concurrent validity. The goodness-of-fit statistics indicated the unidimensionality
of our measures (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988);4 all factor loadings were highly significant (p < .001) and all the
estimates for the average variance extracted (AVE) were higher than the 0.50 level (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Finally, we assessed discriminant validity among all of our measures by using two-factor CFA models, as
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Thus, an unconstrained and a constrained model for each
possible pair of constructs were run and compared. In all cases, the chi-square value of the unconstrained model
was significantly less than that of the constrained model. Overall, the results showed adequate reliability and
validity levels for all measures.

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and correlations
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Dyad tenure (months) 45.7054.99 1.00
2. Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.42 0.49 0.05 1.00
3. Age (years) 47.0313.68 0.29**–0.02 1.00
4. Mobile experience (months) 78.1688.24 0.46** 0.12* 0.41** 1.00
5. % Mobile 59.6035.50 0.08 0.02 0.23** 0.09 1.00
6. Physical distance (/5) 2.73 1.44 –0.16* 0.01 0.09 –0.08 0.33** 1.00
7. Psychological distance (status) (/7) 5.15 1.22 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 1.00
8. Psychological distance (affect) (/7) 3.17 1.18 –0.09 –0.10 –0.02 –0.07 –0.11 0.03 –0.39* 1.00
9. Transformational leadership (/7) 4.78 1.24 0.12* 0.15* 0.03 0.06 0.08 –0.12* 0.18**–0.70**1.00
10. LMX (/7) 3.79 0.84 0.26** 0.13* 0.13* 0.18** 0.10 –0.13* 0.14* –0.70**0.76*1.00
* p < .05, ** p < .01

4.2 Testing of hypotheses

Table 2 presents the results of the analyses carried out to test our hypotheses. Recall that hypothesis 1 anticipated
a negative relation between physical distance and relational quality (LMX) and hypothesis 2 posited a negative
relation between psychological distance (a) due to status and (b) due to affect and relational quality. In accordance
with the procedure recommended by Hair et al. (1998), linear regressions were conducted to test these
hypotheses. Model 2 in Table 2 corresponds to the outcome of this analysis. As anticipated, both hypotheses were
supported. With the addition of distance into the model, we observe a significant increase (p < .001) of 49.5% in
R2. The correlation between physical distance and relational quality is negative and significant (α = –0.09, p <
.05), the correlation between the status dimension of psychological distance is negative and significant (α = –0.16,
p < .001), and the correlation between the affect dimension of psychological distance and relational quality is also
negative and significant (α = –0.75, p < .001).

7
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Table 2
Results of Regression Analysis

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Step 1: Control Variables
Dyad tenure 0.21*** 0.14*** 0.13*** 0.12**
Gender 0.12* 0.05 0.02 0.02
Age 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.07*
Mobile experience 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.02
% Mobile 0.08 0.02 0.00 –0.01
Step 2
Physical distance –0.09* –0.03 0.18
Psychological distance (status) –0.16*** –0.10** –0.31***
Psychological distance (affect) –0.75*** –0.38*** –0.58***
Step 3
Transformational leadership (TL) 0.50*** 0.59***
Step 4
Physical distance * TL –0.24*
Psychological distance (status) * TL 0.35*
Psychological distance (affect) * TL –0.40*

Changes in R2 0.0895***0.4949***0.1127***0.0078*
R2 0.0895 0.5845 0.6972 0.7049
Adjusted R2 0.0723 0.5717 0.6867 0.6912
* p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001
Note: Standardized betas are reported
Dependent variable = LMX

To test hypothesis 3, which predicted that transformational leadership would have a moderating effect on the
relation between distance and relational quality, we applied the procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny
(1986) and carried out hierarchical regressions. As Table 2 shows, we began by introducing the control variables
(model 1). Then we inserted the predictors, namely physical distance, psychological distance due to status and
psychological distance due to affect (model 2). We then added the moderating variable, transformational
leadership, to the model (model 3). Finally, we added the crossed effects of the anticipated moderating effects to
determine whether there really was a moderating effect (model 4).
To complete the analysis, we also present the R 2 and ∆R2 in Table 2 to evaluate the quality of the models and the
contribution of each step in relation to the previous one. As the table shows, the ∆R 2 are significant for each step,
which indicates that the model is improved at each step, including the one that presents the moderating effects.

As well, the correlation of each of the crossed products presented in model 4 is significant at p < .05. Thus, the
results support hypothesis 3. To illustrate these moderating effects, we used the procedure suggested by Sharma,
Durand, and Gur-Arie (1981) and did a subgroup analysis. Thus, we divided our sample into two groups based on
the scores for transformational leadership. The first group contains respondents whose supervisors showed a high
level of transformational leadership (score above the median) and the second group contained those whose
supervisors showed a low level of transformational leadership (score below the median). Graphs comparing the
linear regressions for each of these two groups are presented in figures 1, 2 and 3. As we can see, and in
accordance with the results obtained, there are major differences between the two groups as a function of
transformational leadership. Among other things, we can see that relational quality is higher in all cases when
supervisors have a more transformational leadership style.

8
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 11; September 2013

Thus, whether or not physical distance or psychological distance (status and affect) is large, the relational quality
between superior and subordinate will be better when the supervisor’s leadership style is more transformational.
This supports the idea that the supervisor’s leadership style can compensate for the negative effects of distance

Figure 1: Moderating effect of transformational leadership (physical distance)

Figure 2: Moderating effect of transformational leadership

(status dimension of psychological distance)

9
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Figure 3: Moderating effect of transformational leadership

(Affect dimension of psychological distance)

3. Discussion
Based on LMX theory, the first objective of this study was to present and test hypotheses concerning the relation
that might exist between physical distance, psychological distance and quality of supervisor-subordinate relations.
As anticipated, the results of this study support the existence of a negative correlation between physical distance
and the relational quality that exists between a supervisor and a subordinate, as well as a negative correlation
between psychological distance and relational quality.
This finding is interesting and tends to support the idea that it is indispensable for organizations to be cautious in
adopting mobile work (Towers, Duxbury, Higgins, and Thomas, 2006). As our results show, distance is a crucial
issue in this form of work organization. Companies must therefore take the time to properly think through and
anticipate the potential consequences of the distances resulting from mobility. The results obtained here suggest
that organizations must not underestimate the challenges presented by the distances created by mobile work,
especially psychological distance; they need to put concrete practices in place to properly manage them. They
should also establish concrete management practices that will enable them to effectively support the employees
who must live with these distances.
With this in mind, based on the literature that indicates that the supervisor’s leadership style is a central factor in
the ability to adequately manage distances (Avolio and Kahai, 2003), and applying transformational leadership
theory, this study had the second objective of presenting and testing the hypothesis that the supervisor’s
leadership style would have a moderating effect. As anticipated, our results support that hypothesis, indicating
that the level of the supervisor’s transformational leadership moderates the correlations between both physical and
psychological distance and superior-subordinate relational quality.
This finding further supports the idea that supervisors’ leadership style plays a key role in the success of mobile
work (Purvanova and Bono, 2009). On the basis of our results, we conclude that supervisors, through their
leadership style, are able to at least partially compensate for the injurious effects of distance. This finding is
coherent with earlier studies indicating that immediate supervisors have a special place in the relationship
between employees and their employers. The immediate superior therefore needs to focus on maintaining good
relations with the subordinate.
From this perspective, the results of this study suggest that companies that wish to deploy mobile work practices
must be careful in selecting the people who will supervise the mobile workers. They need to choose managers
who are able to exercise transformational leadership, in other words, people who demonstrate empathy, good
listening skills, vision, the ability to influence others by means of an ideal, and the capacity to inspire and provide
intellectual stimulation (Bass, Jung, Avolio, and Berson, 2003).

10
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 11; September 2013

As well, this result leads us to conclude that, in addition to providing for management practices that will support
mobile workers, organizations must remember to put practices in place to support the managers who will need to
supervise these workers. This type of support is often neglected by organizations. It should not be forgotten that
managers too have to live with this new reality and meet new challenges.
Certain limitations on this study must be taken into account before engaging in a complete overhaul of
organizational practices related to mobile work. Among other things, the results we obtained cannot be
generalized to all industries and workplaces. Recall that this study was conducted with a sample that was
essentially composed of professionals from a single company in a single sector, namely management consulting
and IT. As well, it should not be forgotten that, given the objectives of this study, the analyses did not make it
possible to establish a direct relationship between distance, the supervisor’s leadership style and performance.
Although there is considerable empirical evidence that relational quality is a variable that predicts performance
(Henderson, Liden, Glibkowski, and Chaudhry, 2009), that relationship was not tested directly in this study. In
this regard, we believe it would be relevant to continue research in this area and increase our knowledge before
generalizing the results obtained here.
As we have seen in this article, mobile work is an important, and ever-growing, organizational reality that already
affects many organizations and managers. This trend means that managers must learn to deal with the new reality.
Many of the features, including physical and psychological distance, that characterize this context are helping to
redefine the roles that managers must play today and tomorrow. This study and its results make an interesting
contribution to this reflection process.
Nevertheless, we believe that numerous other studies will have to be conducted in order to better understand the
leadership dynamics that apply and define the manager’s role in this context. For example, following this study, it
would be relevant and interesting to continue this line of research and expand the framework for consideration by
attempting to understand the role played by the organization, its culture and its values. It would also be interesting
to study the concrete use that mobile workers and their supervisors make of technologies in order to develop good
relationships and exercise effective leadership. To sum up, this study is one step along a promising research
avenue that we hope many others will follow.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Carl St-Pierre and Zofia Laubitz for their contributions to the statistical analysis
and the editing of the text.

References
Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. 103(3). 411-423.
Antonakis, J., and Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly.
13(6). 673-704.
Avolio, B. J., and Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd edition). Menlo Park. CA: Mind
Garden, Inc.
Avolio, B. J., and Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the “e” to leadership: How it may impact your leadership.
Organizational Dynamics. 31(4). 325.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., and Dodge, G. E. (2000). E-leadership: Implications for theory, research, and practice.
Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615-668.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., and Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior. 25(8). 951-968.
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.. 51(6). 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. New York: Free Press.

11
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Bass, B. M., Jung, D. I., Avolio, B. J., and Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88(2). 207-218.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bolino, M., and Turnley, W. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member
exchange relationships. Leadership Quarterly. 20(3). 276-286.
Brunelle, E. (2009). Do virtual enterprises exist? A proposed analysis model. International Journal of e-Business
Management. 3(2). 20-34.
Brunelle, E. (2010). Telework and leadership: Determinants of effective management practices. Management
International. 14(4). 23-35.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of
Marketing Research. 16(1). 64-73.
Collinson, D. (2005). Questions of distance. Leadership. 1(2). 235-250.
Cooper, C. D., and Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in
public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(4). 511-532.
Coshall, J. T., and Potter, R. B. (1987). Social psychological variations in the distance cognitions of urban
consumers in Britain. Journal of Social Psychology. 127. 611-618.
Cropanzano, R., and Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
Management. 31(6). 874-900.
Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. 1986. Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural
design. Management Science 32 (5) 554–571.
Dow, D. (2000). A note on psychological distance and export market selection. Journal of International
Marketing. 8(1). 51-64.
Elicker, J. D., Levy, P. E., and Hall, R. J. (2006). The role of leader-member exchange in the performance
appraisal process. Journal of Management. 32(4). 531-551.
Fisher, K., and Fisher, M. D. (2001). The Distance Manager. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18(1). 39-50.
Garton, C., and Wegryn, K. (2006). Managing without Walls: Maximize Success with Virtual, Global, and Cross-
Cultural Teams. Lewisville, TX: MC Press.
Gerstner, C. R., and Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and
construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82(6). 827-844.
Gibson, J. W., Blackwell, C. W., Dominicis, P., and Demerath, N. (2002). Telecommuting in the 21st century:
Benefits, issues, and a leadership model which will work. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies. 8(4). 75-86.
Golden, T. (2006a). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work exhaustion
on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 69(1). 176-187.
Golden, T. (2006b). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 27(3). 319-340.
Golden, T., and Veiga, J. (2008). The impact of superior-subordinate relationships on the commitment, job
satisfaction, and performance of virtual workers. Leadership Quarterly. 19(1). 77.
Golden, T., Veiga, J. F., and Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job
performance and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having
access to communication-enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology. 93(6). 1412-
1421.
Graen, G. B., and Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings and B.
M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 9. 175-208. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G. B., and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. Leadership Quarterly. 6(2). 219-247.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (Eds.). (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halford, S., and Leonard, P. (2006). Place, space and time: Contextualizing workplace subjectivities.
Organization Studies. 27(5). 657-676.

12
International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 4 No. 11; September 2013

Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., and Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style
and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. 103(1). 1-20.
Hasty, B. K., A. P. Massey, and S. A. Brown. 2006. Role-based experiences, media perceptions, and knowledge
transfer success in virtual dyads. Group Decision and Negotiation 15 (4): 367–387.
Hathi, S. (2008). Telepresence: Best in virtual meetings? Strategic Communication Management. 12(2). 9-10.
Hekman, D. R., Steensma, H. K., Bigley, G. A., and Hereford, J. F. (2009). Effects of organizational and
professional identification on the relationship between administrators’ social influence and professional
employees’ adoption of new work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 94(5). 1325-1335.
Henderson, D., Liden, R., Glibkowski, B., and Chaudhry, A. (2009). LMX differentiation: A multilevel review
and examination of its antecedents and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly. 20. 517-534.
Hess, J. A. (2003). Measuring distance in personal relationships: The Relational Distance Index. Personal
Relationships. 10(2). 197-216.
Howell, J. M., and Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange,
transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 84(5). 680-694.
Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., and Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical
distance with business unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly. 16(2). 273-285.
Jacobs, G. (2004). Diagnosing the distance: Managing communication with dispersed technical workforces.
Corporate Communications. 9(2). 118.
Judge, T. A., and Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of
their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89(5). 755-768.
Kirkman, B., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z., and Lowe, K. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and
follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of
Management Journal. 52(4). 744-764.
Kirkman, B. L., and Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of
Management. 31(5). 700-718.
Konradt, U., and Hoch, J. E. (2007). Work roles and leadership functions of managers in virtual teams.
International Journal of E-Collaboration. 3(2). 16-35.
Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Nilsson, S., Alvinius, A., and Bakken, B. (2007). Indirect leadership: A quantitative test
of a qualitatively developed model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 28(8). 771-783.
Larsson, G., Sjöberg, M., Vrbanjac, A., and Björkman, T. (2005). Indirect leadership in a military context: A
qualitative study on how to do it. Leadership and Organization Development Journal. 26(3/4). 215-227.
Lim, V. K. G., and Teo, T. S. H. (2000). To work or not to work at home – An empirical investigation of factors
affecting attitudes towards teleworking. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 15(6). 560-586.
Lengel, R. H., and R. L. Daft. 1988. The selection of communication media as an executive skill. Academy of
Management Executive 2 (3): 225–233.
Lowe, K. B., and Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of the Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for
the future. Leadership Quarterly. 11(4). 459-514.
Maruping, L. M., and Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task-
technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. 89(6). 975-990.
Meyer, J. P., and Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., and Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model. Human
Resource Management Review, 11(3), 299-326.
Mortensen, M., and Hinds, P. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams.
International Journal of Conflict Management. 12(3). 212-238.
Napier, B. J., and Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review. 3(4).
321-357.
Neufeld, D. J., and Fang, Y. (2005). Individual, social and situational determinants of telecommuter productivity.
Information and Management. 42(7). 1037-1049.
Otondo, R. F., Scotter, J. R. V., Allen, D. G., and P. Palvia, 2008. The complexity of richness: Media, message,
and communication outcomes. Information and Management, 45(1), 21-30.

13
© Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijbssnet.com

Perez, M. P., Martinez-Sanchez, A., Carnicer, P. D. L., and Jimenez, M. J. V. (2007). Modelling the adoption of
teleworking: An empirical study of resources and organisational factors. International Journal of Services
Technology and Management. 8(2/3). 188-206.
Purvanova, R. K., and Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams.
Leadership Quarterly. 20(3). 343-357.
Salzmann, J., and Grasha, A. F. (1991). Psychological size and psychological distance in manager-subordinate
relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology. 131(5). 629-646.
Sharma, S., Durand, R. M., and Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator variables. Journal
of Marketing Research. 18(3). 291-300.
Shekhar, S. (2006). Understanding the virtuality of virtual organizations. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal. 27(6). 465-483.
Shepherd, M. M., and Martz, W. B. (2006). Media Richness Theory and the Distance Education Environment.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 47(1), 114-122.
Siha, S. M., and Monroe, R. W. (2006). Telecommuting’s past and future: a literature review and research agenda.
Business Process Management Journal. 12(4). 455-482.
Sluss, D. M., and Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work
relationships. Academy of Management Review. 32(1). 9-32.
Towers, I., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., and Thomas, J. (2006). Time thieves and space invaders: Technology, work
and the organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 19(5). 593-618.
Trevino, L. K., Webster, J., and Stein, E. W. (2000). Making Connections: Complementary Influences on
Communication Media Choices, Attitudes, and Use. Organization Science, 11(2), 163-182.
Vaughn, L. M., and Baker, R. C. (2004). Psychological size and distance: Emphasising the interpersonal relationship as a
pathway to optimal teaching and learning conditions. Medical Education. 38(10). 1053-1060.
Whitford, T., and Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformational leadership in distributed work groups: The moderating
role of follower regulatory focus and goal orientation. Communication Research. 36(6). 810-837.
Wiesenfeld, B., Raghuram, S., and Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need
for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of Management. 27(2). 213-229.
Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., and Jett, Q. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining
the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies. 29(7). 979-1002.
Yammarino, F. J. (1994). Indirect leadership: Transformational leadership at a distance. In B. M. Bass and B. J.
Avolio (Eds.). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. 26-47.
London: Sage.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories.
The Leadership Quarterly. 10(2). 285-305.
Yukl, G., O’Donnell, M., and Taber, T. (2009). Influence of leader behaviors on the leader-member exchange
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 24. 289-299.
Zaccaro, S. J., and Bader, P. (2003). E-leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams: Minimizing the bad and
maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics. 31(4). 377-387.

Appendix: Notes

1. This study was funded by a research grant from the FQRSC.

2. You can consult the report IDC#221309 – Worldwide Mobile Worker Population 2009–2013 at
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?sessionId=andcontainerId=prUS22214110andsessionId=B477357B252DD6AF16C44DB293F3A025.
3. Psychological distance (status) (α = 0.93), psychological distance (affect) (α = 0.94), transformational leadership (α = 0.96) and LMX (α
= 0.92).
4. LMX Model (AVE = 0.629) [X2 = 11,856; df = 8; X2/df = 1.48; ∆Bent.-Bon. = 0.991; CFI = 0.997; IFI = 0.997; GFI = 0.988; AGFI =
0.959; RMSEA = 0.041].
Psychological Distance Model (AVE status = 0.831; AVE affect = 0.631) [X2 = 88,039; df = 51; X2/df = 1.73; ∆Bent.-Bon. = 0.973; CFI =
0.988; IFI = 0.989; GFI = 0.959; AGFI = 0.926; RMSEA = 0.050].
Transformational Leadership Model (AVE = 0.596)[X2 = 188,523; df = 128; X2/df = 1.47; ∆Bent.-Bon. = 0.964; CFI = 0.988; IFI = 0.988;
GFI = 0.939; AGFI = 0.900; RMSEA = 0.041].

14