Author: Bitieal Mehari

Supervisor: Yvonne Terjestam

Examinor: Jens Agerström

Linnaeus UniversityDepartment of psychologyPsychologyMaster Thesis 4PS012, 30 creditsSpring 2015

Transformational leadership and well-being: The mediating role of trust inleadership, meaningfulness and jobsatisfaction

Abstract

The aim of this research study is to explore the mechanisms involved in

the relationship between transformational leadership style and employee

well-being in the workplace. Previous evidence has shown that

transformational leadership is linked with employee well-being. However,

it is not clear whether transformational leadership have an indirect

effect on employees work environment, and that this subsequently

meditates that relationship. A theory driven model was tested by

applying a parallel multiple mediation analysis. This was conducted on a

cross-sectional data sample of 82 employees working in a public

psychiatric hospital in Sweden. The results indicated that

transformational leadership and employee well-being is correlated, and

that job satisfaction indirectly mediated this relationship. However,

contrary to previous studies, the results did not indicated that

transformational leadership had an indirect effect on employees’

wellbeing, though, its effect on trust in leadership and employees’

sense of meaning in work. Theoretical and practical contributions as

well as limitations of the research study are discussed.

Keywords: transformational leadership, well-being, psychosocial work environment, trust in

management, meaningfulness, job satisfaction

Introduction“When good people have problems, managers and companies need to carry them. This shouldbe a personal mission. If we learn to carry people when they most need it, we become astronger community and we empower people in ways that we probably can’t imagine when weare young.” - Shane Rodgers, Editor at The Australian

Research has found that between a fifth and a quarter of the

variation of an adults life satisfaction can be explained by

satisfaction in the workplace (Harten, Schmidt, Keyes, 2002).

Because people spend a great deal of their adult life in the

work place, it is logical to assume that the psychosocial work

environment is a great influential factor to people’s health and

well-being. Prior research has shown that employee well-being is

linked with employee productivity, and the success of the

organization as whole (Harten, Schmidt, Keyes, 2002). It has

also shown that it is affected by both the physical work and

psychosocial environment (e.g., Gilbreath & Benson, 2004).

Understanding employees’ well-being within organizational

boarders is important not only for ethical reasons, but also to

plan, design, and execute appropriate and effective

interventions. Interventions that help prevent employee

suffering and promote well-being.

Depending on which level and perspective one takes, there might

be several different answers to the question “who hold the

responsibility of people’s well-being in the workplace?”. The

formal organizational leaders have a substantial amount of power

to impact the individual person’s life and the work place

environment. It is the leaders within the organizations that are

1

able to shape and impact the organizational culture which

involves workplace norms and values (Bass & Avolio,1993; Jaskyte,

2004), as well as the work climate, and the physical work

environment. It is the leaders who have the power to provide

employees with the right resources, and create or change

policies and procedures which enables employees to grow, and

develop their skills and competences.

Research (e,g., Cherniss,1995; Van Dierendonck et al., 2004)

demonstrates that employees perceptions of their work

environment is associated with leadership behaviour (Nielsen et

al., 2008). According to Sparks, Faragher, and Cooper (2001)

leadership style is one of the main psychosocial work factor

which is a concern in the 21 century workplace, as it has been

linked with both positive and negative employee outcomes. For

instance, a study conducted by Gilbreath and Benson (2004)

indicated that supervisory behaviour is the strongest predictor

of employee well-being compared to other workplace factors. The

interest in understanding the effects leaders have on employee

wellbeing has grown over the past three decade (Tafvelin,

Armelius, Westerberg,2011). Several studies have discovered that

leadership behaviour affect employee well-being within and

without the work place boarders (e.g., Kauppala et al., 2008;

Skakon, et al., 2010). One of the most well documented

leadership styles is transformational leadership.

Transformational leadership has been associated with several

different positive organizational outcomes, including employee

well-being. However, the process of this association is poorly

understood (Nyberg, bernin, Theorell, 2005), and some researchers

propose that this association may be indirect.

2

On the basis on previous findings within the leadership and

occupational health literature, the aim of this thesis is to

explore the mechanisms involved in the association between

transformational leadership style and employee wellbeing. The

objective is to further increase our knowledge of how leaders

influence employees’ well-being. The first part of the thesis

will provide a review of the concept leadership, in particularly

transformational leadership, as well as well-being. Secondly,

an overview of the current empirical research and the hypotheses

of my research study will be provided. This will follow with a

description of the methodology used in this study to explore the

hypothesis, and then the empirical results. The last part of the

thesis will provide an in-depth discussion of the results and my

finale conclusions.

Transformational leadershipAccording to Hogan & Kaiser (2005) leadership is an important

topic within organisations, as good leadership leads to

successful and effective organisations which eventually leads to

financial and psychological wellbeing for employees, executives,

stakeholders and citizens (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). It is also an

important topic in human science (Yukl, 2012), and it is a

concept which has long excited interest among researchers.

However, it was not until the late twentieth century the concept

of transformational leadership (TL) started to emerge. TL was

firstly introduced by James MacGregor Burns (1978) who suggested

that there are two forms of leadership transformational and

transactional. Burns described TL as a process whereby “leaders and

followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation” (Burns,

3

1978) (Givens, 2008 p.5). Over the past 30 years, TL research

has grown and become the most researched leadership theory out

of all other leadership theories combined, and is currently

dominating leadership research (Avolio et al., 2009; Judge &

Piccolo, 2004; Westerlaken & Woods, 2013). The reason for its

growth is due to its effectiveness relating to a number of

different positive organizational and employee outcomes. The

literature shows, that (TL) is related to subordinates extra

effort and the tendency to go the extra mile for the

organization (OCB) (e.g., Barling et al., 1996), commitment to

the organization (e.g., Koh et al., 1995), managerial

satisfaction and effectiveness (e.g., Michel et al., 2011),

employee job satisfaction (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004), creative

performance (e.g., Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). It has also been

linked to positive group processes such as increase level of

group effectiveness (e.g., Bass, et al., 2003), collective

efficacy (Kark et al., 2003), and group cohesiveness (e.g., Hoyt

& Blascovich, 2003).

Within the occupational health literature studies have showed

that workplace factors, such as leadership behaviour, predict

workplace ill health (e.g., Landeweerd & Boumans, 1994; Tepper,

2000). On the contrary, positive leadership behaviours similar

to TL, might prevent employee bad health and improve employee

well-being (Skakon et al., 2010). Burns version of leadership

has been developed several times sense his introduction, and one

the most widely used versions was conducted by Avolio & Bass

(1991). Unlike Burns model, Avolio and Bass’s (1991) the full range

leadership model includes an additional leadership component, namely

4

Laizze-faire leadership style (Avolio, et al., 2003; Kelloway et

al., 2012).

According to this model TL is composed by four different

behavioural dimensions: inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation,

idealized influence or charisma and individualized consideration. 1) Inspirational

motivation refers to a leader who communicates a convincing vision

of the future, promotes powerful symbols to followers, and

motivates followers to make greater efforts. This enables

followers to achieve beyond their expectations and to feel a

sense of belonging (Nyberg, Bernin, Theorell, 2005). 2) Intellectual

stimulation refers to the TL ability to encourage followers to

think of problems in new ways and perspectives, and to find

answers to their own questions themselves (Nyberg et al., 2005;

Arnold et al., 2007). 3) Idealized influence refers to the charismatic

characteristic of the leader and their ability to exhibiting

moral behaviours and doing what is “right”, express dedication

and self-sacrifice to benefit of the followers. Consequently,

the TL is regarded as a role model, and followers identify with

their leader (Nyberg et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2007; Yukl,

2012). Lastly 4) Individualized consideration refers to a leader who

treat followers as a person, and takes their time to listen to

their concerns and support them, listen to their ideas, coach,

and encourage the followers and demonstrate appreciation of

their achievements (Arnold et al., 2007; Nyberg et al., 2005).

Well-beingThe definition of well-being seems to vary depending on

researchers’ specific domain. Nevertheless, it is largely

accepted that well-being can be conceptualized in two ways.

5

Firstly, well-being can be defined and measured in relation to

actual symptomatology and epidemiology rates, whereby the

definition encompasses both the psychological and physiological

presence of illness or disease (Danna & Griffin, 1999).

Secondly, well-being can be defined in relation to mental,

psychological or emotional states of workers (Danna & Griffin,

1999). For the past decade or so, there has been a rise of

positive psychology among organizational researchers (Fisher,

2010). This has allowed researchers to focus on positive

experiences as opposed to the previously dominate total

attention on the disease model, which focus on negative states

and outcomes such as illnesses, stress, burnout, and depression

(Fisher, 2010).

Within the psychology domain, there are three defining

characteristics of well-being; firstly, well- being is a

phenomenological experience, thus people rate their level of

happiness based on their subjective belief of how happy they are

(Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Secondly, it also contains an

emotional aspect, whereby psychologically well individuals tend

to experience more positive emotions than negative ones (Wright

& Cropanzano, 2000). Third, well-being is often considered to go

beyond physical health and encompass the “the whole person” as

well (Danna & Griffin,1999).

Occupational Well-beingWithin an organisational context, well-being in the workplace is

often operationalized based on employee affective well-being.

Affective well-being is conceptually similar to the medical

criterion of “ill” and “not ill” (Danna & Griffin, 1999). It is

6

often treated within the pleasure–displeasure axis (Van horn et

al., 2004), which consists of positive vs. negative emotional

experience such as anxiety–comfort, depression–pleasure,

boredom–enthusiasm, tiredness–vigour and anger–placidity

(Daniels, 2000). Thus, many current measuring instruments for

occupational well-being primarily tap into this affective

dimension (Van horn et al., 2004). Specifically they tend to tap

into the pleasure-displeasure axis in a work context, as

empirical evidence indicates that this axis accounts for most of

the covariance in affective well-being (Daniels, 2000).

Some researchers believe it is important to measure both context

free e.g. life satisfaction, and context related aspects of

well-being (e.g., Danna & Griffin, 1999). However, Warr (1987,

1994) argued that there is an advantage to focus on context

specific elements of well-being, as job related antecedents e.g.

intrinsic job factors, and work relationships, are stronger for

job related well-being ( Van horn et al., 2004). Similarly, Van

Horn, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs (2004) concluded that

affective well-being (e.g., mood, emotional exhaustion)

constitutes the core of occupational well-being. They also

argued that cognitive weariness at work (e.g., capacity to take

up new information and loss of concentration) and psychosomatic

complains (e.g., headaches and back pains) also play a part in

occupational well-being. This is because prior research (e.g.,

Broadbent et al., 1982; Taris et al., 2001) has found that these

are linked with affective well-being (Van horn et al., 2004).

Based on these arguments, this paper conceptualizes well-being

in the context of work and affective components. Thus, measures

of well-being used in this study will incorporate measure of

7

context related affective well-being (emotions at work),

physical well-being (cognitive and psychosomatic complaints),

and health measures taping into stress, sleep and burnout.

Transformational leadership and employee well-

beingSeveral empirical studies have demonstrated a specific

relationship between TL and subordinates well-being (e.g. Arnold

et al., 2007; Densten, 2005; Seltzer et al., 1989; Sivanathan et

al., 2004). Kelloway et al. (2012) argued that each components

of TL leadership are relevant to employee’s well-being. Thus,

idealized influence allows leaders to be guided by ethical reasoning

when they commit to their employees, and are able to take

actions which benefit their employees’ health and well-being in

the long-term. They are also able to consider the organization

as a whole, rather than their own short term self-interest.

Leaders who exhibit individual consideration focus on employees need

for achievement and development, and demonstrate empathy and

compassion, and provide employees with guidance and support

which impacts the employee’s wellbeing, but also fosters a

supportive team climate within the organization. Empirical

evidence indicate that leadership support leads to higher

employee well-being (e.g., Gilbreath & Benson, 2004), less

burnout (e.g., Price & Weiss, 2000; Tourigny, et al., 2005), less

stress (e.g., Moyle, 1998) and less psychosomatic complaints

(e.g., Elfering et al., 2002), positive affective well-being

(e.g., Gilbreath & Benson, 2004).

8

Frank & Felfe (2011) suggested that the components idealized influence

and individual consideration influences employees own self-concept by

providing application and empathy, which fosters perceptions of

confidence and trust, which eventually leads to decreased

perceived strain (Zwingmann et al., 2014). Through Intellectual

stimulation, employees are able to make sense of their situation and

to feel an increased sense of self-confidence when solve when

they solve work related problems in their own way they and

achieve beyond their own expectations and also enables them to

make sense of their situation. This in turn enhances their well-

being (Kelloway et al., 2012). Intellectual stimulation could also

influence employee’s task clarity, and decrease uncertainty and

ambiguity, when the leader describes expected performance (Liu

et al. 2010), which in turn leads to low levels of perceived

stress and less stress symptoms (Liu et al. 2010). Thus,

empirical research seems to support the positive effect of

transformational leadership on employee well-being, especially

the dimension individualized influence and individualized consideration.

Therefore, based on these theoretical arguments and empirical

findings, this study hypothesises that perceived

transformational leadership leads to higher employee well-being.

H1: There is a positive relationship between perceived transformational leadership and employee well-being.

Despite the vast amount of studies conducted on TL and its

relation to outcomes, the influence process of TL is, according

to many researchers still poorly understood (e.g., Avolio et

al., 2009; Van Knippenberg, & Sitkin, 2013). According to Bass

(1999), further examination of the process of TL is needed.

Although Bass conclusions still ring true, some researches have

9

since then explored different aspects of TL, such as the

antecedents of TL (e.g., Wright & Pandey, 2010; Bono et al.,

2012), moderators of TL and outcomes (e.g., Zhu, Avolio, &

Walumbwa, 2008), as well as mediators that directly or

indirectly effect TL and outcomes (e.g., Eisenbeiss et al.,

2008). However, research in this area is still lacking, in order

to fully explain how and why TL influences employee’s attitudes,

motivations, behaviours and well-being. Thus, this has led the

process to be referred to as the “blackbox” of TL (Avolio et

al., 2009; Yukl, 1999).

The aim of this paper is to investigate the mechanisms between

TL and employee well-being, through mediation analysis. The

mediation process examines potential intervening or mediating

variables which function as a connection between TL and

wellbeing. Several studies have indicated that employees

perceived work characteristics, such as meaningfulness (Arnold

et al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2008) and trust in leadership

(Liu, Siu, Shi, 2010; Kelloway et al., 2012), mediates the

relationship between TL and employee well-being. However,

previous research often considers job satisfaction as an outcome

or antecedent of TL and well-being. In order to find a

significant mediation, it is important to demonstrate that TL

and well-being is related. It is also important that these two

variables relate to each mediating variable. Based on the model

for mediation and previous empirical evidence, it only seems

logical to assume that employees’ satisfaction with their jobs,

sense of meaningfulness at work and trust in their leader, could

potentially be mediating the relationship between TL and well-

10

being. Thus, the following section will demonstrate the

theoretical reasoning behind this proposed mediation model.

Transformational leadership and the mediatingvariablesAccording to the empirical evidence, TL is positively linked

with employees trust in leader (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 1990,

1996; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), a sense of meaningfulness at work

(e.g., Brossoit, 2001; Sparks & Schenk, 2001; Nyberg et al.

2005), and increase level of job satisfaction (e.g., Podsakoff

et al., 1990; Fuller et al., 1996; Nielsen et al., 2009; Turner

et al., 2002; Djibo, et al., 2010; Kovjanic et al. 2012). The

literature suggest that TL adhere to employees basic

psychological needs such as relatedness, by showing concern,

consideration, and support to their employees (Arnold et al.,

2007). This in turn confirms their needs and feelings and fosters

a sense of meaningfulness, moral purpose, and commitment to

their work (Arnold et al. 2007). Empirical evidence also indicate

that leadership support leads to higher job satisfaction (e.g.,

Moyle,1998; Sellgren et al., 2008).Through the dimension

individualized consideration TL develop deep relationships with their

employees, and as a consequence instils trust and respect (Den

hartog et al., 2002), and positive affective response such as

job satisfaction (Butler et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2010).

The dimension inspirational motivation allows the leader to also foster

meaningfulness and job satisfaction. TL ability to communicate a

shared future vision has been argued to influence employees to

be optimistic regarding future goals, and thus to feel a sense

of meaning for the task at hand, and to see a higher purpose in

11

their work, as they are able to understand where they fit in

(Nielsen et al., 2008). This in turn increases employees’

personal core values, and increases the likelihood of employees

to perceive their work as purposeful, motivational, and

important (Nielsen et al., 2008). Furthermore, providing a

future vision, as well as other TL behaviours such as leading by

example, coaching, developing employees and share information,

has been argued to energize and empower employees (Arnold et

al., 2007). Empirical evidence indicates that empowerment

increases levels of job satisfaction (e.g., Appelbaum &

Honeggar, 1998).

Furthermore, Ghadi, Fernando, Caputi (2013) suggest that TL

component intellectual stimulation leaders encourage employees to find

their own solutions to their problems and to be creative, thus

employees perception of them self-enhances which increases their

self-esteem and make work meaningful. This leadership behaviour

will make employees feel safe to express their opinion without

fear of being criticized. This help employees to control and

prevent an environment where feelings of rejection, prejudice,

and misunderstanding manifests itself, and thus preclude meaning

in work to foster (Ghadi et al., 2013).

Trust in leadership and well-beingPrevious research has found that employee trust in their leader

mediate the association between TL and employee well-being (Liu

et al., 2010; Kelloway et al., 2012). According to Liu, Siu, Shi

(2010) and Kelloway et al. (2012) employees who trust their

leader experience a sense of safety and comfort. This is because

employees feel their leader cares about them, and therefor feel

less exposed to being harmed by their leader, which leads to an

12

increase in psychological safety. When the sense of risk and

vulnerability is limited, through trust, it affects followers’s

psychological well-being (Kelloway et al. 2012). To the

contrary, Dirks & Ferrin (2002) argue that employees can

experience a sense of psychological distress if they do not

trust their leaders which can negatively affect their well-

being. Kelloway et al. (2012) suggest that employees are

consumed by emotional and cognitive energy when they distrust

their leader, because their emotional and physical resources

becomes reduced when the then attempt to safeguarding themselves

from their leader.

Meaningfulness and well-beingResearchers (e.g., Frank, 1963) argue that finding meaning in

different events increases peoples will to live (Arnold et al.,

2007) and recognizes the benefits in stressful circumstances

(Britt et al., 2001). The literature generally recognizes that

people make evaluation of their life in affective terms i.e. as

the experience of unpleasant or pleasant emotions in reaction to

life (Diener, 2000). Based on the circumplex model, work

engagement is a sign of positive affective well-being, which is

characterized by enthusiasm, energy and happiness, and the

opposite of burnout, sadness and tiredness. Furthermore, Kahn’s

model of work engagement, propose that meaningfulness, together with

psychological safety and availability, are antecedent to work

engagement. Studies have found positive association between

engagement and health (e.g., Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006;

Schaufeli et al., 2008). For instance studies conducted by

Demerouti et. al. (2001) and Rothbord (2001) found that those

scoring high on engagement measures experience better physical

13

and psychological health, and other studies have found that

those that are engaged in their jobs, see their work as

meaningful, relevant, and personally important (Britt, Adler, &

Bartone, 2001). A study conducted by May et al. (2004) found

that psychological meaningfulness was the strongest predictor

(37% of the variance) of work engagement, and research conducted

by Ghadi, Fernando, & Caputi (2013) found that perception of

meaning in work mediated the relationship between TL and work

engagement. Westaby, Versenyi, & Hausmann (2005) study found

that intrinsic reasons for working, such as finding work as

meaningful, was predictive of intention to work in individuals

who were suffering from terminal illness. To the contrary,

employed people compared with unemployed, experienced better

psychological health (Arnold et al., 2007). According to

Winefield & Tiggemann (1990) employment after graduating school

has a positive effect on well-being (Arnold et al., 2007).

Job satisfaction and well-beingResearch has shown that there is a strong link between job

satisfaction and people s health and well-being. For instance a

meta-analysis conducted by Fargher, Cass & Cooper (2005) on 485

cross-sectional studies found a correlation between job

satisfaction and a variety of different health outcomes. These

include outcomes such as burnout, self-esteem issues,

depression, anxiety, and physical well-being. The researchers

proposed that job satisfaction can have a positive affect on a

person’s feelings about themselves and their life, which

eventually reduces their health, especially their mental health

(Fragher et al., 2005). Thus, the authors concluded that job

satisfaction plays an important role for determining individual

14

well-being. They further argue that there are good enough

reasons to hypotheses that job satisfaction is a causal

influence on health and mental well-being (Fragher et al.,

2005).Other researchers have also highlighted the causal

influence job satisfaction has on health and well-being. For

instance, Kelloway and Barling (1991) identified job

satisfaction as a key factor influencing people’s mental health.

In addition, Zhai et al. (2013) proposed that job satisfaction

can “spill over”, and influence subjective well-being.

A study conducted by Kern et al. (2014) indicated that positive

emotions at work and physical health is positively correlated

with job satisfaction, and negative emotions, whereas somatic

symptoms were negatively related to job satisfaction. Based on

all of these theoretical and empirical explanations, this paper

expects to find a positive correlation between TL and all three

mediating variables, and between all mediating variables and

well-being, and therefor hypotheses to find a significant

mediation between TL and well-being.

H2: Employee trust in their leader will mediate the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and well-being

H3: The relationship between perceived transformational leadership and well-being is mediated by the experience of meaningful work

H4: The relationship between perceived transformational leadership and employee well-being ismediated by job satisfaction

Method

ParticipantsThe subjects in this study are all staff working in a large

public psychiatric hospital. The hospital is divided and located

15

in three different cities within a specific county in Sweden.

Each city is similarly populated. The hospital provides both

adult outpatient clinic and general psychiatric clinic. Care in

the outpatient clinic caters to people with mental health

problems, with or without referral, that require specialist

care. Care in a general psychiatric unit offers care and

treatment for various psychiatric conditions e.g. depression,

anxiety, mania. Questionnaires were distributed to 200

employees, and 82 were returned, yielding a response rate of 41

%. The study participants were predominantly female (80 %), and

the

average age between 41-45 (M = 5,1, SD = 2,61) and they have been

working in this particular workplace on average between 2-5

years (M = 3,5, SD = 1,83). The majority were healthcare’s (47

%), 22 % nurses, 19 % psychiatric nurses, 6% medical secretary,

3 % occupational therapist, 2 % psychologist, 1 % social

workers. Eight managers in total were rated by their employees.

ProcedureThe HR department of the hospital was approached via email and

telephone by the researcher asking whether they wanted to take

part in the study. The study was introduced to the subjects by

their respective leader, thus each leader received a letter

detailing the purpose of the study from the researcher. The

questionnaires were then handed out to the subjects by their

respective leaders. In order to adhere to ethical principles,

each questionnaire included an introduction which highlighted

the purpose of the study, confidentiality and anonymity, and1 Age was divided into nine categories. M =5,1 represent the fifth category which include age between 41-45

16

their right to withdraw from the study. The respondents were

reminded that this study intend protect respondents' and the

organizations identity. Due to the sensitive nature of rating

one’s own boss, the subjects were urged to hand in their answers

in an envelope with the researchers address on it, in order to

further assure their anonymity. However, one of the subjects did

report to the researcher that this procedure was not followed

within one unit. However, the researcher contacted HR and all

leaders were reminded again via email to provide an envelope for

all subjects taking part in the study. No other complains

emerged.

MeasurementsThe TL, trust in leadership and job satisfaction scales, were

translated into Swedish, and back translated into English by the

researcher. These scales were later reviewed by English to

Swedish translation expert, and by the supervisor of this

thesis. Based on their feedback, some corrections were made. All

six scales were piloted for this particular study on a small

group of Swedish speaking participants (n=7), in order to ensure

that the questions were understandable. The first participant,

provided some feedback, and some additional corrections were

made. The remaining six participants found that the

questionnaire was not too long and the questions were

understandable.

Transformational leadership This was measured using the Global

Transformational Leadership Scale (GLT) developed by Carless, Wearing, and

Mann (2000). The instrument includes seven items which measures

all underlying dimensions of TL including vision, employee

17

development, supportive leadership, empowerment, innovation or

lateral thinking, led by example or role modelling and

charismatic leadership (Carless, et al., 2000). Examples of

items are ‘‘My leader communicates a clear and positive vision of the future’’ and

‘‘My leader encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions

assumptions.’’ Response categories ranged from 1= To a very small

extent, to 5= to a very large extent. The GLT has been found to

have higher convergent validity than the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) (Carless, et al., 2000). Furthermore,

previous chronbach alpha for this scale was calculated as .93,

which indicates that the GLT is a highly reliable measure of TL.

Carless et. al. (2000) also reported significant Discriminant

validity for this scale when the test compared groups of

managers who would be expected to have different scores on the

GLT. Furthermore, they also tested for convergent validity which

indicated that the GLT was highly correlated with other TL

measures such as the MLQ and the Leadership and the Leadership

Practices Inventory (LPI). Chornbach alpha calculated in this study

was .96.

Well-being

DNA. The health section of the Det nya arbetslivet (DNA) instrument was

used to measure well-being. It was developed by Metodicum and The

stress research institute part of Stockholm University, based on good

theoretical foundations. Four subcomponents out of the eight

components included within the health section of DNA were used

for this particular study; 14 items measuring emotions at work,

three items measuring psychosomatic stress, three items

measuring cognitive stress, and one item measuring general

health. Response rate on the emotions at work scale ranged from

18

1= to a very high degree, to 4= to a very low degree/not at

all. Example of an item is “to what extent do the following words describe

how you feel during a normal working day at the job: Happy”. The psychosomatic

stress was reported on response scale which ranged from 1 = yes,

to 4 = No almost never/never. An example of an item is “How often,

during the last three months have you had headache?” Response rate on the

cognitive complaints scale ranged from 1 = always, to 5 = never.

Example of an item is “How often, during the last three months, have you had

problems with concentration?”. This instrument has been found to have

good validity and reliability. The questions included in DNA are

also included in The Swedish Longitudinal Survey of Occupational

Health (SLOSH) (Oxenstierna et al., 2008). Previous chronbach

alpha for psychosomatic stress has been found to be .68, and .88

for cognitive stress (Oxenstierna et al., 2008). Chornbach alpha

found in this study include .59 for emotions at work, however

the mean inter-item correlations for this scale was 2.7 with

values ranging from 1.8 to 3.7. For psychosomatic stress

chronbach alpha was found to be .66 and .83 for cognitive

stress.

COPSOQ II. Questions in the wellbeing scale revolving stress,

burnout, and sleep problems were taking from the Swedish version

of The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ II). This instrument was

developed by the National research centre for the working environment (NRCWE).

Each scale had four items with five response options which

ranged from 1= Always, to 5= Never/hardly ever. Examples of

items include “How often have you had problems relaxing?”, “How often have

you felt worn out?”, and “How often have you found it hard to go to sleep?”. The

instrument, has been found to show good validity and reliability

(Bjorner & Pejtersen, 2010; Thorsen & Bjorner, 2010). COPSOQ is

19

based on good theoretical foundations, and has been used in

several studies (e.g. Aust et al., 2007; Kristensen et al.,

2005; Nielsen et al. 2008). Furthermore, Bjorner & Pejtersen

(2010) found that external variables such as gender, age,

education, social class, employment in private or public sector

had no statistical significant differential item functioning

(DIF) effect on all three scales. On a population of n= 3517,

Pejtersen et al. (2010) found high Chronbach alfa levels of .83

for burnout, .86 for sleep and .91 for stress. Chronbach alpha

in this study was found to be .57,. 82, and .64, respectively.

Job satisfaction. The satisfaction with job facet questionnaire developed by

Andrew and Withey (1976) was used for this study. The measure

uses five items to measure satisfaction with specific job facets

such as work in general, work demands, work environment, work

supervision, and the work itself (Fields, 2002). Answers for

this measurement was reported on a scale ranging from 1 =

terrible, to 7 = delighted. Examples of item is “How do you feel

about your job?” and “What is it like where you work --- the physical surroundings, the

hours, the amount of work you are asked to do?”. The scale has both good

reliability and validity. The questionnaire has been found to

positively correlate with organizational commitment, supervisory

rated performance, positive conversations with boss, amount of

decision making, and mental efforts required (Fields, 2002). The

measure has also previously been found to positively correlate

with satisfaction on scales from the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire

and the job descriptive index (JDI) (Fields, 2002). It has also been found

to correlate with JDI work facets such as pay, supervision,

promotions, co-workers, and the work itself (Fields, 2002).

Previous studies conducted by McFarlin & Rice (1992), Rentsch &

20

Steel (1992) Steel & Rentsch, (1995, 1997), found that chronbach

alpha levels for this scale range from .79 to .91 (Fields,

2002). Chronbach alpha in this study was found to be .83.

Trust in leader. The managerial interpersonal trust instrument developed by

McAllister (1995) was used in this study to measure subordinates

trust in their leader. This instrument measures two dimensions

of trust including affective and cognitive trust. A total of six

items were used to assess affective trust e.g. “ I can talk freely to this

individual about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen”

and five items to asses cognitive trust e.g. “Given this person’s track

record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence and preparation”. Answers for

this measurement was rated on a scale ranging from 1= strongly

disagree to 7= strongly agree. The instrument has acceptable

convergent, discriminant, nomological validity (McEvily &

Tortoriello, 2011). The instrument is based on good theoretical

foundation, and initially the instrument was tested within an

organizational context (McAllister, 1995). The instrument has

also been used in over 12 studies (Dietz et al., 2006).

Furthermore, the instrument showed a good reliability.

McAllister (1995) conducted a confirmatory factors analysis on

this instrument, and the analysis showed that chronbach alpha

levels for all items met or exceeded .90, which indicates that

the measure meets the standard criteria for acceptability

(McAllister, 1995). Chornbach alpha in this study indicated .93.

Meaningfulness at work. This was measured by using the

subcomponent Meaningfulness part of the Swedish version of The

Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ II). Three items were used to

measure meaningfulness at work e.g. “Is your work meaningful?” and

21

answers for this measure were rated on a scale of 1=To a very

small extent and 5= To a very large extent. Chronbach alpha

levels for this scale has been found to range from .66 to .63,

in a longitudinal study with a similar RQ as in this current

study (Nielsen et al., 2008). Furthermore, it has been used in

several different countries including Sweden as well as within a

variety of both private and public occupational sectors

including the health services. It has also been tested across

different professions, age, and gender (Nielsen et al., 2008).

Chornbach alpha in this study indicated .85.

Data analysisA parallel multiple mediation analysis with the bootstrapping

method (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was performed. Mediation

analysis is a statistical method used to help answer the

question to how the causal or antecedent variable TL (x)

transmit its effect on well-being (Y), by adding a third

mediating variable (s) (M) which may explain that relationship

(Field, 2013; Hayes, 2013). The conceptual model test mediation

through a series of regression models. These models indicate the

relationship between the antecedent variable and the outcome

variable, which must show a significant direct effect in order to

perform a mediation analysis. The models also indicate whether

these two variables are related to a third intervening variable

(s) i.e. the mediator, in a specific way. Lastly, the models

show whether the relationship between antecedent variable and

outcome variable is different when the mediator is included in

the model, and the other mediators in the model are hold

constant. This is called an indirect effect. The analysis examines

these following pathways:

22

a) The relationship between TL and employee well-being (Path c)

b) The relationship between TL and M (Path a)

c) The relationship between M and employee well-being (Path b)

d) The relationship between TL and employee well-being, when Mis included in the model, and all other mediators are hold constant (Path c’)

Thus, a full mediation is said to have occurred when TL and

employee wellbeing is no longer associated when the mediation

variable is accounted for in the model (i.e. regression for path

c’ is insignificant). A partial mediation has occurred when TL

predicts well-being much less when the mediation variable is in

the model (i.e. regression for part c’ is less than for path c).

Prior to conducting the main mediation analysis all variables

were tested for correlation using Spearman’s correlation

coefficient test.

ResultsAs part of the preliminary analyses descriptive statistics were

computed. A reliability test was performed in order to test the

reliability of all the scales, the results were mentioned in the

method section, and the test showed that all scales had

acceptable chronbach alpha values. However the emotions at work

component of the DNA scale and the burnout component of the

COPSOQ II scale, had relatively low chronbach alpha values and

inter-item correlation for the emotions scale exceeded 1.00.

Thus, this may effect the reliability of these two scales. All

the variables were tested for heteroscedasticity, and the Anova

test was insignificant F (4, 31) = .199, p = .937 and thus H0 of

23

homoscedasticity assumption was accepted and H1 for

heteroscedasticity was rejected. All variables were assessed

for skewness and kurtosis. As trust in leader scale, TL and

meaningfulness was positively skewed, and both Kolmogorov-

simirnov and Shapiro walks test for normality was significant

for these respective scales, the data violated the assumptions

for a parametric normal distributional test. Thus, all variables

were tested for correlation using Spearman’s correlation

coefficient test (see table 1). The results indicated that there

was a strong, positive monotonic correlation between TL and

employee well-being (rs= .403, p < .001), TL and trust in leader

(rs = .830, p < .001), TL and job satisfaction (rs = .545, p

< .001), but no significant correlation was found between TL and

employees sense of meaningfulness at work (rs = .138, p = n.s.).

Contrary to expectations, the test indicated that there was no

significant relationship between meaningfulness at work and

well-being (rs= .194, p = n.s.). However, the test indicated that

there was a positive relationship between trust in leader and

employee well-being (rs= .309, p < .005), well-being and job

satisfaction (rs= .47, p < .001).

Table 1. Mean, Standard deviations, minimum and maximum values, and

intercorrelations

Scale M SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5

1.Meaningfulness 12.5 1.9 6 15

2.Trust in leader 49.6 13.5 14 73.14

3.Jobsatisfaction 25.0 3.8 15 35.39** 46**

24

4.Transformational 23.7 7.2 7 35.13 .83** .54** Leadership5.Well-being 108.0 11.0 82 128.19 .30** .47** .40** -

Note: N for correlations = 82M= MeanSD= Standard diviation**p <.01 (2-tailed) *p <.05 (2-tailed)

A parallel multiple meditational analysis with 1000 bootstraping

was run. As can be seen in figure 1 and Table 2, the results

revealed that when controlling for other mediators in the model,

and for cofounding variables such as workplace tenure, time spend

with the boss, and age, there was a significant relationship

between TL and job satisfaction (a3 = 0.254, p < .001), and job

satisfaction and employee well-being (b3 = 1.143, p = .003). Path

c was also significant, which indicated that there was a direct

relationship between TL and employee well-being (c = .53, p <.05),

Based on these significant results, a mediation analysis was

conducted to test whether path c significantly changed when job

satisfaction was included in the model (path c'). The test showed

that job satisfaction fully mediated the relationship between TL

and employee well-being, as the direct relationship between TL

and employee well-being changed from significant (c = .53, p

< .05) to insignificant path c' 2(b= 0.460, p =.215 ). There for

the test shows that there is a significant indirect effect of TL

on employee well-being through job satisfaction, b = 0.285, 95 %

CI [0.10, 0.54], sobel test also indicated a positive mediating

effect (SE= .114, z = 2.49, p <.05) with an effect size of 28, 5

%. Thus, the test accepts both H1 and H4. Consistent with the

2 The b- values are the unstandardized regression coefficient that indicates the strength of relationship between a given predictor of many and an outcome in the units of measurement s of the predictor. It is thechange in the outcome associated with a unit change in the predictor (Field, 2013)

25

spearman’s correlation test mediation analysis indicated that the

relationship between TL and trust in leadership was significant

(a1 = 1.66, p < .001), and regression model showed that perceived

TL behaviours explains about 81.1 % of the variance in employee

trust in their leader (R2 = 0.811, F (4, 74) 0 79.4, p <.001).

However, the relationship between trust in leader and employee

well-being (b1 = -.120, p =.531), and the indirect effect of TL on

employee well-being through employee trust in leadership was

insignificant b = -.207, 95 % CI [-.74, .32]. Thus, the test

rejects H2. Contrary to expectations, the test indicated that

there was insignificant relationship between TL and

meaningfulness (a2 = .110, p = 0.25), employees sense of

meaningfulness at work and their well-being (b2 = -0.175,

p= .794.). Thus, the test also rejects H3, as no significant

meditational effect of TL on employee well-being through

employees’ sense of meaningfulness at work b = -.003, 95 % CI

[-.12, .02].

Table 2 Regression coefficients, Standard Errors, and model summary information

M1(Trust) M2 (Meaningfulness) M3 (Job satisfaction) Y(well-being)

Antecedents Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

X (TL (a1) 1.660 .093 <.001 a2 .0110 .023 .525 (a3) .254 .053 <.001 (c’) .460 .360 .215

M1 - - - - - - - - - b1 -.120 .190 .531(Trust) M2 - - - - - - - - - b2 -.175.670 .794

26

(Meaningfulness) M3 - - - - - - - - - b3 1.143.372 .003(Job satisfaction)

Constant iM1 10.34 2.310 <.001 im2 11.98 .731 <.001 im3 18.99 1.306 <.001 iy 76.41 .186 .531

R2= 0.811 R2= 0.118 R2= 0.251 R2=0.263

F (4, 74)=79.4, p <.001 F(4,74)= 2.48, p= .054 F (4,74)= 6.21, p < .005 F(7,71)=3.63, p < .005

Figure 1: A statistical diagram of the parallel multiple mediator model

b = 1.66, p <.001 b = -.120, p = .531 (n.s.)

Direct effect (X on Y) b = 0.460, p =.215 (n.s) Indirect effect (M3) b = 0.285, 95 % CI [0.10, 0.54]

b =0.254,p <.001 b =1.143, p < .003

b =0.110, p = .25 (n.s.) b = -0.175, p = .794 (n.s)

DiscussionThe aim of this study was to investigate the relationship

between TL and employee well-being, and to examine the mediating

role of meaningfulness, trust in management, and job

satisfaction between these two variables. From a parallel

27

Trust inleadership

Transformational

leadership

Well-being

Jobsatisfactio

n

Meaningfulness at work

multiple mediation analysis the result indicated that TL

significantly correlated with employees trust in leader,

employee job satisfaction, and employee well-being. In addition,

TL indirectly influenced employee well-being through its effect

on employee’s job satisfaction. The significant mediation

results indicates that as exhibiting TL behaviours in the

workplace such as, communicating a shared vision, coaching and

mentoring, and encourage employees to engage in problem solving

may increase employees job satisfaction, which then “spill over”

and increases employee well-being. Although, generally

meditational effects are conceptualized as causal (Arnold et

al., 2007), the proposed model is based on cross-sectional data.

Therefor this study does not conclude any causational effect

based on these results. Future research should use longitudinal

analyses in order to account for variation over time, which may

help to conclude causal interferences of TL on employee well-

being through job satisfaction. Nevertheless, this model

provides further understanding, and a good basis for future

studies to investigate this further in order to get a better

understanding of the relationship between these three variables.

Contrary to previous research (e.g. Liu et al., 2010; Arnold et

al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2008; Kelloway et al., 2012) and H2

and H3, the mediation analysis did not find that TL effects

employee wellbeing through employees trust in their leader and a

sense of meaningfulness at work. Using spearmans correlation

test, a positive correlation was found between trust in

leadership and employee well-being. However, the mediation

analysis indicated that trust in leader was not significantly

correlated with employee well-being, which indicates there is no

mediation. It possible that path b was not statistically

28

significant due to multicollinerity between TL and Trust in

leader, as these two variables were found to be highly

interrcorrelated .81. If TL explains all the variation in

employee well-being, there will not be any unique variation

caused by employees trust in leader, which may explain the

variance in employee well-being. The measurement scales used in

this study for TL and trust in leadership are quite problematic,

as they ask fairly similar questions. Thus, it could be possible

that these two variables in reality can be equally regarded as

one predictor variable. A study conducted by Arnold et al.

(2007) found that mediation between TL and wellbeing, through

trust in leadership was only significant at the individual

level, and not the group level. The researchers concluded that

it is the individual experience with a particular leader that

predicts employee well-being, rather than the shared perception

among employees of a particular leader (Arnold et al. (2007).

Based on this logic, another plausible explanation of the

insignificant results could be that there might be some

individual differences that are not present in the model, which

may affect whether a participant trust in leader will affect

their well-being.

Similar reasons may explain the insignificant mediation found

for the variable meaningfulness. Individual differences in work

values i.e. employees implicit beliefs whether work should be

meaningful, may have influenced the relationship between

meaningfulness and employee well-being. Future studies may also

want to include other covariates, in order to find different

results. Because the relationship between TL and meaningfulness

at work has previously been found, it could also be possible

that the conceptualization of the meaningfulness scale used in

29

this study did not correlate with TL. Thus, future research

should consider other measures of meaningfulness which taps into

different conceptualizations, in order to find a relationship

between these two variables (Arnold et al., 2007).

Study limitations

There are some limitations to this study which should be

considered for those interpreting the results. Firstly, it is

important to note that the sample size is small (N=82) in

regards to the aims of this study and the statistical

methodology. According to Ma & Zeng (2014) the sample size in a

study needs to be sufficient enough to reach an adequate

statistical power of 0.8. Statistical power helps calculate the

probability of accepting an alternative hypothesis after

rejecting a false null hypothesis. Therefor it is important to

calculate power analysis for a multiple mediation model prior to

data analysis. This way one is able to confirm how many samples

are required and decide whether to increase sample size in order

to reach a power of 0.8. Although bootstrapping method was

applied in this study, power analysis was not conducted, which

increases the risk of making a type II error and thus may impact

the interpretation of the results. According to Ma & Zeng (2014)

low power is one possible reason for no statistically

significant results being identified in a study. Based on these

arguments, this study may have underestimated the existence of a

meditational effect of meaningfulness and trust in leadership

variables due to the small sample size. Secondly, even though

the measurement of well-being used both context free and context

related assessments of well-being, it did not include object

30

measurements e.g. blood pressure, and other measures taping into

subjective well-being e.g. life satisfaction.

Thirdly, the results are found based on cross-sectional data as

mentioned earlier, but also the data rely on answers on all

scale from a single source. This raises the risk that the

relationship found between the variables in this study is

influenced by common method variance. Although most of the

measures had good reliability except the emotions at work

component, and burnout, and validity, it may have been possible

that the length of the questionnaire affected the response rate,

as only 41 % answered the questionnaire. The lengthy

questionnaire could have also affected the answers on the

questions. The low response rate could also be due to the fact

that I was not present at the work place the data was collected

from, but rather the data was distributed by the participant’s

bosses. Another limitation is that one leader was collecting the

data at his/her office, rather than providing an envelope to the

employees. Due to the sensitive nature of the study questions

and that participants (employees) were asked to rate their

leader, it could have affected the response rate and may also

have skewed the data. Unfortunately I was unable to perform a

statistical test which could have explored for any differences

among groups of employees. This is because it was impossible to

trace which sample belonged to what particular leader, as the

samples were mixed and arrived in an envelope.

Theoretical implications and future research

31

The findings of this study have some important theoretical

implications, as it is able to support previous research (e.g.

Liu et al., 2010) which have found a significant correlation

between TL and the mediating variables. The results also

supports previous researchers who have found that TL is related

to an increase in job satisfaction (e.g. Podsakoff et al.,

1996), and proposed that job satisfaction may cause employee

wellbeing (e.g. Fragher et al., 2005). Furthermore, these

results adds to the current literature as it demonstrated that

it is possible to consider job satisfaction also as a potential

mediator rather than just as an antecedent variable or an

outcome variable of TL and employee well-being.

Theoretically, job satisfaction in this study was measured based

on components such as satisfaction with work in general, work

demands, work environment, work supervision, and the work

itself. Because the TL measurement in this study refers directly

to the supervisors behaviour, it is possible that TL had a

strong direct effect on one component of the job satisfaction

measure i.e. satisfaction with work supervision (Liu et al.,

2010). Furthermore, the current literature suggests that certain

components of TL inspirational motivational and individualized

consideration increases employee’s job satisfaction.

Although the aim of this study was not to investigate different

forms of TL and job satisfaction, the measurements used in this

study may suggest that certain facets of TL and job satisfaction

correlated with each other. Future research should examine these

elements, in order to extend our theoretical knowledge regarding

which specific aspects of TL influences particular facets of

work which are relevant for employees’ satisfaction. This is

32

important for both practical and scientific reasons. Firstly, in

addition to increasing our theoretical knowledge of the

relationship between these variables, researchers are able to

improve and use appropriate measurements of TL and job

satisfaction in line with their research question. Secondly,

practitioners in organisations are able to design goal specific

interventions. For example, if the aim is to increase employee

satisfaction through improving relationships between supervisors

and employees, interventions could focus on coaching specific TL

behaviours which are in line with their goal.

Future research could also focus on investigating the effects of

intervention programs that aim towards developing leaders

transformational behaviours. Leadership development focus on

changing the leaders in order to change the employees, however

it could also be possible that leadership development influence

leaders own well-being, as they enhance their attitudes and

self-efficiency. Furthermore, leaders own perception of their

psychosocial environment may also influence whether they exhibit

TL behaviours. Thus, it would be interesting if future research

investigate what workplace factors encourage such behaviours,

and how leaders own well-being is influenced by this process.

This may provide further information on how leaders TL

behaviours can be encouraged, and provide a more holistic

picture of how TL and employee well-being can be promoted in the

workplace.

ConclusionsDespite the limitations in this study, the results provide some

theoretical contribution to the field. Firstly, this study was

able to replicate previous findings which demonstrate a positive

33

relationship between TL and employee well-being. Secondly, the

results also extend the research area in the sense that it has

increased our knowledge about the mechanisms involved of the

influence TL behaviours have on employee well-being. In

addition, this research paper also provides some practical

contributions. The results suggest that it is possible to

increase employees’ well-being, through leadership development

interventions which effects employees’ perceptions of their

psychosocial work environment. Organisations and employees can

benefit from leadership training, which focus on applying

positive TL behaviours e.g. communicating a shared vision. This

way, organisations’ is able to implementing individual-level

intervention on a small group, rather than organizational-level

interventions that may involve the whole workforce. This makes

interventions easier to control and organizations are also able

to be both cost effective and efficient enough to increase the

work force well-being. Organisations can also make these

transformational behaviours more sustainable in the long term by

using goal setting interventions. Thus, transformational

training can be added into supervisors and managers yearly

developmental assessments such as 360-degree feedback

instruments and managerial skills surveys.

References Appelbaum, S.H., Honegar, K. (1998). Empowerment: A contrastingoverview of organisations in general and nursing in particulare-An examination of organisational factors, managerial behaviours,job design, and structural power. Empowerment in organisations, 6 (2),29-50.

Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K., & McKee,M.C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-

34

being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 12(3), 193–203.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009).Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions.Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–49.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development intransformational leadership. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 8, 9 - 32.

Bass, M.B., Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership andorganizational culture. Public administration quarterly, Vol. 17, No.1,112-121.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational andtransactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207 - 218.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resourcesmodel: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects oftransformational leadership training and attitudinal andfinancial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,81(6), 827-832

Bjorner, J. B., & Pejtersen, J. H. (2010). Evaluating constructvalidity of the second version of the Copenhagen PsychosocialQuestionnaire through analysis of differential item functioningand differential item effect. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3),90–105.

Bono, J. E., Hooper, A. C., & Yoon, D. J. (2012). Impact of raterpersonality on transformational and transactional leadershipratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 132–145.

Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Derivingbenefits from stressful events: The role of engagement inmeaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6,53–63.

Brossoit, K.B. (2001). Understanding employee empowerment in theworkplace: Exploring the relationships between transformational

35

leadership, employee perceptions of empowerment, and key workoutcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B, Vol. 61, 9-B.

Butler, J., Cantrell, R., & Flick, R. (1999). Transformationalleadership behaviours, upward trust and satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17(1), 13-28.

Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J., &Mann, L. (2000). A short measureof transformationalleadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3),389–405.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nded.). New York: Academic Press.

Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53, 275–294.

Danna, K., Griffin, W.R. (1999). Health and Well-being in theworkplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal ofmanagement, Vol. 25, No. 3, 357-384.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M., &Schaufeli, W.B. (2001).Burnout and engagement at work as afunction of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environmentand Health, 27, 279-286.

Densten, I.L. (2005). The relationship between visioningbehaviours of leaders and follower burnout. British Journal ofManagement, 16(2), 105–118.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science ofhappiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist,55, 34–43.

Dietz, D., Deanne N. Den Hartog, N.D. (2006).Measuring trustinside organisations. Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 5.

Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.

Djibo, I. J. A., Desiderio, K. P., & Price, N. M. (2010).Examining the role of perceived leader behaviour on temporaryemployees’ organizational commitment and citizenship behaviour.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 321–342.

36

Faragher, E.B., Cass, M., Cooper, C.L. (2005). The relationshipbetween job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occup. Environ.Med., 62, 105-112.

Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: and sex anddrugs and rock 'n' roll (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications Inc. pp. 408-418

Fields, L.D. (2013). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales fororganizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE PublicationsInc. pp. 31-32.

Fisher, D.C. (2010). Happiness at work. International journal ofmanagement reviews, Vol. 12, 384-412.

Fuller, J.B., Patterson, C.E.P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D.Y.(1996). A quantitative review of research on charismaticleadership. Psychological Reports, 78(1), 271–287.

Ghadi, Y.M., Fernando, M., Caputi, P. (2013). Transformationalleadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of meaningin work. Leadership & Organization development Journal,Vol. 34, No. 6,532-550.

Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution ofsupervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. Work &Stress, 18, 255-266.

Givens, J.R. (2008). Transformational Leadership: The Impact onOrganizational and Personal Outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys,Vol. 1, Iss. 1, 4-24.

Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). “Same same” butdifferent? Can work engagement be discriminated from jobinvolvement and organizational commitment? European psychologist, 11,119-127.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Keyes, C.L. (2002). Wellbeing in theworkplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review ofthe Gallup studies. In Keyes, C.L., Haidt. J.(Eds.).Flourishing: thepositive person and the good life. (pp.205-224). Washington D.C.: Americanpsychological Association.

37

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditionalprocess analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hogan, R., Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know about leadership.Review of general psychology, vol. 9, 169-180.

Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational andtransactional leadership in virtual and physical environments.Small Group Research, 34, 678 - 715.

Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational Leadership, OrganizationalCulture, and Innovativeness in Nonprofit Organizations. NonprofitManagement & Leadership, Vol. 15, No. 2, 153-168.

Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational andtransactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relativevalidity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–68.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces oftransformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88 (2), 246–255.

Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as anintervention in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, Vol.24, No. 3, 260-279.

Kelloway, E.K., & Barling, J. (1991). Job characteristics, rolestress, and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 291-304

Kelloway, K.E., Turner, N., Barling, J., Loughlin,C. (2012).Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work &Stress, Vol. 26, No. 1, 39-55.

Kern, L.M., Waters, L., Adler, A., White, M. (2014). AssessingEmployee Wellbeing in Schools Using a Multifaceted Approach:Associations with Physical Health, Life Satisfaction, andProfessional Thriving. Psychology,5, 500-513.Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effectsof transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and studentperformance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Development, 16, 319-333.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & VanDick, R. (2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive

38

employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis ofemployees’ needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior,33, 1031–1052.

Kristensen, S.T, Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., Borg, V. (2005). TheCopenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessmentand improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J WorkEnviron Health, 31(6):438-449.

Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., Vainio, H.(2008).Leadership, job well-being, and health effects-asystematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational andEnvironmental Medicine, 50, 904-915.

Landeweerd, A.J.,Boumans, G.P.N. (1994). The effect of workdimensions and need for autonomy on nurses' work satisfaction andhealth. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,Vol.67, Issue3, 207–217

Liu J., Siu, O-L., Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadershipand employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in theleader and self-efficacy. Applied psychology: an international review, 58(3), 454-479.

Ma, Z-W., Zeng, W-N. (2014). A multiple mediation model: poweranalysis based on Monto carlo simulation. American journal of appliedpsychology. Vol. 3, No. 3, 72-79

McAllister, J.D. (1995). Affect-and Cognition-based trust asfoundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations.Academy of management journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, 24-59.

Michel, W.J., Lyons, D.B., Cho, J. (2011). Is the full-rangemodel of Leadership really a full-range model of effective leaderbehavior? Journal of leadership & organizational Studies, 18(4), 493–507

Moyle, P. (1998). Longitudinal influences of managerial supporton employee well-being. Work & Stress,12, 29-49.

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., Brenner, S-O. (2008). Theeffects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceivedwork characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinalstudy. Work & Stress, Vol. 22, No. 1, 16-32.

39

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., Brenner, S-O., Randall, R.,Borg, V. (2008). The importance of transformational leadershipstyle for the well-being of employees working with older people.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(5), 465–475.

Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). Themediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationshipbetween transformational leadership, and job satisfaction andpsychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies,46, 1236–1244.

Nyberg, A., Bernin, P., Theorell, T. (2005). The impact of leadership onthe health of subordinates.Sweden: National Institute for Working Life.

Oxenstierna, G., Widmark, M., Finnholm, K., Elofsson, S. (2008).Psykosociala faktorer i dagens arbetsliv och hur man matter och beskriver dem.Vällingby: Elanders.

Pejtersen, J.H., Kristensen, T.S., Borg, V. & Bjorner, J.B.(2010). The second version of the Copenhagen PsychosocialQuestionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3),8-24.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996).Transformational leader behavior and substitutes for leadershipas determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment and trust,and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,22(2), 259-298.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.(1990). Transformational leadership behaviours and their effectson followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizationalcitizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Price, M.S., & Weiss, M.R. (2000). Relationships among coachburnout, coach behaviours,and athletes’ psychological responses.Sport Psychologist, 14, 391409.

Rothbard, N.P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics ofengagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,655-684.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008).Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or

40

three different kinds of employee wellbeing? Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 57, 173-203.

Sellgren, S.F., Ekvall, G.R., & Tomson, G.R. (2008). Leadershipbehaviour of nurse managers in relation to job satisfaction andwork climate. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 578 587.

Seltzer, J., Numerof, R.E., & Bass, B.M. (1989). Transformationalleadership: Is it asource of more or less burnout or stress? Journal of Health and HumanResources Administration, 12, 174–185.

Sivanathan, N., Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2004).Leading well: Transformational leadership and well-being. In A.Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 241–255).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Areleaders' well-being, behaviours and style associated with theaffective well-being of their employees? A systematic review ofthree decades of research. Work & Stress, 24, 107-139.

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Well-being andoccupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 489–509.

Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects oftransformational leadership: An investigation of the effects ofhigher-order motives in multilevel marketing organizations. Journalof Organizational Behaviour, 22, 849–869.

Tafvelin, S. Armelius, K., Westerberg, K. (2011). Towardsunderstanding the direct and indirect effects of transformationalleadership on well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of leadership &organizational studies, 18 (4), 480-492.

Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academyof Management journal, 43 (2), 178–190.

Thorsen, S. V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). Reliability of theCopenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of PublicHealth, 38(3 Suppl), 25–32.

Tourigny, L., Baba, V.V., & Lituchy, T.R. (2005). Job burnoutamong airline employees in Japan: A study of the buffering

41

effects of absence and supervisory support. International Journal of CrossCultural Management, 5, 67-85.

Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner,C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 304–311.

Van Horn, E.J.,Taris, W.T., Schaufeli, B.,W., Schreurs, G.J.P.(2004). The structure of occupational well-being: A study amongDutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77,365–375.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A criticalassessment of charismatic- transformational leadership research:Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.

Westaby, J. D., Versenyi, A., & Hausmann, R. C. (2005).Intentions to work during terminal illness: An exploratory studyof antecedent conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1297–1305.

Westerlaken, K.M, Woods, P.R.(2013). The relationship betweenpsychopathy and the full range leadership model. Personality andindividual differences, 54, 41-46.

Wright, A.T., Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being andjob satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal ofoccupational health psychology, Vol. 5, NO. 1, 84-94.

Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformationalleadership in the public sector: Does structure matter? Journal ofPublic Administration Research and Theory, 20 (1), 75–89.

Yukl, A.G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses intransformational and charismatic leadership theories. The LeadershipQuarterly, 10(2), 285–305.

Yukl. A.G.( 2012).Leadership in organizations (8th ed). Person educationlimited.

Zhai, Q., O’Shea, B., Zhai, Y., Yang., Y. (2013). Big Fivepersonality traits, job satisfaction and subjective wellbeing inChina. International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 6, 1099–1108.

42

Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2008). Moderating roleof follower characteristics with transformational leadership andfollower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 35(5), 590-619.

Zwingmann, I., Wegge, J., Wolf, S., Rudolf, M., Schmidt, M.,Richter, P. (2014). Is transformational leadership healthy foremployees? A multilevel analysis in 16 nations. German Journal ofResearch in Human Resource Management, 28 (1-2), 24-51.

43