LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Leaders CSE and Team Performance

Leader’s Core-Self Evaluation had gained specifically more importance, as the call for the
ethical status had raised in the present business scenario. Leaders’ Core Self-Evaluation had
always held its impact on moral leadership and in balancing out the term between team members,
this is recognized by the two-folded theories; Self-Verification Theory and Social Exchange
Theory. There exists a positive effect of Leaders’ Core Self Evaluation on its team members and
indirectly on team’s performance [ CITATION Ahn16 \l 1033 ]. The follower’s Organizational
Citizenship Behavior is beleaguered, both at the organization and individual, by the Leader’s
Core Self-Evaluation. Leader’s Core Self-Evaluation had a positive upshot on Team performance
and these effects are mediated by leader’s moral behavior. The presence of personality-
performance relationship, Leader’s CSE and team performance, are always linked-up.
Leadership’s core-self evaluation and its relationship with team performance, varies from
follower’s collective orientation [ CITATION Zhe12 \l 1033 ].
Leader’s Personality is unification of core dimensions of personality and self-potency. Leader’s
sense of self-potency helps in grasping the verification and identification of leader’s Core Self-
Evaluation. Likewise, Leader’s CSE had influence on the entrepreurial orientation. Therefore,
leaders’ personalities reflect higher CSE, that had a stronger and subjugated effect on team
performance [CITATION Sim09 \l 1033 ]. There is great impact of leader’s core personality traits on
team’s outcomes and hence it includes following aspects; locus of control, neuroticism, self-
esteem, all this phenomenon had ability to alter leadership’s quality to perform. This process
effects the coaching ways and indirectly effects team performance [CITATION Mac15 \l 1033 ].
There exists a positive relationship between Leader’s Core Self-Evaluation and Team
Performance and this is calculated by the applying random effects’ model. Task complexity
significantly moderated the shared leadership, with lower effect sizes observed with more
complex tasks [CITATION EMa14 \l 1033 ]. Team performance could be enhanced only by
developing accurate evaluation of leaders’ core-self evaluation. Leader’s personality includes
quality of supervision, this is the only reason, why team leader is responsible for every leading
designation, finding and analysis. Team performance depends upon leader’s respect, integrity,
responsibility and commitment that reflects and bling-up in over-all performance [CITATION
Che09 \l 1033 ].

The detail theoretical over-view about team diversity and team leadership. The leader’s Core-
Self Evaluation helps him to define favorable and unfavorable processes that comes in the way to
deliver as leader. The self-focused leadership behaviour is necessary for associative relationship
between team individuals [ CITATION Hom20 \l 1033 ]. The focused relationship between Core-Self
Evaluation and motivated leadership, pays a vital part in beneficial team work and monitored
leadership [ CITATION Cra19 \l 1033 ]. Core-Self Evaluation had valuable role for critical work
outcomes. However, less attention is given to leader’s CSE and leader’s engagement. The
mediator between these concepts is working culture evolved in process of interaction between
leader and his team [ CITATION bal19 \l 1033 ].

2.1.1 Leader’s Self-Esteem and Team Performance

Task performance is affected by a unique relationship of leader’s authoritarian behaviour due to
CSE and team member’s innovative behaviour. Self-monitoring and behavioural plasticity,
marks association between this relationship that it is based on leader’s self-presentation, which is
one of the major reasons for up-raised performance of team. leader’s CSE is stronger and more
positive under high organizational self-esteem. While on the other side, the team members under
effective leadership had positive association with task performance [CITATION Ran10 \l 1033 ].
Self-efficacy, team’s motivation and work performance, are all inter-linked and interdependent
on each other. This process includes; the dependence of self-efficacy on leader and his team’s
work related outcomes in relation to the motivation level; motivated leaders’ self-efficacy effects
performance of individuals in team, thus, it becomes a necessary condition to ensure leader’s
CSE along with his self-efficacy [CITATION Che13 \l 1033 ].
To analyze performance of team, one should analyze leader’s knowledge gained and team
interconnection. Thus, elements like leader’s CSE helps to predefine team’s performance
[CITATION Sta061 \l 1033 ]. Leader’s self-confidence and effectiveness, put forward great
difference on subordinates that how they perform in team and status of leader, matters in a way,
how they handle the work process. On the one side, the leader with the high-status performs well
if they adopt participative style, while on the other hand, leader’s with relatively low-status are
relatively more affective and influencive for team’s subordinates. The whole process is mediated
by leader’s CSE and his self-confidence [CITATION Sau \l 1033 ].
The most re-owned relationship in team performance is association between leader’s CSE and
his self-confidence. Leader’s self-efficacy is appointed as one of the key variables for leadership
perspective, which regulate the leaders’ CSE and his working abilities that change the whole
performance environment [ CITATION McC011 \l 1033 ]. Having belief in one’s capability to
perform a task, is named as self-efficacy and this phenomenon effects the working action and
performance level. Both leader’s CSE and his quality of self-efficacy organizes team’s behaviour
and work management [ CITATION EGi87 \l 1033 ].
The existence of core linkage between moral leadership and team performance, if there of
presence of consistent social exchange, learning and identity. The people will similar traits work
more comfortably and are more satisfied which ultimately changes the over-all team
performance [CITATION OWa11 \l 1033 ]. The positive feedback from leader and his behaviour is
used as a tool to measure the scale of performance done by the team at an average. The in-depth
research of Leader’s Core-Self Evaluation has expressed that there are several mediators that
puts a subjugated effect on team performance, this shows that alone leader’s CSE could not
make a change but factors like; leader’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, neuroticism and locus of
control, had collective effect on team’s performance [ CITATION Hai19 \l 1033 ]. The Leader’s Self-
esteem is functioned and managed by socio-scale and hiero-scale [ CITATION Mah19 \l 1033 ]. The
team performance and leader’s self-esteem are inter-linked with each other, as good team
performance may help leader to have believe in himself, while motivated leader influences the
performance of team [ CITATION Par19 \l 1033 ].

2.1.2 Leader’s Self-Efficacy and Team Performance

For leader’s performance only self-efficacy of leaders, might be necessary but not sufficient. It
has to be for the team members also need to acquire quality of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy helps
to predict leader’s behaviour in work performance and similarly, team member’s self-efficacy
determines their working behaviour. Due to self-efficacy, women proved to be less affective
leaders than men [ CITATION McC02 \l 1033 ]. Leader’s with feeling of humility do not work
effectively and strength of expressed humility predicts individual and leader’s performance, due
to this unique feature the inclusive team performance is affected [CITATION Owe13 \l 1033 ].
The increase in the concept of headships, has specifically gave more importance to the leader’s
CSE and self-efficacy, over the last two decades. The futuristic study of leader’s self-efficacy
assists to mark the dimension and prospects that could be follow to enhance the performance
chart of team [ CITATION New19 \l 1033 ]. The work management and firm model supports the
integration of performance under leader’s Self-efficacy and the core-self evaluation. The Self-
efficacy includes the traits of dominance of leader that induces the abilities to manage work-
related factors well and more efficiently [ CITATION Pal19 \l 1033 ].
The comparative analysis of leader’s self-efficacy makes is obligatory, that abusive and
incompetent leadership could be eliminated and even minimized by certain supervisory factors.
Self-efficacy and task-oriented behaviour of leadership, builds a sense of positive affiliation in
working environment [ CITATION Qin19 \l 1033 ]. The collective efficacy of leader plays a
mediating role between the team and the leader, while this mediation is used in organizational
linkage, that further expands the sphere of performance for a team. A Bonafede leadership with
the quality of self-efficacy not only develops oneself but also causes the whole team to grow and
perform well [CITATION Col19 \l 1033 ].
The Leader’s self-efficacy is denoted as a commitment between leader and the followers, that
predefines the leadership type, even in the initial training sessions. Usually the term is associated
with the motivated leadership and safety leadership that over-rated the process of outcome.
[ CITATION Ric19 \l 1033 ] . Leader’s self-efficacy plays a critical role in the attainment of
operational and functional goals, therefore, there is a positive response of self-efficacy on leader
and his team, which collectively brings a slant change in team performance. By self-efficacy, a
leader develops a positive attitude towards its team and strive to promote worthy team
performance [ CITATION Ade19 \l 1033 ].
Leader’s self-efficacy and motivated team, interact with each other to affect the quality of team
service. This is also mentioned that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between leader and
his service. This means that high leader’s self-efficacy ensures the high team performance
[ CITATION Qiu20 \l 1033 ].
High-team performance in all dependent on the leader and his quality of self-efficacy, which
encourages followers to work better under more effective vibes. The important mechanism to
measure the working performance or outcome is self-efficacy of leader, which ultimately serves
as a bridge between leader’s CSE and performance [ CITATION Wat20 \l 1033 ]. The leadership not
only includes the character of a person, who heads but also includes the abilities of its team
individuals. Therefore, everyone in a team, whether it’s leader or followers, Self-efficacy shall
be concerned greatly. Self-efficacy determines the leader and his abilities to operate a team and
its dependent on this factor, that who much peaked performance a team could attain [ CITATION
Tur20 \l 1033 ].

the characteristics of supervisors enhance job performance through higher quality of leader–
member exchange and self-efficacy, while the characteristics of supervisors does not directly
impact performance and leader–member exchange and self-efficacy are the full mediators
[ CITATION Kho19 \l 1033 ].

2.1.3 Leader’s Neuroticism and Team Performance

There exists strong dependence on leader’s neuroticism and a great deal of matter to concerned
with. The presence of satisfactory relationship of leader’s neuroticism and moral leadership, is
ensured if it is considered in separation. The moment when abilities and personalities were
recognized, the bonding between the two concepts was derived more prominently but less
significantly [CITATION Cav12 \l 1033 ]. The concepts like leader’s effectiveness, emotional state
or mental position, are all inter-linked with each other, especially the leader’s neuroticism and
service climate. This phenomenon effects the over-all team effectiveness and emotional position,
of both, the leader and team members [CITATION Tra11 \l 1033 ].
Leader’s behaviour especially the one of emotional nature are all associated with successful team
outcomes. The emotional state of leader is considered as a unique feature that differs one leader
from the other. This condition is idealized by other subordinates as an essential element, while
bearing in mind, the work actions and task performance [ CITATION Cla10 \l 1033 ] . The
contribution of emotional stability and perceptive ability of team leader, on every team
individual effect the performance, attitude and competence. Therefore, it is predicted that the
emotional competence had positive response towards the sub-ordinate’s performance. The
impact of work relating emotional competencies to perform task well, are also unknown
[CITATION Off09 \l 1033 ].

The association between intelligence and leadership, emergences new sort of team performance.
Neuroticism in leadership and several of its dimensions hold collective influence on Team
Performance. The leader’s CSE along with the neuroticism is all concerned for this [CITATION
Sol10 \l 1033 ]. Cultural and Behavioural traits of leadership are all dependent on the capabilities
and outcomes. Therefore, one with the different cultural emotional imbalance, works in
diversified atmosphere [CITATION httht \l 1033 ].
The correlation between leader’s neuroticism and sub-ordinate’s neuroticism defines the
performance of a team. This performance is directly dependent on the emotional stability of
leader. The more the leader will be emotionally strong and stable, the more a team works
effectively. The leader’s neuroticism is one the basic but important tool to measure team’s
outcome, while the effect of this terminology on performance in directly proportional to the
leader’s emotional balance [ CITATION Set19 \l 1033 ]. The Neuroticism and conscientiousness of
team leader had a direct effect on team performance and that the emotional diversity moderated
the direct effect of individual’s participation on team performance. The process is two-folded and
involves the interaction of both the terms, in equal and neutral way [ CITATION Han20 \l 1033 ].
Better and quality training can ensure peak performance of team, this training is not completed
without the emotional factor. The emotional training of both individuals and leader can boost-up
the performance ratio. This sort of exercise may help leader to face challenges with spirit and
courage, moreover it may drag team to work with full devotion and strength as the leader will be
doing. The leader is always followed as inspirational personality and emotionally-backed leader
will motivate the members to function well [ CITATION PiB20 \l 1033 ].
2.1.4 Leader’s Locus of Control and Team Performance
The Emotional card of leader negative emotional expression is counted as a mediator between
the team performance and locus or control, as work-related effect of this unique process. The
leader’s CSE over-all implements a decreasing effect on the performance of the members of
team, while this degree of performance alters the ties between Leader’s locus of control and
core-self evaluation, while is phenomenon is occurred through internal mechanism and boundary
conditions [ CITATION Aim19 \l 1033 ]. Leader’s CSE is defined as an essential and precious mean
to exercise leadership that influences the team’s self-managing, virtual work, self-motivation and
self- regulation. This whole process lies under the tool of locus of control. Internal locus of
control moderates the relationship between the leader’s locus of control and team performance
[ CITATION Xun19 \l 1033 ].

While considering the leader’s CSE that affects employees’ behaviour, while doing so, the
moderating effect of work locus of control is taken into consideration. The research concludes
that the type of work performance is increased due to leader’s locus of control and his support to
team [ CITATION Tun19 \l 1033 ]. Locus od control is mentioned as an important factor that
accelerates the level of performance and innovation that directly ensures the ultimate stability in
performance. The working climate, leader’s CSE and member’s performance altogether depends
on leader’s locus of control [ CITATION McM19 \l 1033 ].
Leader’s perfect Core-Self Evaluation, followed by the series of locus of control tends to
embrace the work engagement that fosters the working abilities and performance. Moreover,
leader’s locus of control also lightens emotional instability that is one of the main reasons of
down fall of team performance [ CITATION XuL19 \l 1033 ]. Leadership is responsible for working
behaviour of employee and leader’s locus of control serves as a moderator between leader’s
Core-Self Evaluation and the team performance. Supported facts proves that responsible
leadership on employee’s behaviour through effected leadership skills including CSE. This
condition is only applicable when locus of control is comparatively low[ CITATION Afs19 \l 1033 ].
The orientation appears to be more strongly rooted in domain of leader’s action and the four
specifications of leader including; Leader’s self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional instability and
locus of control. The relation of performance and leadership is only effective if the relationship
between the four aspects is strongly positive [ CITATION Bot20 \l 1033 ]. Leadership with locus of
control is defined as exchange of expresses aspirations, one specifically related to task
performance, that assist to accomplish goals and gain a positive controlled achievement. Locus
of control enhances the performance of leadership and its team [ CITATION Bas20 \l 1033 ].
Locus of Control is known as leader’s ability to boost-up the performance and acceptance of task
goals in working atmosphere. Only external factors contribute to affect the relationship between
the Leader’s Core -Self Evaluation and team performance, whereas, Locus of Control serves as
bridge between them. The accepted correlation between team goals and satisfaction is linked-up
with the team performance [ CITATION Gof20 \l 1033 ] . The purpose of controlled and focused
leadership behaviour is to determine work resources. Thus, this is the reason why these work
resources greatly depend upon the employee’s inter-personal deviance behaviour of leader with
its employee. This changes the ratio of team performance [ CITATION Zhe20 \l 1033 ].
Determination of leader’s locus of control had gained significantly more attention in last decade.
This term seemed to positively influence the subjugate performance of team. The relevance of
affective trust between the two subjects positively changes the quality of performance of
individual in any team [ CITATION Sal20 \l 1033 ]. The multi-level framework including two
components; Leader’s locus of control and work engagement and the impact of these
phenomenon on team’s performance is all calculated under the scale of Leader’s Core-Self
Evaluation. The influence of leader’s intelligence to control had neutral impact on level of
creativity of team member’s performance. But on the same side the impact of Leader’s locus of
control, on creativity is less than that of productivity of team members [ CITATION Kat20 \l 1033 ].
The effect of professional skepticism, locus of control and integrated on accounts of leadership,
is used to judged the over-all performance of team, with reference to leader’s Core-Self
Evaluation. Locus of control is more compatible in case of effective, active and alert leadership.
The ability of leader to manage its team well under rigid control of regulations, along with
flexible atmosphere of working to produce innovative outcome [ CITATION Dew20 \l 1033 ].

References
Adewale & Ghavitekr. (2019, Feb 22). Leadership self-efficacy and staff organizational citizenship
behavior in higher education institutions: experience from Nigeria. 22(1), 116-133.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1543540

Afsar, Maqsoon & Afridi. (2019, july 12). Responsible leadership and employee's proenvironmental
behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal
environmental locus of control. 27(1), 297-312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1806
Ahn, Lee & Yun. (2016, Jan 26). Leaders’ Core Self-evaluation, Ethical Leadership, and Employees’ Job
Performance. The Moderating Role of Employees’ Exchange Ideology, 457–470.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3030-0

Aimei, Guanxing & Jinglun. (2019). How leader negative emotional expression influences follower
performance? The mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of internal locus
of control. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000151

baloch, nadeem & Rehman. (2019, june 30). Impact of Employees Core Self-Evaluations on Employee
Engagement: Moderating Role of Organizational Culture. 5 (2 ).
doi:https://doi.org/10.26710/reads.v5i2.538

Basar, Sigri & Basim. (2020). A Handbook of Leadership Styles. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.pk/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=QwXPDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA102&dq=Leader
%27s+locus+of+control+and+team+performance+2020&ots=PFZM_RKQiK&sig=PnBxJUiBhDIYHt
PxFwFhAQqinus&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Botsari & Stampoltcis. (2020). Network of Relationships among the Domain-Specific Self-perceptions of
Competence/Adequacy, Self-esteem, Locus of Control, and Work Value Orientations. 65, 16-29.
Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12646-019-00505-2

Cavazotte, Moreno & Hickman. (2012, July ). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional
intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial performance. 23(3), 443-455.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.003

Chen & Lachman. (2009, August 19). Self‐ and peer evaluation of team leaders in the human structure
didactic block. Learning to lead. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.101

Cherian & Jacob. (2013, June 18). Impact of Self Efficacy on Motivation and Performance of Employees.
doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80

Clarke. (2010, April 1). Emotional Intelligence and Its Relationship to Transformational Leadership and
Key Project Manager Competences, 41(2), 5-20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20162

Crawford . (2019, August 25). An exploratory study of core self-evaluation and entrepreneurial
motivation. 30(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2018.1517266

Dewi, Wirakusuma & Rasmini. (2020). The Effect of Professional Skepticism, Locus of Control, and. 4(1 ),
157-164 . Retrieved from https://www.ajhssr.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/V2041157164.pdf

E. Mathieu & Kukenberger. (2014, March 10). A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–
Team Performance Relations. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205

Gist, E. (1987, july ). Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource
Management. 12(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306562
Goffnett. (2020). Leadership, goal acceptance, and QMS conformance readiness: exploring the
mediating effects of audit team cohesion. 31(1-2), 43-67.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1412255

Haider, Ahmed & heredero. (2019, April 12). A three-wave time-lagged study of mediation between
positive feedback and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of organization-based self-
esteem. 12, 241–253 . doi:10.2147/PRBM.S192515

Han & Dong . (2020, Jan 28). A cross level analysis of the influence of a team leader’s personality, gender
diversity and group participation on university students’ academic performance.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1717574

Homan & Kleef. (2020). Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000482

Katou, Budhwar & Patel. (2020, Feb 18). A trilogy of organizational ambidexterity: Leader’s social
intelligence, employee work engagement and environmental changes.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.043

Khorakian & Sharifirad. (2019). Integrating Implicit Leadership Theories, Leader–Member Exchange, Self-
Efficacy, and Attachment Theory to Predict Job Performance. 122(3).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118773400

Klyver & Chen . (2019). Collective Efficacy: Linking Paternalistic Leadership to Organizational
Commitment. 159, 587-607. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-
018-3847-9

MacKie. (2015, March 16). The effects of coachee readiness and core self-evaluations on leadership
coaching outcomes. a controlled trial, 8(2), 120-136.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1019532

Mahadevan, Kikhila & Gregg. (2019). Is self-regard a sociometer or a hierometer? Self-esteem tracks
status and inclusion, narcissism tracks status. (444-466, Ed.) 116(3 ).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000189

McCormick. (2001, May 1). Self-Efficacy and Leadership Effectiveness. Applying Social Cognitive Theory
to Leadership, 8(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102

McCormick. (2002, Dec). Extending Self-Efficacy Theory to Leadership:. 1(2). Retrieved from
https://journalofleadershiped.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/02/1_2_McCormick_Tanguma_Lopez-Forment.pdf

McMurray & Simmers. (2019, June 16-19 ). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/openview/6871e710de134e39963ce1fff9f60f3a/1.pdf?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=1796422

Newman & Nielsen. (2019, Feb ). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A systematic review of the literature on
its theoretical foundations, measurement, antecedents, and outcomes, and an agenda for future
research, 110(B). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.012
O. Walumbwa, M. Mayer & Christensan. (2011, July ). Linking ethical leadership to employee
performance: The roles of leader–member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational
identification, 115(2), 204-213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002

Oberholzer. (2019, Dec 5 ). Developing Future Black Minority, Ethnic (BME) Leader’s Self-Efficacy
through Mentoring and Coaching: A research working paper. 9, 34-39. Retrieved from
https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/-/media/files/schools/school-of-education/collectived-issue-9-
oct-2019-final.pdf?la=en

Offermann & Bailey. (2009, November 13). The Relative Contribution of Emotional Competence and
Cognitive Ability to Individual and Team Performance. 17(12), 219- 243.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1702_5

Owens, Johnson & Mitchell. (2013, Feb 12). Expressed Humility in Organizations. Implications for
Performance, Teams, and Leadership, 24(5 ), 1291-1600.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0795

Palmer & Niemand . (2019, Jan ). The interplay of entrepreneurial orientation and psychological traits in
explaining firm performance. 94, 183-194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.005

Park & Chun . (2019). The Relationship between Goal Orientation and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Self-esteem and the Moderating Effect of Ethical Leadership.
19(5 ), 316-330. doi:https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2019.19.05.316

Pi & Beattie. (2020). Lead Me to Train Better: Transformational Leadership’s Moderation of the Negative
Relationship Between Athlete Personality and Training Behaviors. 33(2 ), 119-128.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2018-0055

Qin, Chen & Huang . (2019, Sep ). Supervisory consequences of abusive supervision: An investigation of
sense of power, managerial self-efficacy, and task-oriented leadership behavior. 154.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.09.003

Qiu, Dooley & Xie. (2020, Jan ). How servant leadership and self-efficacy interact to affect service quality
in the hospitality industry: A polynomial regression with response surface analysis. 78.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104051

Rank & E. Nelson. (2010, December 24 ). Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance.
Subordinates' self‐esteem and self‐presentation as moderators, 82(3), 465-489. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X371547

Richter & Hasson. (2019, Dec). Leader-team perceptual distance affects outcomes of leadership training:
Examining safety leadership and follower safety self-efficacy. 120, 25-31.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.019

Rockstuhl & Annen. (2011, December 12). Beyond General Intelligence (IQ) and Emotional Intelligence
(EQ): The Role of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Cross‐Border Leadership Effectiveness in a
Globalized World. 61(4), 825-840. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01730.x

Saleem & Gopinath. (2020, Jan 23). Impact of Servant Leadership on Performance: The Mediating Role
of Affective and Cognitive Trust. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900562
Sauer & Stephen . (2011). Taking the reins. The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team
performance, 96(3), 574–587. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741

Setiyowati, Zabidi & Razak. (2019, July 1). Followers’ Personality and Indigenous Leadership: Perceived
Astabrata Leadership Style in Indonesian Higher Education.
doi:https://doi.org/10.22452/iojel.vol2no2.3

Simsek, Heavey & F. Veiga. (2009, August 20). The impact of CEO core self‐evaluation on the firm's
entrepreneurial orientation. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.800

Solvey & Miners. (2010, August 4 ). Emotional intelligence and leadership emergence in small groups.
21(4), 684-685. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.012

Stashevsky & Koslowsky. (2006, Jan 1 ). Leadership team cohesiveness and team performance. 27(1 ),
63-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720610652844

Tuncer & Ozge. (2019, December ). DETERMINANTS OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WORK BEHAVIORS: THE
ROLE OF WORKLOAD, ROLE AMBIGUITY, LEADER SUPPORT AND WORK LOCUS OF CONTROL.
111. Retrieved from http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12624829/index.pdf

Turgut & Neuhaus . (2020, Feb 05 ). The Relationship Between Dispositional Resistance to Change and
Individual Career Management: A Matter of Occupational Self-Efficacy and Organizational
Identification? doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2020.1720774

Watto & Zhao. (2020, Jan ). High‐performance work systems and work–family interface: job autonomy
and self‐efficacy as mediators. 58(1), 128-148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12231

Wilderom & Den Berg. (2011, August ). Transformational leadership as a mediator between emotional
intelligence and team outcomes. 22(4), 591-603.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.002

Xu & Liu. (2019, August 1 ). Does Leader Perfectionism Foster or Kill Creativity? It Depends on Followers’
Locus of Control. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.70

Xunwen, Yiwen & sha. (2019, August 19). The Impact Mechanism of Self-leadership on Sales
Performance: The Mediation Effect of Self-efficacy and Moderation Effect of Internal Locus of
Control. 133-139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/3357292.3357315

Zhen, Jian-Min & Jian-Min. (2012, September 28 ). Effect of Leader Core Self-Evaluation on Follower
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Role of Ethical Leadership and Collectivistic Orientation,
44(9), 1231-1243. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.01231

Zheng, Graham & Huang. (2020, Jan 23). Deterrence effects: The role of authoritarian leadership in
controlling employee workplace deviance. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2019.50