Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional

8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional

1/23

Transformational leadership and followers attitudes: the mediating role of

psychological empowerment

Carmen Barroso Castro*, Ma Mar Villegas Perinan and Jose Carlos Casillas Bueno

Dpto. de Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas y Empresariales,Sevilla, Espana

There is now strong evidence that transformational leadership substantially influences thework attitudes and behaviours of followers. However, the mechanisms by whichtransformational leaders influence their followers have not been studied in a systematic

fashion. The purpose of the present study is, therefore, to analyse how transformationalleadership promotes: i) job satisfaction among employees; and ii) affective commitment to theorganization. In particular, the possible mediating role of psychological empowerment inthese two relationships is conceptually hypothesised and empirically tested. The resultsdemonstrate that psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transforma-tional leadership and employee attitudes.

Keywords: attitudes; behaviours; empowerment; followers; transformational leadership

Introduction

There is a general consensus among researchers that leadership is jointly established by leaders

and followers (Howell and Shamir 2005). Followers experience the reality of a leaders mode ofaction and are thus best placed to evaluate its effects on the relationship between a leader and his

or her followers (Hollander 1995). Models of leadership should therefore take account of the role

of followers, their cognitions and their psychological states (Ilies, Morgeson and Nahrgang

2005; McCann, Langford and Rawlings 2006).

The present article is especially concerned with transformational leadership. This form of

leadership involves the creation of an emotional attachment between leaders and their followers,

and this emotional attachment helps to shape the values, aspirations, and priorities of followers

(Yukl 1999; Antonakis and House 2002). In transformational leadership, the followers develop

feelings of identity with the leader and the team that is being led (Kark and Shamir 2002).

Transformational leadership is important in so far it has a significant influence on the work

attitudes and behaviours of followers. There is substantial evidence that transformational

leadership is positively related to indicators of leadership effectiveness such as the

satisfaction, motivation, and performance of followers (Barling, Weber and Kelloway 1996;Behling and McFillen 1996; Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam 1996; DeGroot, Kiker and

Cross 2000; Dvir, Eden, Avolio and Shamir 2002; Dumdum, Lowe and Avolio 2002; McCann

et al. 2006). However, the mechanisms by which transformational leaders influence their

followers have not been studied in a systematic manner (Avolio, Zhu, Koh and Bhatia 2004), and

several authors have suggested that greater attention should be paid to an understanding of how

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09585190802324601

http://www.informaworld.com

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 19, No. 10, October 2008, 18421863


2/23

these influential processes operate in transformational leadership (Bass 1999; Conger 1999;Yukl 1999; Conger, Kanungo and Menon 2000; Kark and Shamir 2002).

Despite the lack of systematic research in this area, previous research has examined some

mediators in the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes for followers.

These mediator variables have included: i) collective efficacy (Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler and

Shi 2004); ii) self-concordance at work (Bono and Judge 2003); iii) core job characteristics

(Piccollo and Colquitt 2006); iv) personorganization fit (Huang, Cheng and Chou 2005); and v)

leadermember exchange (Wang, Lawler, Hackett, Wang and Chen 2005). In this context, the

present study examines the possible mediating role of psychological empowerment.

Psychological empowerment is defined as a motivational construct which focuses on the

cognitions of the individual being empowered (Spreitzer 1995a; Menon 2001). Psychological

empowerment plays an important role in employees attitudes and performance (Thomas and

Velthouse 1990; Thomas and Tymon 1994; Fulford and Enz 1995; Spreitzer 1995b; Spreitzer,

Kizilos and Nason 1997; Kirkman and Rosen 1999; Koberg, Boss, Senjem and Goodman 1999;

Menon 2001). Despite the attention that has been given to psychological empowerment,

relatively little is known about the effects of leadership on psychological empowerment of

followers. Research on psychological empowerment has focused on antecedents such as the

organizations structure, climate, culture and personality traits (Spreitzer 1995a, 1995b; 1996;

Koberg et al. 1999; Sigler and Pearson 2000; Menon 2001).

Bass (1999) emphasized psychological empowerment as a potential mediator of

transformational leadership effects, since transformational leadership acts through empower-

ment in influencing work outcomes.

McCann et al. (2006) building on the syncretic model of transformational leadership of

Behling and McFillen (1996) who posited empowerment, together with awe and inspiration, as

key beliefs among followers, and nominated these beliefs as being crucial to the ability of

transformational leadership to have a positive influence on the responses of followers. In asimilar vein, Hepworth and Towler (2004) found that transformational leadership was negatively

related to workplace aggression, and that psychological empowerment partially mediated this

relationship. Moreover, Epitropaki and Martin (2005) have suggested that transformational

leaders can use empowerment to create a perception among followers that they are being taken

seriously, listened to and valued as members of the organization.

However, despite this recognition of the apparent importance of empowerment, there is a

paucity of previous studies on the exact motivational role of empowerment in enabling

transformational leadership to exert an influence on followers (Thomas and Velthouse 1990;

Conger 1989; Hollander 1992; Kark, Shamir and Chen 2003; Howell and Shamir 2005). The

purpose of the present study is, therefore, to analyse the mediating role of psychological

empowerment in the relationship between transformational leadership and followers attitudes

with respect to job satisfaction and affective commitment to the organization.

The remainder of the article is arranged as follows. Following this introduction, the nextsection presents a review of the existing literature and a conceptual framework for studying

the effects of transformational leadership upon followers. The following section explains the

methodology of the study. This is followed by a presentation of the results. Finally,

the conclusion summarises the main findings of the study and the implications for management.

Literature review and conceptual framework

Conceptual framework

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework proposed for the present study. It can be seen from

the diagram that the study proposes to examine:

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1843


3/23

. the direct relationship between transformational leadership and general job satisfaction;

. the direct relationship between transformational leadership and affective commitment

to the organization; and

. the possible mediating role of psychological empowerment in each of the above

relationships.

Effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction and organizational commitment

According to Bass and Avolio (2000), transformational leadership is defined by five key

dimensions. They can be summarised as follows:

. Idealized influence (attributed): which refers to the socialized charisma of the leader,

whereby the followers feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for the leader.. Idealized influence (behaviour): which refers to thecharismatic actionsof the leader,whereby

individuals transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization and develop a

collective sense of mission and purpose; this dimension broadens the traditional leadership

role into that of a manager of meaning (Bryman, Gillingwater and McGuinness 1996).

. Inspirational motivation: which refers to the way in which transformational leaders energize

their followers by articulating a compelling vision of the future thus creating enthusiastic

excitement, raising followers expectations, and communicating confidence that followers

can achieve ambitious goals;

. Intellectual stimulation: which refers to the way in which transformational leaders question

the status quo, appeal to followers intellect, stimulate them to question their assumptions,

and invite innovative and creative solutions to problems.

. Individualized consideration: which refers to leadership behaviour that contributes to

follower satisfactionby paying close attention to the individual needs of followers,acting as a

mentor or coach, and enabling them to develop and self-actualize.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that transformational leadership has a positive effect

on the attitudes and behaviours of followers (Dumdum et al. 2002; Avolio et al. 2004). More

specifically, it has been established that transformational leadership has a positive effect on:

i) job satisfaction among followers (Barling et al. 1996; Bishop 2000; Walumbwa, Wang and

Lawler 2003); and ii) commitment to the organization among followers (Bycio, Hackett

and Allen 1995; Bono and Judge 2003; Dumdum et al. 2002; Walumbwa et al. 2003).

Job satisfaction was defined by Locke (1976, p. 1297) as a pleasure or positive emotional

state resulting from the appraisal of ones job or job experience. In addition to being satisfied

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for study.

C. Barroso Castro et al.1844


4/23

or dissatisfied with various specific aspects of a particular job (such as pay, coworkers, leader,and so on), employees can also have a general affective response to their job (Lucas, Babakus and

Ingram 1990; McFarlin and Rice 1992).

It has been established that job satisfaction is higher among employees whose leaders

emphasize consideration, support, and concern for their followers (Allen and Meyer 1990, 1996;

Yukl 1999; Walumbwa et al. 2003; Rafferty and Griffin 2006). In providing such individualized

consideration to followers, Bass (1985) identified a developmental orientation and supportive

leadership as crucial elements. Wofford and Liska (1993) established that socio-emotional

support increases positive affect and enjoyment in the workplace and communicates to followers

that they are accepted and liked.

Affective commitment to an organization is the degree to which an individual identifies with

that organization (Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian 1974). Such commitment reflects

an employees emotional attachment to the organization and involves: i) acceptance of

the organizations objectives and values; ii) willingness to make an extraordinary effort for the

organization; and iii) a desire to remain with the company (Mowday, Steers and Porter 1979).

The emotional attachment that exists between a transformational leader and his or her followers

increases affiliation with the leader and enhances affective commitment to the organization

(Rhoades, Eisenberger and Armeli 2001). In addition, empirical research suggests that a leader who

articulates a compelling vision of the future has a positive impact on affective commitment

(Podsakoff, Mackenzie and Bommer 1996; Lowe and Barnes 2002; Rafferty and Griffin 2004).

Finally, according to Kark and Shamir (2002), transformational leaders who emphasize a shared

vision of organizational values and ideals will prime the collective self-identity of their followers,

enhance social cohesion, and stimulate affective commitment to organization.

In view of the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership is positively related to general job satisfaction and

affective commitment among followers.

Effect of psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and organizational commitment

The diversity of approaches to empowerment has resulted in some ambiguity with regards to the

nature of the empowerment construct. In line with Menon (2001) we can distinguish between

empowerment from a structural approach and empowerment from a motivational approach.

In the structural approach to empowerment, the term implies the granting of power and

decision-making authority to subordinates (Kanter 1983; Thorlakson and Murray 1996). This

has been the traditional approach to empowerment and it focuses on the actions of the holders of

power who transfer some degree of autonomy to the less powerful.

In the motivational approach, empowerment is conceptualised as psychological enabling, it

focuses on the cognitions of the individual who are empowered; in other words, the internal

process or psychological state of the individual.Several researchers have suggested that the perceptions of employees can mediate the

relationship between management actions and employee performance (Deci and Ryan 1985;

Bandura 1989; Behling and McFillen 1996; McCann et al. 2006). This has led to a greater

research interest in the underlying psychological and cognitive states associated with

empowerment from a motivational approach.

Such a motivational approach was pioneered by Conger and Kanungo (1988), who defined

empowerment as a process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational

members. According to Bandura (1989, p. 408), self-efficacy involves beliefs in ones

capabilities to mobilise the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to

meet given situational demands.



5/23

Building on the work of Conger and Kanungo (1988), Thomas and Velthouse (1990)presented a more complex cognitive model of empowerment in which self-efficacy was only one

factor in a persons experience of empowerment. According to these authors, empowerment is

associated with changes in four cognitive variables which determine employee motivation:

i) meaning (the value of a work goal or purpose as judged in relation to an individuals own

ideals or standards); ii) competence (synonymous with Conger and Kanungos self-efficacy);

iii) self-determination (a sense of having choice in initiating and regulating actions); and iv)

impact (the degree to which a person believes that he or she can influence outcomes at work).

Spreitzer (1995a) was the first author to coin the term psychological empowerment and defined

it as increased intrinsic motivation, manifested in the four cognitive variables noted by Thomas

and Velthouse (1990).

Menons (2001) model of psychological empowerment included a new dimension goal

internalization which reflected the empowering influence of valued organizational goals.

Taking this dimension into account, Menon (1995, 2001) defined psychological empowerment

as a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived control, competence, and goal

internalization. According to this model, an important aspect of psychological empowerment is

the perception by employees that the goals of the organization represent a worthy cause, a

meaningful purpose, or an exciting project.

Numerous researchers have concurred that job satisfaction is a consequence of psychological

empowerment (Thomas and Tymon 1994; Fulford and Enz 1995; Menon 1995; Kirkman and

Rosen 1999; Bishop2000; Eylon and Bamberger2000), andvarious components of psychological

empowerment have been particularly associated withjob satisfaction. These have included: i) self-

efficacy (Liden, Wayne and Sparrowe 2000; Walumbwa et al. 2003; Carless 2004); ii) meaning

(Gorn and Kanungo 1980; Spreitzer et al. 1997; Liden et al. 2000; Sparks and Schenk 2001;

Carless 2004); iii) goal internalization (Menon 1995); and iv) choice (Spector 1986).

According to Menon (1995), satisfaction is associated with perceptions of control andcompetence, increased autonomy, and working on an idea or project that is personally appealing

and meaningful. Gorn and Kanungo (1980) showed that the employees who perceive the job as

more meaningful are likely to be more satisfied. Sparks and Schenk (2001) came to conclude that

transformational leaders empower followers by encouraging them to see higher purpose in their

jobs, and this enhances satisfaction, effort and cohesion among followers.

On the other hand, various authors have established that psychological empowerment is

significantly and positively related to an employees affective commitment (Fulford and Enz

1995; Sigler 1997; Kirkman and Rosen 1999; Koberg et al. 1999; Liden et al. 2000). Increased

responsibility and influence in decision-making result in greater commitment to the organization

as long as employees feel that their jobs entail a real choice and impact (Spector 1986; Mayer

and Schoorman 1998; Wayne, Liden and Sparrowe 2000).

Menon (2001) found a strong relationship between goal internalization and affective

organizational commitment, and Ozaralli (2003) concurred in finding that employees who feelinspired by organizational objectives aremore likelyto have an affectivelink to their organization.

Eby, Freeman, Rush and Lance (1999) explored the motivational basis of affective

organizational commitment. They identified positive relationships between commitment and

certain cognitive states that are associated with the concept of psychological empowerment.

These cognitive states included: i) a perception of meaning with respect to ones job;

ii) a perception of responsibility and results; and iii) a sense of participation.

In view of the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypotheses 2: Psychological empowerment is positively related to general job satisfaction and

affective commitment among followers.



6/23

Mediating role of psychological empowerment

According to Dvir et al. (2002) and Kark et al. (2003), the empowerment is one of the main

features that distinguish transformational leadership behaviours from transactional leadership.

Such empowerment involves the delegation of responsibility to followers and the enhancement

of their capacity to think for themselves in producing new and creative ideas. Transformational

leaders emphasize the independence and proactivity of followers, and favour empowerment

strategies rather than control (Conger 1999; Dvir and Shamir 2003).

Transformational leaders formulate and articulate idealized future goals that serve to

energize and create a sense of empowerment, to followers who internalize these goals (Kanungo

and Mendoca 1996). As Burke (1986) observed, leaders empower subordinates by providing

clarity of direction and by emphasising a higher purpose or worthy cause. Transformational

leaders empower followers by generating enthusiasm for achieving a goal and by providing

meaning and challenge in the followers work (Menon 1995, 2001; Conger and Kanungo 1988;Yukl and Van Fleet 1992; Bass 1999).

In addition to articulating meaningful and inspirational goals, transformational leaders also

favour the cognitive states of empowerment by expressing confidence in their ability to deliver

high performance (House 1977; Burke 1986; Neilsen 1986; Conger and Kanungo 1988; Bandura

1989; Conger 1989; Shamir, House and Arthur 1993; Kirkman and Rosen 1999; Conger et al.

2000). Such inspirational motivation enhances feelings of self-efficacy (Conger and Kanungo

1988) and perceived competence (Thomas and Velthouse 1990; Spreitzer 1995a; Menon 1995,

2001) both of which are critical to the psychological experience of empowerment. Several

studies have established the link between transformational leadershipand self-efficacy (Dvir et al.

2002; Kark et al. 2003; Shamir, Zakay and Brenin Popper 1998; Wallumba et al. 2003).

Transformational leaders also use intellectual stimulation to challenge their followers

thoughts, imagination, and creativity. Such intellectual stimulation could derive in a sense of

choice or self determination by followers. Moreover, intellectual stimulation may be one way inwhich leaders show followers that they value their contribution, which can stimulate feelings of

perceived competence or self-efficacy and impact (Bass 1999; Rafferty and Griffin 2004).

Individualized consideration to followers needs for achievement and growth can also

encourage them to take on increasingly bigger responsibilities in developing their full potential

paving the way to the cognitive states of empowerment (Bass and Avolio 2000; Avolio et al.

2004).

Empirical studies have confirmed the relationship between transformational leadership and

psychological empowerment among followers (Parker and Price 1994; Sigler 1997; Conger

1999; Bishop 2000; Jung, Chow and Wu 2003; Ozaralli 2003).

In view of the above discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transforma-

tional leadership and general job satisfaction among followers. Hypothesis 4: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transforma-

tional leadership and affective organizational commitment among followers.

Methodology

Data

The sample for this study consisted of directors, managers and technical staff of the Spanish arm

of a leading multinational food-and-beverage company. The survey took place in April 2004.

A total of 437 respondents received a structured questionnaire that required participants to rate:

i) several behaviours and characteristics of their respective line manager; and ii) a range



7/23

of attitudes about themselves. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter from the chiefexecutive officer (CEO) of the company outlining the objectives of the study. The response rate

was 56.97%.

Tables 1a and 1b provide details of the sample according to level of responsibility and

functional area. It is apparent that managers made up the majority of respondents that is,

leaders of work groups who reported directly to a director. In turn, these directors reported to the

senior directors, the CEO and the company president.

In terms of longevity of service, the majority of the sample had worked for the company for

1020 years, and a significant proportion had worked for the company for more than 21 years.

In terms of age groups, 40.2% of respondents were aged 3040 years and 39% were aged 4150

years.

Measures

Transformational leadership

To measure the construct of transformational leadership, the study utilized 20 items taken from

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X short (Bass and Avolio 2000).

MLQ, in its different versions, is a widely used measure of leadership behaviours and

characteristics (Lowe et al. 1996; Hunt 1999; Yukl 1999). MLQs conceptualization of

transformational leadership consists of the five factors (or dimensions) noted above: i) idealized

influence (attributed); ii) idealized influence (behaviour); iii) inspirational motivation;

iv) intellectual stimulation; and v) individualized consideration. Idealized influence can thus

be viewed as both a behaviour and an impact (in the eyes of the beholder).

Several competing models of MLQ 5X were tested to see which factor structure best fitted

the current data. Consistent with Bass and Avolios (2000) conceptualization of transformational

leadership, a five-factor model (Model A) was first tested against a three-factor model (Model B).The three-factor model merges idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence

(behaviour), and inspirational motivation into a single factor. The five-factor model produced

a better fit on all of the indices (as reported in Table 2). However, a lack of discriminant validity

among the factors in both Model A and Model B (with very high correlations between 0.859 and

0.994) led to a third model (Model C) being considered. In this model, all of the items were

expected to load a single factor; however, the fit was worse for Model C. Table 2 shows the

various fit measures as well as the chi-square test results of the competing models. The results

were similar to those of other studies (Bass 1985; Avolio, Waldman and Einstein 1988; Hater

and Bass 1988; Bass and Avolio 1990, 1993; Yammarino and Bass 1990; Bycio et al. 1995;

Geyer and Steyrer 1998; Avolio, Bass and Jung 1999).

When the fit of a model is adequate but the scales comprising that model lack discriminant

validity, Marsh and Hocevar (1985) have advised that the high correlations among the factor

Table 1a. Analysis of the sample according to level of responsibility.

Level of responsibility Population Sample Percentage of population

Director 85 48 56.5Manager 244 155 63.5Technical staff 108 32 29.6No answer 14

437 249

Note: Level of confidence 95.5% (p q 0.5).



8/23

scales might be due to the existence of hierarchical factors. Moreover, there is evidence that

transformational leadership might be a hierarchical concept (Carless 1998; Bass and Avolio2000). According to this approach, idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence

(behaviour), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration

might represent facets of the overarching concept of transformational leadership. In such a

hierarchical model, the first-order factors are largely explained by a higher-order factor, and in

this case a target coefficient of 0.83 confirms this assertion.1 In this hierarchical model the

interpretation at the subscale level would be inappropriate because of the lack of discriminant

validity (Marsh and Grayson 1994).

Following the advice of Antonakis (2001), who is an expert in the five-factor version of MLQ,

and advice contained in other recent studies (Bono and Judge 2003; Walumbwa, Lawler, Avolio,

Wang and Shi 2005), a measure of transformational leadership was chosen for the present study in

which items loaded on the five factors of transformational leadership and the five factors (capturing

the average value of the respective indicators) on a transformational leadership factor. The results

Table 1b. Analysis of the sample according to functional area.

Functional area Sample Percentage of sample

Commercial 73 29.32Technical 63 25.30Customer service 31 12.42Human resources 10 4.01Whole sale 10 4.01Finance 53 21.29No answer 9 3.61Total 249

Table 2. Goodness of fit statistic for transformational leadership models.

Model A(5 factors)

Model B(3 factors)

Model C(1 factor)

Model D(5 factors*)

Absolute fit measuresChi-square 319.509 511.392 585.56 14.986Degrees of freedom 142 149 152 5Signification 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01No centrality parameter (NCP) 177.509 362.392 433.56 9.986Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.881 0.787 0.768 0.976Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) 0.047 0.06 0.062 0.024Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA)

0.071 0.099 0. 107 0.09

Incremental fit measuresAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) 0.841 0.728 0.71 0.929Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.916 0.865 0.751 0.915Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.951 0.9 0.88 0.94Parsimonious fit measuresNormed Chi-square (CMIN/DF) 2.25 3.432 3.852Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI) 0.76 0.754 0.751Parsimonious Goodness of Fit Index(PGFI)

0.659 0.617 0.614

Note: (*) each factors capturing the average value of the respective indicators of each of the five factors oftransformational leadership.



9/23


10/23

Table 3a. Measurement model.

Leadership Satisfaction Commit

IndicatorsStandardized regression

Weights C.R. R2

Standardized regressionWeights C.R. R

2

Standardized regressionWeights

II (at) 0.86 * 0.740II (behaviour) 0.935 23.076 0.872IM 0.907 21.565 0.823IS 0.89 19.869 0.793IC 0.812 17.223 0.660SAT1 0.834 * 0.721SAT2 0.852 14. 283 0.467SAT3 0.683 8.479 0.726SAT4 0.849 16.403 0.696COMM4 0.804

COMM5 0.659 COMM8 0.628 COMM10 0.680


11/23

Table 3b. Measurement model.

Psychological empowerment

Goal internalizationreliability: 0.675

Perceived competencereliability: 0.330 Choice reliability: 0.540 Impact reliabi

IndicatorsStand regres.

Weight CR R2

Stand regres.Weight CR R

2

Stand regres.Weight CR R

2

Stand regres.Weight

GI1 0.681 8.052 0.463GI2 0.705 10.30 0.498GI3 0.755 13.96 0.570GI5 0.805 * 0.648COMP2 0.562 * 0.661COMP5 0.813 6.5 0.316CHOICE1 0.803 * 0.645CHOICE2 0.890 16.88 0.793

CHOICE3 0.792 12.05 0.628IMPACT1 0.810IMPACT2 0.611 IMPACT3 0.656

Note: *Initial weight 1.


12/23

Statistical method

Structural equation modelling (SEM) using AMOS 4.0 software was utilized to establish multiple

simultaneous dependence relationships (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black 1999). The analysis

and interpretation of the proposed model was a two-stage process: i) an assessment of the

reliability and validity of the measurement model; and ii) an assessment of the structural model.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to establish the reliability and validity of the scales.

Becauseall data on transformational leadership, psychologicalempowerment,and attitudes (job

satisfaction and affective commitment) were self-reported from a single questionnaire, the

possibility of common method variance existed. Following the advice of Podsakoff, Mackenzie and

Podsakoff (2003), and bearing in mind that the information couldnt be obtained from different

sources, to use all procedural remedies related to questionnaire design: separate measurement of

predictor and criterion variables psychologically and guarantee response anonymity. A single-

common-method-factor approach was carried out; the possibility of common influence across allresponses was first assessedby applyingHarmans (1967) one-factor test. Using a factor analysis, no

single factor that explained variance across all items was identified suggesting that mono-method

bias was unlikely. Of the seven factors that were identified, the principal factor explained only 17%

of the variance. Because no single factor was found to explain more than 50% of the variance, the

data of the study can be accepted as valid (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Moreover, confirmatory

factor analyses using AMOS were performed to identify and isolate any possible method effects

(Carlson and Kacmar 2000; Elangovan and Xie 1999). Each of the 16 items underlying the latent

factors was also represented as one indicator of a large common variance factor. The analyses

showed that the fit of the model did not improve significantly with the addition and specification of

method parameters over the trait parameter specifications alone. The overall chi-square fit statistics

for the t-trait factor model was X2(97) 229,956, p 0.000, GFI 0.902, CFI 0.946,

PNFI 0.726; while the fit statistics for the-traits factor with methods factor model was

X2(82) 165,051, p 0.000, GFI 0.918, CFI 0.966, PNFI 0.669.

Results

Validity and reliability

As can be seen in Tables 4 and 5, all constructs had values above the established thresholds for

composite reliability (0.6) and extracted variance (0.5).

To assess discriminant validity, the extracted variance should be greater than the variance

shared between one construct and the other constructs in the model (that is, the squared

correlation between two construct) (Fornell and Lacker 1981). All pairs of constructs satisfied

this criterion, apart from organizational commitment and psychological empowerment,

which had a low value for the extracted variance of the commitment variable. Applying Kennys

(2001) criterion, the constructs were distinguishable because the correlation between them

(0.716) was not higher than 0.85. An ANOVA showed there were significant differences acrossthe answers of the sample with respect to the compared constructs (sig. 0.000).

Testing of hypotheses

Table 5 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all the studied

variables.

It will be recalled that Hypothesis 1 proposed that transformational leadership is positively

related to the general job satisfaction and affective commitment among followers. The results

show that transformational leadership correlated significantly (p , 0.05) with followers

attitudes. There were positive correlations between transformational leadership and general job



13/23

satisfaction among followers (r 0.0485, p , 0.01) and between transformational leadership

and affective commitment to the organization (r 0.527, p , 0.01). These results provide

preliminary evidence in support of Hypothesis 1.Hypothesis 2 proposed that psychological empowerment is positively related to general job

satisfaction and affective commitment among followers. The results show that psychological

empowerment had a significant correlation with general job satisfaction (r 0.687, p , 0.01)

and with organizational commitment (r 0.716, p , 0.01). These results support Hypothesis 2.

Hypotheses 3 and 4, which proposed that psychological empowerment mediates the

relationship between transformational leadership and the attitudes of followers, were tested

according to the recommendations of James, Mulaik and Brett (2006), rather than Baron and

Kennys (1986) criterion.

Among the pieces of work which seek to test mediation hypotheses, we would highlight

Baron and Kenny (1986) research, based on a set of steps involving correlations and regression

weights. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) four criteria need to be met to support full

mediation. First, the independent variable (transformational leadership) needs to be significantly

related to a mediator. Second, transformational leadership needs to be significantly related toorganizational commitment and general job satisfaction. Third, psychological empowerment

needs to be significantly related to organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Finally, the

relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment and general

job satisfaction must disappear when psychological empowerment is introduced into the

regression equation.

However, James and Brett (1984) recommended that if theoretical mediation models are

thought of as causal models, then strategies designed specifically to test the fit of causal models

to data, namely confirmatory techniques such as structural equation modelling (SEM), should be

employed to test these mediation models. The critical difference between the SEM approach and

Baron and Kennys approach is the choice of focal or baseline model for mediation. The SEM

Table 5. Reliability and discriminant validity between constructs.

Squared correlations

Constructs Mean s.d. Commitment Satisfaction Empowermen t

Composite

reliability

Extracted

variance

Transformational L 3.37 0.82 0.278** 0.236** 0.537** 0.952 0.8516P. Empowerment 3.35 0.63 0.513** 0.473** 0.782 0.549Satisfaction 3.41 0.78 0.304** 0.913 0.7189Commitment 3.98 0.76 0.7348 0.4998

Notes: N 249; **p , .01.

Table 4. Discriminant validity and internal consistency of psychological empowerment.

Empowermentalpha: 0.8451

Goalinternalizationsquaredcorrelation

Perceivedcompetencesquaredcorrelation

Choicesquaredcorrelation

Extractedvariance

Compositereliability

Competence 0.441 0.789 0.876Choice 0.187 0.133 0.725 0.878

Impact 0.477 0.341 0.419 0.5973 0.814Goal internalization 0.5987 0.856



14/23

approach follows the parsimony principle by employing the complete mediation model. Baronand Kennys approach adopts the partial mediation model.

James et al. (2006), having compared these two angles (SEM and B K approach) suggest a

two-step strategy to test mediation:

Step 1: Determine whether each hypothesized mediation relationship is complete or partial. It is

hoped that theory and prior research will furnish a sufficient basis to determine whether complete

or partial mediation is hypothesized. If theory and research are insufficient to hypothesize

complete or partial mediation, then they recommend testing for complete mediation. It is the most

parsimonious mediation model, and parsimonious models are taken as the theoretical baselines in

sciences because they are the easiest to reject (Mulaik 2002).

Step 2: Once the form of mediation has been hypothesized, the second recommendation is to

test the hypothesis using SEM techniques.

For this purpose, a series of nested model comparisons were made, in accordance with

the proposals of Avolio et al. (2005) and Wang et al. (2005). The results are shown in

Table 6.

Model 1 represents a fully mediated model. This model did not have direct paths from

transformational leadership to general job satisfaction and affective commitment to the

organization. This model was tested against three nested models. Model 2 incorporated a direct

path from transformational leadership to general job satisfaction, Model 3 incorporated a

direct path from transformational leadership to affective commitment, and Model 4 incorporated

both of these direct paths. As Table 6 shows, the differences between chi-squares were not

significant in comparing Model 1 with Models 2, 3 and 4. These results suggest that Model 1 best

fitted the data. Moreover, the new direct paths added in Models 2, 3, and 4 were not significant.

Taken together, these results support Hypotheses 3 and 4. It is apparent that psychological

empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and the attitudes of

followers.Figure 2 shows that the coefficient of the path from transformational leadership to

empowerment was significant ( 0.717, p , 0.01), as were the coefficients of the path

from empowerment to employee satisfaction ( 0.698, p , 0.01) and the path from

empowerment to affective commitment to the organization ( 0.743, p , 0.01).

In support of Hypothesis 2, statistically significant and positive coefficients were

demonstrated for the paths from empowerment to affective commitment to the organization and

from empowerment to employee satisfaction.

Discussion

Results of the present study suggest that psychological empowerment mediates between

transformational leadership and the attitudes of followers with respect to general job satisfaction

and affective commitment to the organization. It can therefore be concluded that trans-formational leadership has influence on followers attitudes through its effect on psychological

empowerment. Consistently with previous studies (Sigler 1997; Bishop 2000; Jung et al. 2003;

Ozaralli 2003), we found a positive impact of transformational leadership on followers

psychological empowerment. The positive relationships between transformational leadership

and followers attitudes found in previous research (Bycio et al. 1995; Barling et al. 1996;

Bishop 2000; Dumdum et al. 2002; Bono and Judge 2003; Walumbwa et al. 2003) do not have

significant results, in our study, when psychological empowerment is introduced into the

analysis. Our findings confirm prior research along the lines that psychological empowerment

plays a mediating role between transformational leadership and organizational commitment

(Avolio et al. 2004; McCann et al. 2006).



15/23

Table 6. Comparison of structural equation modelsa.

Model and structure X 2

d.f. DX2

RMSEA

1. TL! EMP! SAT COMM 244.867 101 0.076 0.92. TL! EMP! SAT COMM and TL! SAT 244.619 100 0.248 0.076 0.93. TL! EMP! SAT COMM and TL! COMP 244.841 100 0.026 0.076 0.94. TL! EMP! SAT COMM and TL! SAT and COMM 244.517 99 0.350 0.077 0.9

Notes:aTL transformational leadership; EMP empowerment; SAT general job satisfaction; COMM affective commitment to the organization.


16/23

Employees who feel inspired by an attractive objective and a compelling vision and

experience a sense of control (choice and impact) have a higher level of satisfaction with their

jobs. This is consistent with others pieces of research which point out a positive relationship

between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (Thomas and Tymon 1994; Fulford

and Enz 1995; Menon 1995; Kirkman and Rosen 1999; Koberg 1999; Bishop 2000; Eylon and

Bamberger 2000). Similarly, in consistence with prior research (Kirkman and Rosen 1999;

Sigler 1997; Fulford and Enz 1995; Liden et al. 2000; Koberg et al. 1999; Avolio et al. 2004)

there is a strong relationship between an employees affective commitment to the organization

and that persons experience of empowerment. Employees who have a perception of

empowerment (that is, with a strong sense of control and energy with respect to their jobs) feel

affectively committed to the organization that brings them this sense of power.

Conclusions, implications and limitations

The mediating role of psychological empowerment between transformational leadership and the

attitudes of followers is the core finding of the present study. Leaders who wish to enhance

employee satisfaction and organizational commitment should be capable of communicating

enthusiasm about organizational objectives, fostering the internalization of goals, creating a

sense of choice and impact, and making employees feel that they are participants in the

transformation of the organization.

Previous research has established how transformational leaders, by setting inspirational

goals and emphasizing a higher purpose, provide meaning to followers work (Conger and

Kanungo 1988; Yukl and Van Fleet 1992) and favour goal internalization (Conger et al. 2000;Menon 2001),

Moreover, by intellectual stimulation these leaders influence followers feeling of

competence, impact and choice (Bass 1999; Rafferty and Griffin 2004). Supportive leader

behaviour has been associated with cognitive states of psychological empowerment and more

precisely with perceived control: choice and impact (Parker and Price 1994; Conger 1999;

Avolio et al. 2004).

The results of this study have implications for company management. The study emphasizes

the importance of psychological empowerment and its relevance in shaping the cognitive states

of employees with whom power is shared. Managers must recognise that psychological

empowerment provides a mediating link between a transformational leaders behaviours and the

Figure 2. SEM modelling of the mediating effects of psychological empowerment.



17/23

attitudes of employers. It is very important for companies to be aware of the extent to which theiremployees feel empowered.

Like all studies of this type, the present study has certain limitations. As previously noted,

the same respondents rated transformational leadership, psychological empowerment and their

attitudes. This gives rise to concern about possible common source bias in the results.

However, strategies to minimise such bias were incorporated into the study design. Having said

that, future studies should consider employing multiple sources of data collection, with variables

collected at different times.

Data for the current study were collected from just one company in Spain, we dont know

whether these results would generalize to other types of organizations. It would be helpful for

future studies to replicate these findings in other companies to enhance generalizability in other

settings.

The use of cross-sectional data precludes definitive assertions regarding causality and

directionality. Longitudinal designs are needed in future research to extend our findings.

It should also be noted that the age, tenure, level of responsibility, and functional

specialisation of respondents were not included as control variables. Previous studies have

shown that some of these variables could have an influence on affective commitment to

the organization and general job satisfaction (Chen and Francesco 2000; Mathieu and

Zajac 1990). However, the relatively small sample sizes of some of the segments made it

difficult to analyse significant deviations among standardized regression weights for the

various segments.

In our study, we consider the relationships between leaders and their immediate followers,

these leaders have individualized and direct interactions with followers. Leader outcomes have

been measured at individual level of analysis (Antonakis and Atwater 2002).

It would be interesting in the future to consider others levels of analysis focusing in the

behaviours that transformational leaders exhibit to the group as a whole and studying group-leveleffect. In thissense, Kirkmanand Rosen (1999) have developed an empowerment team-level model

with dimensions parallel to the Spreitzer (1995a) psychological empowerment model.

Future research also needs to explore the moderating role of the distance (physical, social

and frequency of interaction) between leader and followers. As Antonakis and Atwater (2002)

point out, this variable can partly explain the effects of transformational leadership and the level

of analysis more appropriately. Avolio et al. (2004) research showed that psychological

empowerment mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational

commitment but only when follower is reporting indirect to the leader.

Note

1. Marsh and Hocevar (1985) developed the target coefficient (T) as a measure of how effectively higher

order factors explain the overall measurement model. The target coefficient is the ratio of the chi squareof the first-order model to the chi-square of the more restrictive higher-order model. A targetcoefficient of one means that the covariation among the first order factors is completely accounted forby a more restrictive model.

References

Allen, N.J., and Meyer, J.P. (1990), The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance,Normative Commitment to the Organization, Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 63, 1, 118.

Allen, N.J., and Meyer, J.P. (1996), Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment to theOrganization, an Examination of Construct Validity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252276.



18/23

Antonakis, J. (2001), The Validity of The Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-faire LeadershipModel as Measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5X), unpublished PhD thesis,

Walden University, UMI No. 3000380.Antonakis, J., and Atwater, L. (2002), Leader-distance: A Review and Proposed Theory, The Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 673704.Antonakis, J., and House, R.J. (2002), The Full-range Leadership Theory: The Way Forward,

in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds. B.J. Avolio andF.J. Yammarino, Greenwich, CT and London: JAI Press, pp. 333.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003), Context and Leadership: An Examination ofthe Nine-factor Full-range Leadership Theory Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,

The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261295.Avolio, B., and Gardner, W.L. (2005), Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive

Forms of Leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315338.Avolio, B., Bass, B., and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the Components of Transformational and

Transactional Leadership Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441462.Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., and Einstein, W.O. (1988), Transformational Leadership in a Management

Game Simulation, Group and Organization Studies, 13, 1, 5980.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 Structure

Distance, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 25, 951968.Bandura, A. (1989), Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory, American Psychologist, 44, 11751184.Barling, J., Weber, T., and Kelloway, E.K. (1996), Effects of Transformational Leadership Training on

Attitudinal and Financial Outcomes: A Field Experiments, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 6,

827832.Baron, R., and Kenny, D. (1986), The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological

Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 51, 6, 11731182.

Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, New York: The Free Press.Bass, B.M. (1999), Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership,

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 1, 932.Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1990), The Implications of Transactional and Transformational Leadership

for Individual, Team, Organizational Development, Research in Organizational Change andDevelopment, 4, 231272.

Bass, B.M., and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques,in Leadership Theory and Research: Perspectives and Directions, eds. M.M. Chemers and R. Ayman,San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 4980.

Bass, B.M., and Avolio B.J. (2000), MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Technical Report,

Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.Behling, O., and McFillen, J.M. (1996), A Syncretical Model of Charismatic/transformational

Leadership, Group & Organization Management, 21, 163191.Bishop, K. (2000), Understanding Employee Empowerment in the Workplace: Exploring the Relationship

Between Transformational Leadership, Employee Perceptions of Empowerment, and Key WorkOutcomes, unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Claremont, California, UMI number: 9984244.

Bono, J.E., and Judge, T.A. (2003), Self-concordance at Work: Toward Understanding the Motivational

Effects of Transformational Leadership, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 5, 554571.Bryman, A., Gillingwater, D., and McGuinness, L. (1996), Leadership and Organizational

Transformation, International Journal of Public Administration, 19, 849873.Burke, W.W. (1986), Leadership as Empowering Others, in Executive Power, ed. S. Srivastva,

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 5177.Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., and Allen, J.S. (1995), Further Assessments of Basss (1985), Conceptualization

of Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 4, 468478.

Carless, S.A. (1998), Assessing the Discriminant Validity of Transformational Leader Behaviour asMeasured by the MLQ, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 4, 353358.

Carless, S.A. (2004), Does Psychological Empowerment Mediate the Relationship Between PsychologicalClimate and Job Satisfaction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 4, 405425.

Carlson, D.S., and Kacmar, K.M. (2000), Work-family Conflict in the Organization: Do Life Roles ValuesMake A Difference? Journal of Management, 26, 513540.



19/23

Chen, Z.X., and Francesco, A.M. (2000), Employee Demography, Organizacional Commitment andTurnover Intentions in China: Do Cultural Differences Matter? Human Relations, 35, 869888.

Conger, J.A. (1989), Leadership: The Art of Empowering Others, Academy of Management Executive,

3, 1, 1724.

Conger, J.A. (1999), Charismatic and Transformational Leadership in Organizations: An Insiders

Perspective on these Developing Streams of Research, Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2, 145179.

Conger, J.A., and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), The Empowerment Process: Integrating Theory and Practice,

Academy of Management Review, 13, 3, 471482.

Conger, J.A., Kanungo, R.N., and Menon, S.T. (2000), Charismatic Leadership and Follower Effects,

Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 747767.

Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Self-determination in a Cork Organization, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 4, 580590.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S., and Cross, T.C. (2000), A Meta-analysis to Review Organizational Outcomes

Related to Charismatic Leadership, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 357371.

Dimitriades, Z.S. (2005), Employee Empowerment in the Greek Context, International Journal of

Manpower, 26, 1, 8094.

Dumdum, U.R., Lowe, K.B., and Avolio, B. (2002), A Meta-analysis of Transformational and

Transactional Leadership, in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds.

B.J. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino, North Holland: JAI Elsevier Science, pp. 3565.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B., and Shamir, B. (2002), Impact of Transformational Leadership on Follower

Development and Performance: A Field Study, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 735744.

Dvir, T., and Shamir, B. (2003), Follower Developmental Characteristics as Predicting Transformational

Leadership: A Longitudinal Field Study, The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327344.

Eby, L.T., Freeman, D.M., Rush, M.C., and Lance, C.E. (1999), Motivational Bases of Affective

Organizational Commitment: A Partial Test of an Integrative Theoretical Model, Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 463483.

Elangovan, A.R., and Xie, J.L. (1999), Effects of Perceived Power of Supervisor on Subordinate Stress and

Motivation: The Moderating Role of Subordinate Characteristics, Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 20, 359373.

Epitropaki, O., and Martin, R. (2005), The Moderating Role of Individual Differences in the Relation

Between Transformational/transactional Leadership Perceptions and Organizational Identification,

The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 569589.

Eylon, D., and Bamberger, P. (2000), Empowerment Cognitions and Empowerment Acts: Recognizing

The Importance Of Gender, Group & Organizational Management, 25, 4, 354372.

Fornell, C., and Lacker, D. (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables

and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistic, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 3950.

Fulford, M.D., and Enz, C.A. (1995), The Impact of Empowerment on Service Employees, Journal of

Managerial Issues, 7, 2, 161175.

Geyer, A.L.J., and Steyrer, J.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership and Objective Performance in

Banks, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 3, 397420.

Gorn, G.J., and Kanungo, R.N. (1980), Job Involvement and Motivation: Are Intrinsically Motivated

Managers More Job Involved? Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 26, 265277.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1999), Analisis Multivariante, Madrid:

Prentice Hall.

Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hater, J.J., and Bass, B.M. (1988), Superiors Evaluations and Subordinates Perceptions of

Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 4, 695702.

Hepworth, W., and Towler, A. (2004), The Effects of Individual Differences and Charismatic Leadership

on Workplace Aggression, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 2, 176185.

Hollander, E.P. (1992), Leadership, Followership, Self, and Others, Leadership Quarterly, 3, 1, 4354.

Hollander, E.P. (1995), Organizational Leadership and Followership: The Role of Interpersonal

Relations, in Social Psychology at Work: Essays in Honour of Michael Argyle, eds. P. Collett and

A. Furnham, London: Routledge, pp. 6987.

House, R.J. (1977), A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership, in Leadership: The Cutting Edge, eds.

J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 189207.

House, R.J., and Aditya, R.N. (1997), The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of

Management, 23, 3, 409473.



20/23

Howell, J.M., and Shamir, B. (2005), The Role of Followers in the Charismatic Leadership Process:Relationships and Their Consequences, Academy of Management Review, 33, 1, 96112.

Huang, M.P., Cheng, B., and Chou, L. (2005), Fitting in Organizational Values: The Mediating role ofPerson-organization Fit Between CEO Charismatic Leadership and Employee Outcomes,

International Journal of Manpower, 26, 1, 3549.Hunt, J.G. (1999), Transformational/charismatic Leaderships Transformation of the Field: An Historical

Essay, The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2, 129144.Ilies, R., Morgeson, F.P., and Nahrgang, J.D. (2005), Authentic Leadership and Eudaemonic Well-being:

Understanding Leader-follower Outcomes, The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373394.James, L.R., and Brett, J.M. (1984), Mediators, Moderators, and Test for Mediation, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 6, 2, 307322.James, L., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (2006), A Tale of Two Methods, Organizational Research

Methods, 9, 2, 233244.Jung, D., Chow, C., and Wu, A. (2003), The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing

Organizational Innovation: Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Finding, The Leadership Quarterly, 14,

525544.Kanter, R.M. (1983), The Change Masters, New York: Simon & Schuster.Kanungo, R.N., and Mendoca, M. (1996), Ethical Dimensions of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Kark, R., and Shamir, B. (2002), The Dual Effect of Transformational Leadership: Priming Relational and

Collective Selves And Further Effects on Followers, in Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, eds. B.J. Avolio and F.J. Yammarino, North Holland: JAI ElsevierScience, pp. 6791.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., and Chen, G. (2003), The Two Faces of Transformational Leadership: Empower-

ment and Dependency, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 2, 246255.Kenny, D.A. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling, http://W3.nai.net/,dakenny/mfactor.htmKirkman, B., and Rosen, B. (1999), Beyond Self-management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team

Empowerment, Academy of Management Journal, 24, 1, 5874.Koberg, C., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C., and Goodman, E. (1999), Antecedents and Outcomes of

Empowerment, Group & Organization Management, 24, 1, 7191.

Liden, R., Wayne, S., and Sparrowe, R.T. (2000), An Examination of the Mediating Role of Psychological

Empowerment on the Relations Between the Job, Interpersonal Relationships and Work Outcomes,Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 3, 407416.

Locke, E.A. (1976), The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, ed. M.D. Dunnette, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 12971350.

Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J., and De Vader, C.L. (1984), A Test of Leadership Categorization Theory: Internal

Structure, Information Processing, and Leadership Perceptions, Organizational Behaviour and HumanPerformance, 34, 343425.

Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), Effectiveness Correlates of Transforma-tional and Transactional Leadership: Meta-analytic Review of the Literature, Leadership Quarterly,

7, 3, 385425.Lowe, W.C., and Barnes, B.F. (2002), An Examination of the Relationship Between Leadership Practices

and Organizational Commitment in Fire Service, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneur-

ship, 2, 30 47.Lucas, G.H., Babakus, E., and Ingram, T.N. (1990), An Empirical Test of the Job Satisfaction-turnover

Relationship, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 18, 199209.

Marsh, H., and Grayson, D. (1994), Longitudinal Confirmatory Factor Analysis Common, Time-specific,Item-specific And Residual Error Components of Variance, Structural Equation Modelling, 11,116145.

Marsh, H.W., and Hocevar, D. (1985), Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis to the Study of Self-concept. First and Higher-order Models and their Invariance Across Groups, Psychological Bulletin,

97, 562 582.Mathieu, J., and Zajac, D.M. (1990), A Review and Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates and

Consequences of Organizational Commitment, Psychological Bulleting, 108, 171194.Mayer, R., and Schoorman, F.D. (1998), Differentiating Antecedents of Organizational Commitment:

A Test of March and Simons Model, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, 1528.McCann, J.J., Langford, P.H., and Rawlings, R.M. (2006), Testing Behling and McFillens Syncretical

Model of Charismatic Transformational Leadership, Group & Organization Management, 31,237263.



21/23

McFarlin, D.B., and Rice, R.W. (1992), The Role of Facet Importance as a Moderator in Job SatisfactionProcesses, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 13, 4154.

Menon, S.T. (1995), Employee Empowerment: Definition, Measurement and Construct Validation,

unpublished PhD dissertation, McGill University.

Menon, S.T. (2001), Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological Approach, Applied

Psychology: An Internacional Review, 50, 1, 153180.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., and Porter, L. (1979), The Measurement of Organizational Commitment, Journal

of Vocational Behaviour, 14, 224227.

Mulaik, S.A. (2002), The Curve-fitting Problem: An Objectivist View, Philosophy of Science, 68,

218241.

Nanus, B. (1994), Liderazgo Visionario, Barcelona: Ediciones Granica S.A.

Neilsen, E. (1986), Empowerment Strategies: Balancing Authority and Responsibility, in Executive

Power, ed. S. Srivastva, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 78110.

Ozaralli, N. (2003), Effects of Transformational Leadership on Empowerment and Team Effectiveness,

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24, 5/6, 335 345.

Parker, L.E., and Price, R.H. (1994), Empowered Managers and Empowered Workers: The Effects of

Managerial Support and Managerial Perceived Control on Workers Sense of Control Over Decision-

making, Human Relations, 47, 8, 911928.

Piccollo, F., and Colquitt, J.A. (2006), Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviours: The Mediating

Role of Core Job Characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 2, 327340.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., and Bommer, W.H. (1996), Transformational Leadership Behaviours

and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviours, Journal of Management, 22, 2, 259298.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., and Podsakoff, N. (2003), Common Method Biases in Behavioural

Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 879903.

Podsakoff, P.M., and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and

Prospects, Journal of Management, 12, 6982.

Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., and Boulian, P.V. (1974), Organizational Commitment, Job

Satisfaction and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 5,

603609.

Rafferty, A.E., and Griffin, M.A. (2004), Dimensions of Transformational Leadership: Conceptual and

Empirical Extensions, The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329354.

Rafferty, A.E., and Griffin, M.A. (2006), Refining Individualized Consideration: Distinguishing

Developmental Leadership and Supportive Leadership, Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 79, 3761.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective Commitment to the Organization: The

Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 5, 825836.

Shamir, B., House, R.J., and Arthur, M.B. (1993), The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership:

A Self-concept Based Theory, Organization Science, 4, 4, 577594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E.E., and Breinin Popper, M. (1998), Correlates of Charismatic Leader Behaviour in

Military Units: Subordinates Attitudes, Unit Characteristics, and Superior Appraisals of Leader

Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387409.

Sigler, T.H. (1997), The Empowerment Experience: A Study of Front Line Employees, unpublished PhD

dissertation, University of North Carolina, UMI Number: 9818424.

Sigler, T.H., and Pearson, C.M. (2000), Creating an Empowering Culture: Examining the Relationship

between Organizational Culture and Perceptions of Empowerment, Journal of Quality Management,

5, 2752.

Sparks, J.R., and Schenk, A. (2001), Explaining the Effects of Transformational Leadership: An

Investigation of the Effects of Higher-order Motives in Multilevel Marketing Organizations, Journal

of Organizational Behaviour, 22, 849869.

Spector, P.E. (1986), Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-analysis of Studies Concerning Autonomy

and Participation at Work, Human Relations, 39, 11, 119127.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995a), Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and

Validation, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 5, 14421446.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995b), An Empirical Test of a Comprehensive Model of Intrapersonal Empowerment in

the Workplace, American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 5, 601629.



22/23

Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A., and Nason, S.W. (1997), A Dimensional Analysis of the RelationsBetween Psychological Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction and Strain, Journal of

Management, 23, 679704.Thomas, K.W., and Tymon, W.G. (1994), Does Empowerment Always Work: Understanding the Role of

Intrinsic Motivation and Personal Interpretation, Journal of Management Systems, 6, 3, 1 13.Thomas, K.W., and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An Interpretive Model

of Intrinsic Task Motivation, Academy of Management Review, 15, 4, 666681.Thorlakson, A.J.H., and Murray, R.P. (1996), An Empirical Study of Empowerment in the Workplace,

Group and Organization Management, 21, 1, 6783.Walumbwa, F.O., and Lawler, J.J. (2003), Building Effective Organizations: Transformational

Leadership, Collectivist Orientation, Work-related Attitudes and Withdrawal Behaviours in ThreeEmerging Economies, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 7, 10831101.

Walumbwa, F.O., Lawler, J.J., Avolio, B.J., Wang, P., and Shi, K. (2005), Transformational Leadershipand Work-related Attitudes: The Moderating Effects of Collective and Self-efficacy Across Cultures,

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 3, 216.

Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., and Lawler, J.J. (2003), Exploring New Frontiers: The Role of CollectiveEfficacy in Relations Between Transformational Leadership and Work-related Attitudes, paperpresented in Charting New Territory And Exploring New Frontiers, Midwest Academy of ManagementAnnual Conference, 35 April.

Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Lawler, J.J., and Shi, K. (2004), The Role of Collective Efficacy in RelationsBetween Transformational Leadership and Work Outcomes, Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 77, 515531.

Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R., Wang, D., and Chen, Z. (2005), Leader-member Exchange as aMediator of the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Followers Performance andOrganizational Citizenship Behaviour, Academy of Management Journal, 48, 3, 420432.

Wayne, S., Liden, R., and Sparrowe, R. (2000), An Examination of the Mediating Role of PsychologicalEmpowerment on the Relations Between the Job, Interpersonal Relationships, Work Outcomes,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407416.Wofford, J.C., and Liska, L.Z. (1993), Path-goal Theories of Leadership: A Meta-analysis, Journal of

Management, 79, 857876.

Yammarino, F.J., and Bass, B.M. (1990), Transformational Leadership and Multiple Levels of Analysis,Human Relations, 43, 975995.Yammarino, F.J., and Dubinsky, A.J. (1992), Superior-subordinate Relationships: A Multiple Level of

Analysis Approach, Human Relations, 45, 575600.Yammarino, F.J., and Dubinsky, A.J. (1994), Transformational Leadership Theory: Using Levels of

Analysis to Determine Boundary Conditions, Personnel Psychology, 47, 4, 787811.Yoon, J., and Thye, S.R. (2002), A Dual Process Model of Organizational Commitment, Work and

Occupations, 29, 97124.Yukl, G. (1999), An Evaluation of Conceptual Weaknesses in Transformational and Charismatic

Leadership Theories, The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 2, 285305.Yukl, G., and Van Fleet, D.D. (1992), Theory and Research on Leadership in Organizations, in Handbook

of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, eds. M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough, Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 147197.



23/23

Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional

Documents

Transcript of Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional