Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Over the past decade, the attention received by transformational leadership (TL) in the management literature has led to strong demand for its application in many fields, including organizational settings (Northouse, 2016; Siangchokyoo, Klinger, & Campion, 2019). Various researchers have expressed differing views on the impacts of TL. Abundant studies exist regarding the impact of TL on employees, teams, and organizations, specifically, the positive results it brings to the workplace (Jackson, 2020; Camps & Rodríguez, 2011; Jauhar et al., 2017). In particular, TL refers to how leaders transform the beliefs, desires, and ambitions of followers into better performance, with employees prioritizing organizational achievement above self-interest (Dinh et al., 2014; Northouse, 2016). Undoubtedly, previous empirical results support associations between TL and individual, team, and organizational outcomes, showing the importance of this construct. However, despite the abundance of previous studies, researchers have encouraged the continued exploration of the effects of leadership in the organization (Wu, 2009; Epitropakiand & Martin, 2005; Jin, Seo, & Shapiro, 2016; Rosen et al., 2019). For instance, a recent systematic review considering the development of the TL theory (Siangchokyoo, Klinger, & Campion, 2019), stated that “few studies have assessed the theory assumption that the positive individual, group, and organizational effects of TL are due to the transformation of followers in specific and enduring ways.” In their review, the authors have concluded that still, there is a strong need for “more actionable leadership models.” As such, this study explores the potential mechanisms and contexts to better understand the effect of TL on followers’ affective outcomes.
With regard to the mechanisms between transformational leaders and their followers in the organization, this study builds upon McGrath’s (1964) well-known input–process–output (IPO) model to explain the relationships between organizational factors and affective outcomes. Specifically, it examines the process variables that mediate between TL and job satisfaction. Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) proposed an important conceptualization of the processes related to TL. The researchers examined the mechanisms of various organizational factors, including job characteristics and the “way followers view their jobs” in the workplace. Their analysis revealed that “TL relationships were significantly stronger for followers who perceived high-quality leader–member exchange.” Therefore, they proposed two important mediators to examine the effects of TL on satisfaction based on followers’ perceptions of both their jobs (workload) and themselves (work engagement). However, this conceptualization has hitherto received limited attention in the examination of the effects of TL (Mohammed, 2017; Barroso et al., 2008). Thus, this present study firstly proposes a process model (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Preacher et al., 2010) with two factors (i.e., workload and work engagement) (Prabhakar & Padmakumar, 2012) that mediate the relationship between TL and employees’ affective outcome (i.e., satisfaction).