Date post: | 07-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | karla-calderon-vergara |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 23
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
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1845
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
C. Barroso Castro et al.1846
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1847
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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).
C. Barroso Castro et al.1848
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1849
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
9/23
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1853
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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
C. Barroso Castro et al.1854
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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).
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1855
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1857
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
C. Barroso Castro et al.1858
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1859
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
C. Barroso Castro et al.1860
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1861
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
C. Barroso Castro et al.1862
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
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.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1863
8/4/2019 Articulo de Liderazgo Trasnformacional
23/23