The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Unpacking transformational Unpacking

TFL
leadership: dimensional analysis
with psychological empowerment
Mohammad Haris Minai
School of Management, Bennett University, Greater Noida, India
Received 31 October 2019
Hemang Jauhari Revised 14 January 2020
Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow, Lucknow, India, and Accepted 14 January 2020

Manish Kumar and Shailendra Singh

Indian Institute of Management Ranchi, Ranchi, India

Abstract
Purpose – Scholarly studies have criticized transformational leadership (TFL) for its lack of conceptual
clarity and inadequate operationalization. This study endeavors to do a detailed examination of the dimensions
of the construct to address the lack of conceptual clarity. Further, with respect to concerns regarding
operationalization, the study does an exploratory evaluation of reconceptualized TFL’s relationship with
psychological empowerment, a construct through which TFL mostly has its beneficial outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – Respondents (n 5 335) from an Indian information technology (IT)
services organization report on their psychological empowerment and the transformational behaviors of their
supervisors using temporally separated (15 days) online questionnaires.
Findings – As expected, the dimensions of transformational leadership are not equally salient in influencing
psychological empowerment; however, they explain variance in all dimensions of psychological empowerment.
Visioning relates to meaning and impact; inspirational communication relates to all dimensions of
empowerment; personal recognition relates to impact and competence; finally, intellectual stimulation
relates to self-determination. Contrary to expectations, however, data did not support the relationship of
intellectual stimulation and supportive leadership on competence.
Research limitations/implications – Data collected from a single organization limit the claims of
generalizability, and the use of a cross-sectional design prevents claims of causality. Given the significant
variation in relational properties of individual dimensions, scholars can use dimensions of TFL, and therefore
theorizing with these is possible.
Originality/value – This paper provides additional support for the unpacking of TFL, by hypothesizing and
demonstrating the dimensional relationships between TFL and psychological empowerment.
Keywords Quantitative, Empowerment, Leadership
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Transformational leadership (TFL) has been extensively studied over the past couple of
decades. Several meta-analytic studies have corroborated the effectiveness of this particular
approach to leadership (e.g. Derue et al., 2011; Judge et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2011). However,
the construct has faced its share of criticism. Criticisms have ranged from conceptual
weaknesses (e.g. Yukl, 1999), and lack of distinction from other charismatic theories
(e.g. Pawar, 2003), to lack of clarity of its contingent or universal nature (e.g. Andersen, 2015).
In fact, Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) have called for the abandonment of the
overarching label of charismatic-transformational leadership in favor of more nuanced
dimensional analyses of the construct.
Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) suggest that studying the components of
transformational leadership might be a potential solution, given its extraordinary
empirical effectiveness. As an example, in their suggestions, they illustrate how vision Personnel Review
unrestrained by the baggage of transformational leadership could be a rich source of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
scholarly pursuit. However, given the main thrust of their work, fully developing such DOI 10.1108/PR-10-2019-0580
PR alternatives was beyond the scope of their article (p. 46). Fuller development of such an
approach may, therefore, prove useful for current and future scholars.
Further, one of the initial lacunae pointed out by Yukl (1999) was the lack of a systematic
study of the underlying influence processes. In a review of charismatic-transformational
leadership theories, Conger (1999) contends that leaders use empowerment rather than
control strategies in order to influence their subordinates. Indeed, scholars have found the
influence of transformational leadership to be mediated by empowerment. For instance, Avey
et al. (2008) found empowerment to mediate the relationship between TFL and intention to
quit, and Bartram and Casimir (2007) found that empowerment mediated the effect of TFL on
performance. Therefore, subordinate empowerment would be a proximal outcome of
transformational leadership, making it a suitable outcome variable for unpacking
transformational leadership.
Regarding empowerment, Spreitzer et al. (1997) recommend that multidimensional
conceptualizations of empowerment be used. Therefore, given that, (1) there is a need to
explore the dimensions of transformational leadership, (2) empowerment is a proximal
outcome of transformational leadership, and (3) empowerment should be explored using its
dimensions, a strong case is made for the dimensional analysis of the relationship between
transformational leadership and empowerment.
In the next section, we discuss the dimensions of transformational leadership and the
selection of its scale. We further assess the suitability of using psychological empowerment
as an outcome variable. Subsequently, we develop and test several hypotheses between the
dimensions of TFL and psychological empowerment. Finally, we discuss the results of the
study, as well as its implications and limitations.

Theoretical foundations
Transformational leadership
The idea of transformational leadership was initially applied to the context of political
leadership. In contrast, the newer theories of transformational leadership, particularly in an
organizational context, are more concerned with attainment of pragmatic task objectives
than with the moral elevation of followers or social reform. Among various versions of
transformational leadership theory, Bass’ (1985) version has been the most influential
version. According to this version, transformational leaders motivate followers to achieve
performance beyond expectations by transforming followers’ attitudes, beliefs, and values as
opposed to simply gaining compliance. In doing so, transformational leaders make use of four
behaviors: charisma (which was later renamed idealized influence), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
Despite the popularity of Bass’ transformational leadership model (1985), concerns have
been raised about the way in which the dimensions have been defined. Scholars claim that
Bass’ dimensional conceptualization lacks theoretical distinctiveness. For instance, idealized
influence has been criticized as not being distinct enough from charisma (Barbuto, 1997).
Yukl (1999) suggests that the dimensions of individualized consideration and contingent
reward are too broad. He points out that individualized consideration encompasses both
supportive and developing behaviors, which have differing effects on subordinates, and
contingent reward includes impersonal exchange as well as praise and recognition. Further,
contingent reward, conceptualized as a transactional behavior (Bass, 1995), Judge et al. (2004),
has empirically demonstrated that it has a strong relationship with transformational
behaviors.
Though the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (Avolio et al., 1999) is frequently
used to measure TFL, it has often been found not to have sufficient discriminatory power
€
(Carless, 1998; Edwards et al., 2012; Ozaralli, 2003). Therefore, it may not be desirable to use
the MLQ for the exploration of the relationships that the individual dimensions of TFL have.
In fact, studies that have used some form of MLQ have had to aggregate the measures due to Unpacking
lack of divergent validity (e.g. Bartram and Casimir, 2007; Castro et al., 2008; Gong et al., 2009). TFL
Research on the dimensions of TFL and their specific relationships is now beginning to
appear, such as those of Arnold and Loughlin (2013), Saboe et al. (2015), and Engelen et al
(2015). Interestingly, all the studies mentioned above use scales other than the MLQ. Saboe
et al. (2015) and Engelen et al. (2015) use the TLI (Podsakoff et al., 1990), whereas Arnold and
Loughlin (2013) use semi-structured interviews. In order to study the dimensions of a
multidimensional construct, a scale with sufficient discrimination between dimensions is
required.
Rafferty and Griffin (2004) have theoretically derived the dimensions of transformational
leadership such that charismatic leadership is excluded and the dimensions found are
theoretically distinct. The dimensions are visioning (sharing an idealized picture of the future
based around organizational values), inspirational communication (expressing positive and
encouraging messages about the organization, and statements that build motivation and
confidence), supportive leadership (expressing concern for followers and taking account of
their individual needs), intellectual stimulation (enhancing employees’ interest in, and
awareness of, problems, and increasing their ability to think about problems in new ways),
and personal recognition (giving rewards such as praise and acknowledgment of effort for
achievement of specified goals).
Visioning combines the articulation of a vision, which was part of inspirational motivation,
with the subset of charisma that deals with providing an idealized future state. The
communication aspect of inspirational motivation is isolated as inspirational communication,
allowing the target to be either the intellect or emotions of subordinates. Supportive leadership
is conceptualized to be more in line with the definition given by House (1996). Intellectual
stimulation is retained as a distinct dimension. Personal recognition is added as a dimension of
transformational leadership to capture the transformational aspects of contingent reward.
Rafferty and Griffin (2004) have also reported initial evidence for the validity of the scale.
Hence, Rafferty and Griffin (2004) provide a conceptualization of transformational
leadership that attempts to address the conceptual weaknesses of the original model and
provide a scale that would be appropriate for use when dealing with the dimensions of TFL
rather than the superordinate construct itself.

Psychological empowerment
Empowerment, in terms of its motivational effect, has been explored in three broad
categories: leader driven, structural, and psychological, with a sequential relationship among
them, and out of these three, psychological empowerment is the most proximal to employee
outcomes (Sun et al., 2012). Psychological empowerment, in fact, represents a reaction of
employees to the other two empowerment conditions (e.g. Laschinger et al., 2004). Every
employee may respond differently to the same managerial efforts toward empowerment, and
such initiatives, therefore, are likely to be efficacious only if employees feel personally
empowered and experience an altered emotional state (Lashley, 1998). Therefore, in the
present study, we focus on psychological empowerment.
Psychological empowerment is defined as a set of motivational cognitions shaped by a
work environment, which reflects an employee’s orientation toward their work role. The
motivational cognitions underlying the construct of psychological empowerment are
meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact (Spreitzer, 1995).
Psychological empowerment has gained acceptance in both theory and practice as it is
related to a variety of organizationally valued outcomes. Substantial research has supported
the contention that psychological empowerment is related to employee performance (Seibert
et al., 2011; Spreitzer, 1995). It has also been positively associated with attitudinal individual-
level outcomes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Avolio et al., 2004;
PR Castro et al., 2008). Among its antecedents, leadership has been found to be among the
strongest contextual predictors (Seibert et al., 2011).
Psychological empowerment has been conceived of as a gestalt construct, and all four
cognitions need to be simultaneously present to fully account for its beneficial outcomes
(Spreitzer et al., 1997). These cognitions together translate into higher job satisfaction,
commitment, task performance, OCB, and innovation (Seibert et al., 2011). Conger (1999)
posits psychological empowerment as the mechanism by which transformational leaders get
their followers to perform above and beyond their call of duty. This is also evidenced by the
mediating role played by empowerment in the relationships that TFL has with beneficial
outcomes (Avey et al., 2008; Avolio et al., 2004; Bartram and Casimir, 2007; Castro et al., 2008).
This then implies that all four dimensions of empowerment in a subordinate need to be
influenced by the unpacked dimensions of TFL. This makes the dimensions of psychological
empowerment apt candidates to study the differential effects of the dimensions of TFL.

Hypotheses development
In the following subsections, we build hypotheses for the impact of TFL dimensions on each
dimension of psychological empowerment. Quite often, studies on TFL argue based on its
€
dimensions, but later hypothesize for the overall construct. For instance, Ozaralli (2003)
argues that by providing a vision rather than using rewards and punishments, leaders are
able to energize and empower their followers, and Krishnan (2012) suggests that intellectual
stimulation by leaders encourages meaning formation in subordinates. Therefore,
dimensional scrutiny could provide a nuanced view of the role that transformational
leadership plays.
Within each of the following subsections, we argue for the relationship of the
empowerment dimension with dimensions of transformational leadership for which
supporting prior literature could be found.

Meaning
Scholars have argued that leaders create a sense of meaning for employees using a strong
vision (e.g. Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). By creating a compelling vision and linking
employees’ work to a greater purpose and to employees’ own values, leaders align
subordinates’ efforts by creating a collective identity, thereby increasing the intrinsic
meaning of the work completed by subordinates (Shamir et al., 1993). In support of these
arguments, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) experimentally demonstrated that vision positively
affected interest, challenge, and importance of a task as perceived by followers. Therefore, we
propose that:
H1. Visioning behavior by the leader is positively related to the motivational cognition of
meaning in the follower.
Inspirational communication by leaders endorses the importance of assigned tasks for the
organization and subordinates (Dubinsky et al., 1995) and influences how followers judge a
work environment by using verbal persuasion (Shamir et al., 1993). By inspiring trust
through their communication, leaders help followers view work goals as congruent with their
own values (Bono and Judge, 2003). The leader’s communication quality makes an
organization’s mission salient for followers and motivates followers to even forgo personal
interests for the sake of the collective, providing meaning for the subordinate. Hence, we
propose that:
H2. Inspirational communication by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of meaning in the follower.
Impact Unpacking
By articulating a compelling vision, leaders set performance expectations for their TFL
subordinates (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). By aligning this vision with their subordinate’s
values, leaders could influence their organization-based self-esteem (Kark et al., 2003).
Members with high organization-based self-esteem perceive themselves as important,
influential, effective, and having an impact in their organizational units (Kark et al., 2003).
Thus, we propose that:
H3. Visioning behavior by the leader is positively related to the motivational cognition of
impact in the follower.
When leaders express positive and encouraging messages, which is a core element of
inspirational communication, it leads to emotional arousal of subordinates (Rafferty and
Griffin, 2004) and signals the importance of the work done by them (Conger and Kanungo,
1988; Dubinsky et al., 1995). This also signals to employees that they are valued in the
organization and their efforts are important for the achievement of organizational objectives,
which would enhance their sense of impact, which leads us to our next hypothesis:
H4. Inspirational communication by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of impact in the follower.
Based on social cognitive theory, it can be argued that recognition given for achievement of
challenging performance standards can result in high task interest. When reward allocation
and/or recognition follows a process of expectation setting, followers tend to have a better
understanding of the value and impact of their job (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005). Thus,
expectation setting and personal recognition for tasks well done should result in enhanced
felt impact by subordinates. Therefore, we propose that:
H5. Leader expression of personal recognition is positively related to the motivational
cognition of impact in the follower.

Competence
Leader inspirational communication or verbal persuasion creates positive vibes, highlight
opportunities, and thereby generates positive expectations out of subordinates. Higher
expectation is likely to lead to enhanced sense of efficacy and competence, and subsequently
better performance, via the Pygmalion effect, which, in turn, is likely to increase sense of
efficacy and competence (Salanova et al., 2011). For the purpose of this work, we use self-
efficacy and competence interchangeably (for differentiating the two terms, please refer
Rodgers et al., 2014; the sheer presence of inspirational communication from leader, however,
hints toward non-trivial tasks, and, therefore, leader communication is likely to be targeted at
competence-based tasks primarily; such discussions and differentiation are, however, not in
the scope of our work). Leader’s communication can also reduce uncertainty and increase
employee knowledge. It might also reaffirm the employee’s sense of self-worth and facilitate
the construction of cognitive schemata and scripts by the employee, who can then use these in
the workplace (Sullivan, 1988). For example, Mayfield and Mayfield (2012), in a study of a
group of healthcare professionals, found that leader motivating language relates with
employee efficacy. Moreover, when leaders provide words of encouragement and positive
persuasion at work, employees are less likely to experience aversive physiological arousal,
and are likely to sustain their levels of self-efficacy (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Thus, use of
inspirational language by the leader would increase feelings of efficacy and competence in the
employee, hence we hypothesize that:
H6. Inspirational communication by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of competence in the employee.
PR When leaders provide constructive feedback to their followers, convince followers to exert
extra effort, and encourage followers to think creatively about complex problems, they foster
the employees’ capacity for critical thinking (Bass, 1985; Gong et al., 2009). In addition, the
recurring process of intellectual stimulation could enhance subordinate’s abilities to
conceptualize, comprehend, and analyze problems, resulting in feelings of increased efficacy
and competence. This leads us to our next hypothesis:
H7. Intellectual stimulation by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of competence in the employee.
Through personal recognition, leaders provide cues related to goals and feedback on the effort
made by followers (Bass, 1985). This may allow followers to better assess their competence,
and rewards given for progress and graded achievements may lead to positive physiological
arousal and act as positive feedback for “enactive mastery experiences” (Shamir et al., 1993).
And enactive mastery experiences may, in turn, lead to increased feelings of competence.
H8. Personal recognition behaviors by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of competence in the employee.
Finally, supportive leaders extend support for their subordinates by understanding their
particular conditions and empathizing with them. In this way, leaders increase the probability
that the employees will have successful enactive mastery experiences, and thus feel more
competent at work (for example, Gong et al., 2009; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Shamir et al.,
1993). This leads us to our next hypothesis:
H9. Supportive leadership is positively related to the motivational cognition of
competence in the employee.

Self-determination
When leaders provide a meaningful rationale for achievement of organizational goals and
continuously encourage the followers verbally to think in more meaningful ways, self-
concordance is increased (Bono and Judge, 2003). Self-concordance refers to the degree to
which an employee’s tasks express his or her authentic interests and values (Sheldon and
Elliot, 1999). Leader communication, therefore, may act as an important driver for follower
viewing the task as either self-determined or externally imposed. Leaders are able to influence
followers by initiating value internalization and “self-engagement” with work (Bono and
Judge, 2003). When leaders are able to emphasize on aspects such as self-expression, self-
consistency, and self-efficacy, then the chances of followers attributing own behavior to
internal self-related causes are higher (Shamir et al., 1993 in Bono and Judge, 2003). Therefore
we propose that:
H10. Inspirational communication by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of self-determination in the employee.
When leaders intellectually stimulate their subordinates, they think through aspects of work
in newer ways. Intellectual stimulation by leaders also creates an environment that is more
tolerant to new ideas. In the process of critical thinking and generating perspectives,
subordinates may become so involved that they may own a task psychologically. Thus,
intellectual stimulation by leaders may promote independent thinking and enhance follower
perceptions of autonomy/self-determination (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). This leads us to our
final hypothesis:
H11. Intellectual stimulation by the leader is positively related to the motivational
cognition of self-determination in the employee.
Method, analysis, and results Unpacking
Sample and procedures TFL
Though empowerment as a construct is important in all industries, it is particularly so in
knowledge-intensive industries such as IT services. Keeping this in mind, with the help of the
human resources (HR) staff, we shortlisted 752 frontline employees from a large Indian IT
services organization to participate in this study. The organization had about 10,000
employees and is in the business of providing customization of financial services software for
other organizations. The employees selected were those who had an interface with the
customers. The operations of the organization were in northern and western India.
Participation involved filling two web-based surveys with a gap of 15 days. A total of 335
participants completed both the surveys (44.54% response rate). In all, 84.2% of the
respondents were male. A total of 205 (61.2%) of the respondents were married. Mean age of
the respondents was 31.18 years (SD 5 5.59), and average organizational tenure was
49.29 months (SD 5 47.54).
In consideration of extant research highlighting the issue of common method variance
(CMV) associated with self-report surveys (Podsakoff et al., 2012), we adopted some of the
suggested procedural remedies; we temporally separated the measurement of criterion and
predictor variables, kept the participation voluntary, and assured confidentiality of
responses.
Measures
Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership was measured using the 15-item
scale of Rafferty and Griffin (2004). It is a five-dimensional scale, with three items measuring
each dimension. The dimensions were vision (e.g. My supervisor has a clear understanding of
where we are going), inspirational communication (e.g. My supervisor says things that make
employees proud to be a part of this organization), supportive leadership (e.g. My supervisor
behaves in a manner which is thoughtful of my personal needs), intellectual stimulation (e.g. My
supervisor challenges me to think about old problems in new ways), and personal recognition (e.g.
My supervisor personally compliments me when I do outstanding work). Respondents were asked
to rate their supervisors’ behavior on a five-point scale (1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree).
Psychological Empowerment. Psychological empowerment was measured using the 12-
item scale by Spreitzer (1995). It is a four-dimensional scale, with three items measuring each
dimension. Four dimensions of psychological empowerment, as measured by this scale are
meaning (e.g. The work I do is meaningful to me), impact (e.g. I have significant influence over
what happens in my unit), competence (e.g. I am confident about my ability to do my job), and
self-determination (e.g. I can decide on my own how to go about my work). Respondents were
asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with each item on a five-point scale (1-strongly
disagree to 5-strongly agree).
Control Variables. Various demographic variables have been found to impact
psychological empowerment (see Seibert et al., 2011). We incorporated some of these
variables as control variables in our research. We controlled for age (in years) and tenure (in
months). We expected that these demographic factors would have positive associations with
dimensions of psychological empowerment because they reflect the level of knowledge, skill,
or experience the individual brings to work. For example, age and work tenure are typical
human capital variables that reflect one’s productive capabilities (Seibert et al., 2011). Higher
levels of individual human capital should be positively associated with one’s ability to take
action and have a positive impact in the workplace (Seibert et al., 2011).

Analysis
As the first step, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all the constructs to
confirm their dimensionality. Next, we tested for the convergent and discriminant validity
PR of the constructs using composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE),
maximum shared variance (MSV), and average shared variance (ASV). For reliability, a
threshold of 0.7 was followed (Hair et al., 2013). For convergent validity, the rule of
CR > AVE > 0.50 was followed (Hair et al., 2013). As an evidence of discriminant validity,
both MSV and ASV should be less than AVE. Subsequently, we computed correlations
among the constructs.
To test our hypotheses, we followed structural equation modeling approach using IBM®
SPSS® Amos™ 22. Model fit was assessed using the indicators of overall model chi-square
measure, non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Hooper
et al., 2008). Relative χ 2 (χ 2/df) < 3, RMSEA < 0.08, SRMR < 0.08, CFI > 0.95, and NNFI > 0.95
were taken as threshold levels (Hooper et al., 2008) for acceptance of the model.

Results
Table I shows the results of the five models we subjected to CFA. We first specified a one-
factor model (Model 1) in which all the 27 items loaded on a single factor. This model did not fit
the data well, suggesting that CMV was not a major issue in the data. Next, we specified a two-
factor model (Model 2) in which 15 items pertaining to TFL loaded on one factor and 12 items
measuring psychological empowerment loaded on another factor. Then we specified a six-
factor model (Model 3) where 12 items pertaining to psychological empowerment loaded on
one factor, and the 15 items pertaining to transformational leadership loaded on their
respective dimensions. For completeness, we also tested a five-factor model (Model 4) where
15 items pertaining to transformational leadership loaded on a single factor and 12 items
pertaining to psychological empowerment loaded on their respective dimensions. Finally, a
model (Model 5) consisting of nine latent variables and their respective indicators was
specified. This provided an acceptable fit to the data. All the factor loadings in Model 5 were
significant (p < 0.01) and strong on their respective latent factors. Moreover, a significant
value in a chi-square difference test suggested that it was an improvement over the remaining
models.
Superiority of a nine-factor model over alternative models provides some evidence of
convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Additional tests for the convergent and
discriminant validity of the constructs were conducted based on the recommendations of Hair
et al. (2013). As highlighted in Table II, all composite reliabilities were above the threshold of
0.70, and no concerns of convergent or discriminant validity were found.
Next, we computed the inter-item consistency (Cronbach’s α) and correlations
between the constructs. Table III presents the descriptive statistics and correlations.
For testing the substantive relationships between the constructs, we followed the two-step
approach suggested by O’Boyle and Williams (2011). This approach includes examination of
latent variable residuals based on the evaluation of the path model using factor correlations
from a CFA as an input in the second step, after analysis with the indicators from the CFA in
the first step. Using this latent variable model evaluation approach, we specified all the

Model χ2 df RMSEA SRMR NNFI CFI

Model 1 2121.81 324 0.13 0.11 0.43 0.47

Table I. Model 2 1840.66 323 0.12 0.10 0.51 0.55
Results of the Model 3 1037.10 242 0.10 0.07 0.70 0.74
measurement Model 4 1180.60 314 0.09 0.09 0.72 0.75
model tests Model 5 444.78 288 0.04 0.04 0.94 0.95
hypothesized paths among constructs along with the paths from control variables to Unpacking
empowerment dimensions. TFL
The hypothesized model (Figure 1) revealed a good fit to the data in absolute sense
(χ 2 5 12.16, df 5 9, RMSEA 5 0.03, SRMR 5 0.02, CFI 5 0.99, and NNFI 5 0.98). There were
two insignificant paths in this model, from intellectual stimulation and supportive leadership
to competence.
All the hypotheses other than H7 and H9 were supported. As hypothesized, meaning was
influenced by visioning (0.17; p < 0.01) and inspirational communication (0.42; p < 0.01).
Impact was influenced by visioning (0.12; p < 0.01), inspirational communication
(0.34; p < 0.01), and personal recognition (0.11; p < 0.05). Competence was influenced by
inspirational communication (0.43; p < 0.01) and personal recognition (0.18; p < 0.01).
Self-determination was influenced by inspirational communication (0.53; p < 0.01) and
intellectual stimulation (0.17; p < 0.01). Contrary to our expectations, we did not find support
for the influence of intellectual stimulation and supportive leadership on competence.
The predictors explained 25% of variance in meaning, 22% variance in impact, 28%
variance in competence, and 35% variance in self-determination.

Discussion, limitations, and future work

This study explored reconceptualized dimensions of TFL, and made an effort to provide
detailed exploration of dimensional uniqueness of the new operationalization by Rafferty and
Griffin (2004) by exploring relationship of different dimensions with dimensions of
psychological empowerment (PE).
Our data suggest that the scale has high discriminatory power, as evidenced both by the
zero-order correlations and the combinations of AVE, CR, MSV, and ASV reported in Table II.
In fact, at the lower end, the correlation was just 0.18 (range: 0.18–0.39). Correlations reported
by studies using other scales are usually larger (0.21–0.58 in Engelen et al. (2015) which uses
the TLI, and above 0.72 in Hoffmeister et al. (2014) which uses the MLQ). This provides
additional empirical evidence for theoretically and empirically distinct dimensions proposed
by Rafferty and Griffin (2004).
Inspirational communication had a positive, significant relationship with all the dimensions
of psychological empowerment. Further, for each dimension of psychological empowerment,
inspirational communication had a higher path loading than other dimensions of
transformational leadership. This underscores the importance of leader’s communication in
influencing follower outcomes and supports prior research (e.g. Madlock, 2008).
Visioning is related to both meaning and impact. This supports prior formulations of
visioning as providing a big picture to subordinates and creating a sense of meaning and
purpose (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer et al., 1997).
The inclusion of praise and recognition aspects of contingent reward into transformational
leadership behaviors also receives support in our study. Personal recognition predicts the

Construct CR AVE MSV ASV

Vision 0.78 0.55 0.24 0.13

Inspirational communication 0.77 0.53 0.31 0.16
Intellectual stimulation 0.77 0.52 0.19 0.08
Supportive leadership 0.77 0.53 0.16 0.08
Personal recognition 0.79 0.56 0.24 0.11
Meaning 0.87 0.69 0.23 0.13 Table II.
Impact 0.79 0.56 0.52 0.17 Convergent and
Competence 0.78 0.54 0.52 0.18 discriminant
Self-determination 0.83 0.62 0.31 0.15 validity tests
 PR

Table III.
Summary statistics
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Gender
2 Age 31.18 5.59
0.09
3 Tenure 49.29 47.5 0.53*
0.10
4 Meaning 3.91 0.68
0.02 0.04
0.04 0.87
5 Competence 3.56 0.74 0.00 0.11þ 0.07 0.36* 0.77
6 Impact 3.62 0.79
0.05 0.05 0.01 0.38* 0.54* 0.79
7 Self-determination 4.12 0.71 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.36* 0.43* 0.38* 0.82
8 Inspirational communication 3.85 0.75
0.07 0.15*
0.04 0.39* 0.38* 0.35* 0.44* 0.73
9 Intellectual stimulation 4.03 0.65
0.18* 0.04
0.17* 0.19* 0.20* 0.16* 0.23* 0.19* 0.73
10 Supportive leadership 3.59 0.77
0.05
0.02
0.04 0.17* 0.21* 0.14þ 0.19* 0.18* 0.23* 0.76
11 Visioning 3.81 0.70
0.08
0.01
0.14þ 0.27* 0.25* 0.26* 0.24* 0.30* 0.34* 0.27* 0.78
12 Personal recognition 3.73 0.76 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.25* 0.28* 0.24* 0.20* 0.21* 0.19* 0.31* 0.39* 0.79
Note(s): *Significant at 0.01 level; þsignificant at 0.05 level; values in the diagonal are the reliability estimates (Cronbach’s alpha values)
 Unpacking
TFL

Figure 1.
Hypothesised model

impact that subordinates perceive of their work and raises their self-efficacy. Intellectual
stimulation enhanced self-determination of employees, but did not contribute to enhancing
competence.
Supportive leadership did not have a significant role to play in empowerment. This could
be because it acts as a source of confidence, social satisfaction, and stress reduction for
subordinates. Its role is more to reduce negative valence of job rather than enhance positive
valence (van Eerde and Thierry, 1996). Rafferty and Griffin (2004) also found that supportive
leadership did not independently associate with outcomes. It is, therefore, an avenue for
future inquiry to explore the aspects of individualized consideration that could be
transformational in nature. One such avenue is the exploration of developmental
leadership as suggested by Rafferty and Griffin (2006).

Theoretical implications
This work adds to theoretical efforts toward reconceptualization of the dimensions of
transformational leadership, and corroborates initial evidences toward utility of the
reconceptualized operationalization by showing distinctive roles of different TFL
dimensions in relating with PE dimensions. The results of this study, therefore, draw
attention of researchers toward the whole gamut of relationships in TFL theory. Dynamics of
TFL’s relationship with outcome variables, for example, may be realigned in line with
disparate research findings such that different dimensions may explain different facets of
outcomes such as tangible and intangible outcomes, and different levels of outcomes. It may
be that dimensions such as intellectual stimulation are likely to relate more with outcomes
PR directed at self and the leader himself/herself, whereas dimension of visioning might relate
more with outcomes directed at organization. The conceptualization as well as outcome of
this study has shown some promise of such possibilities as intellectual stimulation relates
with self-determination, whereas visioning relates with meaning and impact. Such
explorations, if supported through replication and extension studies, may eventually assist
in integration of TFL theory literature.

Practical implications
The differential effect of specific transformational leadership behaviors is also pertinent for
transformational leadership development efforts. Kelloway and Barling (2000) suggest that
transformational behaviors are best inculcated in small changes directed toward specific
behaviors (p. 358). As dimensions of empowerment also have differing relationships with
outcomes (Spreitzer et al., 1997), leader development programs could target specific leader
behaviors, as indicated by our findings. For instance, intellectual stimulation and personal
recognition relate with self-determination and competence, respectively, while visioning
relates with meaning and impact, and inspirational communication is related with all
dimensions of PE. Trainers and managers may, therefore, like to focus on using intellectual
stimulation and recognition dimensions of TFL in case of need to enhance aspects of efficacy
and skill enhancement of the employees. Visioning dimensions may be an appropriate tool for
managers for fostering and implementing change, whereas inspirational communication is a
must-have for managers, if all-round development of subordinates in terms of efficiency,
effectiveness, and impact is desired.

Limitations and future scope

The generalizability of our findings is limited as the data are from a single organization. The
relationships we found could be due to the normative influence of an organizational culture.
Future studies should consider multiple organizations. Our research design precludes
statements of causality. Field experiments will help establish the causal link between
transformational behaviors by leaders and empowerment of subordinates. Future studies
should be able to explore the pecking order as well as sequence of effect of TFL dimensions.
For example, (1) whether supportive leadership acts as a hygiene factor only, (2) whether
personal recognition and intellectual stimulation are restricted to impact tangible aspects
related with self (e.g. self-determination), work (e.g. competence), and organization (e.g.
impact) only, (3) if vision impacts organizational level (e.g. impact) and motivational and
sense-making (meaning) aspects mainly. If these findings are found to be true, then
discriminatory power of these dimensions in explaining self, work, organizational level, and
tangible and motivational variables should be further explored. Additionally, if inspirational
communication not only affects all dimensions of PE but does so with greater impact over all
other dimensions, then it is possible that inspirational communication is the core
transformational dimension, while other four dimensions act as situational dimensions of
leadership. We believe our study findings point toward this promising avenue for future
research for further enrichment of TFL literature.

Conclusions
In conclusion, with our research we believe that we have demonstrated that although the
dimensions of transformational leadership collectively explain variances in all dimensions of
psychological empowerment, the dimensions of transformational leadership are not equally
salient in influencing psychological empowerment, and the differential relationships have
implications both for theory and leadership development. We also provide additional
evidence for the validity of the scale given in Rafferty and Griffin (2004) for measuring the Unpacking
dimensions of transformational leadership. TFL
References
Andersen, J.A. (2015), “Barking up the wrong tree. On the fallacies of the transformational leadership
theory”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 765-777.
Arnold, K.A. and Loughlin, C. (2013), “Integrating transformational and participative versus
directive leadership theories: examining intellectual stimulation in male and female leaders
across three contexts”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 67-84.
Avey, J.B., Hughes, L.W., Norman, S.M. and Luthans, K.W. (2008), “Using positivity, transformational
leadership and empowerment to combat employee negativity”, The Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 110-126.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership and organizational
commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural
distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Barbuto, J.E. (1997), “Taking the charisma out of transformational leadership”, Journal of Social
Behavior & Personality, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 689-697.
Bartram, T. and Casimir, G. (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 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York.
Bass, B.M. (1995), “Theory of transformational leadership redux”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 463-478.
Bono, J.E. and Judge, T.A. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5,
pp. 554-571.
Carless, S.A. (1998), “Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviour as
measured by the MLQ”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 71,
pp. 353-358.
Castro, C.B., Perinan, M.M.V. and Bueno, J.C.C. (2008), “Transformational leadership and followers’
attitudes: the mediating role of psychological empowerment”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 10, pp. 1842-1863.
Conger, J.A. (1999), “Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s
perspective on these developing streams of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 145-179.
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), “The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, p. 471.
Derue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S.E. (2011), “Trait and behavioral theories of
leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 7-52.
Dubinsky, A.J., Yammarino, F.J., Jolson, M.A. and Spangler, W.D. (1995), “Transformational
leadership: an initial investigation in sales management”, Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 17-31.
PR Edwards, G., Schyns, B., Gill, R. and Higgs, M. (2012), “The MLQ factor structure in a UK context”,
The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 369-382.
Engelen, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L. and Brettel, M. (2015), “Entrepreneurial orientation, firm
performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1069-1097.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between
transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 569-589.
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-c. and Farh, J.-l. (2009), “Employee learning orientation, transformational
leadership, and employee creativity: the mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 765-778.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2013), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Pearson, Harlow.
Hoffmeister, K., Gibbons, A.M., Johnson, S.K., Cigularov, K.P., Chen, P.Y. and Rosecrance, J.C. (2014),
“The differential effects of transformational leadership facets on employee safety”, Safety
Science, Vol. 62, pp. 68-78.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M.R. (2008), “Structural equation modelling: guidelines for
determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6, pp. 53-60.
House, R.J. (1996), “Path-goal theory of leadership: lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 323-352.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Ilies, R. (2004), “The forgotten ones? the validity of consideration and
initiating structure in leadership research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 36-51.
Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), “The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment
and dependency”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-255.
Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (2000), “What we have learned about developing transformational
leaders”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 355-362.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Krishnan, V.R. (2012), “Transformational leadership and personal outcomes: empowerment as
mediator”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 550-563.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J.E., Shamian, J. and Wilk, P. (2004), “A longitudinal analysis of the
impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 527-545.
Lashley, C. (1998), “Feeling empowered for service excellence”, International Journal of Customer
Relationship Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 141-151.
Madlock, P.E. (2008), “The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and employee
satisfaction”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Mayfield, J. and Mayfield, M. (2012), “The relationship between leader motivating language and self-
efficacy A partial least squares model analysis”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 357-376.
O’Boyle, E.H. and Williams, L.J. (2011), “Decomposing model fit: measurement vs theory in
organizational research using latent variables”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
€
Ozaralli, N. (2003), “Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness”,
The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 335-344.
Pawar, B.S. (2003), “Central conceptual issues in transformational leadership research”, The
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 397-406.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), “Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the Unpacking
mediating role of core job characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 327-340. TFL
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2004), “Dimensions of transformational leadership: conceptual and
empirical extensions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 329-354.
Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “Refining individualized consideration: distinguishing
developmental leadership and supportive leadership”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 37-61.
Rodgers, W.M., Markland, D., Selzler, A.M., Murray, T.C. and Wilson, P.M. (2014), “Distinguishing
perceived competence and self-efficacy: an example from exercise”, Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 527-539.
Saboe, K.N., Taing, M.U., Way, J.D. and Johnson, R.E. (2015), “Examining the unique mediators that
underlie the effects of different dimensions of transformational leadership”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 175-186.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “‘Yes, i can, i feel good, and i just do it!’ on gain
cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 255-285.
Seibert, S.E., Wang, G. and Courtright, S.H. (2011), “Antecedents and consequences of psychological
and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 981.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a
self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Sheldon, K.M. and Elliot, A.J. (1999), “Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:
the self-concordance model”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3,
pp. 482-497.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. and Nason, S.W. (1997), “A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 679-704.
Sullivan, J.J. (1988), “Three roles of language in motivation theory”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 104-115.
Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J. and Chen, Z.X. (2012), “Empowerment and creativity: a cross-level
investigation”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 55-65.
van Eerde, W. and Thierry, H. (1996), “Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 5, p. 575.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Sitkin, S.B. (2013), “A critical assessment of charismatic & transformational
leadership research: back to the drawing board?”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 1-60.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S.H. and Colbert, A.E. (2011), “Transformational leadership and
performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 Years of research”, Group
& Organization Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-270.
PR Yukl, G.A. (1999), “An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 285-305.

Corresponding author
Mohammad Haris Minai can be contacted at: mhminai@iiml.ac.in

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com