You are on page 1of 22

Leadership & Organization Development Journal

The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction
with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader
Timothy Bartram, Gian Casimir,

Article information:
To cite this document:
Timothy Bartram, Gian Casimir, (2007) "The relationship between leadership and follower in‐role
performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust
in the leader", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 Issue: 1, pp.4-19, doi:
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 22 May 2017, At: 07:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18251 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2006),"A study of relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction",
Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 11-28
(2013),"The relationship between leader fit and transformational leadership", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 55-73

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit for more information.
About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

28,1 The relationship between
leadership and follower in-role
performance and satisfaction
with the leader

Received October 2005
Revised February 2006
The mediating effects of empowerment and
Accepted April 2006 trust in the leader
Timothy Bartram
School of Business, La Trobe University, Australia, and
Gian Casimir
Newcastle Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle,
Newcastle, Australia

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an examination of the mediating effects of
empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two
outcomes (i.e. the in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the
Design/methodology/approach – In total, 150 customer service operators in an Australian
call-centre were invited to participate in a leadership questionnaire and informed that their
performance would be rated by their immediate supervisors (i.e. their line manager) as part of the
study. A sample of 109 responses were used in the analysis.
Findings – Partial least squares analysis revealed that the effects of transformational leadership on
the in-role performance of followers were mediated by empowerment and trust in the leader, whereas
the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction were partially mediated by trust in the leader.
Research limitations/implications – The implications of the findings for leadership theorists is
that a more fine-grained approach is required to understand the leadership “black box” in that
different mediators have been shown to affect different outcomes.
Practical implications – In a call-center context, which has high levels of control, standardization
and formalization, transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers by
empowering them and by developing trust in the leader.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent analysis of
the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between
transformational leadership and in-role performance and job satisfaction.
Keywords Leadership, Empowerment, Trust, Transformational leadership
Paper type Research paper
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal There is growing interest in the role of leaders fostering employees to take initiative,
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2007
pp. 4-19 embrace risk, stimulate innovation and cope with uncertainty (Spreitzer, 1995).
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Additionally, recent work on shared or distributed leadership emphasizes the
DOI 10.1108/01437730710718218 importance of leaders empowering followers and accepting mutual influence to

Research on transactional leadership and transformational leadership. 1997. Lowe et al. admiration of the leader) and cognitive states (e. satisfaction. behaving self-sacrificially. 2000).g. 1989). Klein and House.. 1990. Trust can be defined as a willingness to depend on another party (Mayer et al. Transformational leadership has been defined in terms of articulating a compelling vision for followers. as evidenced by self-sacrificial behaviors. however. 2000).g. indicate that the leader is “walking the talk” and thereby builds credibility (Conger and Kanungo. 1995) as well as an expectation that the other party will reciprocate if one cooperates. 1996. 1980) or competence is essential to trust in organizational leader-follower relationships because followers are unlikely to develop trust in their leader unless they believe the leader is capable of fulfilling the leadership role (Whitener et al. Jung and Avolio. extra-role behaviors and organizational learning (e.. Trust also stems from an individual’s confidence in another party’s intentions and motives towards oneself and others (Butler and Cantrell. There is also a growing body of work that demonstrates follower the importance of trust in the leader as a mediator of leadership effects on followers.. Transformational leadership and trust in the leader Leaders need to be trusted by their followers because trust is the mortar that binds the follower to the leader (Nanus. Jung and Avolio.e. facilitate performance (e. Gronn. Credibility and integrity are also cornerstones of trust (Kouzes and Posner. The empowerment of employees is vital for Leadership and organizational effectiveness.. Transformational leadership has been shown consistently to be associated with trust in the leader (e. Transformational leadership facilitates the development of trust in the leader for several reasons: The leader’s own determination and commitment to the vision. 1998) in terms of making sound decisions (Kirkpatrick and Locke.. Trust in the leader correlates positively with various outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors.. 1998). espousing and embodying shared values causes followers to identify with and admire the leader (Bennis and Nanus. Garcı́a-Morales et al. 1991) and having the ability to achieve the vision. 1996).g. 2000).. Kouzes and Posner. 1993). 1993).g. There is considerable empirical support for transformational leadership in terms of its positive effects on followers with respect to a variety of criteria including justice.g. 2000. 2006). positive emotions experienced by followers due to increased levels of self-efficacy . 1995). 1999). performance. has not examined the role of empowerment and trust in the leader on positive outcomes (e. Pillai et al. value congruence. intellectually stimulating followers. Perceived ability (Cook and Wall. the leader is held in high esteem because of capabilities or attributes) rather than from observed behaviors of the leader (Conger et al. and providing them with individualized consideration (Bass. Bass. in-role performance of followers and satisfaction with the leader) associated with leadership. 1984). effectiveness. and satisfaction (e. 1985. This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent analysis 5 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) of the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i. which helps to engender trust because the leader is seen as capable of fulfilling the leadership role (Whitener et al. the leader’s high level of self-confidence leads to perceptions of competence.g. in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader)..g. 1988. It is suggested that trust is a vital antecedent of satisfaction with the leader because both stem from affective states (e. Lowe et al.

. Transformational leadership requires trust in the leader because of the uncertainty inherent in changing the status quo. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated by trust in the leader.. Trust in the leader is therefore important because it is an antecedent of risk-taking behavior (Mayer et al. Podsakoff et al. which is pivotal for trust. Followers need to trust the leader in order to feel positively about the leader and to exert extra effort to perform effectively. 1985). the creation and facilitation of an environment based on trust between the transformational leader and followers is necessary for leadership-driven learning to occur (Taylor. lacks integrity. the following hypothesis is proposed: H1a. 1999. Transformational leadership facilitates the development of trust in the leader because such leadership involves showing concern for the individual needs of followers as well as behaving in ways that are consistent with espoused values (Bass. Based on the above discussion. they will be unlikely to trust the leader and consequently they will be dissatisfied with the leader and not motivated to cooperate fully with the leader thereby adversely affecting their performance. . Trust as a mediator of leadership effects Transformational leadership involves intellectually stimulating followers thereby encouraging them to learn new ways to do their work (Bass. 1997)..e. Trust in the leader has been shown to be an important mediating (or intervening) variable with respect to the relationship between transformational leadership and various outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Pillai et al. 1993) and feeling that they are pursuing meaningful goals (Bennis and 28. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader will be mediated by trust in the leader. Transformational leadership and empowerment Followers need to be empowered by their leaders in order to perform optimally. If followers believe the leader is not genuinely concerned about their welfare. and cope with uncertainty (Laschinger et al. 2001. being concerned about the welfare of followers and attending to their individual needs) results in followers believing the leader cares about them as people rather than as means to an end. Merely enacting leadership behaviors does not guarantee that followers will be satisfied or that they will be motivated to perform. followers need to trust the leader if they are to cooperate and commit fully to the leader’s vision (Bass. However.1 Nanus. 2000). 2000). and acting as a mentor and paying close attention to 6 followers’ needs for achievement and growth (Kark and Shamir. LODJ (Shamir et al.. individualized consideration (i. performance and satisfaction with the leader (Jung and Avolio. 1995). confidence in the intentions and motives of the leader result in perceptions of procedural justice and. There is growing interest in the role of leaders in fostering employees to take initiative. stimulate innovation. embrace risk. Furthermore. trust (Pillai et al.. High levels of satisfaction and performance arguably require trust in the leader. 1985) and ultimately improving their performance. 1990).. in turn. 2002) indicate a Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) concern for the welfare of followers. 1999). H1b. 1985) as well as if they are to respond positively to intellectual stimulation. or is incompetent.

e. The concept of empowerment is embraced under the guise of the Leadership and movement away from “control” towards a proactive and strategic “commitment” style follower of management (Walton. Transformational leadership energizes followers by providing them with an exciting vision for the future rather than by providing rewards and punishments. 1993. 1995. command and control) with which they are familiar. Impact refers to the belief that one can influence organizational outcomes. and values such that they are able to reach their full potential. confidence. 2002). Shamir et al. Competence refers to self-efficacy or personal mastery in relation to one’s work.. 1977). 1998) who argue that empowerment is a bogus concept in that many employees do not seek empowerment due to the responsibility that goes with it and that many managers continue to rely on methods (e. and self-determination. transformational leaders engage in inspirational behaviors by acting as mentors and in this way they build followers’ self-confidence with respect to goal attainment (Bass and Avolio. In accordance with expectancy theory. 1993). and mindset by having followers re-examine the way they do things and encouraging them to try novel and creative approaches to their work (Bass and Avolio. enhancing followers’ level of self-efficacy. identities. Empowerment refers to a process whereby an individual’s self-efficacy is enhanced (Conger and Kanungo. meaning. 2004). motivation to increase one’s effort in a given task depends on an expectation that effort will result in the desired level of performance (i. Meaning refers to the importance placed on a given job based on one’s values. 1995). high moral standards. There is substantial empirical support for the relationship between empowerment and positive outcomes such as follower performance (see Spreitzer.. Spreitzer et al. 1995. beliefs. transformational leaders “build team spirit through their enthusiasm. and optimism and provide meaning and challenge to their followers’ work. Argyris. preferences. Kirkman and Rosen. 1988. 1985). p. there are those (e. 7 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) Contemporary research on psychological empowerment has focused on articulating the empowerment process and the psychological underpinnings of the construct in terms of self-efficacy and autonomy (Conger and Kanungo. Spreitzer. integrity. 1988). 1990). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment is multi-faceted and defined it as increased intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in a set of four cognitions: Competence. Empowerment as a mediator of leadership effects Few studies have examined the mediating effects of empowerment on the relationship between transformational leadership and various outcomes such as performance and job satisfaction.g. 1999). Spreitzer. transformational leadership involves providing followers with individualised consideration by attending to their higher order needs and encouraging them to take on more responsibilities in order to develop their full potential (Kark and Shamir. . Empowerment as an enabling process affects both the initiation and the persistence of followers’ task-oriented behaviors (Bandura. and self-determination” (Avolio et al. 1997. meaning. Thomas and Velthouse. 2004. Beyond providing a vision.. Nevertheless. 1994).g. impact. expectancy). Transformational leadership alters followers’ aspirations.g. these views are consistent with the tenets of shared or distributed leadership. follower satisfaction (e. Self-determination refers to autonomy in making decisions about one’s work (Avolio et al. Transformational leadership also involves using intellectual stimulation to challenge followers’ values. 953). More specifically.. Finally. needs.

self-efficacy has a powerful direct effect on individual performance (Locke. 1966. it was decided that this study will focus on leadership in a call-center. of dispersing leadership throughout the organization. Spector’s Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) (1986) meta-analysis of 88 studies found strong evidence of positive associations between self-determination and both job performance and work satisfaction. This effect is consistent with the notion of shared or distributed leadership that recognises the mutual influence betweens leaders and followers as well as the benefits. 2004). such as shared commitment (Judge and Ryman.. Gilmore.. and team effectiveness (Ozaralli. Moreover. 1999. Hackman and Oldham. Based on the above discussion. Bennis and Nanus.1 relation to meaning and impact.. 1980) and the perception that one’s work affects the organization. 2000). 1985). the management of employees in call-centers has largely been informed by . 1977). 2001) and problem solving. Transformational leaders can also empower followers by providing both positive emotional support during times of stress and opportunities to experience task mastery. transformational leadership acts as a catalyst for learning (Garcı́a-Morales et al. 1978) and are encouraged to question the leader’s values and beliefs (Bass et al. Empowering followers to attain organizational goals and performance targets is the very essence of transformational leadership (Avolio et al. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader will be mediated by empowerment. 2006). the following hypothesis is proposed: H2a. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated by empowerment. to make a difference. low self-efficacy leads to avoidance of all but routine tasks. 2003). In recent years there has been a growth in the use of call-centers (Curtis. Seibert et al. Historically. 2001. to feel useful and to be part of a successful and worthwhile enterprise. H2b. More than two-thirds of all customer interactions in Australia are channeled through a call-center (McLuhan.. In 28. 2004.. 1997). 1987). Indeed. and by a leader who acts as a role model (Bass. 1991). In terms of competence. resulting in 8 low levels of performance (Bandura. empowering followers by providing them with autonomy to manage their work and by increasing their perceived meaningfulness of their work would arguably facilitate their work-related learning and thereby improve both their satisfaction with the leader and performance. LODJ Laschinger et al. an important precondition of work satisfaction is the degree to which work is personally meaningful (Herzberg. 2001). Method Participants Given the changes occurring in the call-center industry. 1997). Transformational leaders inspire their followers to higher levels of achievement by showing them that their work is worthwhile (Bennis and Nanus. Transformational leaders appeal to some fundamental human needs: The need to be important. Furthermore. In relation to self-determination. and thus should enhance follower performance. followers can be empowered by words of encouragement and positive persuasion from the leader. A consequence of transformational leadership is the empowerment of followers such that followers are converted into effective leaders (Burns.

2 years (s:d: ¼ 6:6). The culture of the call center could be described as relaxed and collegial. and they. Recent Leadership and studies have indicated. on average. impact. problem solving with clients) as well as the opportunity to interact with other employees on a professional and social basis. Of the 150 employees that worked in the Melbourne call center. on average. The supervisors directly reported to a senior branch manager. and meaning. 1999). Measures The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ. The in-role performance of followers was measured with the scale from Casimir et al. (2) I feel quite confident that my manager will always try to treat me fairly. Victoria. idealized influence behaviors. competence.1 years (s:d: ¼ 1:4). however. and (4) my manager can be relied on to uphold my best interests. Short Form 5X) was used to measure transformational leadership. This setting was in stark contrast to traditional call centers that closely monitor and impose stringent rules on employees. New South Wales and local branches in every Australian capital city. Management bestowed call center operators significant operational decision-making authority (e. The line-managers were regarded as formal leaders given that they have formal authority over their direct reports.g. Sixty per cent of the operators were female.5 years (s:d: ¼ 3:6). worked with their immediate supervisors for 1. A four-item scale was used to measure trust. The 9 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) average age of the operators was 30. had worked in the call-center for 3. Spreitzer’s (1995) measure of empowerment was used and comprises four components: Autonomy. individualized consideration. The four trust items were: (1) I can trust my manager to make sensible decisions for the future of the company. 14 were supervisors and each managed between ten and 12 employees. The organization provided home and car insurance for hundreds of thousands of clients in Australia. This study focused on one call centre located in Melbourne. and intellectual stimulation were combined to form a single measure of transformational leadership. The sample comprised full-time line-managers and customer service operators from a call-center for a large insurance company. The first three items were obtained from Cook and Wall’s (1980) Interpersonal Trust at Work scale. (3) my manager would be quite prepared to deceive me for his/her own benefit (reversed). inspiration. that a quiet revolution may be occurring in the follower call-center industry as management introduces “empowerment” techniques (Gofton. 1999). (2006). which comprises four items: . The call center The organization in this study was a large Australian insurance company with its headquarters in Sydney. The operators had. Idealized influence attributed. Call centers were an integral part of the organization and operated 24 hours-a-day to provide immediate customer service. Taylorism and personnel management (Marshall and Richardson.

1 to 150) so that their responses could remain anonymous. Procedure Senior management was asked to provide a list of the names of all customer service operators and their immediate supervisors. Principal components analyses Principal components analyses and internal reliability analyses were conducted in SPSS whilst confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in AMOS. Principal component analyses were conducted to examine the factor structures of the MLQ’s sub-scales and the scales used for the mediating and dependent variables. The three-item 10 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) Satisfaction scale from the MLQ was used to measure satisfaction with the leader. transformational leadership. trust. Line-managers were asked to rate the performance of the operators that they supervised. ratings of transformational leadership. The results from this analysis revealed that the first factor accounted for 22.e. Of the 150 matched questionnaires that were distributed. Confirmatory factor analyses were then conducted using structural equation . number of calls per hour). and (4) makes good use of his/her working time. a single-factor test was conducted on all of the items used to test the hypotheses that were obtained from followers (i. Note that the leaders rated the in-role performance of the followers.1 (2) works hard. empowerment. Customer service operators and their supervisors completed the questionnaires separately. except for the in-role performance data.1 per cent of the total variance in the items. trust in the leader. were obtained from the same source (i. 109 usable matched questionnaires were returned (73 per cent response rate). Operators were identified via a code (i. The issue arises therefore as to whether the covariance between the constructs is an artifact of single-source common method bias. and satisfaction with the leader were not correlated significantly with the length of the leader-follower relationship. (3) produces work of a high standard. A five-point Likert scale (i.e. and satisfaction). 0 ¼ strongly disagree. Customer service operators were invited to participate in the study and informed that their performance would be rated by their immediate supervisors (i. The line managers were well placed to know about the performance of individual operators due to the use of sophisticated methods of tracking critical components of employees’ performance (e. Finally. empowerment.e. their line manager) as part of the study.e. Furthermore.e. performance. Results All of the data. the identification code enabled each operator’s responses to be matched to those of his/her immediate supervisor. 4 ¼ strongly agree) was used with all of the measures. The use of performance data from immediate supervisors overcame some of the limitations associated commonly with common method variance. To address this issue. LODJ (1) completes his/her work by the time you have specified. 28. which indicates that common source/method variance does not explain the majority of the covariance between the scales.g. followers) using the same method.

(2) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI).1 (Hair et al.0 1 0.65 0.93 0.00 0.00 1..91 0. modeling to examine further the proposed single-factor structure of the scales: Leadership and Second-order confirmatory factor analyses were not conducted due to the sample size.001 for all correlations.019 model .015 Table I. The five transformational leadership sub-scales correlated significantly with each other.77 2.88 0.94 0.00 0.94 0.036 Intellectual stimulation 0.58 0.9 while the value of the RMSR should be less than 0.97 0.4 1 0.00 1.50 with the principal component. GFI and AGFI should all be greater than 0.3 2 0.057 Individualized consideration 0.98 0.93 0. This resulted in one item being removed from each of the scales for idealized attributed behaviors. In order to demonstrate adequate model fit.5 1 1.3 1 1.86 5.99 0.011 Idealized behaviors 0. four idealized influence attributed items.99 0.0 1 1.047 Empowerment Autonomy 0.99 0.72 0. follower Four fit indices were used to assess each scale’s factor structure: (1) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI).00 0. and intellectual stimulation. 1998).98 0.0 2 0. A total transformational leadership score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to 18 items (i.016 Meaning 0. where applicable.92 0.89 0. The inter-item correlations for some of the MLQ sub-scales for transformational leadership were unsatisfactory as evidenced by weak loadings on their principal components: An item was regarded as having a weak loading and removed from a sub-scale if it correlated less than 0.73 2. the values for CFI.035 Confirmatory factor Satisfaction 0.99 0.00 0. three idealized influence behavior items.99 0. four inspirational PLS loadings x2 df CFI GFI AGFI RMSR Transformational leadership Idealized attitudes 0.80 0.98 0.000 Impact 0.99 0.011 analysis results and PLS results for the outer Performance 2. (3) the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI). which is an adjusted form of the GFI that takes into account model complexity.98 0. Trust 16.7 2 1.e.016 Competence 0.99 0.7 2 0. and (4) the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR). The fit indices provided in Table I are. p . which indicates the amount by which the sample variances and covariances differ from estimates obtained using the hypothesized model.029 Inspirational motivation 0. and show that all of the scales had a satisfactory fit.72 5.86 3.88 2.98 0. which indicates the proportion of the observed 11 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) covariances that is explained by the model-implied covariances.9 1 0.97 0.3 1 0.5 2 1.00 1. 0. for the scale after the removal of the weak-loading item. which is affected less by sample size than other indices such as the normed fit index.99 0.89 0.00 0.98 0.95 0.00 1.

and 6.1 consideration items). More specifically.03 0.05.41 (0. Principal components analyses showed that the three items in each of the empowerment sub-scales loaded strongly onto their respective principal components. 0.76 20. performance. the final transformational leadership scale had satisfactory internal reliability as evidenced by the alpha. A total empowerment score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to the 12 empowerment items.19 (6. and four individualized 28.85 0.25 0. Satisfaction 3.34 0.40 (0. 5. r . Age 30.70 0. 1998). Scores for trust. which is larger than Nunnally’s (1978) 0.30 (0. the performance scale.24.17. 0. Empowerment 3. performance.61 0.64 0.25 (0. For each scale. and the satisfaction with the leader scale to examine their proposed uni-dimensionality. 0. Trust 4. Perform 3. The four empowerment sub-scales correlated significantly with each other.) Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.72) 0.04 (0. Table II contains the correlations between the measured variables and shows that transformational leadership had significant positive correlations with empowerment. and meaning). p .22 0.61) deviations). p . p . and satisfaction with the leader were obtained by averaging the responses to the items in each of the scales. which is deemed acceptable (Hair et al.70 criterion. impact.35 0.d. autonomy. correlations. 0. Partial least squares analysis A partial least squares (PLS) analysis was conducted to examine the mediation effects of empowerment and satisfaction on the relationships between the two types of leadership and the two dependent variables.78 0.e. all of the items loaded strongly onto one component and the fit indices shown in Table I are satisfactory for a single-factor representation of each of the scales.31 (0.74 0.01 .00 (0.78) 0.44) 0. As shown in Table II.81 (0. As shown in Table II.70) Cronbach’s alphas. The fit indices provided in Table I show that all of the sub-scales have satisfactory fit.91 0. Empowerment had significant positive Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) correlations with both performance and satisfaction. trust in the leader had a stronger correlation with satisfaction with the leader than with the in-role performance of followers. competency. Finally.6) 2.10 0. empowerment was more strongly correlated with the in-role performance of followers than with satisfaction with the leader.05 for all correlations.49) Means (standard 4. 3. the empowerment scale had an internal reliability coefficient of 0. As shown in Table II.89 (0. LODJ motivation items. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on each of the empowerment sub-scales (i. three intellectual stimulation items. PLS was selected to analyze the overall model because: Mean (s.71) Table II. 0. 12 trust.57) 0. and satisfaction.. Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the trust scale.18 0. all three of these scales had satisfactory internal reliability. trust had significant positive correlations with both performance and satisfaction. More specifically.62) 0.64. measured variables significance: r .36 (0.67) average variance extracted for the Notes: Average variance extracted for each scale is presented in parentheses on the diagonal. TF 3.

49). 1998). Leadership and . The results from the PLS analysis are presented in Figure 1 and show that: . . and . it is well suited for testing complex models. In order for a measure to have acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. which is calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient between the construct and another construct. The AVEs for the measured constructs are presented in Table II and show that the AVE was greater than 0. 1998). 1998).5 for all of the constructs. it does not require assumptions of multivariate normality. it is suitable for small samples. it should have an AVE greater than 0. Figure 1. the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by trust in the leader (H1a was therefore supported). except for empowerment (AVE ¼ 0.5 and share more variance with its items than with other constructs in the model (Chin. All of the constructs therefore had acceptable convergent and discriminant validity as the AVE for each construct is greater than the variance explained by any other construct. Bootstrapping is a method for testing the reliability of the dataset and is based on a random re-sampling of the original dataset to create new samples of the same size as the original dataset for the purpose of estimating the error of the estimated path coefficients (Chin. average communality) of the items representing a construct as obtained from the PLS analysis. it is appropriate when multicollinearity is present (Chin.e. The AVE represents the average squared loading (i. Results from the PLS analysis . The bootstrapping procedure in PLS Graph was used to test the significance of the 13 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) regression coefficients. follower . The average variance extracted (AVE) by the construct representing its items was calculated to test the convergent validity and the discriminant validity of the measured constructs.

In contrast. followers need to be empowered and to trust their leaders. First. and 14 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) . extra effort) that are distinct from the effects of other . but not job satisfaction.1 mediated partially by trust in the leader as evidenced by the significant direct effect of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader (H1b was therefore partially supported). it appears that in order to improve in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader. Specifically. idealized attributes and behaviors). trust leads to greater job satisfaction. The results revealed that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and the leaders’ ratings of the in-role performance of their followers. all of which are components of the empowerment measure used in this study. This finding is consistent with Shamir et al.g. . these findings have demonstrated that mediators can have specific effects on different outcome variables. The results have several important implications for leadership theorists and leadership practitioners.e. These findings are consistent with those of Jung and Avolio (2000) and show that transformational leadership has unique effects on followers’ satisfaction with the leader. but not performance. in part. the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by empowerment (H2a was therefore supported). their ability to control their environment. The implications of the findings for leadership theorists are that a fine-grained approach is required to understand the leadership “black box” in that different mediators were found to affect different outcomes. and their perception of task meaningfulness.’s (1993) theory which states that the transformational effects of charismatic leadership are due. Shamir et al. the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were not mediated by empowerment (H2b was therefore not supported). (1993) regarded transformational leadership as directly affecting followers’ sense of competence. self-efficacy) having effects on specific outcome variables (e. to evoke admiration of and identification with the leader. the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were 28. in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader) were examined. The results also revealed that trust in the leader partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction with the leader. It stands to reason that empowering followers helps them to perform their jobs more so than does trust in the leader because empowerment involves behaviors that directly influence how followers perceive and perform their work.e. In sum. It is noteworthy that the in-role performance of followers was more closely related to empowerment than to trust in the leader. to changes in the self-concept of followers. The only significant direct effect was that of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader.g. a fine-grained approach would recognize the likelihood of some mediators (e. More specifically. The findings indicate that empowerment leads to improved performance. LODJ . presumably due to its charismatic components (i. their values. Discussion The mediating effects of psychological empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i. It might be the case that these unique effects stem from the capacity of transformational leadership.

which has high levels of control. for various reasons (e. although the in-role performance of followers was rated by their leaders to circumvent the effects of common method bias. the call-center industry should continue to introduce and experiment with workplace innovations that foster psychological empowerment rather than rely on transactional behaviors that emphasize economic exchanges and solving work-related problems. Limitations Some limitations need to be mentioned. task structure and follower expertise) in the relationship between transformational 15 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) leadership and both trust in the leader and empowerment could also be explored via qualitative approaches. issues such as the role of contextual factors (e. to develop trusting leader-follower relationships. leaders can facilitate the development of perceptions of trustworthiness through competence. in a call-center context. standardization and formalization.g. it would have been better if the in-role performance of followers was measured using objective data such as average call time. leadership selection should include the personality and the motives of leadership candidates because some candidates who are highly competent may be unable. Second. These data are collected routinely by call-centers but the researchers were not allowed access to such data. As Gofton (1999) suggested. As has been shown in this study. Furthermore. for example. Interview-based data.g. Additionally. The implications of the findings for leadership practitioners are quite clear. responsibility. mediators (e. may reveal details on how leaders actually empower followers and on how the development of trust is associated with empowerment. First. and being genuinely concerned about the best interests of their followers. data were collected from a single organization in the call-centre industry and therefore the generalizability of the findings is questionable. trust in the leader may also influence other important outcomes such as organizational commitment. empowerment. the data for transformational leadership. as well as by increasing the accountability. and independent decision-making authority of employees. Finally. . the fair treatment of their followers. Additionally. followers) and this method may bias the relationships between these variables. These findings have significant consequences for managerial practice and for human resource development.e. Machiavellian tendencies).g. trust and empowerment) on these variables. transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers by empowering them and by developing trust in the leader. trust. It can be inferred from the findings that trust in the leader is an important outcome of transformational leadership as trust mediated the relationship between such leadership and both satisfaction with the leader and performance. Although trustworthiness appears relatively easy to achieve. First. call-center management can better ensure the long-term productivity and skill development of employees by providing them with flexible working hours and opportunities for developing problem solving skills. and satisfaction were obtained via a common method from a single source (i. more light can Leadership and be shed into the black box of leadership by utilizing qualitative methodologies that follower examine processual issues associated with transformational leadership. Given that trust in the leader enhances satisfaction with the leader.

W. Vol. 295-336. (1993).. “Trust and the relationship between leadership and follower performance: opening the black box in Australia and China”. R. 112-21. Vol. Psychological Review. pp. (1978). Vol. “Empowerment: the emperor’s new clothes”. T. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. and Wall. B. J.1 Future research needs to incorporate other variables that affect important outcome variables. 76 No. Bennis. 3. 19-28. J. J. Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. pp. Vol. Public Administration Quarterly. “Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect”. as mentioned earlier. and Avolio. 25. B. B. pp. pp. (2000). Koh. and Cantrell. New York. Curtis. The current study could be extended. Bass. pp. Organizational Dynamics. 72-88. References Argyris. 53. Academy of Management Review. (1985). C. Chin. 191-215. Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge. and Bebb.. 471-82. . Journal of Organizational Behavior. London. W. pp. Zhu. 951-68. J. R. New York. Journal of Occupational Psychology. Thousand Oaks. pp. “Call-centers must adapt their ways”. 747-59. pp.). Kanungo. R. G. (1980). 17. (1990). “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”. and Kanungo. CA. Vol. W. such as growth need strength (Hackman and Oldham. 22. (1998). NY. Sage. NY. B. (1999). J. New York. LODJ Future research 28. B. T. pp. B. (Ed.. 73-87. Vol. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”. S. 21. by including the personality of the followers because it is well established that aspects of personality (e. (1988). 1980) influence 16 reactions to empowerment. for example. S. J. Conger. 12.. neuroticism) influence one’s propensity to trust. G. B... B. pp. B. Bartram. and Nanus. Cook. Bass. (1997). “A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates”. and Yang. Vol. Finally. Harper Business. Leadership. 84. 39-52. in Marcoulides. Vol. “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling”. P. 18. Bass. 55. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. pp. Burns. 13 No. “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”. 33-41. (1987). Vol. 12. NY.. Bass. (1998). Casimir. (1994).g. other aspects of personality. (2006). Journal of Organizational Behavior. and Menon. Vol. Harvard Business Review. Vol. D. Butler. Bass. M. (1984). and Bhatia. (1977). D. Waldman. Bandura. Modern Methods for Business Research. Group and Organization Studies. Avolio. Waldman. and Avolio. 98-105. pp. A. “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change”. Avolio. pp. Vol. organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment”. Psychological Reports. Conger. B. 19-31. Moreover. Marketing. Harper & Row. Free Press. (2004). “Charismatic leadership and follower effects”. W. 3. “New work attitude measures of trust. qualitative methodologies Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) would be useful for examining processual issues associated with transformational leadership and its effects on followers. “Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance”.

in Avolio. 21 No. Jung. 41-59. J. J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. J. IL. Garcı́a-Morales. (2000). Work and the Nature of Man. J. and Verdú-Jover. and the motivation core”. and Locke. Vol. Chicago. Vol. and Black. 106 Nos 1-2. and Sivasubramaniam. Gofton. McGraw-Hill. Oxford. F. N. Tatham. “Telemarketing league tables: technology spurs call centre growth”. The Leadership Quarterly. pp. B. Cleveland. 3. Vol. San Francisco. Credibility: How leaders Gain and Lose It. N. F. CA. F. and Posner. Hair. 7-23. The Service Industries Journal. “Call-centers widen their field of vision”. and House. “The shared leadership challenge in strategic alliances: lessons from the US healthcare industry”. pp. B. R. Work Redesign. 2. Marketing.. and Shamir. Vol. 1. (1991). (1989). Llorens-Montes. Kouzes. Lowe. Academy of Management Executive. 709-34. “The motivation sequence. R. Locke. Nanus. NJ. E. 24 Nos 5-6. 385-425. R. pp. Academy of Management Journal. Marketing. Kark. J. pp. NY. Nunnally. Kirkman. (2001). (2003). pp.C. pp. 2. (1995). 19 No. Multivariate Data Analysis. (2006). Davis. (1999). Marketing. Vol. B. pp. . pp. Vol. 2. W. and Avolio. and Schoorman. Vol. Vol. Vol. and Rosen. 28 No. K. Vol. Anderson. “Tele-services. “The impact of workplace empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment”. Industrial Management & Data Systems. The Leader’s Edge: The Seven Keys to Leadership in a Turbulent World. Judge. call-centres and urban and regional development”. (1999). Kirkpatrick. K. and Yammarino. 1. 21-42. 7 No. and Why People Demand It. J. (Eds).. (1996). “Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness”. Academy of Management Executive. Addison-Wesley. Herzberg. Mayer. (2001). Vol. 96-116. 71-9. (1998). 317-38. (2002). 949-64. 288-99. OH. Ozaralli.. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 15. K. and Ryman. 48-60. pp. B. Academy of Management Review. pp. Vol. follower Gilmore. K. 8. Upper Saddle River. “Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment”. Prentice-Hall. and Richardson. (1980). pp. R. S. 25. (1978). Laschinger. 50 No. 26. B. pp.. G. New York. (1993). J.. Gronn. 22. A. “An integration model of organizational trust”. 20-32.. Marshall. Jossey-Bass. pp. The Leadership Quarterly. B. J. F. 20 No. “Leadership: do traits matter?”. McLuhan. J. Kroeck. “Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership”. 3. pp. 335-44. Reading. the motivation hub. Vol. 267-91. Vol. Elsevier Science. 6 No. A. D. Psychometric Theory. Klein. 42 No. 33-42. 5 No. pp. pp. W. 2. B. “Call-centers grow in size and range”. (2000). Journal of Organizational Behavior. “Antecedents and Leadership and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship”. Health Care Management Review. Vol. pp. MA. (1966). 56-74. 183-98. “Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership”. Educational Management and Administration. R. R. Finegan. (1991). “Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature”. H. (1995). V. and Oldham. 15. “On fire: charismatic leadership and levels of analysis”. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. R. World Publishing. (2001). Contemporary Books. and Shamian. E. (2000). Vol. 17 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) Hackman. “The dual effects of transformational leadership: priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers”. (1999). P.

2. Further reading Adams. S. E. Walton. 1 No. Taylor. 513-30. Academic Press. pp. Academy of Management Review. (1993). satisfaction. 2. B. 1005-16. (1983).. 107-42. (2000). Avolio. Blau. “Taking empowerment to the next level: Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) a multiple-level model of empowerment. (Ed. M. pp. 130-9. pp. (1995). “The support of autonomy and control of behavior”. (1986). and Fetter. 577-94. pp. S. Vol. pp. pp. The Leadership Quarterly. Spreitzer. Vol. 53. “A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness. (1965). Academy of Management Journal. Harvard Business Review. LODJ Pillai. 39 No. 4. S. L. Spector. Vol. MacKenzie. R. Bass. Prentice-Hall. J. (1990). Silver. P. C. 199-218.. The Logic and Limits of Trust. Block. Thomas. “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”. “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions. 4. 679-704. San Francisco. and Randolph. B. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 77-84. Bromiley. Rutgers University Press. Barber. pp. Academy of Management Journal. pp. M. New York. NJ. S. “Analyzing research on transformative learning theory”. 18 Seibert. Deci. “Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work”. 2. (1997). and Ryan.1 Management. pp. 1024-37. (1964). Berrett-Koehler. and Williams. E. S. Jossey-Bass.. San Francisco. M. New York. Vol. (1995). performance. Vol. B. 63 No. pp. Vol. Vol. B.. Organization Science. Journal of Management. (1998). Vol. and Cummings. pp. (1990). B. J. (1993).). and Velthouse. Atlanta. and Bass. measurement and validation”. 666-81. Vol. (1985). 6. “Organizations with trust: theory and measurement”. P.. 332-50. in Berkowitz. 897-933. K. (1997). 15 No. Exchange and Power in Social Life. R. satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors”. and Werner. “Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial behavior”. Podsakoff.. “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory”. pp. W. Whitener. Human Relations. 23 No. Moorman. E. A. American Psychologist. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Journal of 28. NY. “From control to commitment in the workplace”. Stewardship. (1986). pp. “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an integrative model of intrinsic task motivation”. R. House. CA. 185-217. John Wiley. Brodt. Spreitzer. P. “Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership”. 23. . (1985). G. B. 4 No. “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study”. 6. 267-300. 11. G. “Injustice in social exchange”. Korsgaard. and Arthur. and strain”. 38. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View. R. NJ. Kizilos.. (1999). The Leadership Quarterly. CA. (2004). pp. paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management.. L. 52. P. and Nason. 47. R. GA. Schreisheim. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. P. NY. 25 No. New Brunswick. E. and satisfaction”. Vol. Vol. Shamir. 3. in Mezirow. Vol. J. Academy of Management Review. and Associates (Eds). Vol. pp. Englewood Cliffs. R. 1442-56. “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader. (1993). Bandura.

(1986). (1994). 10 Steps to Empowerment: A Common Sense Guide to Managing People. G. Shamir. and Waterman. M. Jackson. “Employee reactions to job characteristics”. Vol. B. Men and Women of the Corporation. D. “The bases of social power”. William Morrow. R. Academy of Management Journal. New York. and Pugh. M. Waldman. New York. W. The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American Corporation. Academy of Management Journal. NY. pp. 134-43. Jossey-Bass. (1990). D. J. in Cartwright. French. Lawler. (Ed. J. “Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: flexible productions systems in the world auto industry”. “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behaviour and human resource management”. 373-89. 656-69. McGraw-Hill. 19-47. 259-85. pp. “Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty”. J. Boston. J. NY. NY. New York. and Puranam. R. Studies in Leadership and Social Power. NY. Vol. Basic Books. (1959). (1987). E. New York. Corresponding author Timothy Bartram can be contacted at: t. New York. Vol. and Raven. 10. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. and Lawler. D. Huselid. B. Work and Motivation. E. M. Academy of Management Journal.bartram@latrobe. 19 Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) Herrenkohl. (1983). (1982). “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”. Ramirez. Gabarro. NY. (1987). Vol. 60. Vol. D. (1964). Or visit our web site for further details: www. (1997). (1995). pp. Industrial and Relations Review. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.. Waldman. Vol. Journal of Applied Psychology. Hackman. Vroom. McGregor. Research in Organizational Change and Development. R. Kanter. House. G. pp. (2001). Peters. R. V. Journal of Occupational Psychology. “Technical and strategic human resource management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance”. Vol. Harvard Business School. NY.). High Involvement Management. University of Michigan. . 171-88.. (1971). pp. “Toward a common ground in defining empowerment”. New York. (1967). Vol. Konovsky. S. 55. 177-86. The Leadership Quarterly. P. and Heffner. pp. follower Gist. 12. J. Wiley. 1. (1995). pp. The Professional Manager. 150-67. Simon & Schuster.emeraldinsight. Tracey. 37 No. R. 31-62. (1987). S. 6 No. R. MA. Spreitzer. T. Academy of Management Journal. Kanter. “Leadership and outcomes of performance appraisal processes”. 197-221. MacDuffie. (1999). “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”.edu. and Einstein. 40 No. MI. Vol. Judson. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies. D. B. 1.. 472-85. CA. “Defining and measuring employee empowerment”. G. 3. (1997).. Ann Arbor. Harper & Row. pp. 3. (1977).. pp. pp. Bass. and Schuler. 44 No. San Francisco. The Dynamics of Taking Charge. 35.

2016. 946. RMIT University. social connectedness and health and well-being of older and retired men: the role of Men’s Sheds. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro. Germany . [CrossRef] 11. Individual and organizational support: does it affect red tape. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management . Samar K. [CrossRef] 9. Melbourne. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 10. Is trust in leadership a mediator between transformational leadership and in-role performance among small-scale factory workers?. Badir. Leonard I. 1645-1657. 2016. How to increase organizational commitment through transactional leadership. Ibeawuchi K. 3-22. [CrossRef] 8. Yvonne Brunetto Southern Cross University Coolangatta Australia Stephen T. [CrossRef] 4. Viviola Gómez-Ortiz. [Abstract] [PDF] 2. Bilal Afsar. Unveiling the link between facets of positive nonverbal communication and perceived leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37:4. Panagiotis Gkorezis. Siah Hwee Ang. Journal of Cleaner Production 112. Roger Seifert. 2016. Yuosre F. Lyria Esperanza Perilla-Toro. [CrossRef] 6.T. [CrossRef] 13. 2016. Esther U. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1-31. the Merrier: Why and How Employee-Driven Eco-Innovation Enhances Environmental and Competitive Advantage. TU Dortmund University. Personnel Review 46:4. Orji. Tim Marjoribanks. Dortmund. 310-330. Nguyen Van Minh. 1340-1366. stress and work outcomes of police officers in the USA?. . Mei-Ling Yuan. Relación del estilo de liderazgo transformacional Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) con la salud y el bienestar del empleado: el rol mediador de la confianza en el líder. Amie Southcombe. Susanne Blazejewski. [CrossRef] 5. Personnel Review 45:6. Human Performance 29:4. Victoria Bellou. Elshaer. Review of Managerial Science 10:4. 2016. Jaume Llorens-Monzonís. Linking transformational leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. BorgmannLars Lars Borgmann RowoldJens Jens Rowold BormannKai Christian Kai Christian Bormann Center of Continuing Education. Melbourne. [CrossRef] 3. The impact of leaders’ technical competence on employees’ innovation and learning. RMIT University. Enwereuzor. 234-246. Anke Buhl. Tim Bartram. [CrossRef] 12. Ugwu. 2016. 2017. Franziska Dittmer. Saad. Nguyen Ngoc Quang. 2017. Leila Afshari Graduate School of Business and Law. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 35. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 27. This article has been cited by: 1. Sustainability 8:9. 629-648. Jillian Cavanagh. Integrating leadership research: a meta-analytical test of Yukl’s meta-categories of leadership. Ibrahim A. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7. The More. Jen-Wei Cheng. Australia . Leisure and Events 9:1. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones . Lamiaa Moustafa Mohamed. Teo RMIT University Melbourne Australia Rod Farr-Wharton University of the Sunshine Coast Maroochydore Australia Kate Shacklock Griffith University Gold Coast Australia Art Shriberg Xavier University Cincinnati United States . Vicent Tortosa-Edo. 507-519. Political instability and tourism in Egypt: exploring survivors’ attitudes after downsizing. Human resource management. Residents' behaviour as a function of cognitive appraisals and affective responses toward a petrochemical industrial complex. [CrossRef] . Assessing the effects of transformational leadership: A study on Egyptian hotel employees. Nicola McNeil. 2017. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism. Australia Paul Gibson Graduate School of Business and Law. 49-59. 2017. 2016. 2015. 2016. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen.

India . 2014. Value-based performance excellence model for higher education institutions. Susanne Tafvelin. Mohd Rashid Bin Ab Hamid. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:1. The Leadership Quarterly 25:3. Curtin University. Social identification: linking high performance work systems. Lappeenranta. 350-370. and Society 45:1. Philmore Alleyne. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 20. Sandra G. How Can Organization Retain IT Personnel? Impact of IT Manager’s Leadership on IT Personnel’s Intention to Stay. Jammu. 2014. Anthony S. Sangwon Park. Australia Kandy Dayaram School of Management. Rhine. [CrossRef] 17. Hong Kong . The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25:20. Yue Zhu. University of Jammu. pride in being a follower of the leader and organizational commitment. [CrossRef] 16. Why trust the head? Key practices for transformational school leaders to build a purposeful relationship of trust. [CrossRef] 15. The Journal of Arts Management. 473-488. Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) Finland . 2015. 2015. The mediating effects of cognition-based trust and affect-based trust in transformational leadership's dual processes: evidence from China. Mak Department of Management and Marketing. Timothy Bartram. Chan Department of Management and Marketing. 3-21. [CrossRef] 24. Transformational leadership. Teresa Aguiar Quintana. Health & Social Care in the Community 22:5. Akhentoolove Corbin. Assessing the Effects of Leadership Styles on Employees’ Outcomes in International Luxury Hotels. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36:5. Journal of Business Ethics . Pauline Stanton. 388-409. Leggat. 674-690.M. Anna-Maija Nisula School of Business. Purwokerto. [CrossRef] 27. Journal of Business Ethics 129:2. Jeevan Jyoti Department of Commerce. University of Jammu. Leila Karimi. Kowloon. The importance of leadership style and psychosocial work environment to staff-assessed quality of care: implications for home help services. 2014. 2401-2419. 2014. 2015. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25:17. 316-330. Stein Amundsen. 2014. Syed Akhtar. Jammu. International Journal of Leadership in Education 17:4. [CrossRef] 22. Kristina Westerberg. [CrossRef] 19. Hong Kong W. psychological empowerment and patient care. The impact of transformational leadership on employee creativity: the role of learning orientation. Clive R. Mike Tae-in Eom. 1919-1944.H. Information Systems Management 32:4. Yasmina Araujo Cabrera. Perth. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Paul Browning. [CrossRef] 25. Kowloon. Simon C. 2015. India Manisha Dev Department of Commerce. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism 13:4. [CrossRef] 21. Martinsen. Boddy. 78-98. Indonesia John Burgess School of Management. 2014. 2014. Øyvind L. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 18. An Examination of the Perceptions of Stakeholders on Authentic Leadership in Strategic Planning in Nonprofit Arts Organizations. 2015. 487-511. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The relationship between supervisor support and individual improvisation. 2015. conceptualization. Law. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 23. 14. Senior Managers’ Perceptions of Shared Leadership in the Hospitality Industry in a Small Island Developing State. [CrossRef] 28. Psychopathic Leadership A Case Study of a Corporate Psychopath CEO. Quality & Quantity 49:5. [CrossRef] 26. Adi Indrayanto Jenderal Soedirman University. 2015. 461-468. Empowering leadership: Construct clarification. 469-489. and validation of a new scale. Lappeenranta University of Technology. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 35:8. 2755-2771. Curtin .

Thompson. Nooreha Husain. Productivity Review 26:4. Randall L. [CrossRef] . Karthik Namasivayam Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne. Marcio Colmerauer. Nadia DeGama. 2013. KohlesDo I Trust You to Lead the Way? Exploring Trust and Mistrust in Leader Follower Relations 89-112. 2014. Wallapha Ariratana. Fazli Idris. Switzerland Priyanko Guchait Conrad Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) N. Jie-Tsuen Huang. Juliana Mansur. A case study of transformational leadership and para-police performance in Indonesia. Bligh. The Mediating Effects of Psychological Empowerment on The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Creativity. The influence of leader empowering behaviors and employee psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction. 292-306. 2012. Lessons for China 1295-1307. Australia Management Study Program. Lausanne. Ignacio Alejandro Mendoza Martínez. Perceived leadership soft skills and trustworthiness of deans in three Malaysian public universities. Indonesia . Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23:5-6. 579-599. [CrossRef] 33. Nur Riza Mohd Suradi. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42. University. USA . Blanca Rosa García Rivera. Marco Tulio Zanini. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 12:3. [CrossRef] 37. The Academy of Management Annals 7:1. [CrossRef] 34. [CrossRef] 30. A Critical Assessment of Charismatic—Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management. Pennsylvania. 2014. E103-E127. Keow Ngang Tang. and Job Performance. [CrossRef] 36. Brawijaya University. Courvisanos Jerry. 69-84. 2013. 2012. YoungChul Chang. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51:3. [CrossRef] 41. Mohd Rashid Ab Hamid. 2012. Thompson. Jillian Cavanagh. [CrossRef] 32. Cavagnoli DonatellaA tale of two strategies: Framework for evaluating human resource management and innovation in Australia &#8212. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 85:4. [CrossRef] 35. 2013. Acta de Investigación Psicológica 4:1. John Richard Knight. Os elementos de coordenação informal em uma unidade policial de operações especiais. Be Proactive as Empowered? The Role of Trust in One's Supervisor in Psychological Empowerment. 2013. Leonard Karakowsky. Michelle C. 106-125. The Australian Men's Sheds movement: human resource management in a voluntary organisation. [CrossRef] 38. Houston. 373-388. Carmen Pires Migueles. Sitkin. Feedback Seeking. Sim B. University of Houston. Jesús Felipe Uribe Prado. 211-224. [CrossRef] 39. Kenneth McBey. 557-572. Mokhtar Abdullah. Zainol Mustafa. Perth. Nicola McNeil. Elizabeth H. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 29. Timothy Bartram. 1-60. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:1. 2013. University Park. 60-77. 97-126. 2014. 2012. Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The overlooked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Saowanee Treputharan. Texas. USA Puiwa Lei The Pennsylvania State University. Jeffrey C. [CrossRef] 40. Daan van Knippenberg. Acceptance Levels of Traditional and Nontraditional Superintendents by Experienced Educators. Value-based total performance excellence model: A conceptual framework for organisations. ###. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture 3:4. Wan Rosmanira Ismail. 1412-1429. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37:2. Malang. Revista de Administração Contemporânea 17:1. Liderazgo y su Relación con Variables De Resultado: un Modelo Estructural Comparativo entre Liderazgo Transformacional y Transaccional en una Empresa de Entretenimiento en México. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 31.

Jan Atwell. MuchiriFaculty of Arts. USA. Innovation: Management. CQUniversity. 377-400. Kun Chang LeeAn Empirical Analysis of Leadership Styles and Their Impact on Creativity: Emphasis on Korean ICT Companies 187-196. Montreal. Greece Theodore MaroudasUniversity of Macedonia. Australia Lee V. Australia Fred O. Faculty of Arts. Wenxing LiuThe Impact of Performance Management Orientations and Appraisal Justices on Employee's Knowledge Sharing Behaviors 213-217. Empowerment. MorinUniversity of Sherbrooke. Australia Ray W. Sydney. Zoe S. Examining the effects of substitutes for leadership on performance outcomes. [CrossRef] . Montreal. Business. MuchiriSchool of Management and Marketing. [CrossRef] 48. Dae Sung Lee. Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential factors. Jiang ChengchengThe effect of human resource management practices on firm's competitive advantage: Role of dynamic capabilities and uncertain environment 212-216. Thessaloniki. Policy & Practice 13:1. Pengcheng Zhang. Thessaloniki. Workplace interactions and the polymorphic role of e‐mail. Nam Yong Jo. [CrossRef] 47. Geriatric Nursing 32:3. 2007. Informatics and Education. University of Montreal. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 51. 2011. Implementing Transformational Leadership in Long- Term Care. 462-492. 2011. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30:7. Kijpokin KasemsapDeveloping a Unified Framework and a Causal Model of Transformational Leadership. Subodh Kulkarni. Transforming Government: People. 2009. CQUniversity. WalumbwaW. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32:8. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 45. 2007. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22:13. Australia. and Organizational Innovation 381-406. Carey School of Business. Rockhampton. Rachel Anderson. Informatics and Education. Aston University. Jean‐Sébastien BoudriasDepartment of Psychology. University of New England. Di MiliaSchool of Management and Marketing.P. Process and Policy 1:4. Birmingham. Canada Patrick GaudreauFaculty of Social Sciences. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 54. Australia Ray W. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32:5. Business. Rockhampton. 574-599. Employee empowerment. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 49. Armidale. Donatella Cavagnoli. Armidale. 308-324. Jordanstown. Kevin BairdMacquarie University. University of New England. Business. UK. Greece. Canada Alexandre J. 2011. UK Mark PalmerAston Business School. 625-638. UK Owen HargieSchool of Communication. Nagarajan Ramamoorthy. [CrossRef] 44. Ottawa. [CrossRef] 50. 2011. Jordanstown. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 43. Canada André SavoieUniversity of Montreal. Innovation Support. Sherbrooke. University of Ulster. 111-125. 2010. Faculty of Arts. Sydney. Gender and managerial level differences in perceptions of effective leadership. Leader–member exchange. Canada. Australia Haiyin WangMacquarie University. Personnel Review 39:5. CookseySchool of Business Economics and Public Policy. Rose Utley.S. Paula O'KaneSchool of Business Organization and Management. [CrossRef] 52. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28:4. Tempe. Michael K. University of Ottawa. CQ University. Australia. DimitriadesUniversity of Macedonia. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 53. 212-219. and hierarchical governance. subordinate stewardship. 2770-2793. CookseySchool of Business Economics and Public Policy. [CrossRef] 46. 42. Informatics and Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) Education. Internal service climate and psychological empowerment among public employees. Rockhampton. 817-836. 2011. University of Ulster. Arizona State University. Michael K. Arizona. A conceptual framework for innovation: An application to human resource management policies in Australia.

55. Kijpokin KasemsapDeveloping a Unified Framework and a Causal Model of Transformational Leadership. Empowerment. [CrossRef] Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT) . and Organizational Innovation 280-303. Innovation Support.