Leadership & Organization Development Journal

The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction
with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader
Timothy Bartram, Gian Casimir,
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Article information:
To cite this document:
Timothy Bartram, Gian Casimir, (2007) "The relationship between leadership and follower inrole
performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of empowerment and trust
in the leader", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28 Issue: 1, pp.4-19, doi:
10.1108/01437730710718218
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730710718218
Downloaded on: 22 May 2017, At: 07:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 79 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18251 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2006),"A study of relationship between managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction",
Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 11-28 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13660750610665008
(2013),"The relationship between leader fit and transformational leadership", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 55-73 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941311298869

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

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


LODJ
28,1
4
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)
Received October 2005
Revised February 2006
Accepted April 2006
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2007
pp. 4-19
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730710718218
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
The relationship between
leadership and follower in-role
performance and satisfaction
with the leader
The mediating effects of empowerment and
trust in the leader
Timothy Bartram
School of Business, La Trobe University, Australia, and
Gian Casimir
Newcastle Graduate School of Business, University of Newcastle,
Newcastle, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an examination of the mediating effects of
empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between transformational leadership and two
outcomes (i.e. the in-role performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the
leader).
Design/methodology/approach In total, 150 customer service operators in an Australian
call-centre were invited to participate in a leadership questionnaire and informed that their
performance would be rated by their immediate supervisors (i.e. their line manager) as part of the
study. A sample of 109 responses were used in the analysis.
Findings Partial least squares analysis revealed that the effects of transformational leadership on
the in-role performance of followers were mediated by empowerment and trust in the leader, whereas
the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction were partially mediated by trust in the leader.
Research limitations/implications The implications of the findings for leadership theorists is
that a more fine-grained approach is required to understand the leadership black box in that
different mediators have been shown to affect different outcomes.
Practical implications In a call-center context, which has high levels of control, standardization
and formalization, transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers by
empowering them and by developing trust in the leader.
Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent analysis of
the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship between
transformational leadership and in-role performance and job satisfaction.
Keywords Leadership, Empowerment, Trust, Transformational leadership
Paper type Research paper
There is growing interest in the role of leaders fostering employees to take initiative,
embrace risk, stimulate innovation and cope with uncertainty (Spreitzer, 1995).
Additionally, recent work on shared or distributed leadership emphasizes the
importance of leaders empowering followers and accepting mutual influence to
 facilitate performance (e.g. Gronn, 2000). The empowerment of employees is vital for Leadership and
organizational effectiveness. There is also a growing body of work that demonstrates follower
the importance of trust in the leader as a mediator of leadership effects on followers.
Research on transactional leadership and transformational leadership, however, has
not examined the role of empowerment and trust in the leader on positive outcomes
(e.g. in-role performance of followers and satisfaction with the leader) associated with
leadership. This paper contributes to the literature by providing a concurrent analysis 5
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

of the mediating effects of empowerment and trust in the leader on the relationship
between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i.e. in-role performance of
followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader).

Transformational leadership and trust in the leader

Leaders need to be trusted by their followers because trust is the mortar that binds the
follower to the leader (Nanus, 1989). Trust in the leader correlates positively with
various outcomes such as organizational citizenship behaviors, performance, and
satisfaction (e.g. Jung and Avolio, 2000; Pillai et al., 1999). It is suggested that trust is a
vital antecedent of satisfaction with the leader because both stem from affective states
(e.g. admiration of the leader) and cognitive states (e.g. the leader is held in high esteem
because of capabilities or attributes) rather than from observed behaviors of the leader
(Conger et al., 2000).
Trust can be defined as a willingness to depend on another party (Mayer et al., 1995)
as well as an expectation that the other party will reciprocate if one cooperates.
Perceived ability (Cook and Wall, 1980) or competence is essential to trust in
organizational leader-follower relationships because followers are unlikely to develop
trust in their leader unless they believe the leader is capable of fulfilling the leadership
role (Whitener et al., 1998). Trust also stems from an individuals confidence in another
partys intentions and motives towards oneself and others (Butler and Cantrell, 1984).
Credibility and integrity are also cornerstones of trust (Kouzes and Posner, 1993).
Transformational leadership has been defined in terms of articulating a compelling
vision for followers, behaving self-sacrificially, intellectually stimulating followers,
and providing them with individualized consideration (Bass, 1985; Klein and House,
1995). There is considerable empirical support for transformational leadership in terms
of its positive effects on followers with respect to a variety of criteria including justice,
value congruence, satisfaction, effectiveness, extra-role behaviors and organizational
learning (e.g. Lowe et al., 1996; Garca-Morales et al., 2006).
Transformational leadership has been shown consistently to be associated with
trust in the leader (e.g. Bass, 1990; Lowe et al., 1996). Transformational leadership
facilitates the development of trust in the leader for several reasons: The leaders own
determination and commitment to the vision, as evidenced by self-sacrificial behaviors,
indicate that the leader is walking the talk and thereby builds credibility (Conger and
Kanungo, 1988; Kouzes and Posner, 1993); the leaders high level of self-confidence
leads to perceptions of competence, which helps to engender trust because the leader is
seen as capable of fulfilling the leadership role (Whitener et al., 1998) in terms of
making sound decisions (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991) and having the ability to
achieve the vision; espousing and embodying shared values causes followers to
identify with and admire the leader (Bennis and Nanus, 1997; Jung and Avolio, 2000);
positive emotions experienced by followers due to increased levels of self-efficacy
 LODJ (Shamir et al., 1993) and feeling that they are pursuing meaningful goals (Bennis and
28,1 Nanus, 1997); individualized consideration (i.e. being concerned about the welfare of
followers and attending to their individual needs) results in followers believing the
leader cares about them as people rather than as means to an end; confidence in the
intentions and motives of the leader result in perceptions of procedural justice and, in
turn, trust (Pillai et al., 1999); and acting as a mentor and paying close attention to
6 followers needs for achievement and growth (Kark and Shamir, 2002) indicate a
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

concern for the welfare of followers, which is pivotal for trust.

Trust as a mediator of leadership effects

Transformational leadership involves intellectually stimulating followers thereby
encouraging them to learn new ways to do their work (Bass, 1985) and ultimately
improving their performance. However, the creation and facilitation of an environment
based on trust between the transformational leader and followers is necessary for
leadership-driven learning to occur (Taylor, 2000).
High levels of satisfaction and performance arguably require trust in the leader.
Merely enacting leadership behaviors does not guarantee that followers will be
satisfied or that they will be motivated to perform. Followers need to trust the leader in
order to feel positively about the leader and to exert extra effort to perform effectively.
If followers believe the leader is not genuinely concerned about their welfare, lacks
integrity, or is incompetent, they will be unlikely to trust the leader and consequently
they will be dissatisfied with the leader and not motivated to cooperate fully with the
leader thereby adversely affecting their performance.
Transformational leadership facilitates the development of trust in the leader
because such leadership involves showing concern for the individual needs of followers
as well as behaving in ways that are consistent with espoused values (Bass, 1985).
Transformational leadership requires trust in the leader because of the uncertainty
inherent in changing the status quo. Trust in the leader is therefore important because
it is an antecedent of risk-taking behavior (Mayer et al., 1995). Furthermore, followers
need to trust the leader if they are to cooperate and commit fully to the leaders vision
(Bass, 1985) as well as if they are to respond positively to intellectual stimulation. Trust
in the leader has been shown to be an important mediating (or intervening) variable
with respect to the relationship between transformational leadership and various
outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Pillai et al., 1999;
Podsakoff et al., 1990), performance and satisfaction with the leader (Jung and Avolio,
2000).
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1a. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated
by trust in the leader.
H1b. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader
will be mediated by trust in the leader.

Transformational leadership and empowerment

Followers need to be empowered by their leaders in order to perform optimally. There
is growing interest in the role of leaders in fostering employees to take initiative,
embrace risk, stimulate innovation, and cope with uncertainty (Laschinger et al., 2001;
 Spreitzer, 1995). The concept of empowerment is embraced under the guise of the Leadership and
movement away from control towards a proactive and strategic commitment style follower
of management (Walton, 1985); these views are consistent with the tenets of shared or
distributed leadership. Nevertheless, there are those (e.g. Argyris, 1998) who argue that
empowerment is a bogus concept in that many employees do not seek empowerment
due to the responsibility that goes with it and that many managers continue to rely on
methods (e.g. command and control) with which they are familiar. 7
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Contemporary research on psychological empowerment has focused on articulating

the empowerment process and the psychological underpinnings of the construct in
terms of self-efficacy and autonomy (Conger and Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995;
Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Empowerment refers to a process whereby an
individuals self-efficacy is enhanced (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment as
an enabling process affects both the initiation and the persistence of followers
task-oriented behaviors (Bandura, 1977). In accordance with expectancy theory,
motivation to increase ones effort in a given task depends on an expectation that effort
will result in the desired level of performance (i.e. expectancy).
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment is multi-faceted and
defined it as increased intrinsic task motivation that manifests itself in a set of four
cognitions: Competence, impact, meaning, and self-determination. Competence refers to
self-efficacy or personal mastery in relation to ones work. Impact refers to the belief
that one can influence organizational outcomes. Meaning refers to the importance
placed on a given job based on ones values. Self-determination refers to autonomy in
making decisions about ones work (Avolio et al., 2004).
Transformational leadership energizes followers by providing them with an
exciting vision for the future rather than by providing rewards and punishments.
Beyond providing a vision, transformational leaders engage in inspirational behaviors
by acting as mentors and in this way they build followers self-confidence with respect
to goal attainment (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Shamir et al., 1993). Transformational
leadership alters followers aspirations, identities, needs, preferences, and values such
that they are able to reach their full potential. More specifically, transformational
leaders build team spirit through their enthusiasm, high moral standards, integrity,
and optimism and provide meaning and challenge to their followers work, enhancing
followers level of self-efficacy, confidence, meaning, and self-determination (Avolio
et al., 2004, p. 953). Transformational leadership also involves using intellectual
stimulation to challenge followers values, beliefs, and mindset by having followers
re-examine the way they do things and encouraging them to try novel and creative
approaches to their work (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Finally, transformational leadership
involves providing followers with individualised consideration by attending to their
higher order needs and encouraging them to take on more responsibilities in order to
develop their full potential (Kark and Shamir, 2002).

Empowerment as a mediator of leadership effects

Few studies have examined the mediating effects of empowerment on the relationship
between transformational leadership and various outcomes such as performance and
job satisfaction. There is substantial empirical support for the relationship between
empowerment and positive outcomes such as follower performance (see Spreitzer,
1995; Spreitzer et al., 1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999), follower satisfaction (e.g.
 LODJ Laschinger et al., 2001; Seibert et al., 2004), and team effectiveness (Ozaralli, 2003). In
28,1 relation to meaning and impact, an important precondition of work satisfaction is the
degree to which work is personally meaningful (Herzberg, 1966; Hackman and
Oldham, 1980) and the perception that ones work affects the organization. In terms of
competence, self-efficacy has a powerful direct effect on individual performance
(Locke, 1991); low self-efficacy leads to avoidance of all but routine tasks, resulting in
8 low levels of performance (Bandura, 1977). In relation to self-determination, Spectors
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

(1986) meta-analysis of 88 studies found strong evidence of positive associations

between self-determination and both job performance and work satisfaction.
Transformational leaders inspire their followers to higher levels of achievement by
showing them that their work is worthwhile (Bennis and Nanus, 1997).
Transformational leaders appeal to some fundamental human needs: The need to be
important, to make a difference, to feel useful and to be part of a successful and
worthwhile enterprise. Transformational leaders can also empower followers by
providing both positive emotional support during times of stress and opportunities to
experience task mastery. Moreover, followers can be empowered by words of
encouragement and positive persuasion from the leader, and by a leader who acts as a
role model (Bass, 1985).
A consequence of transformational leadership is the empowerment of followers
such that followers are converted into effective leaders (Burns, 1978) and are
encouraged to question the leaders values and beliefs (Bass et al., 1987). This effect is
consistent with the notion of shared or distributed leadership that recognises the
mutual influence betweens leaders and followers as well as the benefits, such as shared
commitment (Judge and Ryman, 2001) and problem solving, of dispersing leadership
throughout the organization.
Empowering followers to attain organizational goals and performance targets is the
very essence of transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 2004; Bennis and Nanus,
1997). Indeed, transformational leadership acts as a catalyst for learning
(Garca-Morales et al., 2006), and thus should enhance follower performance.
Furthermore, empowering followers by providing them with autonomy to manage
their work and by increasing their perceived meaningfulness of their work would
arguably facilitate their work-related learning and thereby improve both their
satisfaction with the leader and performance.
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2a. The effects of transformational leadership on performance will be mediated
by empowerment.
H2b. The effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader
will be mediated by empowerment.

Method
Participants
Given the changes occurring in the call-center industry, it was decided that this study
will focus on leadership in a call-center. In recent years there has been a growth in the
use of call-centers (Curtis, 1999; Gilmore, 2000). More than two-thirds of all customer
interactions in Australia are channeled through a call-center (McLuhan, 2001).
Historically, the management of employees in call-centers has largely been informed by
 Taylorism and personnel management (Marshall and Richardson, 1999). Recent Leadership and
studies have indicated, however, that a quiet revolution may be occurring in the follower
call-center industry as management introduces empowerment techniques (Gofton,
1999).
The sample comprised full-time line-managers and customer service operators from
a call-center for a large insurance company. The line-managers were regarded as
formal leaders given that they have formal authority over their direct reports. The 9
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

average age of the operators was 30.2 years (s:d: 6:6), and they, on average, had
worked in the call-center for 3.5 years (s:d: 3:6). Sixty per cent of the operators were
female. The operators had, on average, worked with their immediate supervisors for
1.1 years (s:d: 1:4).

The call center

The organization in this study was a large Australian insurance company with its
headquarters in Sydney, New South Wales and local branches in every Australian
capital city. The organization provided home and car insurance for hundreds of
thousands of clients in Australia. Call centers were an integral part of the organization
and operated 24 hours-a-day to provide immediate customer service. This study
focused on one call centre located in Melbourne, Victoria. Of the 150 employees that
worked in the Melbourne call center, 14 were supervisors and each managed between
ten and 12 employees. The supervisors directly reported to a senior branch manager.
The culture of the call center could be described as relaxed and collegial. Management
bestowed call center operators significant operational decision-making authority (e.g.
problem solving with clients) as well as the opportunity to interact with other
employees on a professional and social basis. This setting was in stark contrast to
traditional call centers that closely monitor and impose stringent rules on employees.

Measures
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ, Short Form 5X) was used to measure
transformational leadership. Idealized influence attributed, idealized influence
behaviors, individualized consideration, inspiration, and intellectual stimulation
were combined to form a single measure of transformational leadership.
Spreitzers (1995) measure of empowerment was used and comprises four
components: Autonomy, competence, impact, and meaning. A four-item scale was used
to measure trust. The four trust items were:
(1) I can trust my manager to make sensible decisions for the future of the
company;
(2) I feel quite confident that my manager will always try to treat me fairly;
(3) my manager would be quite prepared to deceive me for his/her own benefit
(reversed); and
(4) my manager can be relied on to uphold my best interests.

The first three items were obtained from Cook and Walls (1980) Interpersonal Trust at
Work scale.
The in-role performance of followers was measured with the scale from Casimir et al.
(2006), which comprises four items:
 LODJ (1) completes his/her work by the time you have specified;
28,1 (2) works hard;
(3) produces work of a high standard; and
(4) makes good use of his/her working time.
Note that the leaders rated the in-role performance of the followers. The three-item
10
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Satisfaction scale from the MLQ was used to measure satisfaction with the leader. A
five-point Likert scale (i.e. 0 strongly disagree, 4 strongly agree) was used with all
of the measures.

Procedure
Senior management was asked to provide a list of the names of all customer service
operators and their immediate supervisors. Customer service operators were invited to
participate in the study and informed that their performance would be rated by their
immediate supervisors (i.e. their line manager) as part of the study. Line-managers
were asked to rate the performance of the operators that they supervised. The line
managers were well placed to know about the performance of individual operators due
to the use of sophisticated methods of tracking critical components of employees
performance (e.g. number of calls per hour). The use of performance data from
immediate supervisors overcame some of the limitations associated commonly with
common method variance.
Operators were identified via a code (i.e. 1 to 150) so that their responses could
remain anonymous. Furthermore, the identification code enabled each operators
responses to be matched to those of his/her immediate supervisor. Customer service
operators and their supervisors completed the questionnaires separately. Of the 150
matched questionnaires that were distributed, 109 usable matched questionnaires were
returned (73 per cent response rate).

Results
All of the data, except for the in-role performance data, were obtained from the same
source (i.e. followers) using the same method. The issue arises therefore as to whether
the covariance between the constructs is an artifact of single-source common method
bias. To address this issue, a single-factor test was conducted on all of the items used to
test the hypotheses that were obtained from followers (i.e. transformational leadership,
empowerment, trust, and satisfaction). The results from this analysis revealed that the
first factor accounted for 22.1 per cent of the total variance in the items, which indicates
that common source/method variance does not explain the majority of the covariance
between the scales. Finally, ratings of transformational leadership, empowerment,
trust in the leader, performance, and satisfaction with the leader were not correlated
significantly with the length of the leader-follower relationship.

Principal components analyses

Principal components analyses and internal reliability analyses were conducted in
SPSS whilst confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in AMOS. Principal
component analyses were conducted to examine the factor structures of the MLQs
sub-scales and the scales used for the mediating and dependent variables.
Confirmatory factor analyses were then conducted using structural equation
 modeling to examine further the proposed single-factor structure of the scales: Leadership and
Second-order confirmatory factor analyses were not conducted due to the sample size. follower
Four fit indices were used to assess each scales factor structure:
(1) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), which is affected less by sample size than other
indices such as the normed fit index;
(2) the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), which indicates the proportion of the observed
11
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

covariances that is explained by the model-implied covariances;

(3) the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), which is an adjusted form of the
GFI that takes into account model complexity; and
(4) the Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR), which indicates the amount by which
the sample variances and covariances differ from estimates obtained using the
hypothesized model.

In order to demonstrate adequate model fit, the values for CFI, GFI and AGFI should
all be greater than 0.9 while the value of the RMSR should be less than 0.1 (Hair et al.,
1998).
The inter-item correlations for some of the MLQ sub-scales for transformational
leadership were unsatisfactory as evidenced by weak loadings on their principal
components: An item was regarded as having a weak loading and removed from a
sub-scale if it correlated less than 0.50 with the principal component. This resulted in
one item being removed from each of the scales for idealized attributed behaviors, and
intellectual stimulation. The fit indices provided in Table I are, where applicable, for
the scale after the removal of the weak-loading item, and show that all of the scales had
a satisfactory fit.
The five transformational leadership sub-scales correlated significantly with each
other; p , 0.001 for all correlations. A total transformational leadership score was
obtained for participants by averaging their responses to 18 items (i.e. four idealized
influence attributed items, three idealized influence behavior items, four inspirational

PLS loadings x2 df CFI GFI AGFI RMSR

Transformational leadership
Idealized attitudes 0.89 0.5 2 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.011
Idealized behaviors 0.86 3.3 1 0.95 0.98 0.88 0.057
Individualized consideration 0.86 5.0 2 0.98 0.98 0.89 0.029
Inspirational motivation 0.73 2.7 2 0.98 0.99 0.94 0.036
Intellectual stimulation 0.88 2.0 1 0.97 0.99 0.93 0.047
Empowerment
Autonomy 0.77 2.4 1 0.99 0.99 0.92 0.016
Competence 0.58 0.0 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000
Impact 0.72 0.5 1 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.016
Meaning 0.72 5.9 1 0.98 0.97 0.80 0.015
Table I.
Trust 16.3 2 0.91 0.93 0.65 0.035 Confirmatory factor
Satisfaction 0.3 1 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.011 analysis results and PLS
results for the outer
Performance 2.7 2 1.00 0.99 0.94 0.019 model
 LODJ motivation items, three intellectual stimulation items, and four individualized
28,1 consideration items). As shown in Table II, the final transformational leadership scale
had satisfactory internal reliability as evidenced by the alpha, which is larger than
Nunnallys (1978) 0.70 criterion.
Table II contains the correlations between the measured variables and shows that
transformational leadership had significant positive correlations with empowerment,
12 trust, performance, and satisfaction. Empowerment had significant positive
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

correlations with both performance and satisfaction. More specifically,

empowerment was more strongly correlated with the in-role performance of
followers than with satisfaction with the leader. Finally, trust had significant
positive correlations with both performance and satisfaction. More specifically, trust in
the leader had a stronger correlation with satisfaction with the leader than with the
in-role performance of followers.
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on each of the empowerment
sub-scales (i.e. autonomy, competency, impact, and meaning). Principal components
analyses showed that the three items in each of the empowerment sub-scales loaded
strongly onto their respective principal components. The fit indices provided in Table I
show that all of the sub-scales have satisfactory fit. The four empowerment sub-scales
correlated significantly with each other; p , 0.05 for all correlations. A total
empowerment score was obtained for participants by averaging their responses to the
12 empowerment items. As shown in Table II, the empowerment scale had an internal
reliability coefficient of 0.64, which is deemed acceptable (Hair et al., 1998).
Separate confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on the trust scale, the
performance scale, and the satisfaction with the leader scale to examine their proposed
uni-dimensionality. For each scale, all of the items loaded strongly onto one component
and the fit indices shown in Table I are satisfactory for a single-factor representation of
each of the scales. Scores for trust, performance, and satisfaction with the leader were
obtained by averaging the responses to the items in each of the scales. As shown in
Table II, all three of these scales had satisfactory internal reliability.

Partial least squares analysis

A partial least squares (PLS) analysis was conducted to examine the mediation effects
of empowerment and satisfaction on the relationships between the two types of
leadership and the two dependent variables. PLS was selected to analyze the overall
model because:

Mean (s.d.) Alpha 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Age 30.19 (6.6)

2. TF 3.40 (0.62) 0.91 0.04 (0.71)
Table II. 3. Empowerment 3.81 (0.44) 0.64 0.25 0.30 (0.49)
Means (standard 4. Trust 4.00 (0.57) 0.78 0.10 0.74 0.31 (0.61)
deviations), correlations, 5. Perform 3.89 (0.72) 0.85 0.22 0.34 0.35 0.36 (0.70)
Cronbachs alphas, and 6. Satisfaction 3.41 (0.78) 0.76 20.03 0.70 0.18 0.61 0.25 (0.67)
average variance
extracted for the Notes: Average variance extracted for each scale is presented in parentheses on the diagonal;
measured variables significance: r . 0.17, p , 0.05; r . 0.24, p , 0.01
 .
it does not require assumptions of multivariate normality; Leadership and
.
it is suitable for small samples; follower
.
it is well suited for testing complex models; and
.
it is appropriate when multicollinearity is present (Chin, 1998).

The bootstrapping procedure in PLS Graph was used to test the significance of the 13
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

regression coefficients. Bootstrapping is a method for testing the reliability of the

dataset and is based on a random re-sampling of the original dataset to create new
samples of the same size as the original dataset for the purpose of estimating the error
of the estimated path coefficients (Chin, 1998).
The average variance extracted (AVE) by the construct representing its items was
calculated to test the convergent validity and the discriminant validity of the measured
constructs. The AVE represents the average squared loading (i.e. average
communality) of the items representing a construct as obtained from the PLS
analysis. In order for a measure to have acceptable convergent and discriminant
validity, it should have an AVE greater than 0.5 and share more variance with its items
than with other constructs in the model (Chin, 1998).
The AVEs for the measured constructs are presented in Table II and show that the
AVE was greater than 0.5 for all of the constructs, except for empowerment
(AVE 0.49). All of the constructs therefore had acceptable convergent and
discriminant validity as the AVE for each construct is greater than the variance
explained by any other construct, which is calculated by squaring the correlation
coefficient between the construct and another construct.
The results from the PLS analysis are presented in Figure 1 and show that:
.
the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by trust
in the leader (H1a was therefore supported);

Figure 1.
Results from the PLS
analysis
 LODJ .
the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were
28,1 mediated partially by trust in the leader as evidenced by the significant direct
effect of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader (H1b was
therefore partially supported);
.
the effects of transformational leadership on performance were mediated by
empowerment (H2a was therefore supported); and
14
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

.
the effects of transformational leadership on satisfaction with the leader were not
mediated by empowerment (H2b was therefore not supported).

Discussion
The mediating effects of psychological empowerment and trust in the leader on the
relationship between transformational leadership and two outcomes (i.e. in-role
performance of followers as rated by the leader and satisfaction with the leader) were
examined. The only significant direct effect was that of transformational leadership on
satisfaction with the leader. The results also revealed that trust in the leader partially
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and satisfaction with the
leader. These findings are consistent with those of Jung and Avolio (2000) and show that
transformational leadership has unique effects on followers satisfaction with the leader.
It might be the case that these unique effects stem from the capacity of transformational
leadership, presumably due to its charismatic components (i.e. idealized attributes and
behaviors), to evoke admiration of and identification with the leader.
The results revealed that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship
between transformational leadership and the leaders ratings of the in-role performance
of their followers. This finding is consistent with Shamir et al.s (1993) theory which
states that the transformational effects of charismatic leadership are due, in part, to
changes in the self-concept of followers. More specifically, Shamir et al. (1993) regarded
transformational leadership as directly affecting followers sense of competence, their
values, their ability to control their environment, and their perception of task
meaningfulness, all of which are components of the empowerment measure used in this
study.
It is noteworthy that the in-role performance of followers was more closely related to
empowerment than to trust in the leader. It stands to reason that empowering followers
helps them to perform their jobs more so than does trust in the leader because
empowerment involves behaviors that directly influence how followers perceive and
perform their work. In sum, these findings have demonstrated that mediators can have
specific effects on different outcome variables.
The results have several important implications for leadership theorists and
leadership practitioners. First, it appears that in order to improve in-role performance
and satisfaction with the leader, followers need to be empowered and to trust their
leaders. The findings indicate that empowerment leads to improved performance, but
not job satisfaction. In contrast, trust leads to greater job satisfaction, but not
performance.
The implications of the findings for leadership theorists are that a fine-grained
approach is required to understand the leadership black box in that different
mediators were found to affect different outcomes. Specifically, a fine-grained approach
would recognize the likelihood of some mediators (e.g. self-efficacy) having effects on
specific outcome variables (e.g. extra effort) that are distinct from the effects of other
 mediators (e.g. trust and empowerment) on these variables. Additionally, more light can Leadership and
be shed into the black box of leadership by utilizing qualitative methodologies that follower
examine processual issues associated with transformational leadership.
Interview-based data, for example, may reveal details on how leaders actually
empower followers and on how the development of trust is associated with
empowerment. Furthermore, issues such as the role of contextual factors (e.g. task
structure and follower expertise) in the relationship between transformational 15
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

leadership and both trust in the leader and empowerment could also be explored via
qualitative approaches.
The implications of the findings for leadership practitioners are quite clear. First, in
a call-center context, which has high levels of control, standardization and
formalization, transformational leadership can improve the performance of followers
by empowering them and by developing trust in the leader. These findings have
significant consequences for managerial practice and for human resource development.
As Gofton (1999) suggested, the call-center industry should continue to introduce and
experiment with workplace innovations that foster psychological empowerment rather
than rely on transactional behaviors that emphasize economic exchanges and solving
work-related problems.
It can be inferred from the findings that trust in the leader is an important outcome
of transformational leadership as trust mediated the relationship between such
leadership and both satisfaction with the leader and performance. Given that trust in
the leader enhances satisfaction with the leader, trust in the leader may also influence
other important outcomes such as organizational commitment.
As has been shown in this study, leaders can facilitate the development of
perceptions of trustworthiness through competence, the fair treatment of their
followers, and being genuinely concerned about the best interests of their followers.
Although trustworthiness appears relatively easy to achieve, leadership selection
should include the personality and the motives of leadership candidates because some
candidates who are highly competent may be unable, for various reasons (e.g.
Machiavellian tendencies), to develop trusting leader-follower relationships.
Additionally, call-center management can better ensure the long-term productivity
and skill development of employees by providing them with flexible working hours
and opportunities for developing problem solving skills, as well as by increasing the
accountability, responsibility, and independent decision-making authority of
employees.

Limitations
Some limitations need to be mentioned. First, data were collected from a single
organization in the call-centre industry and therefore the generalizability of the
findings is questionable. Second, although the in-role performance of followers was
rated by their leaders to circumvent the effects of common method bias, it would have
been better if the in-role performance of followers was measured using objective data
such as average call time. These data are collected routinely by call-centers but the
researchers were not allowed access to such data. Finally, the data for transformational
leadership, empowerment, trust, and satisfaction were obtained via a common method
from a single source (i.e. followers) and this method may bias the relationships between
these variables.
 LODJ Future research
28,1 Future research needs to incorporate other variables that affect important outcome
variables. The current study could be extended, for example, by including the
personality of the followers because it is well established that aspects of personality
(e.g. neuroticism) influence ones propensity to trust. Moreover, other aspects of
personality, such as growth need strength (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) influence
16 reactions to empowerment. Finally, as mentioned earlier, qualitative methodologies
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

would be useful for examining processual issues associated with transformational

leadership and its effects on followers.

References
Argyris, C. (1998), Empowerment: the emperors new clothes, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76
No. 3, pp. 98-105.
Avolio, B., 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,
pp. 951-68.
Bandura, A. (1977), Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change, Psychological
Review, Vol. 84, pp. 191-215.
Bass, B. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B. (1990), From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1993), Transformational leadership and organizational culture, Public
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 112-21.
Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (1994), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational
Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bass, B., Waldman, D., Avolio, B. and Bebb, M. (1987), Transformational leadership and the
falling dominoes effect, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 73-87.
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1997), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Butler, J. and Cantrell, R. (1984), A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust
in superiors and subordinates, Psychological Reports, Vol. 55, pp. 19-28.
Casimir, G., Waldman, D., Bartram, T. and Yang, S. (2006), Trust and the relationship between
leadership and follower performance: opening the black box in Australia and China,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 72-88.
Chin, W. (1998), The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling, in
Marcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, London, pp. 295-336.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1988), The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 471-82.
Conger, J., Kanungo, R. and Menon, S. (2000), Charismatic leadership and follower effects,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 747-59.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 39-52.
Curtis, J. (1999), Call-centers must adapt their ways, Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 33-41.
 Garca-Morales, V., Llorens-Montes, F. and Verdu-Jover, A. (2006), Antecedents and Leadership and
consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in
entrepreneurship, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 Nos 1-2, pp. 21-42. follower
Gilmore, A. (2000), Call-centers grow in size and range, Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 41-59.
Gofton, K. (1999), Call-centers widen their field of vision, Marketing, Vol. 22, pp. 20-32.
Gronn, P. (2000), Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership, Educational
Management and Administration, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 317-38. 17
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing, Cleveland, OH.
Judge, W. and Ryman, J. (2001), The shared leadership challenge in strategic alliances: lessons
from the US healthcare industry, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 15, pp. 71-9.
Jung, D. and Avolio, B. (2000), Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional
leadership, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 949-64.
Kark, R. and Shamir, B. (2002), The dual effects of transformational leadership: priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers, in Avolio, B. and
Yammarino, F. (Eds), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead,
Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 267-91.
Kirkman, B. and Rosen, B. (1999), Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of
team empowerment, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 56-74.
Kirkpatrick, S. and Locke, E. (1991), Leadership: do traits matter?, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60.
Klein, K. and House, R. (1995), On fire: charismatic leadership and levels of analysis,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 183-98.
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (1993), Credibility: How leaders Gain and Lose It, and Why People
Demand It, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Laschinger, H., Finegan, J. and Shamian, J. (2001), The impact of workplace empowerment and
organizational trust on staff nurses work satisfaction and organizational commitment,
Health Care Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 7-23.
Locke, E. (1991), The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 288-99.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
McLuhan, R. (2001), Telemarketing league tables: technology spurs call centre growth,
Marketing, Vol. 25, pp. 33-42.
Marshall, J. and Richardson, R. (1999), Tele-services, call-centres and urban and regional
development, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 96-116.
Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, F. (1995), An integration model of organizational trust,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Nanus, B. (1989), The Leaders Edge: The Seven Keys to Leadership in a Turbulent World,
Contemporary Books, Chicago, IL.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ozaralli, N. (2003), Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team
effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Nos 5-6, pp. 335-44.
 LODJ Pillai, R., Schreisheim, C. and Williams, E. (1999), Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study, Journal of
28,1 Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 897-933.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R. 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. 107-42.
18 Seibert, S., Silver, S. and Randolph, W. (2004), Taking empowerment to the next level:
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

a multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 332-50.
Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M. (1993), The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:
a self-concept based theory, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-94.
Spector, P. (1986), Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1005-16.
Spreitzer, G. (1995), Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement
and validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1442-56.
Spreitzer, G., Kizilos, M. and Nason, S. (1997), A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain, Journal
of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 679-704.
Taylor, E. (2000), Analyzing research on transformative learning theory, in Mezirow, J. and
Associates (Eds), Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in
Progress, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 185-217.
Thomas, K. and Velthouse, B. (1990), Cognitive elements of empowerment: an integrative model
of intrinsic task motivation, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-81.
Walton, R. (1985), From control to commitment in the workplace, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 77-84.
Whitener, E., Brodt, S., Korsgaard, M. and Werner, J. (1998), Managers as initiators of trust:
an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial behavior, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-30.

Further reading
Adams, J. (1965), Injustice in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-300.
Avolio, B. and Bass, B. (1995), Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:
a multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 199-218.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive View,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barber, B. (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Bass, B. (1997), Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?, American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 130-9.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Block, P. (1993), Stewardship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Bromiley, P. and Cummings, L. (1993), Organizations with trust: theory and measurement,
paper presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1985), The support of autonomy and control of behavior, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 1024-37.
 French, J. and Raven, B. (1959), The bases of social power, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in Leadership and
Social Power, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 150-67.
Gabarro, J. (1987), The Dynamics of Taking Charge, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
follower
Gist, M. (1987), Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behaviour and human resource
management, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85.
Hackman, J. and Lawler, E. (1971), Employee reactions to job characteristics, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 259-85. 19
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Herrenkohl, R., Judson, G. and Heffner, J. (1999), Defining and measuring employee
empowerment, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 35, pp. 373-89.
Huselid, M., Jackson, S. and Schuler, R. (1997), Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 171-88.
Kanter, R. (1977), Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kanter, R. (1983), The Change Masters: Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the American
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Konovsky, M. and Pugh, S. (1994), Citizenship behavior and social exchange, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-69.
Lawler, E. (1986), High Involvement Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
MacDuffie, J. (1995), Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: flexible
productions systems in the world auto industry, Industrial and Relations Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 197-221.
McGregor, D. (1967), The Professional Manager, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Peters, T. and Waterman, R. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americas Best-Run
Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Shamir, B. (1995), Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47.
Spreitzer, G. (1997), Toward a common ground in defining empowerment, Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 10, pp. 31-62.
Tracey, D. (1990), 10 Steps to Empowerment: A Common Sense Guide to Managing People,
William Morrow, New York, NY.
Vroom, V. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Waldman, D., Bass, B. and Einstein, W. (1987), Leadership and outcomes of performance
appraisal processes, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 177-86.
Waldman, D., Ramirez, G., House, R. and Puranam, P. (2001), Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 134-43.

Corresponding author
Timothy Bartram can be contacted at: t.bartram@latrobe.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yvonne Brunetto Southern Cross University Coolangatta Australia Stephen T.T. Teo RMIT University
Melbourne Australia Rod Farr-Wharton University of the Sunshine Coast Maroochydore Australia Kate
Shacklock Griffith University Gold Coast Australia Art Shriberg Xavier University Cincinnati United
States . 2017. Individual and organizational support: does it affect red tape, stress and work outcomes of
police officers in the USA?. Personnel Review 46:4. . [Abstract] [PDF]
2. Lyria Esperanza Perilla-Toro, Viviola Gmez-Ortiz. 2017. Relacin del estilo de liderazgo transformacional
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

con la salud y el bienestar del empleado: el rol mediador de la confianza en el lder. Revista de Psicologa
del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones . [CrossRef]
3. Nguyen Van Minh, Yuosre F. Badir, Nguyen Ngoc Quang, Bilal Afsar. 2017. The impact of leaders
technical competence on employees innovation and learning. Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management . [CrossRef]
4. Ibrahim A. Elshaer, Samar K. Saad. 2017. Political instability and tourism in Egypt: exploring survivors
attitudes after downsizing. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 9:1, 3-22. [CrossRef]
5. Leonard I. Ugwu, Ibeawuchi K. Enwereuzor, Esther U. Orji. 2016. Is trust in leadership a mediator
between transformational leadership and in-role performance among small-scale factory workers?. Review
of Managerial Science 10:4, 629-648. [CrossRef]
6. BorgmannLars Lars Borgmann RowoldJens Jens Rowold BormannKai Christian Kai Christian Bormann
Center of Continuing Education, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany . 2016. Integrating
leadership research: a meta-analytical test of Yukls meta-categories of leadership. Personnel Review 45:6,
1340-1366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Anke Buhl, Susanne Blazejewski, Franziska Dittmer. 2016. The More, the Merrier: Why and How
Employee-Driven Eco-Innovation Enhances Environmental and Competitive Advantage. Sustainability
8:9, 946. [CrossRef]
8. Victoria Bellou, Panagiotis Gkorezis. 2016. Unveiling the link between facets of positive nonverbal
communication and perceived leader effectiveness: A moderated mediation model. Human Performance
29:4, 310-330. [CrossRef]
9. Leila Afshari Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Paul Gibson
Graduate School of Business and Law, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia . 2016. How to increase
organizational commitment through transactional leadership. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 37:4, 507-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Lamiaa Moustafa Mohamed. 2016. Assessing the effects of transformational leadership: A study on
Egyptian hotel employees. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 27, 49-59. [CrossRef]
11. Miguel ngel Lpez-Navarro, Jaume Llorens-Monzons, Vicent Tortosa-Edo. 2016. Residents' behaviour
as a function of cognitive appraisals and affective responses toward a petrochemical industrial complex.
Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 1645-1657. [CrossRef]
12. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen, Mei-Ling Yuan, Jen-Wei Cheng, Roger Seifert. 2016. Linking transformational
leadership and core self-evaluation to job performance: The mediating role of felt accountability. The
North American Journal of Economics and Finance 35, 234-246. [CrossRef]
13. Siah Hwee Ang, Jillian Cavanagh, Amie Southcombe, Tim Bartram, Tim Marjoribanks, Nicola McNeil.
2015. Human resource management, social connectedness and health and well-being of older and retired
men: the role of Mens Sheds. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1-31. [CrossRef]
 14. Clive R. Boddy. 2015. Psychopathic Leadership A Case Study of a Corporate Psychopath CEO. Journal
of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
15. Mike Tae-in Eom. 2015. How Can Organization Retain IT Personnel? Impact of IT Managers
Leadership on IT Personnels Intention to Stay. Information Systems Management 32:4, 316-330.
[CrossRef]
16. Mohd Rashid Bin Ab Hamid. 2015. Value-based performance excellence model for higher education
institutions. Quality & Quantity 49:5, 1919-1944. [CrossRef]
17. Anna-Maija Nisula School of Business, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta,
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Finland . 2015. The relationship between supervisor support and individual improvisation. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 36:5, 473-488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Teresa Aguiar Quintana, Sangwon Park, Yasmina Araujo Cabrera. 2015. Assessing the Effects of
Leadership Styles on Employees Outcomes in International Luxury Hotels. Journal of Business Ethics
129:2, 469-489. [CrossRef]
19. Jeevan Jyoti Department of Commerce, University of Jammu, Jammu, India Manisha Dev Department
of Commerce, University of Jammu, Jammu, India . 2015. The impact of transformational leadership on
employee creativity: the role of learning orientation. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:1, 78-98. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
20. Anthony S. Rhine. 2015. An Examination of the Perceptions of Stakeholders on Authentic Leadership
in Strategic Planning in Nonprofit Arts Organizations. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society
45:1, 3-21. [CrossRef]
21. Yue Zhu, Syed Akhtar. 2014. The mediating effects of cognition-based trust and affect-based trust in
transformational leadership's dual processes: evidence from China. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 25:20, 2755-2771. [CrossRef]
22. Simon C.H. Chan Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Kowloon, Hong Kong W.M. Mak Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong . 2014. Transformational leadership, pride in being a
follower of the leader and organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal
35:8, 674-690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Paul Browning. 2014. Why trust the head? Key practices for transformational school leaders to build a
purposeful relationship of trust. International Journal of Leadership in Education 17:4, 388-409. [CrossRef]
24. Akhentoolove Corbin, Philmore Alleyne. 2014. Senior Managers Perceptions of Shared Leadership in
the Hospitality Industry in a Small Island Developing State. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
& Tourism 13:4, 350-370. [CrossRef]
25. Timothy Bartram, Leila Karimi, Sandra G. Leggat, Pauline Stanton. 2014. Social identification: linking
high performance work systems, psychological empowerment and patient care. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management 25:17, 2401-2419. [CrossRef]
26. Kristina Westerberg, Susanne Tafvelin. 2014. The importance of leadership style and psychosocial work
environment to staff-assessed quality of care: implications for home help services. Health & Social Care
in the Community 22:5, 461-468. [CrossRef]
27. Stein Amundsen, yvind L. Martinsen. 2014. Empowering leadership: Construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly 25:3, 487-511. [CrossRef]
28. Adi Indrayanto Jenderal Soedirman University, Purwokerto, Indonesia John Burgess School of
Management, Curtin University, Perth, Australia Kandy Dayaram School of Management, Curtin
 University, Perth, Australia Management Study Program, Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia .
2014. A case study of transformational leadership and para-police performance in Indonesia. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37:2, 373-388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Ignacio Alejandro Mendoza Martnez, Jess Felipe Uribe Prado, Blanca Rosa Garca Rivera. 2014.
Liderazgo y su Relacin con Variables De Resultado: un Modelo Estructural Comparativo entre Liderazgo
Transformacional y Transaccional en una Empresa de Entretenimiento en Mxico. Acta de Investigacin
Psicolgica 4:1, 1412-1429. [CrossRef]
30. Karthik Namasivayam Ecole Htelire de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland Priyanko Guchait Conrad
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
Puiwa Lei The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA . 2014. The influence
of leader empowering behaviors and employee psychological empowerment on customer satisfaction.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:1, 69-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Keow Ngang Tang, Wallapha Ariratana, Saowanee Treputharan. 2013. Perceived leadership soft skills
and trustworthiness of deans in three Malaysian public universities. Educational Research for Policy and
Practice 12:3, 211-224. [CrossRef]
32. Jillian Cavanagh, Nicola McNeil, Timothy Bartram. 2013. The Australian Men's Sheds movement:
human resource management in a voluntary organisation. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 51:3,
292-306. [CrossRef]
33. Courvisanos Jerry, Cavagnoli DonatellaA tale of two strategies: Framework for evaluating human resource
management and innovation in Australia — Lessons for China 1295-1307. [CrossRef]
34. Daan van Knippenberg, Sim B. Sitkin. 2013. A Critical Assessment of CharismaticTransformational
Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?. The Academy of Management Annals 7:1, 1-60.
[CrossRef]
35. Michelle C. Bligh, Jeffrey C. KohlesDo I Trust You to Lead the Way? Exploring Trust and Mistrust in
Leader Follower Relations 89-112. [CrossRef]
36. Marco Tulio Zanini, Carmen Pires Migueles, Marcio Colmerauer, Juliana Mansur. 2013. Os elementos
de coordenao informal em uma unidade policial de operaes especiais. Revista de Administrao
Contempornea 17:1, 106-125. [CrossRef]
37. Elizabeth H. Thompson, Randall L. Thompson, John Richard Knight. 2013. Acceptance Levels of
Traditional and Nontraditional Superintendents by Experienced Educators. Journal of Psychological Issues
in Organizational Culture 3:4, 60-77. [CrossRef]
38. Leonard Karakowsky, Nadia DeGama, Kenneth McBey. 2012. Facilitating the Pygmalion effect: The
overlooked role of subordinate perceptions of the leader. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology 85:4, 579-599. [CrossRef]
39. ###, YoungChul Chang. 2012. The Mediating Effects of Psychological Empowerment on The
Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Creativity. Productivity Review 26:4, 97-126.
[CrossRef]
40. Jie-Tsuen Huang. 2012. Be Proactive as Empowered? The Role of Trust in One's Supervisor in
Psychological Empowerment, Feedback Seeking, and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology
42, E103-E127. [CrossRef]
41. Mokhtar Abdullah, Mohd Rashid Ab Hamid, Zainol Mustafa, Nooreha Husain, Fazli Idris, Nur Riza
Mohd Suradi, Wan Rosmanira Ismail. 2012. Value-based total performance excellence model: A conceptual
framework for organisations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 23:5-6, 557-572. [CrossRef]
 42. Michael K. MuchiriFaculty of Arts, Business, Informatics and Education, CQ University, Rockhampton,
Australia Ray W. CookseySchool of Business Economics and Public Policy, University of New England,
Armidale, Australia. 2011. Examining the effects of substitutes for leadership on performance outcomes.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32:8, 817-836. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Subodh Kulkarni, Nagarajan Ramamoorthy. 2011. Leadermember exchange, subordinate stewardship,
and hierarchical governance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22:13, 2770-2793.
[CrossRef]
44. Michael K. MuchiriSchool of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Arts, Business, Informatics and
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)

Education, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Australia Ray W. CookseySchool of Business Economics and

Public Policy, University of New England, Armidale, Australia Lee V. Di MiliaSchool of Management and
Marketing, Faculty of Arts, Business, Informatics and Education, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Australia
Fred O. WalumbwaW.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA. 2011.
Gender and managerial level differences in perceptions of effective leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 32:5, 462-492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Rose Utley, Rachel Anderson, Jan Atwell. 2011. Implementing Transformational Leadership in Long-
Term Care. Geriatric Nursing 32:3, 212-219. [CrossRef]
46. Donatella Cavagnoli. 2011. A conceptual framework for innovation: An application to human resource
management policies in Australia. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 13:1, 111-125. [CrossRef]
47. Nam Yong Jo, Dae Sung Lee, Kun Chang LeeAn Empirical Analysis of Leadership Styles and Their
Impact on Creativity: Emphasis on Korean ICT Companies 187-196. [CrossRef]
48. Kevin BairdMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia Haiyin WangMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
2010. Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential factors. Personnel Review 39:5, 574-599.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Jiang ChengchengThe effect of human resource management practices on firm's competitive advantage:
Role of dynamic capabilities and uncertain environment 212-216. [CrossRef]
50. JeanSbastien BoudriasDepartment of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada Patrick
GaudreauFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada Andr SavoieUniversity of
Montreal, Montreal, Canada Alexandre J.S. MorinUniversity of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. 2009.
Employee empowerment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30:7, 625-638. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
51. Pengcheng Zhang, Wenxing LiuThe Impact of Performance Management Orientations and Appraisal
Justices on Employee's Knowledge Sharing Behaviors 213-217. [CrossRef]
52. Zoe S. DimitriadesUniversity of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece Theodore MaroudasUniversity of
Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2007. Internal service climate and psychological empowerment among
public employees. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 1:4, 377-400. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
53. Paula O'KaneSchool of Business Organization and Management, University of Ulster, Jordanstown,
UK Mark PalmerAston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK Owen HargieSchool
of Communication, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, UK. 2007. Workplace interactions and the
polymorphic role of email. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 28:4, 308-324. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
54. Kijpokin KasemsapDeveloping a Unified Framework and a Causal Model of Transformational Leadership,
Empowerment, Innovation Support, and Organizational Innovation 381-406. [CrossRef]
 55. Kijpokin KasemsapDeveloping a Unified Framework and a Causal Model of Transformational Leadership,
Empowerment, Innovation Support, and Organizational Innovation 280-303. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 07:18 22 May 2017 (PT)