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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-628X.htm

Transformational leadership and Transformational

leadership on
employee championing behavior employee
behavior
during organizational change: the
mediating effect of
work engagement Received 29 January 2020
Revised 15 April 2020
1 June 2020
M. Nazmul Islam and Fumitaka Furuoka 22 July 2020
Accepted 6 September 2020
Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Aida Idris
Faculty of Business and Accountancy, Department of Business Strategy and Policy,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The research aims to investigate the impact of transformational leadership on employee
championing behavior and to determine the mediating effect of work engagement in the context of
organizational change.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a quantitative approach, which is based on cross-sectional
data. In total, 300 available cases are processed through structural equation modeling in order to infer the
results.
Findings – The results indicate that transformational leadership is significantly related to championing
behavior during organizational change. Moreover, work engagement fully mediates the relationship between
transformational leadership and championing behavior in the context of organizational change.
Practical implications – Managers should emphasize the practice of the transformational leadership
approach, as well as should stress the antecedents of work engagement in order to foster the employee
championing behavior in the context of organizational change.
Originality/value – The research contributes to the change management and human resource management
literature by providing a plausible explanation of the mediating role of work engagement in connecting
transformational leadership and employee championing behavior in the context of organizational change.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Work engagement, Championing behavior, Organizational change
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Employee behavioral dynamics are one of the important areas for managing organizational
change in the field of organizational study (Gilley et al., 2009). Employees show reluctance and
cynicism to engage in the process of organizational change due to the complexity, difficulty
and apprehension associated with the process of change (Brown and Cregan, 2008; Reichers
et al., 1997). Therefore, when handling change, it is important for the organization to ensure
employee change supportive behavior. Championing behavior is one of the distinguishing
attitudes that promote change and is most effective in facilitating organizational change
(Faupel and S€ uß, 2019). However, empirical evidence on employee championing behavior
remains underexplored. Hence, this research aims to bridge the gap by concentrating on
employee championing behavior in a sample of Bangladesh’s banking sector. The banking
sector in Bangladesh is undergoing a major transformational change cycle to succeed in the
global market and to meet the expectations of customers (Julia and Kassim, 2019; Islam et al., South Asian Journal of Business
Studies
2020b; Regi and Golden, 2019) such as product line up-gradation, implementation of © Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-628X
automation and IT systems, introduction of artificial intelligence, green banking systems and DOI 10.1108/SAJBS-01-2020-0016
SAJBS improved banking supervision (Islam et al., 2020b). The banking sector (65%) dominates the
country’s financial sector. The financial sector contributes 3.74% of Bangladesh’s GDP,
including 83.88% for the banking sector. The latest challenges for Bangladesh’s banking
sector are product line up-gradation, automation, the advancement of banks IT system as
well as the implementation of artificial intelligence, green baking system and enriched
banking supervision system. Therefore, various banks in Bangladesh are struggling to cope
with the new changes (Islam et al., 2020a). In addition, the 2019 Global Competitiveness Index
announced that Bangladesh’s banking sector performed worst among the South Asian
countries (Schwab, 2019). Banking organizations, therefore, need to introduce changes and
give the consumer a modernized and innovative service (Gopalakrishnan and Damanpour,
2000). Hence, confronting and addressing this situation championing employees may play a
key role. The formulation of this research is therefore to define the driving factors that boost
championing behavior in the time of organizational changes.
Previous work highlighted that transformation leadership is the most effective leadership
for handling organizational change (Eisenbach et al., 1999; Hoch et al., 2018; Jiang and Chen,
2018) and affecting championing behavior (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002) and that this
relationship is still uncovered both in the South Asian context and in the banking sector of
Bangladesh. Thus, the present study connects transformational leadership and championing
behavior in the context of organizational change through the framework of the social bond
theory. Bonding between leaders and followers, according to social bond theory, decreases an
employee’s pessimistic attitude (Hirschi, 1969). In addition, literature has emphasized that
transformational leader influences work engagement (Ghadi et al., 2013), as well as work
engagement, improves employee championing behavior during organizational change
(Faupel and S€ uß, 2019). Studies focus on such relationships are also missing within the
banking sector in Bangladesh. Using social bond theory present research, therefore, links
transformational leadership and work engagement during the organizational transition.
Since cooperation between the leader and followers enhances the participation of workers in
managing organizational change. In addition, the current study rationalizes the relation
between work engagement and championing behavior through the lens of psychological
contract theory. According to Rousseau (1995), the psychological contract is an informal or
unwritten arrangement or understanding within an organization between the employee and
the employer. The psychological contract creates employee–employer relations (Rousseau,
1995), which eventually encourages workers to behave as champions in the context of
organizational change. In addition, based on the above discussion, this paper uses
psychological contract theory to reveal the mediating impact of work engagement between
transformational leadership and championing behavior in the sense of organizational
change. In the case of organizational change, the psychological contract of the engaged
employee affects the relationship between transformational leadership and championing
behavior.
The paper structures in the following respects. First, the theoretical and empirical sections
discussed the proposed concepts and hypotheses (Figure 1). Then the methods of analysis
and results from this research are discussed. The discussions and implications of this study
are presented in the following parts. Finally, this paper ends with potential research
limitations and directions.

2. Literature review
2.1 Transformational leadership
Notion of transformational leadership is one of the leading leadership approaches for the last
two decades (Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Tsui et al., 2010). Downton (1973) was the first who
introduced the concept of transformational leadership as a different type of leadership from
 Control Variables: Transformational
Key
= Mediating effects
● Gender leadership on
Experience
= Direct effects Work ●
employee
Engagement
H4 behavior

H2 H3

Transformational Championing
Leadership H1 Behavior
Figure 1.
Hypothesized model

transactional leadership. In 1977, House proposed charismatic leadership theory which is

closely linked with the attributes of transformational leadership. However, Burns (1978)
proposed a distinction between transformational leadership and transactional leadership
from the perspective of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. According to Burns (1978)
transformational leader establishes solidarity and bonding between leader and followers,
where one lifts another to the upper stages of confidence and motivation. Further on Bass
(1985) empirically evaluated the idea of transformational leadership and transactional
leadership approach using the framework of Burns (1978) and discovered a positive
relationship between two dimensions. Bass (1985) described transformational leader
enthuses subordinate to go beyond expectation. Bass (1997) explored four dimensions of
transformational leadership, idealized influence behavior of leader influences and helps to
create a moral commitment, confidence and trust among the followers (Krishnan, 2004; Puffer
and McCarthy, 2008). Whereas leader encourages followers to boost their self-confidence
through inspirational motivation actions (Sivanathan et al., 2004). In addition, intellectual
stimulation characteristic of transformational leader motivates followers by offering a
solution to their questions and problems. Eventually, individual consideration attributes of
transformational leaders play a role as tutor, coach and offer personalized treatment,
guidance and motivation to the followers (Sivanathan et al., 2004). Importantly, Sharma and
Krishnan (2012) claimed that transformational leader is a universal, timeless and imminent
leadership style for effective management of organizational change. In addition, Rubin et al.
(2009) also echoed that transformational leader emphasizes on building the capacity of the
followers and changing their behaviors to include them in the organizational change process.
Moreover, transformational leader is closely linked to employee productivity, effectiveness,
happiness, motivation, extra-role performance, job engagement (Judge and Piccolo, 2004;
Sharma and Krishnan, 2012) and helps organizations achieve their goals and objectives.

2.2 Championing behavior

Championing behavior is known as an employee’s optimistic and distinctive attitude.
Championing behavior is “demonstrating extreme enthusiasm for a change by going above
and beyond what is formally required to ensure the success of the change and promoting the
change to others” (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002, p. 478). According to Clarysse and Moray
(2004) individuals who take the initiative and collaborate until the completion of any task are
known as a champion employee. Champion employee expresses positive expectations from
the transition with their colleagues and stakeholders (Heng et al., 1999). Rothwell et al. (1974)
also claimed that champions enthusiastically and dedicatedly contribute to the development
SAJBS of organizational creativity and change through the crucial phases. Howell and Higgins
(1990) linked championing behavior of an employee to the transformational leadership
behavior. Alike transformational leader, the champion employee also affects the confidence of
team leaders by eliminating confusion, insecurity and influencing the attitude and actions of
employees toward the organization’s objective (Howell and Shea, 2006). In fact, a champion
employee takes risks, goes extra miles and puts extra effort to achieve the organization’s
challenging goals (Howell and Higgins, 1990). Employee championing behavior is positively
correlated with employee preparation for change, employee desire to change and conversely
correlated with the employee’s adversity to change and cynicism behavior (Faupel and
S€uß, 2019).

2.3 Work engagement

Work engagement is defined as a critical concept that reflects the participation of employees
in tasks (Nazir and Islam, 2017; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Schmitt et al., 2016). According to
Schaufeli and Bakker (2010) work engagement is described as work-oriented enthusiasm,
strength, encouragement, commitment, strong focus and a positive mind. The concept of
work engagement consists of vigor, dedication and absorption. Vigor is known as an engage
in one’s work with excitement and a higher energy level. Whereas dedication refers to feelings
of accomplishment, motivation and challenge. Absorption refers to the intensely focused
perception of one’s job and finds it difficult to detach from the job (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Macey et al. (2009) described work engagement as higher energy, a distinct effort,
perseverance and commitment to achieve the organization’s objectives. The significance of
work engagement during organizational change has been highlighted in numerous research
studies (Englert and Helmig, 2018; Faupel and S€ uß, 2019). Because, work engagement has
ripple effects that affect their success on other team members (Van Mierlo and Bakker, 2018).
An engaged employee also tends to help colleagues and builds a positive organizational work
climate (Bakker and Albrecht, 2018). Orth and Volmer (2017) emphasized that employees who
are engaged are more creative and bold enough to take on different challenges to achieve
organizational objectives. Moreover, dedication, enthusiasm, involvement and performance
of engaged employee helps the organization to manage organizational change effectively.

3. Hypothesis development
3.1 Transformational leadership and championing behavior
Transformational leadership is one of the appropriate leadership styles to tackle employee
attitudes and reduce cynicism during organizational change (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Busari
et al., 2019). Transformational leader nurtures employee change supportive behavior in order to
effectively implement change in the organization (Islam et al., 2020b). More specifically,
transformational leader influences employee change readiness (Herrmann et al., 2012),
employee positive attitude for change (Bommer et al., 2005) employee commitment to change
(Herold et al., 2008) and employee championing behavior (Faupel and S€ uß, 2019; Islam et al.,
2020b). Hence, Sharma and Krishnan (2012) stated that the most appropriate and universal
style of leadership for managing organizational change is the transformation leader. Yukl
(2008) mentioned that transformational leader not only emphasizes the organizational level of
change but also focuses on the individual level in order to foster the mechanism of
organizational change. In view of this, Faupel and S€ uß (2019) revealed a positive correlation
between transformational leadership and championing behavior in the context of
organizational change. In addition, researchers and practitioners around the world have
highlighted that the transformational leader inspires followers and changes the attitude of
followers to engage in the process of organizational change (Lysova et al., 2015; Yukl, 2008).
Hence, the present study connects transformational leadership and championing behavior in Transformational
the settings of social bond theory. Since diverse and unexpected employee behavior can be leadership on
handled through the creation of bonding between leader and followers (Hirschi, 1969). During
the change, employees experience anxiety, confusion and frustration, which contributes to
employee
negative attitudes, behavior and to some degree contributes to psychological resilience, behavior
negative emotion toward change, disengagement, disruption and misconduct when managing
organizational change (Bommer et al., 2005). According to social bond theory, bonding between
leader and followers decreases the employee’s negative attitude. Furthermore, employee
attachment, engagement, participation and confidence are components of the theory of social
bonding, as well as a foundation to employee positive attitude toward organizational change
(Herold et al., 2008; Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). Notably, Bangladesh is a collectivist society
(Hofstede, 1980) where individual behavior in an organization depends on the context and
followership (Smith et al., 2002). Bonding between leader and followers thus increases
employee’s positive behavior. Transformational leader is a standard of leadership that raises
followers to the higher stage of motivation, establishes a high degree of bonding between
leaders and followers (Burns, 1978) and affects the championing behavior of followers toward
organizational change. Nadler and Tushman (1989) mentioned that transformational leader
leads followers by stimulating them and enhances championing behavior for the purpose of
organizational change. Hence, the present study proposes:
H1. There is a positive relationship between perceived transformational leadership and
championing behavior in the context of organizational change.
3.2 Transformational leadership and work engagement
The notion of transformational leadership and work engagement often considers a positive
association between leaders and followers (Salanova et al., 2011). Transformational leader
nurtures employee’s positive state of mind, which contributes to the level of employee
engagement (Avolio et al., 2004). Ghadi et al. (2013) noted a strong and positive correlation
between transformational leadership and employee work engagement. Furthermore, during
organizational change Faupel and S€ uß (2019) found a strong association between
transformational leadership and work engagement in their research study. Moreover, Raja
(2012) stated followers’ work engagement is boosted while all dimensions of transformational
leaders work together. Vogelgesang et al. (2013) also highlighted that transformational
leadership behavior is directly connected with employee work engagement and fosters the
level of follower engagement. Zhu et al. (2009) mentioned that transformational leader
develops dynamism, innovativeness and visionary mindset on an employee by ensuring
employee work engagement. By applying social bond theory, this study connects the
association between transformational leadership and work engagement during
organizational change. Bonding between transformational leadership and followers
involves engaging followers during organizational change by encouraging, empowering
and aligning the behaviors of followers with the process of organizational change. Moreover,
bonding between leaders and followers establishes an organization’s learning and
information sharing atmosphere that provides psychological support and engages
followers in the organization’s complex tasks (Breevaart et al., 2014; Mozammel and
Perrry, 2016). Hence, the present study proposes:
H2. There is a positive relationship between perceived transformational leadership and
work engagement in the context of organizational change.

3.3 Work engagement and championing behavior

Work engagement is one of the important predecessors of championing behavior (Faupel and
uß, 2019). Work engagement leads to employee extra-role performance (Christian et al.,
S€
SAJBS 2011). Extra-role performance behavior of employees does not necessarily increase efficiency
but helps colleagues through difficult times and promotes organization in the complex
situation (Ariani, 2013; Van den Heuvel et al., 2010). Most importantly, work engagement
leads to championing behavior during organizational change (Faupel and S€ uß, 2019). This
research rationalizes the association between work engagement and championing behavior
in the lens of psychological contract theory. This research examines the psychological impact
of the engaged employee during organizational change with the drive to act like a champion.
During organizational change engaged employees feels empowered to participate in the
organizational change process and perform like a champion. In other words, the role of work
engagement on championing behavior can be significant as employee work engagement
being a discretionary behavior or voluntary investment during organizational change
positively associated with the employee psychological contract (Bal et al., 2013) which in turn
enhances championing behavior. Hence, the present study proposes:
H3. There is a positive relationship between work engagement and championing
behavior in the context of organizational change.

3.4 Mediating effect of work engagement

Transformational leader enhances the engagement level of the employee that leads to
employee championing behavior during organizational change (Faupel and S€ uß, 2019).
Associations discussed above between the transformational leadership and championing
behavior; transformational leader and work engagement; work engagement and
championing behavior are rational to propose mediational effect of work engagement
since transformational leader influences employee work engagement, which in turn has an
effect on championing behavior. Precisely, employee engagement level may differ and
transformational leader has the capacity to increase employee level of engagement which
ultimately enhances championing behavior of employee during organizational change. So, it
can be proposed that work engagement can act as a potential mediator on the relationship
between transformational leadership and championing behavior during organizational
change. Different research studies highlighted the mediating effect of work engagement
(Faupel and S€ uß, 2019; Robledo et al., 2019; Borst, 2018) in the context of organizational
change. In light of the psychological contract theory, this paper introduces the mediational
role of work engagement between the transformational leaders and championing behavior
during organizational change. Since, transformational leader influences psychological
contract mechanisms of the engaged employee (e.g. person-job fit, meaningfulness) that
influences employee championing behavior in the context of organizational change as well. In
other words, when transformational leader enhances the engagement level of the employee
with the organizational change process, and psychological attachment of engaged employees
enhances their championing attitude during organizational change. Accordingly, this
research proposes:
H4. Work engagement mediates the relationship between transformational leadership
and championing behavior in the context of organizational change.

4. Methods
4.1 Sample procedure for data collection
The population of this study has been employees working at DSE 30 indexed listed banks in
Bangladesh. DSE 30 indexed built with 30 leading companies (five banks) that can be
mentioned as investable index of exchange. In addition, DSE 30 indexed listed organizations
represent around 51% of the overall capitalization of the equity market. Latest reports have
revealed that a total of 26,474 employees serve in Bangladesh at DSE 30 indexed listed banks. Transformational
Prior studies related to organizational change management used sample close to 300 for leadership on
performing SEM analysis (Faupel and S€ uß, 2019; Islam et al., 2020a). Hence, non-probability
judgmental sampling technique was applied in this research to invite participants. Because,
employee
judgmental sampling allows researchers to choose the respondents based on their knowledge behavior
and experience which helps to minimize error (Cochran, 1977). According to Burns and Bush
(2006) in judgmental sampling individual respondents from the target group represents an
expert. Prior studies have also demonstrated the appropriateness of judgmental sampling
(Cunningham, 2010; Şatır, 2006). Data for this research were collected in two phases (Reynolds
et al., 1993). Respondents were selected from the full-time employees from Bangladesh’s
banking sector. Respondents who had not experienced any form of changes during his/her
tenure were excluded from the data collection process. Hence, few things were common among
the respondents: (1) respondents must be a full-time employee; (2) respondents must have
experienced or gone through the organizational change process during the tenure. In addition,
the collection of data was not restricted to one particular type of organizational change. In the
first phase, 10% of the total sample was collected as a pilot survey to test data normality as well
as data quality. Pilot study results were satisfactory to proceed to the next phase. In the second
phase, in order to meet the target sample size of 300, 585 questionnaires were distributed. A
total of 347 respondents returned their responses (59% response rate), among them 47
responses were eliminated for being incomplete and unengaged responses. Finally, 300
responses were used to perform structural equation modeling (SEM). A sample size of 300
found to be sufficient for SEM analysis from a power analysis with an effect size of 0.15 and a
probability error of 0.05. Also, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measurement of sampling
adequacy reports 0.842, which was higher than the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser, 1974).
Demographic information of the participants in the survey process of the present research
showed all the respondents were full-time employees and had experienced change during his or
her current tenure. Notable, Bangladesh’s banking sector is going through transformational
change process. According to Jick and Peiperl (2003) transformational organizational change is
known as a reorientation of the organizations. Transformational organizational change is
based on systemic reform or shift to increase operational efficiency. Hence, this study asked
respondents what types of transformational change they experienced during his or her tenure
and according to the reply of the respondents, 7% experienced administrative change, 10%
experienced leadership change, 4% experienced market change, 19% experienced product
change, 6% experienced process change, 35% experienced service change, 3% experienced
supply chain change and 16% experienced technology change. The summary of the
respondents’ demographic profile is presented in Table 1.

4.2 Measures
All measures (Table 3) employed in this research are well established in the literature and
adopted with modification to be used.
Transformational leadership was measured using Carless et al. (2000)’s global
transformational leadership (GTL) seven items scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). An example item is: “My supervisor gives encouragement and recognition
to staff”. The reliability score (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.93.
Work engagement of an individual employee was measured using six items scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Six items were adopted from Islam et al. (2020a).
An example item is: “I feel motivated to put extra effort in the context of organizational change”.
The Cronbach’s alpha (α) of the scale obtained by Islam et al. (2020a) was 0.8.
This research adopted four items from Herscovitch and Mayer’s (2002) to measure CB four
items scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample question of this
SAJBS Item Category Frequency %

Gender Male 175 58.3

Female 125 41.7
Age Under 25 year 43 14.3
25–34 years 164 54.7
35–44 years 61 20.3
45–54 years 27 9
55 years or more 5 1.7
Education PhD 2 0.7
Masters 139 46.3
Bachelor 159 53
Position Officer 102 34
Senior Officer 67 22.3
Middle Manager 49 16.3
Senior Manager 31 10.3
Others 51 17
Experience Under 1 year 74 24.7
1–2 years 109 36.3
3–5 years 48 16
Table 1. 6–10 years 40 13.3
Participant’s Over 10 years 29 9.7
demographic profile Note(s): n 5 300

Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis TL WE CB

TL 3.97 0.48 0.322 0.607 1 0.283** 0.272**

Table 2. WE 3.95 0.60 0.043 1.16 0.283** 1 0.523**
Descriptive statistics CB 4.05 0.62 0.306 0.889 0.272** 0.523** 1
and Pearson Note(s): **Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed); TL 5 Transformational Leadership, WE5
correlation coefficients Work Engagement, CB5Championing Behavior

scale includes: “I encourage the participation of others in the change”. Herscovitch and
Mayer’s (2002) reported a high composite reliability (CR) value of the scale (CR 5 0.86).

4.3 Procedures for data analysis

Data analysis was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, descriptive and inferential
statistical techniques such as mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, reliability and
correlation matrix (Table 2) were used to test the hypothesis. Statistical software SPSS version
23 was used to obtain outcomes of the above-mentioned tests. In the second phase of data
analysis, to test the hypothesis, SEM was performed using the two-step modeling approach
recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Statistical software AMOS version 24 was
used to perform SEM analysis. In the first step (measurement model) explored: factor loading,
reliability and goodness-of-fit for each scale related to the study. In step two (structural model),
this research examined the inclusive relationship between the different constructs and checked
how each construct works in the model. Also, this phase evaluated all paths of the proposed
model together (Byrne, 2010). Moreover, this step estimated fit indices (χ 2, CFI, GFI, AGFI, TLI,
RMSEA, etc.) of the structural model. Finally, this research applied the bootstrapping
mediation testing approach (bootstrap resample 5,000, 95% confidence interval) as an effective
and powerful technique to test the mediational results (Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
Measurement statement α CR
Transformational
leadership on
Transformational leadership 0.81 0.83 employee
My leader communicates a clear and positive vision of the future
My leader treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development behavior
My leader gives encouragement and recognition to staff
My leader fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members
My leader encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions
My leader is clear about his/her values and practices what he/she preaches
My leader encourages pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent
Work Engagement 0.82 0.81
I feel motivated to put extra effort in the context of organizational change
I would recommend this company to others as a good working environment even in the context
of organizational change
I prefer to work in my company on most days even in difficult condition like organizational
change
While transforming organization, the likelihoods of intention to quit my job during the next year
are
I am passionate about the task I perform here in order to manage organizational change
I feel proud to work for this company even in the context of organizational change
Championing Behavior 0.82 0.80
I try to find ways to overcome change-related difficulties
I speak positively about the change to outsiders
I speak positively about the change to co-workers Table 3.
I encourage the participation of others in the change Items
Note(s). α 5 Cronbach’s alpha ,CR 5 Composite reliability measurement items

5. Analysis of results and hypotheses testing

5.1 Measurement model (first step)
The fit indicated that transformational leadership fitted the data sufficiently: χ 2 5 11, χ 2/
df 5 2.5, p 5 0.004, GFI 5 0.98, AGFI 5 0.94, CFI 5 0.97, TLI 5 0.95, NFI 5 0.95 and
RMSEA 5 0.07. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the items of
transformational leader loaded significantly (β 5 0.51 to 0.75) to the transformational
leadership construct.
Similarly, the fit listed that work engagement fitted the data adequately: χ 2 5 5.53, χ 2/
df 5 1.38, p 5 0.237, GFI 5 0.99, AGFI 5 0.97, CFI 5 0.99, TLI 5 0.99, NFI 5 0.99 and
RMSEA 5 0.036. Due to the low factor loadings (0.28) WE6 was deleted. CFA revealed that
each items were loaded significantly (β 5 0.52 to 0.80) to the work engagement construct.
The CFA for championing behavior was over-fitted: χ 2 5 0.989, χ 2/df 5 0.494, p 5 0.61,
GFI 5 1, AGFI 5 0.99, CFI 5 1, TLI 5 1, NFI 5 1 and RMSEA 5 0.000. Four items of
championing behavior loaded significantly (β 5 0.42 to 0.90) to the champion behavior
construct.
The above-mentioned three scales fulfilled the threshold of different indices (Byrne, 2010)
and, items loading of each contract were valid (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All values of items
significantly loaded at a minimum 0.42 threshold level at p > 0.001. Moreover, Cronbach’s
alpha score of each scale was above the acceptability range of 0.7 (Cronbach, 1951) and the
skewness for all constructs also indicated a normal distribution. CR values also were above
the threshold value of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978).

5.2 Structural model (second step)

The required outcomes for addressing the second stage of the two-step modeling technique
were also fit for this research. Figure 2 represents results from the CFA provides evidence
SAJBS –0.16 –0.20

e12 e13 e14 e15 e16

0.46 0.47 0.54 0.28 0.74

WE1 WE2 WE3 WE4 WE5

0.74 0.53 0.86
0.68 0.69 0.13
e7 L1 Work
Engagement e18
0.69
e6 L2 0.40
0.69 CB4 e8
0.36 0.58
e5 L3 0.38 0.63
0.58 0.54
0.74 CB3 e9
0.71 Transformational 0.08 Championing
e4 L4 0.44 0.19
0.72 Leadership Behavior CB2 e10
0.87
e3 L5 0.50 0.76
CB1 e11
0.51 e17
Figure 2. e2 L6
Structural model –0.27
e1 L7

that the hypothesized model fitted the data adequately (χ 2 5 195.12, χ 2/df 5 2.01, p 5 0.000,
GFI 5 0.93, AGFI 5 0.90, CFI 5 0.94, TLI 5 0.92, NFI 5 0.89, RMSEA 5 0.058 and
SRMR 5 0.0573). All items were loaded significantly at p > 0.001 level from 0.44 to 0.87 and
both of the steps met the requirements.

5.3 Hypothesis testing

The results (Table 4) showed that total effect (before introducing work engagement as a
mediator) of TL on CB (β 5 0.30, p < 0.01) was significant. CFA provides evidence that the
hypothesized model fitted the data adequately (χ 2 5 86.23, χ 2/df 5 2.1, p 5 0.000, GFI 5 0.95,
AGFI 5 0.92, CFI 5 0.95, TLI 5 0.94, NFI 5 0.91 and RMSEA 5 0.06). These results mean
that H1 is fully supported. H2 was established to examine the nature of the association
between transformational leadership and work engagement during organizational change.
Results showed significant (β 5 0.36, p < 0.01) association between transformational
leadership and work engagement. Therefore, H2 is also accepted. Also, H3 was developed to
evaluate the nature of the connection between work engagement and championing behavior
in the time of organizational change and also supported because of their significant (β 5 0.58,
p < 0.01) association. H3 is fully supported.

Results of
Hypothesis relationship β-value with significance ( p-value) analysis

H1 Transformational leadership on (β 5 0.30, p < 0.001) Accepted

championing behavior
H2 Transformational leadership on Work (β 5 0.36, p < 0.001) Accepted
engagement
H3 Work Engagement on championing (β 5 0.58, p < 0.001) Accepted
behavior
H4 Mediating effect of work engagement on Direct influence of Transformational Full
the relationship between leadership on championing behavior Mediation
Table 4. transformational leadership and reduced from (β 5 0.30, p < 0.001) to
Summary of the results championing behavior (β 5 0.08, p 5 0.199)
for tested hypotheses Note(s): ***Highly significant p-value (<0.001)
 Finally, when work engagement was introduced as a mediator, the direct effect of the Transformational
transformational leadership on championing behavior became insignificant and declined leadership on
from (β 5 0.30, p < 0.01) to (β 5 0.08, p 5 0.199), which indicated a full mediating effect of
work engagement. This research applied the 5,000 bootstrapping resampling techniques to
employee
test the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the indirect effect of transformational leadership on behavior
championing behavior via work engagement during organizational change. The results of
bootstrapping displayed that there was an indirect effect of transformational leadership on
championing behavior 0.212 (95% CI 5 0.139–0.301). Transformational leader as a
construct explains 13% of the variance in work engagement and both transformational
leadership and work engagement explain 38% of the variance in the championing behavior
(Figure 2). Tolerance value (0.97) and the variance inflation factor (1.07) confirm no
multicollinearity issue (Hair et al., 2010). In addition, Harman’s single-factor test revealed
31% variance of all variables, which indicated no risk for common method bias (CMB)
(Podsakoff et al., 2003).
This study also examined the model with two control variables: gender (male and female),
experience (less than 1, 1–2, 3–5, 6–10 and over 10 years). Both gender and experience were
found non-significant (Table 5) for both work engagement (0.457 and 0.087, p < 0.001) and
championing behavior (0.548 and 0.576, p < 0.001).

6. Discussion and conclusion

Past research on organizational change management and human resource management have
explored the influence of transformational leadership and employee supportive behavior as
well as organizational citizenship behavior (Hill et al., 2012; Krishnan and Arora, 2008), but
limited research examines the effect of transformational leadership on championing behavior
of the followers as well as the role of work engagement during organizational change.
Moreover, to the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the above-
mentioned association in the South Asian context. More specifically, this research uncovers
change-related problems associated with the banking sector of Bangladesh. Due to the global
competition and increasing demand of customers of the banking sector of Bangladesh is
going through the transformational process and struggling to deal with the rapidly changing
environment. To somewhat bridging this gap, this study unboxes the role of
transformational leadership to nurture employee championing behavior and the
mediational role of work engagement during the organizational change in Bangladesh’s
banking sector.
To outline these findings, this research offers noteworthy support to the hypothesized
framework presented in Figure 1. First, the results that transformational leader is positively
associated to employee championing behavior displays that transformational leader
develops bonding between the leader and followers which helps to reduce employee
unwillingness to participate in the organizational change process and enhances championing
behavior of employees in Bangladesh’s banking sector during organizational change.

Estimate S.E. C.R. p-value (p < 0.001)

WE → GEN 0.043 0.058 0.744 0.457

WE → EXP 0.041 0.024 1.771 0.087
CB → GEN 0.031 0.051 0.600 0.548
CB → EXP 0.012 0.021 0.560 0.576
Note(s): ***Highly significant p-value (<0.001), WE 5 Work Engagement, CB5Championing Behavior, Table 5.
GEN 5 Gender, EXP 5 Experience, S.E 5 Standard Error, C.R 5 Critical Ratio Control variables
SAJBS Transformational leader inspires and motivates followers, which influences followers to
involve in achieving common goals (Fu et al., 2010; Pellegrini and Scandura, 2006; Podsakoff
et al., 1996). This findings additionally support the studies of Faupel and S€ uß (2019), which
showed during organizational change, transformational leader influences employee
championing behavior. In addition, the result also demonstrates that bonding between
transformational leader and followers nurtures the work engagement level of banking
employees in Bangladesh while managing change in the organization. This result also
supports the study of Islam et al. (2020a). Meanwhile, this finding is also in line with the earlier
study findings that investigated transformational leadership that can improve the level of
employee work engagement (Ghadi et al., 2013; Jena et al., 2018: Mencl et al., 2016). Third,
results also demonstrate that engaged employee of Bangladesh’s banking sector with the
change process ultimately performs as a championing employee during organizational
change. In other words, employee work engagement works as a predecessor and nurtures the
psychological attachment of the engaged employees (Bal et al., 2013) which ultimately
enhances employee championing behavior in the time of organizational change. This
outcome is also consistent with the findings of Faupel and S€ uß (2019) which explored that
work engagement enhances employee championing behavior during organizational change.
Finally, the mediating effect of work engagement in the association between transformational
leadership and championing behavior demonstrates that engaged employees with the
organizational change process are motivated and involved with the change process. Such
psychological effect of the engaged employees helps to strengthen the effectiveness of
transformational leaders to enhance championing behavior of employees working in
Bangladesh’s banking sector in the context of organizational change. In other words, the
influence of transformational leader on championing behavior depends on the degree of
employee work engagement in the context of organizational change. This finding is also in
line with the results of Faupel and S€ uß (2019)’s research study which also showed that work
engagement mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee
championing behavior during organizational change. In addition, this research also
highlights some theoretical and practical implications.

6.1 Theoretical implications

This research contributes to existing theory in several ways. First, present research makes a
novel contribution by unboxing the limited understanding of the effect of transformational
leadership on championing behavior during the organizational change in the lens of social bond
theory. This study highlights that transformational leader develops bonding with the followers,
reduces followers unwillingness and fosters championing behavior of employee during
organizational change. Second, this research uncovers the mediational effect of work
engagement using psychological contract theory. The current study underlines that the
psychological attachment of engaged employees during organizational change nurtures the
association between transformational leadership and championing behavior. In other words,
the influence of transformational leaders to enhance championing behavior of an employee in
the context of organizational change varies depending on the degree of employee engagement
during organizational change. Finally, assessing the conceptual model in the context of the
Bangladesh banking sector will open an avenue for the organizations in non-western countries.

6.2 Practical implications

This research has few practical implications. First, the transformational leader found to be
appropriate for influencing employee behavior (work engagement and championing behavior) in
the context of organizational change. Hence, the present research suggests that the organization
should highlight the practice of the transformational leadership approach in the organization to
improve the follower’s engagement level and develop follower’s championing attitude for Transformational
managing change in the organization. Therefore, at the initial level organizations might check leadership on
whether or not their structure and the culture of the organization are correctly aligned with the
concept of transformational leadership. Also, the organization might contemplate more on the
employee
traits of the transformational leader for choosing or promoting one for the position of manager. behavior
Because individual variations like personal characteristics and personality are highly connected
with the consequences of leadership (Bass and Stogdill, 1990). Moreover, organizations might
give formal training to managers concerning the skills and perspective of the transformational
leaders as well as to use the transformational leadership skills to foster work engagement and
championing behavior during organizational transformation. Previous studies ensured that
transformational leadership behavior can be learned and can be trained (Nielsen and Munir, 2009).
Second, the outcome of this research observes that if the connection between the transformational
leader and championing behavior is influenced by the other elements such as work engagement,
the association between the transformational leader and championing behavior might change too.
Therefore, managers should take the necessary strategy to motivate and inspire the employee to
enhance their level of engagement in order to ensure championing behavior to manage
organizational change. More specifically, in the uncertain and unstable condition like
organizational change, managers must be more cautious and accountable to recognize
important antecedents of the work engagement namely, supervisors support, job autonomy,
working environment, workload (Hakanen et al., 2005) to enhance followers level of engagement
in order to ensure championing behavior of the followers to manage organizational change.
Finally, findings of this study provide valuable insights in non-western contexts like Bangladesh,
to distinguish the impact that transformational leadership and work engagement would bring on
employee championing behavior for tackling organizational change.

7. Limitations and future research scope

This research has some limitations. First, variables included in this research were tested by a
self-reported survey, which may cause biased results. Although it is preferable to use self-
reports of employee behavior, as exhibited in prior research on employee behavioral
outcomes (Faupel and S€ uß 2019; Ghadi et al., 2013; Islam et al., 2020a and Kim and Koo 2017).
In addition, this research conducted Harman’s one-factor test and the result showed there is
no risk for CMB. However, the present study recommends future research studies to use
dissimilar data collection approach in the current conceptual model, such as in future
research studies researchers may test transformational leadership scale from the leaders,
work engagement and championing behavior from the employees. Second, the limitation of
this research is the cross-sectional research design. Therefore, this paper suggests future
research studies to use longitudinal analysis. Finally, the present research suggests an
improved model with trust in leadership as a potential mediator for future researchers, and
inclusion of the mediator with the current model will provide new insights to the practitioners
and researchers. Moreover, in future, researchers may investigate reverse association among
the championing behavior (positive behavior) on employee work engagement (positive
attitude) while managing change in the organization. In other words, in forthcoming study,
researchers may explore the mediating effect of championing behavior in the relationship
between transformational leadership and work engagement during organizational change
which may open new avenue for the academicians and practitioners.

References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
SAJBS Ariani, D.W. (2013), “The relationship between employee engagement, organizational citizenship
behavior, and counterproductive work behavior”, International Journal of Business
Administration, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. 46.
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: The International Journal of Industrial,
Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 951-968.
Bakker, A.B. and Albrecht, S. (2018), “Work engagement: current trends”, Career Development
International, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 4-11.
Bal, P.M., Kooij, D.T. and De Jong, S.B. (2013), “How do developmental and accommodative HRM
enhance employee engagement and commitment? The role of psychological contract and SOC
strategies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 545-572.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Personal selling and transactional/transformational leadership”, Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 19-28.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor
& Francis, New York.
Bass, B.M. and Stogdill, R.M. (1990), Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York.
Bommer, W., Rich, G. and Rubin, R. (2005), “Changing attitudes about change: longitudinal effects of
transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 733-753.
Borst, R.T. (2018), “Comparing work engagement in people-changing and people-processing service
providers: a mediation model with red tape, autonomy, dimensions of PSM, and performance”,
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 287-313.
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O.K. and Espevik, R. (2014), “Daily
transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 138-157.
Brown, M. and Cregan, C. (2008), “Organizational change cynicism: the role of employee involvement”,
Human Resource Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 667-686.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.E. (2006), Marketing Research: Online Research Applications, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Busari, A.H., Khan, S.N., Abdullah, S.M. and Mughal, Y.H. (2019), “Transformational leadership style,
followership, and factors of employees’ reactions towards organizational change”, Journal of
Asia Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 181-209, doi: 10.1108/JABS-03-2018-0083.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Multivariate Applications Series, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J. and Mann, L. (2000), “A short measure of transformational leadership”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389-405.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136.
Clarysse, B. and Moray, N. (2004), “A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a
research-based spin-off”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 55-79.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Cunningham, L.X. (2010), “Managing human resources in SMEs in a transition economy: evidence Transformational
from China”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 12,
pp. 2120-2141. leadership on
Downton, J.V. (1973), Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the Revolutionary Process, Free
employee
Press, New York, NY. behavior
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999), “Transformational leadership in the context of
organizational change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 80-88.
Englert, B. and Helmig, B. (2018), “Volunteer performance in the light of organizational success: a
systematic literature review”, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
uß, S. (2019), “The effect of transformational leadership on employees during
Faupel, S. and S€
organizational change–An empirical analysis”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 145-166.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fu, P.P., Tsui, A.S., Liu, J. and Li, L. (2010), “Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’
transformational behaviors and personal values”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55
No. 2, pp. 222-254.
Ghadi, M.Y., Fernando, M. and Caputi, P. (2013), “Transformational leadership and work engagement:
the mediating effect of meaning in work”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 532-550.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H.S. and Gilley, J.W. (2009), “Organizational change and characteristics of leadership
effectiveness”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 38-47.
Gopalakrishnan, S. and Damanpour, F. (2000), “The impact of organizational context on innovation
adoption in commercial banks”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 47 No. 1,
pp. 14-25.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Vol. 7.
Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2005), “How dentists cope with their job demands and
stay engaged: the moderating role of job resources”, European Journal of Oral Sciences, Vol. 113
No. 6, pp. 479-487.
Heng, M.S., Trauth, E.M. and Fischer, S.J. (1999), “Organisational champions of IT innovation”,
Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 193-222.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. and Liu, Y. (2008), “The effects of transformational and change
leadership on employees’ commitment to a change: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, p. 346.
Herrmann, D., Felfe, J. and Hardt, J. (2012), “Transformationale fu€hrung und vera€nderungsbereitschaft”,
Zeitschrift Fu€r Arbeits- Und Organisationspsychologie A&O, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 70-86.
Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002), “Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three-
component model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, p. 474.
Hill, N.S., Seo, M.G., Kang, J.H. and Taylor, M.S. (2012), “Building employee commitment to change
across organizational levels: the influence of hierarchical distance and direct managers’
transformational leadership”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 758-777.
Hirschi, T. (1969), Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hoch, J.E., Bommer, W.H., Dulebohn, J.H. and Wu, D. (2018), “Do ethical, authentic, and servant
leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 501-529.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
SAJBS Howell, J.M. and Higgins, C.A. (1990), “Champions of technological innovation”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 317-341.
Howell, J.M. and Shea, C.M. (2006), “Effects of champion behavior, team potency, and external
communication activities on predicting team performance”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 180-211.
Islam, M.N., Furuoka, F. and Idris, A. (2020a), “The impact of trust in leadership on organizational
transformation”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 1-10,
doi: 10.1002/joe.22001.
Islam, M.N., Furuoka, F. and Idris, A. (2020b), “Employee championing behavior in the context of
organizational change: a proposed framework for the business organizations in Bangladesh”,
Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. ahead of print No. ahead of print, doi: 10.1108/JABS-01-
2019-0019.
Jena, L.K., Pradhan, S. and Panigrahy, N.P. (2018), “Pursuit of organisational trust: role of employee
engagement, psychological well-being and transformational leadership”, Asia Pacific
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 227-234.
Jiang, Y. and Chen, C.C. (2018), “Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation: effects of
transformational leadership”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 1819-1847.
Jick, T.J. and Peiperl, M.A. (2003), Managing Change: Cases and Concepts, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Judge, T.A. and Piccolo, R.F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic
test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, p. 755.
Julia, T. and Kassim, S. (2019), “Exploring green banking performance of Islamic banks vs
conventional banks in Bangladesh based on Maqasid Shariah framework”, Journal of Islamic
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 729-744, doi: 10.1108/JIMA-10-2017-0105.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Kim, M. and Koo, D. (2017), “Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance in
hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 12, pp. 3044-3062, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2016-0319.
Krishnan, V.R. (2004), “Impact of transformational leadership on followers’ influence strategies”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-72.
Krishnan, V.R. and Arora, P. (2008), “Determinants of transformational leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 34-43.
Lysova, E.I., Richardson, J., Khapova, S.N. and Jansen, P.G. (2015), “Change-supportive employee
behavior: a career identity explanation”, Career Development International, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 38-62.
Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. and Young, S.A. (2009), Employee Engagement: Tools for
Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, WA.
Mencl, J., Wefald, A.J. and van Ittersum, K.W. (2016), “Transformational leader attributes:
interpersonal skills, engagement, and well-being”, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 635-657.
Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1989), “Leadership for organizational change”, in Mohrman, S.,
LedfordJr, G., Cummings, T. and LawlerIII, E. (Eds), Large-Scale Organizational Change, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 100-119.
Nazir, O. and Islam, J. (2017), “Enhancing organizational commitment and employee performance
through employee engagement: an empirical check”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 98-114.
Nielsen, K. and Munir, F. (2009), “How do transformational leaders influence followers’ affective well-
being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy”, Work and Stress, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 313-329.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Transformational
Mozammel, S. and Perry, H. (2016), “Transformational leadership and employee engagement in the leadership on
banking sector in Bangladesh”, The Journal of Developing Areas, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 43-55.
employee
Orth, M. and Volmer, J. (2017), “Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on behavior
innovative behaviour: the cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 601-612.
Pellegrini, E.K. and Scandura, T.A. (2006), “Leader–member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and
delegation in the Turkish business culture: an empirical investigation”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 264-279.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22, pp. 259-298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Puffer, S.M. and McCarthy, D.J. (2008), “Ethical turnarounds and transformational leadership: a global
imperative for corporate social responsibility”, Thunderbird International Business Review,
Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 303-314.
Raja, M.W. (2012), “Does transformational leadership leads to higher employee work engagement. A
study of Pakistani service sector firms”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 160.
Regi, S.B. and Golden, S.A.R. (2019), “Measuring public sector customers’ attitude towards
technological innovative banking services (IBS) using structural equation model (SEM)”,
International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 37-45.
Reichers, A.E., Wanous, J.P. and Austin, J.T. (1997), “Understanding and managing cynicism about
organizational change”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Reynolds, N., Diamantopoulos, A. and Schlegelmilch, B. (1993), “Pre-testing in questionnaire design: a
review of the literature and suggestions for further research”, Market Research Society Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Robledo, E., Zappala, S. and Topa, G. (2019), “Job crafting as a mediator between work engagement
and wellbeing outcomes: a time-lagged study”, International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, Vol. 16 No. 8, p. 1376.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Robertson, A.B. and Townsend, J. (1974),
“SAPPHO updated-project SAPPHO phase II”, Research Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-291.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rubin, R.S., Dierdorff, E.C., Bommer, W.H. and Baldwin, T.T. (2009), “Do leaders reap what they sow?
Leader and employee outcomes of leader organizational cynicism about change”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 680-688.
Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M.J. and Martınez, I.M. (2011), “Linking transformational
leadership to nurses’ extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work
engagement”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2256-2266.
Şatır, Ç. (2006), “The nature of corporate reputation and the measurement of reputation components:
an empirical study within a hospital”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-63, doi: 10.1108/13563280610643552.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Defining and measuring work engagement: bringing clarity
to the concept”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of
Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, Hove.
SAJBS Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Bakker, A.B. (2006), “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: on the differences
between work engagement and workaholism”, in Burke, R.J. (Ed.), Research Companion to
Working Time and Work Addiction, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, p. 193-217.
Schmitt, A., Den Hartog, D.N. and Belschak, F.D. (2016), “Transformational leadership and proactive
work behaviour: a moderated mediation model including work engagement and job strain”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 588-610.
Schwab, K. (2019), The global competitiveness report 2019, Insight Report, World Economic Forum,
Geneva.
Sharma, D. and Krishnan, V.R. (2012), “The impact of pay satisfaction and transformational
leadership on employee engagement”, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Management and Behavioral Sciences, Haridwar, pp. 1-12.
Sivanathan, N., Arnold, K.A., Turner, N. and Barling, J. (2004), “Leading well: transformational
leadership and well-being”, in Linley, P.A. and Joseph, S. (Eds), Positive Psychology at Work,
Wiley, New York, NY, p. 241-255.
Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F. and Schwartz, S.H. (2002), “Cultural values, sources of guidance, and their
relevance to managerial behavior: a 47-nation study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 188-208.
Tsui, A.S., Liu, J. and Li, L. (2010), “Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders’ transformational
behaviors and personal values”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 222-254.
Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2010), “Personal resources and
work engagement in the face of change”, Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global
perspectives on research and practice, Vol. 1, pp. 124-150.
Van Mierlo, H. and Bakker, A.B. (2018), “Crossover of engagement in groups”, Career Development
International, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 106-118.
Vogelgesang, G.R., Leroy, H. and Avolio, B.J. (2013), “The mediating effects of leader integrity with
transparency in communication and work engagement/performance”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 405-413.
Yukl, G. (2008), “How leaders influence organizational effectiveness”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 708-722.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2009), “Moderating role of follower characteristics with
transformational leadership and follower work engagement”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 590-619.

Further reading
Griethuijsen, R.A.L.F., Eijck, M.W., Haste, H., Brok, P.J., Skinner, N.C., Mansour, N., Gencer, A.S. and
BouJaoude, S. (2014), “Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science”,
Research in Science Education, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 581-603.
House, R.J. (1977), “A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership”, in Hunt, J.G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds),
Leadership: The Cutting Edge, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 189-207.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Pillai, R. and Williams, E.A. (2004), “Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness,
commitment, and performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 144-159.

About the authors

M. Nazmul Islam is a PhD student and graduate research assistant at the University of Malaya. He
obtained his both MBA and BBA degree from the Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB). Prior
starting his PhD program, he worked at the IUB School of Business, Independent University, Bangladesh Transformational
(IUB). His research interests include change management, human resource management and leadership.
M.Nazmul Islam is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: nzmuljoy@gmail.com leadership on
Fumitaka Furuoka is a Japanese economist. He is currently an associate professor at Asia–Europe employee
Institute (AEI), University of Malaya. Prior to this, he was an associate professor at the School of behavior
Business and Economics, Universiti Malaysia Sabah and a Lecturer at the Faculty of Economics and
Business, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Before joining academia, from 1991 to 1999, Dr. Fumitaka
Furuoka held the post of Senior Assistant at the Consulate-General of Japan, Penang. His main research
interests include economic aspects of global warming and global health as well as hysteresis in
unemployment, human resource economics, peace economics, energy economics, population economics
and the application of statistical methods in linguistics.
Aida Idris is an associate professor in the Department of Business Strategy and Policy, Faculty of
Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya. Till December 2018, Dr. Idris was a Deputy Executive
Director of the Asia–Europe Institute, University of Malaya. Prior to this, she was Director of Academic
Development Centre (ADeC), University Malaya. She was awarded Asian Admirable Achievers,
Rifacimento International, 2015, (International), UM Excellence Award, Naib Canselor, 2014,
(University), UM Excellence Award for Highest Cumulative Citations (Humanities and Social
Sciences), University of Malaya, 2014, (University), Excellence Service Award, University Malaya,
2010, (University), Certificate of Excellent Service, University Malaya, 2009, (University). Her research
interests include management, strategic management, change management, innovation management,
leadership and culture.

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