Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Does Transformational Leadership Influence Employee Behavioral Outcomes (i.e., Task
Performance) with Mediating Effects of Psychological Empowerment,
Intrinsic Motivation and Job Satisfaction?
ABSTRACT
Drawing upon theories of transformational leadership and psychological empowerment,
this research tested several hypotheses associating transformational leadership with task
performance via intervening variable, i.e., psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and
job satisfaction. Using survey data from administrative and professional employees in China, we
found that, as anticipated, transformational leadership positively influenced task performance.
Furthermore, analyses discovered that the relationship between transformational leadership and
employee’s task performance strongly mediated through psychological empowerment, intrinsic
motivation and job satisfaction.
Keywords: transformational leadership, task performance, psychological empowerment, intrinsic
motivation, job satisfaction.
2
INTRODUCTION
Leadership has become more imperative ever than before only because of rapid changes in
work environments (Krishnan, 2005). Extensive literature has emerged on transformational
leadership in past two decades (Bass, 1998) to understand leader’s effectiveness (Piccolo &
Colquitt, 2006), and such leadership style is crucial for developing appropriate capabilities within
an organization and ascertaining new opportunities in market (Krishnan, 2005). Burns (1978) and
Bass (1985) reveal that transformational leader’s behavior motivates its followers to be rational
and stimulates them to be creative and persuades their out-of-box thinking. Enormous evidences
bring together from prior researches recommends that transformational leadership at individual
and organizational level is positively related to employee work attitudes as well as behavioral
outcomes (Dumdum, Lowe, & Avolio, 2002; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Piccolo
& Colquitt, 2006). Though, researchers have engaged in taking initiatives to study the processes
and mechanisms through which the behavior of transformational leaders stimulate its follower’s
performance and motivation (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Bono & Judge, 2003; Kark &
Shamir, 2002; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999; Yukl, 1989).
A fundamental view of transformational leadership approach is to express effects towards
leader through follower’s responses (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Researchers (e.g., Kark, Shamir,
& Chen, 2003; Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter,
1990) in their initial studies of transformational leadership highlight the mediating role of
follower’s work attitudes (e.g., personal identification, satisfaction, trust, perceived fairness)
towards leaders. Moreover, some of the studies have emphasized on transformational leadership
effects by elucidating the follower’s feelings about themselves or their group footing on self-
efficacy or group effectiveness (Bono & Judge, 2003; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Sosik,
3
Avolio, & Kahai, 1997). Although, a number of researches demonstrate a positive relationship
between transformational leadership and follower’s behavior (Fuller, Patterson, Hester, &
Stringer, 1996; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). There are enough reasons (explained
below) to examine the effect of transformational leadership on task performance of the employee
(Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Therefore, the principal reason behind this examination is to observe
the relationship of transformational leadership on employees’ task performance through important
intervening variables.
While constructing the model of this study, which links transformational leadership and
employees’ task performance, we additionally draw on the psychological empowerment theory
(Spreitzer, 1995) and employee task performance literature to theorize three mediating processes
and mechanisms to enlighten the relationship of transformational leaders on employee task
performance: psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. We take
psychological empowerment as a first mechanism, which explores the extent through which
transformational leadership has have effect on psychological empowerment to finally influence
employee task performance. Spreitzer (1995) delineates psychological empowerment having four
sub-dimensions i.e., meaning, competence, self-determination and impact as a psychological state.
Spreitzer (1995) argued that psychological empowerment, in turn, significantly influence
employee’s managerial task performance by affecting intrinsic motivation of the employees.
Moreover, researchers have linked intrinsic motivation and employee task performance through
psychological empowerment area (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This relationship is significant
because the employees, who are intrinsically motivated get satisfaction by accomplishing their
tasks (Staw, 1977). Intrinsic motivation is the degree to which an employee is interested and
involved in a task (Utman, 1997). Based on the above arguments, we theorize intrinsic motivation
4
as a second mechanism in our study, which links transformational leadership and employee task
performance; we posit that intrinsic motivation connects psychological empowerment and
employee task performance.
From decades, job satisfaction has been considered as determining factor of job
performance (Miao, 2011). Locke (1976) elucidates job satisfaction as an internal state of the
employee, which is based on considering the job as well as job related experiences to the extent of
favorable or unfavorable. Seibert, Wang, and Courtright (2011), in a meta-analysis, clarified that
employees having sense of psychological empowerment, demonstrate higher degree of job
satisfaction. Considerable theoretical support have been found between job satisfaction and job
performance’s relationship but empirical researches have been revealed the mixed results (Miao,
2011). Moreover, Edwards, Bell, Arthur Jr, and Decuir (2008), while doing a research on
manufacturing plant, disclosed a weaker relationship (r=.19) between job satisfaction and task
performance. Based upon above arguments, we further examine the influence of job satisfaction
on task performance of the employees, so that in present study, we posit job satisfaction as a third
mediating variable, which connects psychological empowerment and task performance.
Overall, the objective behind our study is to create model by theoretically as well as empirically
associating transformational leadership theory, psychological empowerment theory and related
task performance literature to explore the all-inclusive understanding of the transformational
leadership phenomenon, which finally relates to task performance of the employees.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESIS
Theory and hypothesis sections demonstrates the research model of this study in detail by
first elucidating the phenomenon of transformational leadership, which ultimately relates to the
employee task performance. Further, we explore how transformational leadership effects
5
psychological empowerment. We then investigate how psychological empowerment stimulates
intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. Finally, we explore how intrinsic motivation and job
satisfaction have impact on employee’s task performance. The overall model of our study has been
depicted in Figure 1.
<Figure 1>
Elucidating the effects of Transformational Leadership
Leadership is considered as an important characteristic of the work setting for employees
in any organization (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Scott & Bruce,
1994). Burns (1978) has presented transformational leadership theory. Moreover, Bass (1985) has
advanced this theory by explaining the four dimensions of behavior endorsed by a leader.
Individualized consideration refers to which leaders act with their followers as mentor, listen to
their concerns and support their needs. Inspirational motivation is energizing followers by
expressing visions that are alluring to them. Intellectual stimulation is to implement unique and
novel tactics towards problems and challenge the status quo. Idealized influence or charisma refers
to which leaders behave with their followers in a charismatic way to identify with them.
Many researchers have taken transformational leadership beneficial for employees’ job behaviors,
for example, Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) supports that transformational leadership is capable of
enhancing task performance of its followers. In a meta-analysis (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), it has
proven that transformational leadership has strong positive association with its followers’ task
performance. Furthermore, in two more separate meta-analysis studies (Fuller et al., 1996; Lowe
et al., 1996), researchers have argued that transformational leadership and task performance have
consistent and strong correlation between them.
6
Transformational leadership dimensions inspire employees to take initiatives and take
creative solutions of the complex problems by encouraging out-of-box thinking (Bass, 1985). As
a result, followers enact in such a way that ultimately it enhance their task performance (Piccolo
& Colquitt, 2006). Furthermore, transformational leaders concentrate on collective vision by
persuading their followers to forgo their personal benefits and interests as well. In consequence of
the above arguments, followers are more willing to collaborate to make a constructive and
affirmative contribution to the work setting by associating their own success with organizations’
and identifying with organizations’ visions, goals and values (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Therefore,
we posit:
Hypothesis 1. Transformational leadership has a positive impact on employees’ task
performance.
Transformational Leadership and Psychological Empowerment
Zhang and Bartol (2010) conceptualized psychological empowerment as a set of cognitions
or experienced psychological state. Psychological empowerment defined by Conger and Kanungo
(1988) as a process of employee’s feeling of self-efficacy “through the identification of conditions
that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and
informal techniques of providing efficacy information” (1988, p. 474). Additionally, psychological
empowerment defined as an intrinsic motivation in employees by identifying four task assessments
i.e., meaningfulness, competence, choice and impact (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer
(1995) synthesized the work of Conger and Kanungo (1988) and Thomas and Velthouse (1990) to
define psychological empowerment as a psychological state, which has four measurements:
meaning i.e., having sense of feelings that individual’s work has significant importance,
competence i.e., belief in one’s capability to perform his/her job effectively, self-determination
7
i.e., autonomy to elect how to initiate and carry out tasks and impact i.e., perception of having
influence in work outcomes.
Transformational leaders motivate and empower followers by transforming their needs,
objectives, individualities, values and preferences, and therefore ultimately realize them the
importance, meaning and purpose of their work (Lowe et al., 1996). Dubinsky, Yammarino,
Jolson, and Spangler (1995) elucidated that transformational leaders identify the significance of
the assigned task or work to their followers, facilitate them to understand and escalate their efforts
towards assigned task or work. Transformational leaders stimulate followers’ self-efficacy through
continuous encouragement, feedback mentoring and coaching to perform their efficiently (Shamir
et al., 1993). Transformational leaders establish a sense of self-determination in their followers
and emphasis on innovative and creative ways to perform assigned task (Bass, 1985). Sun, Zhang,
Qi, and Chen (2012) found in their cross level study that transformational leaders transform their
employees through psychological empowerment and proved that transformational leadership has
positive impact on psychological empowerment. Therefore, we posit:
Hypothesis 2. Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment have positive
correlation between them.
Psychological Empowerment and Intrinsic Motivation
Utman (1997) elucidated intrinsic motivation as an inner-directed and self-motivated
individual who is involved and interested in a task. Researcher found a positive relationship
between psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). As
(Thomas & Velthouse), suggested psychological empowerment is “presumed to be a proximal
cause of intrinsic task motivation and satisfaction” (1990, p. 668). Research disclosed a positive
relationship between intrinsic motivation and feelings of self-determination (Koestner, Ryan,
8
Bernieri, & Holt, 1984). Moreover, Gagné, Senecal, and Koestner (1997) also found a positive
correlation between intrinsic motivation and meaningfulness.
Hypothesis 3. Psychological empowerment has positive relationship with employees’
intrinsic motivation.
Psychological Empowerment and Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction is delineated as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state” that is “a
function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from a job and what one perceives
it is offering” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Wang and Lee (2009) found mixed empirical support while
studying the relationship of job satisfaction and empowerment dimensions. Hackman and Oldham
(1980), while explaining job characteristics model argued that employees’ psychological state
effects job satisfaction. Empowerment demonstrated the higher level of job satisfaction (Thomas
& Tymon, 1994). Researcher described a positive correlation between meaning and job
satisfaction (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). Perceived meaningfulness states to higher job
commitment (Kanter, 1983) while meaninglessness refers to job dissatisfaction (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990).
Hypothesis 4. Psychological empowerment has positive relationship with job satisfaction.
Intrinsic Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Task performance
Employees who are intrinsically motivated promised higher concern towards task
performance (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Intrinsically motivated employees usually work harder
to excel and purse satisfaction from completion of their assigned tasks (Staw, 1977). Kanfer and
Kanfer (1991) presented task engagement as the key element of explaining the concept of intrinsic
motivation’s performance. Unfortunately, researchers gave a little empirical testing to above
9
arguments. Most of the researchers treated intrinsic motivation as a dependent variables in their
studies (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Based upon the above arguments, we posit:
Hypothesis 5. Intrinsic motivation has positively correlated with employees’ task
performance.
Previous empirical studies discussing job satisfaction and task performance revealed the
mixed results. A wide range of results (i.e., r =.14 to .31) gathered while analyzing job satisfaction
and task performance’s relationship in meta-analyses (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Judge,
Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). Recently, meta-analysis
found a strong relationship between these two variables (Jung, 2001). A study of manufacturing
plant revealed a weaker relationship between job satisfaction and task performance (Edwards et
al., 2008). Thus, satisfaction-performance research needs further investigation to produce strong
findings. Based on previous arguments, we posit:
Hypothesis 6. Job satisfaction has positively correlated with employees’ task performance.
METHODS
Research Context and Participants
Forty-three private and public organizations headquartered in Anhui province of People’s
Republic of China (PRC) participated in this research. A total of 385 employees and supervisors
participated in this study, with the response rate of 44 percent. Data collected from both leader and
a subordinate of each leader in this research, as many of the researchers (e.g., Singer, 1985; Tucker,
Bass, & Daniel, 1992; Waldman, Bass, & Einstein, 1987; Yammarino & Bass, 1990) employed
this approach in their studies.
As, table 1 explains the sample demographics, the sample of this research comprises of 266
(69%) male and 119 (31%) female and 43.6 percent participants were engaged in public
10
organizations while 56.4 percent participants were doing job in private organizations. The
qualification of the participants consists of 6.8% (Intermediate), 26% (Graduate), 46.5% (Masters),
17.1% (M.Phill), 2.9% (Ph.d) and 0.8% (Post Ph.d). The age of 55.1% participants lies between
18 to 25 years and the income of 48.1% participants is less than 10,000 RMB.
<Table 1>
Procedure
We communicated to human resource (HR) department of each company to support the
study, to encourage participation and to acquire their help in distributing hard copies of
questionnaire. Data were collected from both supervisors, stated to as leaders and followers, to
reduce the potential effects of common bias methods. All the followers questioned to rate the level
of transformational leadership of their respective leaders and their own level of psychological
empowerment, intrinsic motivation and their level of satisfaction at workplace. Supervisors were
asked to rate job performance of their respective followers. Every supervisor evaluated the job
performance of his/her five followers.
Measures
The entire questionnaire was translated into Chinese from English. To guarantee
uniformity of the measures in Chinese and English, we used standard translation and back-
translation procedure, which was suggested by Brislin (1980). Unless otherwise indicated, all the
variables were measured by participant responses to questions on a five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Transformational Leadership. We used nine-item scale to measure transformational leadership.
This scale was manifested by adopting seven items from Carless, Wearing, and Mann (2000). The
remaining two items were established by Overstreet (2012) to increase the items for
11
transformational leadership to nine-item scale. The sample items of this scale included, “My
supervisor communicates a clear and positive vision of the future”’, “My supervisor is clear about
his/her values”, and “My supervisor encourages thinking about problems in new ways and
questions assumptions”.
Psychological Empowerment. In this study, followers assessed their psychological empowerment
with a validated twelve-item scale developed by Spreitzer (1995), which is was manifested in four
subscales of 3 items each: meaning, competence, self-determination and impact. A sample
measures from each subscales included: (meaning) “My work activities are personally meaningful
to me”, (competence) “I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities”,
(self-determination) “I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work” and (impact) “I
have a great deal of control over what happens in my department.”
Intrinsic Motivation. The scale to measure intrinsic motivation was adopted from Hackman and
Oldham (1974). Sample items are, “I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job
well” and “My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job well.”
Job Satisfaction. To measure job satisfaction, we adopted 8-item scale which is used by
Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter (2001). Sample items are, “The amount of job security you
have” and “The amount of personal growth and development you get in your job.”
Task Performance. We used seven-item scale to measure task performance, which is based on the
work of Williams and Anderson (1991). Sample items are, “Adequately completes assigned
duties” and “Performs tasks that are expected of him/her.”
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The data analysis was conducted by using SPSS 20 and AMOS 20 software with sample
size of N=385. Table 2 represents the summary of means, descriptive statistics and correlations
12
among variables of this study. Data analysis was initiated before checking for the issue of
multicollinearity. To deal with the issue of multicollinearity among variables, (Hair, 2010)
established that the problem of multicollinearity exists in the data if Pearsons r-value is greater
than 0.90. Table 1 shows that the highest correlation value among transformational leadership and
psychological empowerment i.e. 0.66 which is still less than 0.90, indicating no issue of
multicollinearity between variables. Correlation values for all of the variables in this study were
anticipated the directions. Since several of our measures are were conceptually associated and
could be expected to be correlated in a substantive way, we run an additional analysis to calculate
the discriminant validity of our constructs. We examined the fit of the structural model to predicted
paths to the measurement model. The fit of the proposed model was empirically tested to analyze
that weather it fit the data better than did competing models (Kelloway, 1998). As proposed the
five factor model showed an abdicated model fit of the data. (χ2 [857] = 3658; χ2/df = 4.29; CFI
= .94; GFI = .91; AGFI = .90; RMSEA = .07).
<Table 2>
Construct reliability and validity
To measure the distinctiveness of the scales a CFA was conducted on the scales of
transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation
and task performance. Content validities must be relatively acceptable since different parts of
questionnaires were adopted from previous studies and have been reviewed by experts. To confirm
the proposed model of task performance in China, we used the reliabilities analysis to examine the
internal consistency of factors and a factor analysis to analyze the underlying relationship between
variables. Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS was conducted on the survey data. Table III
shown the results of convergent validity, discriminant validity, composite reliability, maximum
13
shared variance, average variance extracted, average shared variance and Cronbach alpha. The
values of Cα for all variables are greater than suggested level of 0.6 recommended by (Numally,
1978). In addition, the suggested criteria for CR and AVE state that a scale is considered reliable
if the value of CR is greater than 0.7 and AVE is greater than 0.5 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The results
shows that all the constructs have successfully surpassed the suggested threshold and demonstrated
well in terms of convergent validity suggesting that the constructs can be used to analyze the
conceptual model (Bouwman, Carlsson, Molina-Castillo, & Walden, 2007).
<Table 3>
Structural Equation modeling
In order to analyze the relationship within the research model that used in the study,
structural equation modeling (SEM) and the AMOS 20 statistical package software was used.
Structural equation can be used to analyze that weather the model set that used in this study is
useful and to identify its fitness. The SEM includes one or more linear regression equations that
describe how the endogenous constructs depends upon the exogenous constructs. We examined
the casual structure of the integrated model. The results of the parameter estimates and the
goodness of the data are reported in table 3. Relative fit indices are used in this research, including
Normed Fit indices (NFI) and Incremental fit indices (NFI). IFI which proposed by Bollen (1990)
and is presented that it is relative unaffected by sample size 1(Bentler, 1990; Gerbing & Anderson,
1993; Hu & Bentler, 1995). The results suggested that our proposed model was a good fit for the
data and it achieved an overall good fit. We used two determiners of goodness- of fit indices, NFI
and IFI. The fit indices of (NFI= 0.91, IFI=0.92) which indicated that model was adequate.
Table 4 presented that standardized path coefficients are all significant at 0.01 levels. The
results indicated the positive significant impact of transformational leadership (TL) (β=0.16; p<
14
0.01) on task performance (TP), therefore confirming hypothesis H1. The results indicated that
when TL increased by one standardized unit, TP is raised by 0.16 standardized units. Moreover,
confirming the hypothesis. The model explains 48.10% of variation in TP. Transformational
leadership (TL) (β=0.67, p<0.01) is statistically significant to psychological empowerment (PE),
thus confirming the hypothesis H2. Results indicated when TL is increased by one standardized
unit, PE is enhanced by 0.66 standardized units. Similarly, the positive significant effect of
psychological empowerment (PE) (β=0.48, p<0.01) on intrinsic motivation (IM) and also
psychological empowerment (PE) (β=0.55, p<0.01) on Job satisfaction (JS) are evident in the
results and supported the hypotheses H3 and H4. Psychological empowerment explains 24% of
the variation in intrinsic motivation and 30% of the variation in Job satisfaction. Intrinsic
motivation (IM) (β=0.40, p<0.01) and Job satisfaction (JS) (β=0.51, p<0.01) are positive
significant in determining to task performance (TP). This confirms the hypotheses H5, H6.
However, transformational leadership (TL), psychological empowerment (PE), intrinsic
motivation (IM), job satisfaction (JB) are fond significant impact on task performance (TP). The
model explains 52.10% of the variation in task performance. Altogether, the current research has
proposed six hypotheses, the whole six hypotheses are statistically evidenced from our data.
<Table 4>
<Figure 2>
DISCUSSION
This paper makes divergent contributions towards organizational research. First, the
relationship between transformational leadership and task performance are renowned and well-
documented, in this paper, we developed mechanism through which the relationship between these
two variables are further tested through serval mediating variables i.e., psychological
15
empowerment, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. This paper result’s showed that
transformational leadership has positively correlated with employee’s task performance.
Second, this paper makes contribution by investigating and exploring the psychological
empowerment as a mediating factor between leadership and task performance. Our paper founds
congruent with previous studies results indicating to be positive association between
transformational leadership and psychological empowerment. Though, there has been a
requirement to empirically investigate the explicit relationship between leadership and
psychological empowerment. As Seibert et al. (2011), Conger and Kanungo (1988), Menon
(2001), and Spreitzer (1995) have been examined in their respective studies. Expending the
previous studies, this paper creates and tests a more complex model to get more strong findings.
Third, our paper is unique in elucidating the link of psychological empowerment with not only
intrinsic motivation, but also job satisfaction. As expected, our findings show psychological
empowerment has positive relationship with intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer, 1995). Likewise, this
paper also revealed theoretical arguments for and verified a connection between psychological
empowerment and job satisfaction. Finally, our results show the positive connections between
intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction and task performance.
Practical implications, limitations & future directions
The outcomes of this study suggest that transformational leaders foster employee’s task
performance by creating autonomous work environment in their work settings through
psychological empowerment. All in all, transformational leaders must focus on psychological
empowered climate in work setting to get higher performance of their employees. Our research
focuses on three mediating processes which links transformational leadership and subordinates’
task performance. In future, researchers might focus with important underlying mediating
16
processes to investigate the relationship of transformational leadership and employees’ work
behaviors. In this study, we took psychological empowerment as a mediating factor to examine
the relationship of leadership and employees’ task performance, so future research might examine
this relationship with important underlying moderators. Moreover, our study sample is limited to
china only, so researchers might examine this relationship with cross-culture data.
Conclusion
The study incorporates the mechanism through which we demonstrate the different
perspectives of transformational leadership and employee’s task performance. Drawing upon the
transformational leadership theory and psychological empowerment theory, we introduce several
intervening variables i.e., psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and job satisfaction to
test the relationship of transformational leadership and task performance. The results of this study
highlight the direct and indirect (using three mediating variables) relationship between leadership
and performance.
17
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & 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.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact: Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29.
Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of sample size effects. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 256.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of management journal, 46(5), 554-571.
Bouwman, H., Carlsson, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Walden, P. (2007). Barriers and drivers in the adoption of current and future mobile services in Finland. Telematics and Informatics, 24(2), 145-160.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 2(2), 349-444.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York. NY: Harper and Row Publishers. Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389-405. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482. Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational
leadership: An initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 15(2), 17-31.
Dumdum, U. R., Lowe, K. B., & Avolio, B. J. (2002). A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: An update and extension: United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur Jr, W., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology, 57(3), 441-465.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological reports, 78(1), 271-287.
18
Gagné, M., Senecal, C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1222-1240.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. SAGE FOCUS EDITIONS, 154, 40-40.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of management journal, 52(4), 765-778.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.). Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological bulletin, 97(2), 251. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185-195.
Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (1991). GOALS AND SELF-REGULATION: APPLICATIONS or THEORY To WORK SETTINGS.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Binnovation and entrepreneturship in the American corporation: Touchstone Book.
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, 2, 67-91.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide: Sage.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of personality, 52(3), 233-248.
Krishnan, V. R. (2005). Transformational leadership and outcomes: Role of relationship duration. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(6), 442-457.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 1297-1343.
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167-203.
Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.
19
Menon, S. (2001). Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology, 50(1), 153-180.
Miao, R.-T. (2011). Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior in China. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 12(2), 105-127.
Numally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. NY: McGraw-Hill. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634. Overstreet, R. E. (2012). Effect of Transformational Leadership and Organizational
Innovativeness on Motor Carrier Performance. Auburn University. Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships
between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of management review, 9(4), 712-721.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of management journal, 49(2), 327-340.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of management, 25(6), 897-933.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577-594.
Singer, M. S. (1985). Transformational vs transactional leadership: A study of New Zealand company managers. Psychological reports, 57(1), 143-146.
Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 89.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain. Journal of management, 23(5), 679-704.
Staw, B. M. (1977). Motivation in organizations: Toward synthesis and redirection. New directions in organizational behavior, 1, 54-95.
Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55-65.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G. (1994). Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management Systems, 6(3), 39-54.
20
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4), 666-681.
Tucker, M., Bass, B., & Daniel, L. (1992). Transformational leadership’s impact on higher education satisfaction, effectiveness, and extra effort. Impact of leadership, 169-176.
Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182.
Waldman, D. A., Bass, B. M., & Einstein, W. O. (1987). Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes. Journal of occupational psychology, 60(3), 177-186.
Wang, G., & Lee, P. D. (2009). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: An analysis of interactive effects. Group & Organization Management.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.
Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership and multiple levels of analysis. Human relations, 43(10), 975-995.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations: Pearson Education India. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management journal, 53(1), 107-128.
21
TABLES
Table 1 Sample demographics
Gender % Age % Qualification % Job type % Income %
Male 69 <18 years 3.6 Intermediate 6.8 Govt. Job 43.6 <10K 48.1
Female 31 18-25 55.1 Graduate 26 Private Job 56.4 10-20K 3.9
26-33 18.7 Master 46.5 20-30K 7.5
34-41 7.0 M.Phil. 17.1 30-40K 8.8
42-49 10.1 PhD 2.9 40-50K 5.2
> 50 years 5.5 Post PhD 0.8 >50K 17.1
Table 3 Reliability, Convergent validity, Discriminant validity and alpha coefficients
Variables CR AVE MSV ASV C/A Transformational leadership 0.91 0.52 0.44 0.29 0.84
Psychological empowerment
Job satisfaction
0.91
0.80
0.51
0.51
0.43
0.42
0.28
0.30
0.86
0.73
Intrinsic motivation 0.85 0.50 0.34 0.21 0.80
Task performance 0.84 0.51 0.42 0.30 0.84
Note: Threshold of reliability: CR>.70; Convergent validity: AVE> .50; Discriminant validity: AVE> MSV; CR= Composite reliability; MSV= Maximum Shared Variance; AVE= Average Variance Extracted; ASV= Average Shared Variance; C/A= Cronbach Alpha
Table 4 SEM hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Hypothesized Path Path cofficient S.E. C.R. p-value Remarks H1 TP<---TL 0.17 0.37 4.31 0.00 Supported
H2 PE<---TL 0.67 0.36 17.53 0.00 Supported
H3 IM<---PE 0.48 0.51 10.77 0.00 Supported
H4 JS<---PE 0.55 0.42 12.78 0.00 Supported
H5 TP<---IM 0.40 0.33 10.02 0.00 Supported
H6 TP<---JS 0.51 0.39 11.29 0.00 Supported
Source: Authors’ estimation
22
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variables M S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. TL 3.37 .72 - 2. PE 3.33 .81 .66** - 3. JS 2.45 .75 .56** .54** - 4. IM 3.40 .75 .35** .48** .41** - 5. TP 3.48 .88 .52** .42** .65** .58** - 6. Gender 1.31 .46 -.04 .04 -.03 .06 -.04 - 7. Age 2.81 1.27 .22** .17 -.03 -.21** .18 -.14 - 8. Qualification 4.81 1.03 .06 -.03 .20 .03 .01 .06 .20 - 9. Tenure 10. Job Type
3.34 3.15
1.38 2.41
.06 .09
.18 .12
.02 .15
.06 .09
.04 .13
.07 -.21
.06 .24
-.19** .17**
- -.29
Note: N = 345; N/A = not applicable; 1= Transformational Leadership; 2= Psychological Empowerment; 3=Job Satisfaction; 4= Intrinsic motivation; 5= Task Performance; 6=Gender; 7=Age; 8=Qualification; 9=Tenure; Job Type; *P< .05, **P<.01.
23
FIGURES
Figure 1. A Proposed Model
24
Figure 2. Structural Equational Modeling with Mediating Results