2.1 Leadership

^{Bass & Avolio (1990)} state that leaders are agents of change whose actions affect others more than the acts of others can affect them. From this perspective, leadership occurs when a member of the group modifies the skills of others in the group towards a common goal. This definition is grounded in the studies of the new leadership approach. Before this perspective, there were other studies that contributed to the evolution and understanding of the leadership construct.

^{Glynn & Dejordy (2010)} grouped leadership studies in four theoretical perspectives: personality, behavioral, contingency, and charismatic. Constituting the ramifications of charismatic theories, there are new sorts of leadership theories, divided in "transformational", "charismatic" and "visionary" leadership (^{Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002}). ^{Mcshane & Glinow (2013)} point out that making a distinction between charismatic and transformational leadership has been a challenge. To these authors, many researchers use the two words as if they had the same meaning or consider the charismatic leadership a component of transformational leadership. In contrast, other scholars suggest that charismatic leadership is the highest degree of transformational leadership. However, Mchshane & Glinow (2013) emphasize that the emerging view of experts considers charisma different from transformational leadership. This emerging line believes that charisma is a personal trait or a relational quality that provides reference power over followers, while transformational is a set of behaviors that people use to lead the change process.

Transformational leadership was first mentioned by ^{Downton (1973)} as different from transactional leadership. However, it was ^{Burns (1978)} who pioneered the research that contrasted transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Until the late 1970s, leadership theories and empirical works focused on transactional leadership, but, according to ^{Bass & Bass (2008)}, both transformational and transactional leadership have a wide range of applications (^{Bass & Bass, 2008})

Transformational leadership takes place when both, leader and follower, increase the motivation of each other. To ^{Burns (1978}, p.20), the transformational leadership raises leaders and followers to "higher levels of motivation and morality". A transforming leader can increase the level of awareness of his followers in relation to the importance and value of the established results and about the means to achieve them. In the view of ^{Bass and Bass (2008)}, transformational leadership raises the degree of maturity of the followers, their ideals and concerns about the well-being of others, the organization and society.

According to ^{Turano and Cavazzotte (2016)}, there is a predominance of the theories of charismatic leadership, transactional, transformational and leader-led exchange theory (LMX) in the collection The Leadership Quartely. The transformational leadership was predominant in the bibliometric study of ^{Raptopoulos and Silva (2018)} on styles and attributes of leadership in the third sector. The leadership biggest challenges were: motivating employees, giving sustainability to the organization's reputation, creating collaborative environments to increase organizational performance and retain human capital. Transformational leadership has been identified in small and medium-sized commercial and manufacturing enterprises in Mexico in situations where the leader has taken direct action on his followers to obtain better performances (^{Pedraza, Lavín Delgado & Bernal, 2015}; ^{Méndez, Muñoz & Sandoval, 2017}). In Brazil, ^{Domingues, Pereira, Silva, Delapedra and Pontes (2018)} demonstrated that both transformational leadership and emotional intelligence of followers elevate engagement, performance and job satisfaction.

^{Bass and Bass (2008)} point out that the Full-Range Leadership is the leadership model that includes and extends ideas about the new approach of leadership. They consider three leadership styles: laissez-faire, transactional and transformational. This model was designed by studies carried out between 1980 and 1985 and resulted in the multidimensional theory of transformational and transactional leaderships, developing a leadership style verification instrument called Multifactor Questionnaire Leadership (MQL). ^{Vizeu (2011)} agrees that Bass was a great theorist who contributed to the development of the MLQ, whose goal was to measure aspects that characterize the presence of transformational and transactional traits, enabling to identify the presence of one or another (Bass, 1985, 1990, 1999; ^{Bass & Avolio, 1990}; Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1995). The MQL model was chosen to support this work in the leadership strand.

2.2 Performance

In the early 1990's, performance was considered a complex construct (^{Corvellec, 1995}) that involved employees and employers and was often linked to efficacy and efficiency (Neely & Platts, 1995). According to ^{Campbell et al. (1993}, p.37), individual performance was understood through the classical perspective as "a one-dimensional issue, which the most appropriate way to measure was making use of indicators able to verify the achievements of the individuals in the workplace". The scientific literature about performance produced over the last decades in the field of Organizational Psychology has given more emphasis to the evaluative dimension of performance (see Campbell, Meccloy, Oppler & Sager, 1993; ^{Sonnentag & Frese, 2002}). As a result, the literature about the subject is quite fragmented with a multitude of proposals about specific aspects of performance evaluation (^{Bendassolli, 2012}).

The limitations of the classical perspective were diagnosed by scholars (^{Borman & Motowidlo, 1993}; ^{Campbell et al., 1993}; ^{Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000}) and the organizations have been forced to survive in unstable environments, facing new challenges in the management of performance. Individual performance has changed, becoming active and dynamic. In this scenario of instability, the researches of individual performance took a new direction, moving towards a multidimensional perspective (^{Murphy & Jackson, 1999}).

In the light of Motowidlo's studies (1993), ^{Borman and Schimit (1997)}, ^{Eboli, Cavazotte and Lucena (2012)} argue that, from the individual point of view, the term performance is used to define the proficiency with which individuals act and behave in relation to the organization. Considering that, it is possible to argue that performance is achieved by the results of the behaviors and attitudes of individuals at work. For the sake of clarity, the authors (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997) use the term "technical performance" in the article to designate the tasks completed by employees who are admittedly part of what is expected technically in their position or function.

Individual performance has been related to the following topics: training (Freitas & Borges-Andrade, 2004; ^{Galvão, Monte-Mor & Satheesh, 2017}), quality of information received (^{Antonelli, Neitzke, Bezerra & Voese, 2018}), reward system (^{Ferreira, Reis Neto, Vasconcelos & Souki, 2016}; ^{Nascimento & Beuren, 2014}), behavior (^{Brandão & Jordan, 2012}), feedback (^{Thornock, 2016}), motivation and knowledge sharing (^{Akram & Bokhari, 2011}). From the new multidimensional perspective of performance, several theoretical models have been developed in the literature. Among these studies, the model of ^{Borman and Motowidlo (1993)} gained notoriety in the literature for broadening the performance domain by dismembering performance in two aspects: task and context. Still according to these authors, when it comes to job performance, both aspects are important; however, they point out that each one presents specific characteristics that need to be considered in the organizational environment.

2.3 Task and Contextual Performance

The performance studies of ^{Borman and Motowidlo (1997)} were chosen to support the topic "performance" in this research. The emphasis is on initiative and not on proficiency. It is assumed that the two types of behavior contribute to the organizational effectiveness, but in different ways (^{Kahya, 2007}).

Task performance is defined as the proficiency (competence or mastery) with which an individual performs the activities that are formally recognized as part of his own work or position. Task performance is the result of behaviors that contribute for the technical system of the organization (^{Borman & Motowidlo, 1997}). There are two types of task performance. The first consists of activities that transform raw materials into goods and services, which are the products of the organization. The second type of task performance consists of service activities capable of maintaining the technical core, such as: the replacement of the supply of raw materials; the distribution of its finished products; or the supply of important functions, for example, planning, and coordination, staff supervision to guarantee effective and efficient work. The fact is that task performance is directly related to the technical core of the organization, through the execution of its technical or maintenance processes and the assistance of its technical requirements (Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit, 1997).

Contextual performance refers to the extra-role behaviors mentioned by ^{Katz and Khan (1964)}, informal and emerging, based on spontaneity and initiative of individuals and which are intended to globally benefit the psychosocial environment of the work. ^{Motowidlo et al. (1997)} point out that contextual performance consists of activities that promote the viability of social and organizational networks and improve the psychological climate of the workplace. Some examples of these activities are: the acts of helping and cooperating with others, following organizational rules and procedures - even when inconvenient, to endorsing, supporting and defending the organization's goals. Employees in their contextual performance will persist with extra enthusiasm, when necessary, to complete the tasks successfully and offer to perform activities or tasks that are not formally part of the job. ^{Borman and Motowidlo (1997)} enumerated five categories that comprise contextual performance: i) performing activities that go beyond the formal requirements of the position, ii) demonstrating enthusiasm, persistence and application when they are necessary to carry out the prescribed tasks, iii) helping others, iv) following the rules and obeying the prescribed procedures, even though they may be inconvenient, and v) demonstrating defense behaviors in relation to the organization's interests. Another approach that includes contextual performance is named pro-social behavior. This line, proposed by ^{Brief and Motowidlo (1986)}, considers that the designated actions of contextual performance are performed by a member of the organization directed to an individual or group with whom such member has some sort of interaction and are performed with the intention of promoting the well-being of the individual, group or organization. ^{Baruch, O'Creevy, Hind and Vigoda-Gadot (2004)} emphasize that pro-social behavior in organizations is largely related to the notion of socially desirable behavior, since there are cultural beliefs that people should behave pro-socially because it is socially desirable or "correct" in some sense. Regarding the definition, these authors consider that there is not a clear concept of prosocial behavior in the literature, because there is a considerable overlap with other similar approaches, such as the ^{Organizational Citizenship Behaviors - OCB (Organ, 1988}) and extra-role behaviors.

2.4 Leadership and Performance relationship

Transactional leadership emphasizes the exchange that takes place between leaders and followers. This exchange involves direction of the leader or mutual discussion with the followers about the requirements to achieve the desired goals, and the reward can be psychologically or materially. On the other hand, failure in performance will result in disappointment, excuses, dissatisfaction and punishment, also of psychological or material nature. If the transaction occurs and the needs of the leader and the followers are met, and if the leader has formal or informal power to do it, it tends to reinforce the successful performance (^{Shao, Feng & Hu, 2016}; ^{Bass & Bass, 2008}).

Several researches indicated that leadership influences attitudes and behaviors of followers in organizations (^{Zebral, 2017}; ^{Dias & Borges, 2017}; ^{Turano & Cavazzotte, 2016}; ^{Fonseca & Borges-Andrade, 2015}; Dias & Borges, 2015; ^{Purvanova et al., 2006}; ^{Epitropaki & Martin, 2005}; Rickards et al., 2001; ^{Ogbonna & Harris, 2000}; ^{Rai & Sinha, 2000}; ^{Bass, 1999}; ^{Podsakoff et al., 1996}; ^{Behling & Mcfillen, 1996}; ^{Sosik et al., 1998}; ^{Barling, Weber & Kelloway, 1996}; ^{Bycio et al., 1995}; ^{Howell & Avolio, 1993}; Howell & Frost, 1989).

The studies of ^{Dvir et al. (2002)} provided evidences of positive relationships between transformational leadership and performance. These relationships are stronger than relations between transactional leadership and performance. On the other hand, ^{Abelha, Carneiro & Cavazotte (2018)} showed that, if there is training in the transformational attributes, a positive impact can be obtained in the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction in Health and Teaching areas.

In order to verify the impact of leadership on organizational results, ^{Zhu, Chew and Spangler (2005)} indicated that leadership is a valuable resource for organizational results and competitive advantage. They also verified that transformational leadership has a positive association with organizational results. In another study, transformational leadership did not have influence on the performance of 315 employees of the executive branch, according to ^{Dias and Borges (2015)}. In this case, the influence on performance came from transactional leadership

An experiment conducted by ^{Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996)} showed a positive relationship between charismatic behaviors and performance, satisfaction in the fulfillment of tasks and attitudes towards the leader. ^{Barling, Weber and Kelloway, (1996)}, using the MLQ, and considering performance before and after the promotion of leadership training with managers, concluded that managers with transformational leadership training exerted significant effects on their followers' performance.

Therefore, authors such as ^{Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996)}, ^{Barling, Weber and Kelloway (1996)}, ^{Dvir et al. (2002)}, ^{Zhu, Chew and Spangler (2005)}, ^{Dias and Borges (2015}, ^{Pedraza et al. (2015)}, ^{Méndez et al. (2017)}, ^{Abelha et al. (2018)}, ^{Domingues et al. (2018)} pointed out the influence of leadership on individual performance. Therefore, based on the several research results presented here, this study was proposed to analyze the influence of certain leadership styles on the performance of followers. The theoretical model developed for this work included the constructs leadership and performance. For leadership, the transformational, transactional and laissez-faire styles of ^{Bass and Avolio were considered (1990)}. For performance, task and contextual were analyzed (Bormam & Motowidlo, 1993).

4.1 Leaders profile

Altogether 29 leaders, 13 of company A, 8 of company B, and 8 of company C were evaluated. About the characterization of the respondents, it is emphasized that: 41.3% of the individuals were male, and the highest proportion of this characteristic is in company C (68.9%); 36.3% of the individuals are married, and the highest proportion of married respondents is in company A (52.0%); 69.6% of the individuals had higher education or post-graduation, the highest proportion of this characteristic is in company A (88.8%), and the lowest proportion is in company B (only 37.5%).

In table III, the description leadership index, result and performance leadership among companies are presented. The average transformational leadership (76.09) was significantly higher than transactional leadership (66.29). Company B (43.72) presented a significantly greater laissez-faire-style average when compared to companies C (38.89) and A (32.91). There was no significant difference between companies concerning transformational leadership indexes, transactional leadership, result (74.9) and performance (69.47) leadership.

In the tables IV, V and VI, the reliability, the convergent validity and the dimensionality of the five constructs are presented, as well as the initial and final validity of the model. All constructs were one-dimensional (no second eigenvalue was greater than one). All constructs presented convergent validation (AVE > 0.40). All constructs, except "task: term", presented Alpha of Cronbach (AC) and the Dillon-Goldstein's coefficient above 0.60. As the "task: term" construct presented the Dillon-Goldstein's coefficient above 0.70, it was considered that all the constructs presented the required levels of reliability. All constructs, except "task", presented the reliability indexes AC and DG above 0.70, thus demonstrating the reliability of the constructs. Although the "task" construct has presented a low AC (0.484) presented the DG index above 0.70. All constructs were one-dimensional, because they did not present any second auto values greater than 1. All constructs, except "task", presented AVE's greater than 0.50, indicating convergent validation. In all constructs, the adjustment of the factorial analysis was adequate, since all the KMO were greater than 0.50.

Table V Validation of the initial measurement model 

Source: Research data.

Table VI Validation of the initial measurement model 

Source: Research data.

In order to avoid violating the basic assumptions for creating latent variables (Indicators), it was necessary to exclude 4 items (Comp_Pro_Soc-2, Comp_Pro_Soc-4, Desemp_Cont-1 and Desemp_Cont-5.), 2 of the Behavioral Construct Contextual Performance.

Table V presents the validation of the initial model through the analysis for convergent validity, discriminant validity, dimensionality and reliability of the constructs. All the constructs, except "task", presented the reliability index AC and DG above 0.70, thus evidencing the reliability of the constructs. Although the "task" construct presented a low AC (0.484), it presented the DG index above 0.70. All constructs were unidimensional, as they did not present any second eigenvalue greater than 1. All constructs, except "task", presented AVEs higher than 0.50, indicating convergent validation. All shared variances of all pairs of constructs of the model were lower than the mean variances extracted (AVEs) of the compared constructs, and, with this, the discriminant validation was obtained. As the "task" construct presented two items with non-significant weights, for a better measurement model, it was decided to exclude the Quantity and Quality and Misalignment items with the Chief.

Table VI presents the final validation of the model used in the study with the analyses of the convergent validity, the discriminant validity, dimensionality and the reliability of the constructs. All the constructs presented the reliability indexes AC and DG above 0.70, evidencing the reliability of the constructs. All the constructs were unidimensional, as they did not present any second eigenvalue greater than 1. All the constructs presented AVEs above 0.50, indicating convergent validation. All shared variances of all pairs of constructs of the model were lower than the mean variances extracted (AVEs) of the compared constructs, and, with this, the discriminant validation was obtained.

The initial and final validation processes of the model were necessary because a 100% standard questionnaire was not replicated, but was adapted due to the context of this study from MLQ (^{Bass & Avolio, 1990}) with questions about contextual and task performance (^{Brief & Motowidlo, 1986}; ^{Borman & Motowidlo, 1993}; ^{Reis Neto et al., 2012}).

4.2 Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-faire leadership

4.3 Performance

4.3.2 Context performance

It is noted that, in the overall sample, the average of contextual performance (77.0) was significantly higher than pro-social behavior (70.0). Comparing the samples of the companies, company A (81.7) significantly presented a greater average of contextual performance when compared to companies B (71.7) and C (77.4). In table XI, the items of contextual performance among the companies are presented.

Table XI Presentation and description of the items of contextual performance among the companies 

Source: Research data.

According to the results, "task" and "context" were considered as endogenous variables (dependent): a) in relation to the performance of the task realized that there was a significant (p-value = 0.000) and positive (β= 0.320 [0.10, 0.53]) influence of the transformational leadership on the performance of the task. There is a correlation between transformational leadership and contextual performance and b) there was a significant influence (p-valor=0,000) and positive (β = 0,344[0,11; 0,54]) of transformational leadership on the performance of the contextual.

Thus, the greater the transformational leadership, the greater the performance of the task tends to be. The transactional and laisse-faire styles did not significantly influence contextual performance. Together, the three indicators mentioned above can explain 18.8% [11.2% - 29.5%] of the variability and the contextual performance.

After analyzing the sample by company, in other words, the multi-group analysis, the relationship of the leadership style over task performance varied according to the surveyed universe. Therefore, it was observed that in companies A (0.403) and C (0.596) there was a significant influence of transformational leadership over task performance, but in company B (0.021) this has not happened. For transactional leadership, the result was inversed. While in company B (0.361) there was a significant and positive influence over task performance, in companies A (0.247) and C (-0.027) this was not confirmed. Another relevant point of the analysis is that in companies A (0.168), B (0.073) and C (0.168) there was no significant influence of the laissez-faire style over task performance.

The results for contextual performance, considering the multi-group analysis, showed that in companies A (0.074) and C (0.573) there was a significant influence of transformational leadership. This was not seen in company B (0.294). For transactional leadership in company A (0.369) there was a significant and positive influence. This result was not repeated in companies B (-0.105) and C (-0.019). The laissez-faire leadership, as well as the overall sample, did not influence contextual performance (multi-group). Of the three leadership styles, the laissez-faire style was the only one that, even though in different contexts, presented the following result: no significant influence on task and contextual performance in companies A (-0.188), B (0.005) and C (-0.014).

An interesting environment to highlight is company A. In it, besides the transformational style, the transactional style also influenced contextual performance, unlike companies B and C. This result is different from the overall sample result. Company A is an entity representative of trade, which probably helps to understand such result. The transactional style is based on exchange, then, it is assumed that the commercial culture rooted in such an institution has contributed to this result. Another important point is the lack of influence of any leadership style in contextual performance in company B. Considering that contextual performance is linked to extra-role activities and contributes indirectly to task performance, it was expected that the result was compatible with the overall sample, i.e. influenced by the transformational style. The professionals of company B, for the most part, have completed high school. This may be an indicative of difficulties in understanding the research instrument.

The research of the relationship between leadership and task and contextual performance of the followers, in different contexts, revealed that the associations made by ^{Rickards et al. (2001)}; ^{Sosik et al. (1998)} and Jung in the late 1990s about the positive relationship between leadership, especially the transformational style and performance, whether of task or contextual, still make sense. This is because the leadership is still considered one of the key driving forces to improve people's performances (^{Zhu et al., 2005}).

It is worth noting that, according to ^{Purvanova et al. (2006)}, several researchers, including ^{Podsakoff et al. (1996)} have argued that, although the effects of transformational leadership on task performance are important, the effects of transformational leadership on extra-role behaviors could be even more significant. A prominent point of this research is based on the fact of studying, in addition to task performance, the effects of the leadership styles on the contextual performance of the followers. What these authors argued was confirmed in this study, since there was, in the overall sample, and in companies A and C, a significant (p-value = 0.000) and positive (β = 0.344 [0.11, 0.54]) influence of transformational leadership over contextual performance. Thus, the higher the transformational leadership, the greater the contextual performance will be.

Regarding the structural model, it is noted that it presented a GoF of 38.7%, indicating a reasonable adjustment of the model. Some items to be mentioned are the task indicators. Of the three indicators, only "deadline" was considered relevant to measure task performance. "Quantity and quality" and "misalignment with the leader" were not considered relevant indicators for such variable.