Perspective of Supervision

The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / leaqua

Theoretical and Practitioner Letters

Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways

Thomas W.H. Ng The University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Business and Economics, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.008 1048-9843/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 11 March 2016 Received in revised form 29 November 2016 Accepted 30 November 2016 Available online 10 December 2016

Transformational leadership (TFL) has been shown to affect employees' job performance, and the literature offers a large variety of explanatory processes. Integrating the diverse literature related to the mechanisms that mediate the TFL-performance relationship, the current study identified five core mechanisms—affective, motivational, identification, social exchange, and justice enhancement—that are consistent with established social and psychological theories. Meta-analysis involving N600 samples was conducted to test these mechanisms. General sup- port was found for each of the five mechanisms. The findings showed that TFL was related to variables that represented these mechanisms, which in turn were associated with non-self-re- port measures of employees' task performance, citizenship behavior, and innovative behavior. An integrative model was further proposed and tested to show the central role of leader-mem- ber exchange in the relationships between TFL, other mediating variables, and performance outcomes. This study contributes to the literature by strengthening researchers' theoretical un- derstanding of the major social and psychological processes by which transformational leaders promote followers' job performance.

© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Transformational leadership Job performance Citizenship behavior Innovation Meta-analysis

Transformational leadership (TFL) is one of the most extensively researched topics of the past few decades, evidenced by the more frequent citation of studies of TFL than other leadership topics (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Liu, & Schriesheim, 2014). Transfor- mational leadership attracts such attention because of its relevance and importance to organizational productivity. Robust evi- dence has shown that followers of transformational leaders are more productive, regardless of whether performance is measured at the individual, team, unit, or firm level (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith, & Courtright, 2015; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003a, 2003b) and whether the performance outcomes are in-role tasks, extra-role activities, or innovations (Chen, Farh, Campbell-Bush, Wu, & Wu, 2013; Choi, 2009; Keller, 1992).

Many explanatory mechanisms have been proposed to explain the positive effects of TFL on job performance. Consequently, multiple pathways have been identified as relevant, but no efforts have been made to integrate the plethora of different mecha- nisms. An attempt at integration is important because identifying the most relevant mechanisms helps both researchers and prac- titioners understand not only that TFL enhances the job performance of followers, but also why and how it does so. Although different perspectives are often encouraged in leadership research (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011), too many different explanatory mechanisms with no integration may actually hinder development in the field, as TFL researchers have reached little consensus about which mechanisms are the most useful and powerful. Other leadership researchers have echoed this call to examine the detailed social and psychological mechanisms by which TFL affects job performance (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009).

386 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

The goal of the current investigation is to identify and test the mediating mechanisms through which TFL affects followers' job performance. Five theory-driven mediating mechanisms are addressed, including affective, motivational, identification, social ex- change, and justice enhancement mechanisms. These five mechanisms were chosen for two reasons. First, each is supported by an established social or psychological theory, thereby enriching the theoretical foundation of the TFL research. As Van Knippenberg and Sitkin's (2013) recent review of the TFL literature states, “the mediators studied are rather diverse, probably be- cause there is no theory to guide the investigation of mediation.” (p. 16). Second, the five mechanisms together comprehensively show how TFL affects followers internally and externally, including their affect intensity (the affective mechanism), motivation level (the motivational mechanism), and value system (the identification mechanism), and their external environment, including the relationships with leaders and employers (the social exchange mechanism) and the broader workplace (the justice enhance- ment mechanism). Taken together, these five mechanisms broadly illustrate the different types of changes in followers elicited by TFL.

Meta-analytical data collected from N600 empirical studies are used to test these mechanisms, with a special focus on non- self-report measures of performance, including task performance, citizenship behavior, and innovative behavior, to lower the threat posed by common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). These three performance outcomes were chosen because they capture three major roles an effective worker should play in an organization (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998). An employee is effective when he or she is a significant contributor to the organization's technical core, a team player who goes beyond his or her prescribed role, and an innovator who helps the organization innovate. These three roles are also highly relevant to TFL research. Transformational leaders can not only convince followers of the importance of an organization's goal and therefore persuade them to contribute their efforts to help achieve that goal (through the display of higher task performance and citizenship behavior), but also motivate followers to challenge the current ways of doing things to seek im- provement (innovative behavior). In brief, through examining five theory-based mechanisms by which TFL affects job perfor- mance, this study enriches the theoretical foundation of this field and integrates the diverse ways in which transformational leaders promote followers' job performance. The five core models are depicted in Fig. 1.

Theoretical background

The nature of TFL

TFL entails inspiring followers to believe in or identify with the leader's vision beyond their own self-interest (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). It consists of four core components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and indi- vidualized consideration (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Idealized influence involves exhibiting confidence and charisma that arouse strong emotions and loyalty from followers. Inspirational motivation involves articulating organizational goals,

TFL

JS

AOC

TP

OCB

IB

(A) The affective mechanism

TFL

JSE

WE

TP

OCB

IB

(B) The motivational mechanism

TFL

LID

OID

TP

OCB

IB

(C) The identification mechanism

TFL

LMX

POS

TP

OCB

IB

(D) The social exchange mechanism

TFL

DJ

PJ

TP

OCB

IB

(E) The justice enhancement mechanism

TIL

TIO

Fig. 1. The five mediating mechanisms. Note. AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfac- tion; JSE = job self-efficacy; LID = leader identification; LMX = leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organizational iden- tification; PJ = procedural justice; POS = perceived organizational support; TIL = trust in the leader; TIO = trust in the organization; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = task performance; WE = work engagement.

387T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

communicating high expectations, and convincing followers of the importance of those goals. Intellectual stimulation involves en- couraging innovative ways of thinking and doing things and breaking away from existing routines and norms. Individualized con- sideration involves attending to the individual needs of followers, acting as their coach, and listening to their concerns.

Overall, TFL gives followers meaning and reasons to expend effort in their jobs (Grant, 2012). Followers of transformational leaders are more likely to endorse the organizational mission (Caillier, 2014a, 2014b; Colbert, Kristof-Brown, Bradley, & Barrick, 2008). These positive effects of TFL exist at not only the individual level, but also the team, unit, and organizational levels (Searle & Barbuto, 2013). In the following sections, the discussion focuses only on the individual level, as this study was interested in identifying the psychological and social processes that explain the TFL-performance relationship, and such processes largely occur at the individual level. Followers typically react to leaders' TFL through experiencing changes in their beliefs, cognitions, mo- tivations, and emotions (Bass, 1985; Caillier, 2014a, 2014b; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). As these changes largely transpire internally, focusing on individual-level relationships here is warranted. Consistent with this focus, a majority of the empirical studies of TFL have been conducted at the individual level (79% in the current review). However, it is important to point out that the mediating pathways proposed here can be theoretically extended to the group, unit, or organizational level. For instance, consistent with the affective mechanism explained below, organization-level TFL may promote a more positive climate in the or- ganization, which in turn can benefit the organization's productivity (Menges, Walter, Vogel, & Bruch, 2011).

TFL and performance outcomes

Content analysis of the leadership literature shows that job performance is the most frequently examined outcome (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011). Task performance (TP) is the effectiveness with which employees perform activities that contrib- ute to an organization's technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to how well employees perform extra-role activities that are instrumental to promoting organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988). OCB shapes the organizational and psychological context that acts as the catalyst for improved performance in core task activities (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Innovative behavior (IB) is the extent to which employees come up with new and useful ideas, spread their own or others' ideas to colleagues, and implement those ideas or help others to do so (Janssen, 2000). Researchers have advocated the inclusion of IB as a formal appraisal criterion (Welbourne et al., 1998).

Each of the four core dimensions of TFL contributes to TP, OCB, and IB. Followers who feel positive and loyal as a result of a transformational leader's confidence and charisma are likely to be energized to do better in their in-role tasks, extra-role activities, and innovative endeavors. Followers who are inspired by their transformational leaders endorse the organizational goals and know clearly what they are expected to do. They are therefore willing to give their efforts in the different work roles they occupy while anticipating that such efforts will help the organization attain its goals. Followers who are intellectually stimulated by trans- formational leaders are likely to seek innovative ways of approaching their tasks, encouraging their IB. Finally, followers who are given individualized consideration by transformational leaders are likely to reciprocate to their leaders with positive contributions to their organizations, whether they are in-role, extra-role, or innovative endeavors. Indeed, recent meta-analysis shows that TFL is related to TP at 0.21 (k = 31), OCB at 0.30 (k = 28), and creativity at 0.21 (k = 14) (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). To replicate and update these findings, this study proposes the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1. TFL is positively related to employee TP (H1a), OCB (H1b), and IB (H1c).

The preceding hypothesis states that there is a positive relationship between TFL and performance outcomes without shedding light on the mediating processes. TFL indeed involves multiple types of behavior that may profoundly affect followers, both inter- nally and externally. From an internal perspective, TFL can affect followers' affective experiences, job motivation, and value sys- tem. From an external perspective, it can affect their social exchanges and the broader work environment. These changes, in turn, can explain why followers of transformational leaders display higher levels of TP, OCB, and IB than others. These five explan- atory mechanisms are discussed in turn as follows.

The affective mechanism

The affective mechanism suggests that transformational leaders promote the positive affective well-being of followers and that enhanced affective well-being promotes job performance in turn. This mechanism is best explained by both affective events the- ory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). First, affective events theory suggests that the external environment strongly determines employees' affective experiences at work. Employees experience a variety of positive and neg- ative work events, which give rise to positive and negative affective experiences (Ohly & Schmitt, 2015). For instance, transforma- tional leaders enhance followers' positive mood (Bono & Ilies, 2006), and their positivity is contagious and “caught” by followers (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007). Indeed, some researchers have viewed TFL as a process of transferring positive affect from leaders to followers (Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005; Walter & Bruch, 2009).

Affective events theory thus suggests that when leaders display positive behavior such as inspiring followers and considering their interests, the followers' positive affect in the workplace is likely to grow. As job satisfaction and affective organizational com- mitment reflect employees' positive feelings about their jobs and organizations (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006), they were used to represent the affective mechanism in this study. Although these two attitudinal variables also entail evaluative judgments of one's job and employer (Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004), they strongly reflect one's liking or disliking of these targets

388 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

(Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1996; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Indeed, researchers have argued that there is a salient affective underpinning to these two types of attitudes (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Receiving TFL is a positive work event that makes one feel positive about his or her job (job satisfaction); for instance, being inspired by the leader makes the follower see his or her job as meaningful. Receiving TFL is also a positive work event that makes one feel positive about his or her organization (affective organizational commitment); for instance, leaders' individualized consideration makes a follower see working for the organization as enjoyable.

Positive affective experiences drive improved job performance in turn, partly because followers make more positive assess- ments of the link between effort and outcome (Kluemper, Little, & Timothy, 2009). Expectancy theory suggests that when em- ployees expect their efforts to lead to better job performance and that better job performance to lead to desired outcomes in turn, employees are more motivated to put in their efforts toward their jobs. In a leadership context, positive leadership behavior positively colors followers' assessments of the effort-performance and performance-outcome links, motivating them to perform better in different aspects of their jobs. Consequently, further extending the previous discussion of how TFL affects job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment, this study proposes that these two positive affect variables should promote better job performance in turn (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002) because positive affect strengthens their beliefs about the link between their inputs and outputs (Davis, 2009; Lee & Allen, 2002; Miner & Glomb, 2010). Perhaps due to these beliefs, satisfied employees are more effective in performing their core duties (Judge et al., 2001), more willing to engage in OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995), and more motivated to contribute to innovation (Madrid, Patterson, Birdi, Leiva, & Kausel, 2014). Committed employees have also been shown to do well in their jobs (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989), be more willing to participate in extra-role activities (Meyer et al., 2002), and innovate on behalf of their organizations (Ng, Feldman, & Lam, 2010). Thus, following affective events theory and expectancy theory, the following hy- potheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 2. : Job satisfaction mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H2a), OCB (H2b), and IB (H2c).

Hypothesis 3. : Affective organizational commitment mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H3a), OCB (H3b), and IB (H3c).

The motivational mechanism

The motivational mechanism suggests that transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers to feel confident about doing well in their jobs and be willing to dedicate time and effort to their work tasks, both of which contribute to greater job performance in turn. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001, 2006) is informative here. It asserts that individuals strive to be agentic; they hope to makes things happen through their own actions. The theory emphasizes that self-efficacy, or the confidence to do well in a domain, is the key to determining whether an individual can successfully shape reality in the way he or she wants. Those with greater self-efficacy have stronger beliefs in their ability to do well that in turn motivate them to try hard and persist in the face of setbacks. In the organizational sciences, job self-efficacy refers to the extent to which employees believe they have the ability to execute the courses of action needed to manage job situations (Bandura, 1995; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998).

Transformational leaders strengthen followers' job self-efficacy through intellectual stimulations; they inspire followers to im- prove themselves and look for excellence by choosing tasks or pursuing goals that are outside of their comfort zones (Liao & Chuang, 2007). TFL is also a source of inspirational motivation; followers are convinced that they are capable of contributing to an organization's pursuit of its goals. Social cognitive theory indeed suggests that verbal persuasion and vicarious learning are key to enhancing self-efficacy. First, self-efficacy beliefs grow when others (e.g., the transformational leader) provide encourage- ment and instill confidence and when a person learns vicariously from someone who is seen as outstanding and as a role model (e.g., the transformational leader). Thus, social cognitive theory suggests that followers of transformational leaders should have high levels of job self-efficacy.

Job self-efficacy should promote greater TP in turn, as it represents employees' perceived task competence, their conviction that they can meet work goals, and optimistic assessments of the likelihood of task success (Gist, 1987; Hughes, Galbraith, & White, 2011). Thus, the confidence to do well guides employees to actually do well in their core duties (Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Job self-efficacy also strengthens OCB, as executing extra-role tasks or taking part in extra-role activities requires employees to know the work environment, social processes, and organizational system well. Job self-efficacy also benefits IB, as employees need to first feel confident in their job ability before they can go beyond their comfort zones to push for innovation and search for improvement. Therefore, consistent with social cognitive theory, the following hy- pothesis is proposed.

Hypothesis 4. : Job self-efficacy mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H4a), OCB (H4b), and IB (H4c).

In addition to instilling work confidence, TFL strengthens followers' work engagement, which is the extent to which followers feel invigorated, dedicated, and absorbed when they work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). It has three core dimensions: vigor (energy, mental resilience, and persistence), dedication (enthusiasm, inspiration, and pride at work), and absorption (concentration and intensity in work). This three-dimensional view of work engagement extends the generic engage- ment concept proposed by the Gallup Organization, which conceptualizes work engagement as whether employees feel generally

389T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

supported by their organizations to do their work well. The three-dimensional view, on the contrary, focuses on the specific state of minds of employees while they are working; it taps into an intense investment of personal resources in one's work tasks, in- cluding his or her physical, emotional, and cognitive energies (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). One important antecedent of the intensity of work engagement is the degree to which employees are resourceful, whether internally (e.g., feeling excited about the work role) or externally (e.g., receiving resources from the leaders).

Many studies have indeed examined work engagement from a resource perspective; employees with more resources engage themselves fully in their work roles (Crawford, LePine, & Rich, 2010; Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009). Conservation of re- sources theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) is relevant in this area. Although this theory typically focuses on resource depletion and stress, it highlights the very important role of resources in people’ lives. Resources are so centrally valued because when people have more resources, they are more able to achieve more goals, thereby enhancing their well-being (Wright & Hobfoll, 2004). This instrumental value of resource is the source of motivation for individuals to exert effort. Furthermore, individuals are willing to invest in pursuing laudable and valued goals in anticipation of garnering even more resources from that investment (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002).

The way TFL affects followers can be viewed as a resource enrichment process, especially spiritual and tangible resources. In terms of spiritual resources, TFL energizes followers and strengthens their psychological capacity to handle different task demands because transformational leaders make followers excited about organizational goals (Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012; Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Dust, Resick, & Mawritz, 2014) and enhance their beliefs that this goal pursuit is worthwhile and value adding. Consistent with this psychological resource expansion argument, TFL has been found to strengthen employees' sense of duty (Hannah, Jennings, Bluhm, Peng, & Schaubroeck, 2014). In terms of tangible resources, transformational leaders give followers personalized support for problems and concerns (through the display of individualized consideration), such as by granting them practical and useful means to achieve their work, career, and personal goals.

As a result of resource expansion through receiving TFL, followers can improve their performance in core tasks, extra-role ac- tivities, and innovative endeavors. That is, TFL expands the psychological and tangible resources that allow followers to be fully engaged with different aspects of their jobs. First, they feel invigorated and dedicated in doing their assigned duties (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). Engaged followers should also demonstrate greater OCB, because they are energized and equipped to do more (rather than less) in the workplace and to go beyond the prescribed work roles. Engaged followers are also better innovators because they are psychologically prepared and have external support to persist in seeking breakthroughs and improve- ments. Thus, the resource perspective leads to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 5. : Work engagement mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H5a), OCB (H5b), and IB (H5c).

The identification mechanism

The identification mechanism suggests that followers of transformational leaders are inspired by and personally identify with the leaders or their values. In turn, strengthened identification becomes a source of motivation for followers to work harder. Social identification theory is particularly relevant here. Identification is the integration of a person's value system with that of another entity (Vignoles, Regalia, Manzi, Colledge, & Scabini, 2006). Identification occurs when individuals internalize the values and be- liefs of the other entity (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). The theory suggests that a person's strengthened identification with a target is associated with a stronger motivation to perform well for that target, as the person is willing to exert effort to achieve those ideals on behalf of that target (Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick, 2006). The person believes that those ideals championed by the target are important for them to pursue too.

As transformational leaders demonstrate a set of positive behavior that is seen as charismatic and inspiring, followers are likely to personally identify with the leader's values or with what they perceive the leader as representing (Ashforth, Harrison, & Gorley, 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This entails not only a reduced gap between what the leader and the follower see as ideal, but also a sense of personal endorsement and admiration of the transformational leader's value and behavior. Not surprisingly, researchers have found that followers of transformational leaders report greater person-leader value fit (Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, & Sutton, 2011; Jung & Avolio, 2000). In addition, as transformational leaders are seen as symbolic of the organization (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002), followers may also identify with the broader organization. Empirical research has shown that TFL does indeed enhance followers' identification with their organizations (Boehm, Dwertmann, Bruch, & Shamir, 2015; Effelsberg, Solga, & Gurt, 2014a, 2014b) and their perceptions of person-organization fit (Chi & Pan, 2012).

Identification with the leader and organization is likely to be associated with greater TP, OCB, and IB. Meyer et al. (2006) em- phasized that discretionary work behavior is strongly driven by the intensity of employees' social identities. Individuals spend more time on those activities that validate and reinforce their salient social identities the most (Burke & Reitzes, 1981; Callero, 1985; Leary, Wheelers, & Jenkins, 1986; Stryker & Serpe, 1982). By expending greater efforts on different aspects of their jobs to help leaders attain their performance goals, including core task duties, extra-role activities, and innovative endeavors, followers can ensure that those goals that are also important to them can be achieved. A similar argument can be offered for identifying with the organization; employees are willing to expend efforts in multiple areas of their jobs because doing so helps the organi- zation with which they identify to attain a better well-being.

Hypothesis 6. : Identification with the leader mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H6a), OCB (H6b), and IB (H6c).

390 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Hypothesis 7. : Identification with the organization mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H7a), OCB (H7b), and IB (H7c).

The social exchange mechanism

The social exchange mechanism suggests that TFL strengthens the quality of social exchanges between followers and leaders, and higher quality exchanges motivate followers to reciprocate with greater job efforts to benefit the leaders (Song, Tsui, & Law, 2009). Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) is directly relevant here. In social exchanges, there are rules governing the growth of social relationships (Meeker, 1971). One of the rules is the norm of reciprocity, which suggests that a person should reciprocate positively to another person when that person has done something to improve the quality of the relationship (e.g., doing a favor) (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gouldner, 1960). The reciprocating acts create a self-reinforcing cycle that promotes the growth of the relationship (Molm, Whitham, & Melamed, 2012). In the TFL context, transformational leaders continue to offer acts that im- prove the quality of the relationship, but do not necessarily expect rewards directly, proportionately, or immediately from the fol- lower to whom they have dedicated resources, as the relationship is believed to be characterized by open obligations and long- term commitment. This generalized social exchange (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997) enhances followers' intention to reciprocate.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) has been used to represent the quality of exchange between leaders and followers; it is the degree to which a leader develops a close or deep relationship with a follower (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). TFL is closely related to LMX. First, as transformational leaders are supportive of their followers through individualized consider- ation (Zacher, Pearce, Rooney, & McKenna, 2014), followers are likely to perceive the quality of the exchange as high (Chun, Cho, & Sosik, 2016; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). This individualized consideration behavior is quite unique to transfor- mational leaders and is the key to accelerating the growth of the quality of the social exchange between leaders and followers as a result of the strengthening of the reciprocation norms (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Second, followers led by transformational leaders should be more likely to admire the leaders for their extraordinary behavior, charisma, and wisdom, thereby filling the relationship with respect and trust. Third, transformational leaders are willing to invest their time and effort in cultivating rela- tionships with followers, who are seen as important long-term assets that help the team, unit, or firm achieve its goal.

Another variable that is frequently seen as an important indicator of a social exchange at work is perceived organizational sup- port, which is the extent to which the organization values the employee's contribution and cares about his or her well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This construct is frequently examined at the individual level; employees assess the extent to which their organizations are supportive and then react to such an assessment psychologically. For instance, researchers have emphasized that organizational support fulfills employees' internal, socioemotional needs, which in turn draws favorable attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral responses from employees (Arneli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998; Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). Thus, this study also examines perceived orga- nizational support at the individual level.

Perceived organizational support is also relevant to the current investigation of TFL, as followers may take the actions of the leaders as symbolic of the treatment they receive from their organizations (Eisenberger et al., 2002). For instance, Liaw, Chi, and Chuang (2010) find that followers of transformational leaders report greater organizational support, which in turn enhances their service performance. Thus, TFL enhances not only LMX, but also perceived organizational support.

These two social exchange variables promote job performance in turn (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). As suggested by social exchange theory, followers who develop better exchange quality with a leader are more willing to reciprocate to the leader by helping the leader to attain his or her goals. For instance, as transformational leaders are considerate, their followers are likely to perceive the LMX as high quality; in turn, higher LMX is an impetus for the followers to perform well in their core task duties as a way to reciprocate to the leaders (Wang et al., 2005). This reciprocation can also manifest in OCB that helps the leader to improve the social processes within the team or unit and in IB that helps the leader's team or unit to innovate. Perceived orga- nizational support, which captures the exchange quality between the follower and organization, is similarly likely to promote pos- itive performance outcomes. Employees who feel supported by their organizations have motivation to not only contribute to its technical core as a way to reciprocate to the organization, but also engage in OCB and IB to help the organization maintain its smooth social process and improve its production system. Thus, the reciprocation norm tenet of social exchange theory leads to the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 8. : LMX mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H8a), OCB (H8b), and IB (H8c).

Hypothesis 9. : Perceived organizational support mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H9a), OCB (H9b), and IB (H9c).

The justice enhancement mechanism

The justice enhancement mechanism suggests that TFL indicates to followers that future resource allocations and the proce- dures leading to those allocations are likely to be fair, in turn motivating followers to contribute their efforts. The group value model (Tyler, 1989; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996) is informative here. It suggests that being treated fairly signals the value of

391T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

the target to the broader collective. Being treated fairly suggests to the target that he or she occupies a respectable position in the group and can take pride in the group membership. Those feelings of respect and pride can in turn motivate individuals to ded- icate more effort to serving the group's interest (Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, & Esposo, 2008). Thus, the group value model sug- gests that fair treatment by transformational leaders carries more than just instrumental value; it also carries symbolic value, which motivates followers to work dutifully for the group.

There are four types of justice perception: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice (Colquitt et al., 2013). Following other TFL researchers, this study focuses on distributive and procedural justice (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). These two types of justice are frequently assessed by employees at work (Gilliland, 1994; Rousseau, Salek, Aube, & Morin, 2009). Distributive justice is the fairness of resource allocation (or outcomes received), and procedural justice is the fairness of the procedures used to determine those outcomes (Moorman, 1991).

TFL enhances distributive justice because transformational leaders generally uphold high ethical standards (Groves & LaRocca, 2011; Zhu, Avolio, Riggio, & Sosik, 2011); they ensure that employees who have put in efforts or shown merits are compensated fairly. Transformational leaders are cognizant of fairness issues and careful not to create resource allocation outcomes that break the team spirit. Not surprisingly, it has been observed that followers of transformational leaders experience fewer breaches of their expectations (Epitropaki, 2013), suggesting that the resource allocation decisions of such leaders are usually fair in the eyes of followers. TFL also enhances procedural justice; for instance, Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, and Lowe (2009) suggested that transformational leaders always offer praise and recognition, which in turn make followers feel that the procedures and pol- icies are fair. Transformational leaders also encourage employees to articulate their own opinions and satisfy their individualized needs. This style of promoting stronger follower presence in the organizational system also promotes procedural justice (Pillai et al., 1999).

Distributive and procedural justice enhance performance outcomes in turn, as being treated with respect and having one's worth affirmed by a broader collective are basic human needs, the satisfaction of which generates motivational power (Aryee, Walumbwa, Mondejar, & Chu, 2015; Kovjanic, Schuh, Jonas, Van Quaquebeke, & Van Dick, 2012). When one's status is affirmed, one has stronger rationales to perform well in different aspects of his or her job (core task duties, extra-role activities, and inno- vative endeavors) to serve the interest of the group (or the leader's group). Doing so also bolsters and justifies the affirmation one receives from the group; if one does not do well in different areas of his or her job, he or she may lose that affirmation from other colleagues. Thus, based on the group value model, the following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 10. : Distributive justice mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H10a), OCB (H10b), and IB (10c).

Hypothesis 11. : Procedural justice mediates the relationships between TFL and employee TP (H11a), OCB (H11b), and IB (H11c).

Colquitt and Rodwell (2011) extended the group value model to suggest that justice perceptions strengthen employees' feel- ings of trust. Trust in the leader and trust in the organization indicate the extent to which employees are willing to become vulner- able to the actions of the leader and organization. Strong trust indicates that employees assume the risk of believing that the future behavior of the leader and organization will be supportive rather than unsupportive (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). That is, they are willing to rely on these entities despite the risk that they may not honor their obliga- tions (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

When there is a high level of distributive and procedural justice, followers are willing to become vulnerable to the actions of the leaders and organization because they anticipate that they will receive their fair share of resources from the leader or orga- nization, through the application of fair procedures and decisions. In other words, perceptions of fairness are social cues to fol- lowers that they can accept the risk associated with depending on the leaders and organization in the future and thereby enhance their feelings of trust (Colquitt & Rodwell, 2011).

Trust in the leader and organization promotes followers' job performance in turn, as they are willing to bear the risk of exerting effort on behalf of these entities, with the expectation that these entities will appreciate the effort (Pillai et al., 1999). This is especially true for OCB and IB, which can upset leaders and colleagues who see the employees who engage in extra- role tasks as infringing upon their authorities or escalating competition and see proposers of changes and innovations as trouble- makers. Followers who trust their leaders and organizations may also want to show to their leaders and organizations their own benevolent intentions and job ability, the two core elements of trustworthiness (Mayer et al., 1995). Demonstrating a high level of performance in different aspects of their jobs, including TP, OCB, and IB, is solid evidence to that end. Thus, the following hypoth- esis is proposed.

Hypothesis 12. : Trust in the leader (H12a) and trust in the organization (H12b) mediate the relationships between justice per- ceptions and employee performance outcomes.

The central role of LMX

Of the five aforementioned mediating mechanisms, the social exchange mechanism (especially LMX) is arguably the most im- portant. Of the 10 mediators representing the five theory-based mechanisms, only LMX has captured the changing quality of the relationship with the very leader who displays TFL. A core premise driving the TFL research is that leaders who are able to trans- form and in particular escalate the relationship they have with their followers are likely to be more successful in motivating those

392 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

followers to contribute to the organizational goals (Barrick et al., 2015; Bass et al., 2003a, 2003b; Keller, 1992). Thus, successful TFL often means successful and positive shaping of the LMX into higher quality. Other researchers have also acknowledged the important role of TFL in advancing the quality of exchange between leaders and followers, from strangers who are wary of each other's exchange behavior to partners who are receptive to and grateful for each other's offers of social exchange (Chun et al., 2016; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Wang et al., 2005).

When the relationship grows and the norm of reciprocation continues to strengthen, followers are likely to gradually experi- ence other functional changes, such as increased positive affect, motivation, identification, and even justice perceptions. That is, the followers in a high quality LMX reciprocate not only by increasing their job performance, but also through other positive changes that indirectly benefit productivity, such as feeling more satisfied and committed, feeling more motivated and invigorated to contribute, feeling a sense of identification with the leader and organization, and perceiving the leader and organization as fair and trustworthy (Liden et al., 1997; Wayne et al., 1997). For instance, multiple meta-analyses have shown LMX to have wide- spread positive effects on employees, including their affective experiences, job motivation, and justice perceptions (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2011; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012). Consequently, this study explores the possibility that LMX is a core explanatory mechanism of the five discussed previously and that it at least par- tially mediates the effects of TFL on other mediating variables.

Research Question 1. : Does LMX mediate the effects of TFL on other mediating variables, which are related to employee perfor- mance outcomes in turn?

Method

To find studies relevant to this investigation, a comprehensive search for empirical articles examining TFL was performed. As TFL has rather broad influences, studies conducted at any levels were targeted initially, although the subsequent model testing focused on the individual level. That focus on individual-level data is acceptable, as this study addresses multiple social and psy- chological processes occurring at the individual level.

Keyword searches were performed in multiple comprehensive journal databases: Dissertation Abstracts International, Digital Dissertation Consortium, EBSCOHost, Emerald, Factiva, JSTOR, Oxford Journals, Proquest, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, Sage Full-Text Collec- tions, and Wiley InterScience. Examples of the keywords used include “transformational leadership,” “charisma,” “job performance,” “citizenship behavior,” “creativity,” and “innovation”. Several groups of TFL articles were necessarily excluded from the search re- sults because (a) they did not provide the information needed to convert the effect sizes into correlations, (b) they discussed TFL but did not provide any TFL data, or (c) the datasets involved were duplicated in other studies by the same group of authors.

The search identified 389 empirical articles related to TFL and 416 independent samples were contained in these studies (N = 126,463). The year of publication of the studies reveals a growing interest in TFL: 3% were published in 1999 or earlier 13% be- tween 2001 and 2005 30% between 2006 and 2010 and 55% in 2011 or later. The mean age of individuals across samples that gave demographic information was 36 years (SD = 8) and 47% were female. The mean job tenure was 5 years and the mean or- ganizational tenure was 8 years. In terms of location 36% of the studies were conducted in the United States or Canada 23% in Europe 31% in Asia Pacific regions and 4% in the Middle East with the remaining 6% conducted in other regions (e.g. Africa) or covering more than one region. Finally 79% of the studies examined TFL at the individual level 11% at the team or unit level and 10% at the organization level

To test the mediation effect hypotheses, correlations between the mediating variables involved (e.g., between job self-efficacy and work engagement) were needed. Although some of these correlations were available from previous meta-analyses, others re- quired new meta-analyses because meta-analytical effect sizes were not available. Thus, 240 additional articles (N = 83,048) that contained correlations of interest but had not previously been meta-analyzed in the research were gathered. The major variables of interest in this additional group of articles included job self-efficacy, work engagement, identification with the leader, and non- self-report measures of IB. The article search strategy adopted was congruent with that noted previously for TFL studies. In sum, N600 articles were used in this study.

Measures

To alleviate concerns about common method variance, this study endeavored to separate the sources of the ratings of the study variables. TFL was measured from the followers' perspective because they were the ones who directly and constantly witnessed the leadership behavior. The mediating variables were also measured based on the followers' self-ratings, as the fol- lowers were arguably in the best position to evaluate these variables, which related to their social and psychological experiences with TFL. These experiences were highly personal and subjective; it was hard to argue that a coworker, a leader, or a spouse had a more accurate assessment of an employee's own affect, motivation, identification, and justice perceptions. Finally, the three per- formance outcomes were measured by non-self-report measures, as self-ratings of these variables might have contained inflation or other biases.

TFL was the key variable of interest. Across virtually all of the studies, TFL was consistently measured by follower reports of the extent to which leaders displayed TFL behavior. A few studies measured TFL using leaders' self-reports or coworkers' reports. To

393T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

rule out differences attributable to ratings sources, these studies were excluded from subsequent analyses. That is, this study con- sistently focused on followers' ratings of their leaders' TFL.

Of the many scales used to measure TFL, the MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio, 1993) was the most fre- quently used (68%) (with an average reliability estimate of 0.91). In cases where the authors provided dimensional scores instead of an overall score, a linear average composite was created to represent TFL. Another set of studies (13%) used Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter's (1990) inventory to measure TFL (with an average reliability estimate of 0.88). A small portion of studies (5%) used the scale created by Carless, Wearing, and Mann (2000) (with an average reliability estimate of 0.94). The remaining 14% used a variety of other scales to measure TFL.

Performance outcomes The core outcomes of interest were TP, OCB, and IB, with TP representing the performance of in-role tasks and OCB

representing extra-role behavior that improved the organization (including prosocial behavior). Some studies provided dimen- sional scores for OCB; in those cases, a linear average composite was created to represent the overall level of OCB for that study. IB represented the invention, spreading, and implementation of ideas and therefore included not only creativity measures but also other types of innovative endeavors. These three performance variables were further divided into self-rated and non-self- report measures (supervisor ratings, peer ratings, or objective measures). The following mediation analyses used non-self-report measures of TP, OCB, and IB at the individual level of analysis.

Mediating variables Looking at the affective mechanism, job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment were operationalized with

established scales in individual studies, such as the measures of job satisfaction used by Brayfield and Rothe (1951) and Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1997) and the measures of organizational commitment used by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993) and Cook and Wall (1980). In this case, job satisfaction referred to the job in general rather than any specific work conditions. This study excluded other types of organizational commitment (e.g., normative, calculative), as this mechanism centered on pos- itive affective experiences.

To test the motivational mechanism, job self-efficacy and work engagement were used as the core variables of interest, and both were operationalized with established scales such as the measures of self-efficacy used by Jones (1986) and Riggs and Knight (1994) and the measures of work engagement used by Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006) and Rich et al. (2010). Job self-ef- ficacy reflected one's confidence in doing job tasks and was therefore different from generalized self-efficacy or self-efficacy beliefs about other domains (e.g., creativity). In cases where the authors provided correlations for dimensions of work engagement (vigor, dedication, absorption), those effect sizes were averaged to represent the overall degree of work engagement.

The third mediating mechanism was employees' identification, with identification with the leader and identification with the or- ganization being the core variables of interest. In this study, they were measured based on such measures as the scales of iden- tification with the leader used by Kark, Shamir, and Chen (2003) and Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) and the scales of identification with the organization used by Mael and Ashforth (1992) and Smidts, Pruyn, and Riel (2001). Psychological identi- fication with other entities such as team members, the group, or the occupation was excluded.

The social exchange mechanism was captured by LMX and perceived organizational support. Both variables were operational- ized in individual studies with established scales, such as the measures of LMX used by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) and Scandura and Graen (1984) and the measure of perceived organizational support used by Eisenberger et al. (1986) or its shorter variant (Hellman, Fuqua, & Worley, 2006). To keep the focus on the support measures provided by the organization rather than the supervisor, coworkers, or mentors, measures of other sources of support were excluded. As perceived organizational support reflected generic feelings about the supportiveness of an organization, measures of specific kinds of assistance, such as support for work-family balance or support for innovation, were excluded.

The fifth and final group of variables included distributive justice, procedural justice, trust in the leader, and trust in the organi- zation, which served to test the proposed justice enhancement mechanisms. In this study, all four variables were operationalized with established scales. For instance, the measures used by Moorman (1991) and Niehoff and Moorman (1993) were used to measure distributive and procedural justice, and measures of trust (in either the leader or the organization) were often adapted from scales such as those used by Dirks (2000) and McAllister (1995). Trust in other entities such as team members or mentors was excluded.

Meta-analytical procedures

This study used the meta-analytical approach developed by Raju, Burke, Normand, and Langlois (1991). First, the measurement error variance was removed from the observed correlations by using the internal reliability estimates provided in individual stud- ies. Second, the sampling error variance was removed from the observed correlations by aggregating the same study relationship across different studies, as any variability identified in the observed correlations might have been attributable to differences in the nature and size of the samples.

To specifically test the mediation effects, this study used meta-analytical path analysis (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). In the first step, individual-level meta-analytical data related to the relationships between TFL and all of the other correlates were gathered, following the meta-analytical procedures described previously. Second, individual-level meta-analytical data related to the rela- tionships between mediators were gathered. Some of the relationships between mediators had already been examined by

394 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

other authors in other meta-analyses (such as the relationship between job satisfaction and procedural justice). In those cases, the meta-analytical effect sizes were directly borrowed, following other researchers who also used meta-analytical data for model testing (Butts, Casper, & Yang, 2013; Courtright, Thurgood, Stewart, & Pierotti, 2015; Harrison et al., 2006). When more than one meta-analysis existed for the same study relationship, the effect sizes based on more empirical studies were used. Third, a similar procedure was used to gather the effect sizes for the individual-level relationships between mediators and non-self-report measures of performance. That is, new meta-analyses were performed for a mediator-performance relationship if previous meta- analyses did not provide such effect sizes.

The meta-analytical effect sizes borrowed from other studies included the correlation between affective organizational com- mitment and OCB and job satisfaction from a study by Meyer et al. (2002), the correlations between LMX and affective organiza- tional commitment and justice perceptions from a study by Dulebohn et al. (2011), the correlations between perceived organizational support and job satisfaction and work engagement from a study by Ahmed, Nawaz, Ali, and Islam (2015), the cor- relation between justice perceptions and affective organizational commitment from a study by Meyer et al. (2002), the correlation between job satisfaction and OCB from a study by Judge et al. (2001), the correlations between affective organizational commit- ment and TP and organizational identification from a study by Riketta (2002), the correlation between job self-efficacy and TP from a study by Judge et al. (2007), the correlations between work engagement and TP, OCB, job satisfaction, and LMX from a study by Christian et al. (2011), the correlations between LMX and TP and OCB from a study by Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, and Epitropaki (2016), the correlations between perceived organizational support and TP and OCB from a study by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), the correlations between organizational identification and TP, OCB, and perceived organizational support from a study by Ng (2015), the correlations between justice perceptions and TP, OCB, LMX, and perceived organizational support from a study by Colquitt et al. (2013), the correlation between job satisfaction and OCB from a study by Organ and Ryan (1995), and the correlation between TP and OCB from a study by Harrison et al. (2006).

Following the preceding steps, two groups of data were obtained: (a) new primary data from current meta-analyses and (b) secondary data from meta-analyses performed by other researchers. These individual-level data were then used to construct the input correlation matrix used for the path analysis conducted to test the mediation hypotheses. Following Viswesvaran and Ones's (1995) recommendation, a harmonic mean sample size was computed for this matrix (N = 3142 in the current study). With the correlation matrix and harmonic mean estimate, the next step was to specify and test the proposed models.

Table 1 The relationships of TFL with performance outcomes.

. N k rc SD 95% CI 90% CV

TP — non-self-report measures 18,794 100 0.26 0.09 (0.24, 0.28) (0.11, 0.41) Individual level 14,178 59 0.27 0.09 (0.25, 0.29) (0.12, 0.42) Team/unit level 2566 29 0.30 0.11 (0.26, 0.34) (0.12, 0.48) Organizational level 2050 12 0.20 0.09 (0.15, 0.25) (0.05, 0.35) MLQ 9109 23 0.28 0.10 (0.24, 0.32) (0.12, 0.44) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 4113 10 0.23 0.00 (0.23, 0.23) (0.23, 0.23)

TP — self-ratings 11,506 45 0.44 0.16 (0.39, 0.49) (0.18, 0.70) Individual level 4464 14 0.36 0.15 (0.28, 0.44) (0.11, 0.61) Team/unit level 1629 13 0.48 0.23 (0.35, 0.61) (0.10, 0.86) Organizational level 5413 18 0.49 0.11 (0.44, 0.54) (0.31, 0.67) MLQ 4288 14 0.36 0.17 (0.27, 0.45) (0.08, 0.64) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 906 5 0.37 0.16 (0.23, 0.51) (0.11, 0.63)

OCB — non-self-report measures 11,951 53 0.26 0.08 (0.24, 0.28) (0.13, 0.39) Individual level 11,407 47 0.26 0.08 (0.24, 0.28) (0.13, 0.39) Team/unit level 544 6 0.42 0.16 (0.29, 0.55) (0.16, 0.68) MLQ 5707 26 0.27 0.07 (0.24, 0.30) (0.15, 0.39) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 4400 12 0.23 0.07 (0.19, 0.27) (0.11, 0.35)

OCB — self-ratings 13,493 30 0.32 0.15 (0.27, 0.37) (0.07, 0.57) Individual level 13,146 27 0.32 0.15 (0.26, 0.38) (0.07, 0.57) Team/unit level 189 2 0.43 0.24 (0.10, 0.76) (0.04, 0.82) MLQ 6430 17 0.28 0.16 (0.20, 0.36) (0.02, 0.54) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 317 2 0.57 0.28 (0.18, 0.96) (0.11, 1.03)

IB — non-self-report measures 7154 34 0.20 0.09 (0.17, 0.23) (0.05, 0.35) Individual level 5905 24 0.18 0.08 (0.15, 0.21) (0.05, 0.31) Team/unit level 468 6 0.19 0.00 (0.19, 0.19) (0.19, 0.19) Organizational level 781 4 0.33 0.00 (0.33, 0.33) (0.33, 0.33) MLQ 4891 19 0.18 0.10 (0.14, 0.22) (0.02, 0.34) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 780 3 0.22 0.00 (0.22, 0.22) (0.22, 0.22)

IB — self-ratings 6104 24 0.42 0.18 (0.35, 0.49) (0.12, 0.72) Individual level 2522 8 0.32 0.15 (0.22, 0.42) (0.07, 0.57) Team/unit level 137 2 0.32 0.00 (0.32, 0.32) (0.32, 0.32) Organizational level 3445 14 0.50 0.16 (0.42, 0.58) (0.24, 0.76)

Note. N = cumulative sample size; k = number of studies cumulated; rc = sample-size weighted corrected correlation; SD = standard deviation of rc; CI = - confidence intervals for rc; CV = credibility intervals for rc. IB = innovative behavior; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; TFL = transformational leader- ship; TP = task performance.

395T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

To identify any significant mediation effects embedded in the testing model, this study used Iacobucci, Saldanha, and Deng's (2007) method. According to these authors' suggestion, if the predictor variable in a structural model is significantly related to the mediator, which is in turn significantly related to the criterion variable (in the presence of a direct effect of the predictor var- iable on the criterion variable), then there is initial evidence of mediation effects. These authors also suggested that Sobel's (1982) z-test could be used to determine whether the indirect effects are statistically significant. Although other mediation testing methods are available (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), this study used Sobel's z-test, as other methods required raw data to generate bootstrapping confidence intervals, and such data were not available given the nature of meta-analysis. Other researchers have also used Sobel's statistic for mediation tests (Chen & Lin, 2011; Kaldo, Ramnerö, & Jernelöv, 2015; Vallieres, Vallerland, Bergeon, & McDuff, 2014).

Results

Table 1 shows the corrected correlations between TFL and the performance outcomes, Table 2 shows the corrected correla- tions between TFL and the mediating variables, and Table 3 shows the meta-analytical correlation matrix used to test the medi- ation effects. In evaluating the proposed models, this study used three indices recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998): the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR). Hu and Bentler (1999) especially recommended SRMR for its sensitivity to model misspecification. They suggested that IFI and CFI should be close to 0.95 and that SRMR should be close to 0.08. In addition, this study used the stringent “α = 0.01” rule to perform signif- icance tests of the parameter estimates in the models, as multiple significant tests were performed. Finally, as all of the

Table 2 The relationships of TFL with mediating variables.

N k rc SD 95% CI 90% CV

Job satisfaction 32,428 83 0.48 0.16 (0.45, 0.51) (0.22, 0.74) Individual level 32,355 81 0.48 0.16 (0.45, 0.51) (0.22, 0.74) Team/unit/organizational level 73 2 0.54 0.12 (0.37, 0.71) (0.34, 0.74) MLQ 16,765 52 0.48 0.15 (0.44, 0.52) (0.23, 0.73) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 5834 12 0.43 0.18 (0.33, 0.53) (0.13, 0.73)

Affective organizational commitment 34,523 98 0.43 0.14 (0.40, 0.46) (0.20, 0.66) Individual level 34,279 95 0.44 0.14 (0.41, 0.47) (0.21, 0.67) Team/unit/organizational level 244 3 0.30 0.00 (0.30, 0.30) (0.30, 0.30) MLQ 27,214 74 0.45 0.14 (0.42, 0.48) (0.22, 0.68) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 3320 8 0.33 0.11 (0.25, 0.41) (0.15, 0.51)

Job self-efficacy 15,825 42 0.32 0.11 (0.29, 0.35) (0.14, 0.50) Individual level 14,445 30 0.31 0.10 (0.27, 0.35) (0.15, 0.47) Team/unit/organizational level 1380 12 0.45 0.13 (0.38, 0.52) (0.24, 0.66) MLQ 5012 16 0.27 0.08 (0.23, 0.31) (0.14, 0.40) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 1552 3 0.19 0.10 (0.08, 0.30) (0.03, 0.35)

Work engagement (all studies were conducted at the individual level) 7678 25 0.46 0.15 (0.40, 0.52) (0.21, 0.71) MLQ 4755 16 0.45 0.10 (0.40, 0.50) (0.29, 0.61) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 1572 4 0.62 0.12 (0.50, 0.74) (0.42, 0.82)

Identification with the leader 3342 12 0.66 0.15 (0.58, 0.74) (0.41, 0.91) Individual level 3262 11 0.67 0.15 (0.58, 0.76) (0.42, 0.92)

Identification with the organization 6639 19 0.51 0.14 (0.45, 0.57) (0.28, 0.74) Individual level 6489 18 0.51 0.13 (0.45, 0.57) (0.30, 0.72) MLQ 5612 15 0.53 0.14 (0.46, 0.60) (0.30, 0.76) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 625 2 0.42 0.00 (0.42, 0.42) (0.42, 0.42)

Leader-member exchange 8887 25 0.75 0.17 (0.68, 0.82) (0.47, 1.03) Individual level 8741 24 0.76 0.16 (0.70, 0.82) (0.50, 1.02) MLQ 7146 18 0.75 0.16 (0.68, 0.82) (0.49, 1.01) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 922 4 0.80 0.20 (0.60, 1.00) (0.47, 1.13)

Perceived organizational support (all studies were conducted at the individual level) 4024 13 0.52 0.16 (0.43, 0.61) (0.26, 0.78) MLQ 1346 5 0.51 0.13 (0.40, 0.62) (0.30, 0.72) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 984 3 70 0.00 (0.70, 0.70) (0.70, 0.70)

Distributive justice (all studies were conducted at the individual level) 2592 7 0.44 0.08 (0.38, 0.50) (0.31, 0.57) Procedural justice 6863 16 0.57 0.11 (0.52, 0.62) (0.39, 0.75)

Individual level 6744 15 0.55 0.11 (0.49, 0.61) (0.37, 0.73) MLQ 3966 10 0.53 0.12 (0.46, 0.60) (0.33, 0.73) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 1403 68 0.68 0.05 (0.67, 0.69) (0.60, 0.76)

Trust in the leader 9840 30 0.67 0.17 (0.61, 0.73) (0.39, 0.95) Individual level 9491 26 0.67 0.17 (0.60, 0.74) (0.39, 0.95) Team/unit/organizational level 349 4 0.70 0.12 (0.58, 0.82) (0.50, 0.90) MLQ 5641 17 0.74 0.16 (0.66, 0.82) (0.48, 1.00) Podsakoff et al.'s scale 2457 5 0.60 0.15 (0.47, 0.73) (0.35, 0.85)

Trust in the organization 661 4 0.64 0.12 (0.52, 0.76) (0.44, 0.84) Individual level 503 3 0.64 0.14 (0.48, 0.80) (0.41, 0.87)

Note. N = cumulative sample size; k = number of studies cumulated; r = sample-size weighted uncorrected correlation; rc = sample-size weighted corrected correlation; SD = standard deviation of rc; CI = confidence intervals for rc; CV = credibility intervals for rc; TFL = transformational leadership.

Table 3 Meta-analytical correlation matrix (harmonic mean = 3142).

A. The correlation matrix used for testing the affective mechanism

TFL TP OCB IB JS AOC

1. TFL – 2. TP 0.27

(61, 14,646) –

3. OCB 0.27 (48, 11,766)

0.23 a

(24, 9912) –

4. IB 0.18 (24, 5905)

0.53 (30, 6846)

0.63 (8, 1918)

–

5. JS 0.48 (82, 32,594)

0.30 b

(312, 54,471) 0.26 d

(22, 5549) 0.28 (5, 1243)

–

6. AOC 0.44 (97, 34,626)

0.19 c

(59, 14,906) 0.27 e

(8, 1815) 0.42 (4, 944)

0.65 e

(69, 23,656) –

B. The correlation matrix used for testing the motivational mechanism

TFL TP OCB IB JSE WE

1. TFL – 2. TP 0.27

(61, 14,646) –

3. OCB 0.27 (48, 11,766)

0.23 a

(24, 9912) –

4. IB 0.18 (24, 5905)

0.53 (30, 6846)

0.63 (8, 1918)

–

5. JSE 0.31 (30, 14,445)

0.37 f

(217, 32,123) 0.29 (11, 3463)

0.28 (5, 1243)

–

6. WE 0.46 (25, 7678)

0.39 g

(4, 1139) 0.43 g

(5, 1159) 0.42 (4, 944)

0.45 (19, 7519)

–

C. The correlation matrix used for testing the identification mechanism

TFL TP OCB IB LID OID

1. TFL – 2. TP 0.27

(61, 14,646) –

3. OCB 0.27 (48, 11,766)

0.23 a

(24, 9912) –

4. IB 0.18 (24, 5905)

0.53 (30, 6846)

0.63 (8, 1918)

–

5. LID 0.67 (11, 3262)

0.37 (7, 2774)

0.35 (4, 952)

0.12 (4, 844)

–

6. OID 0.51 (18, 6489)

0.38 h

(24, 8575) 0.47 h

(16, 5513) 0.17 (5, 1647)

0.58 (5, 3172)

–

D. The correlation matrix used for testing the social exchange mechanism

TFL TP OCB IB LMX POS

1. TFL – 2. TP 0.27

(61, 14,646) –

3. OCB 0.27 (48, 11,766)

0.23 a

(24, 9912) –

4. IB 0.18 (24, 5905)

0.53 (30, 6846)

0.63 (8, 1918)

–

5. LMX 0.76 (25, 9100)

0.29 i

(108, 23,672) 0.31 i

(72, 15,365) 0.31 (14, 4105)

–

6. POS 0.52 (13, 4024)

0.18 j

(12, 2873) 0.22 j

(16, 4050) 0.09 (3, 500)

0.54 k

(7, 2444) –

E. The correlation matrix used for testing the justice enhancement mechanism

TFL TP OCB IB DJ PJ TIL TIO

1. TFL – 2. TP 0.27

(61, 14,646) –

3. OCB 0.27 (48, 11,766)

0.23 a

(24, 9912) –

4. IB 0.18 (24, 5905)

0.53 (30, 6846)

0.63 (8, 1918)

–

396 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Table 3 (continued)

E. The correlation matrix used for testing the justice enhancement mechanism

TFL TP OCB IB DJ PJ TIL TIO

5. DJ 0.44 (7, 2592)

0.26 k

(45, 11,336) 0.21 k

(36, 10,100) 0.17 (5, 1266)

–

6. PJ 0.55 (15, 6744)

0.24 k

(57, 14,258) 0.30 k

(71, 16,864) 0.30 (3, 707)

0.61 k

(184, 67,956) –

7. TIL 0.67 (26, 9491)

0.32 k

(5, 749) 0.48 k

(10, 2355) 0.22 (3, 530)

0.45 k

(26, 7085) 0.65 k

(31, 7877) –

8. TIO 0.64 (3, 503)

0.19 k

(3, 1372) 0.29 k

(8, 3027) 0.02 (3, 643)

0.54 k

(20, 6409) 0.63 k

(22, 5898) 0.53 k

(7, 2063) –

Note. The first figure in parentheses represents the number of studies cumulated (k). The second figure represents the total sample size (N). Performance measures are based on non-self-report data at the individual level of analysis. The data from new meta-analyses are in boldface. The letter superscripts in the body of the table indicate the source of the meta-analytical correlations: “a,” Harrison et al. (2006); “b,” Judge et al. (2001); “c,” Riketta (2002); “d,” Organ and Ryan (1995); “e,” Meyer et al. (2002); “f,” Judge et al. (2007); “g,” Christian et al. (2011); “h,” Ng (2015); “i,” Martin et al. (2016); “j,” Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002); “k,” Colquitt et al. (2013). AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfaction; JSE = job self-effi- cacy; LID = leader identification; LMX = leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organizational identification; PJ = - procedural justice; POS = perceived organizational support; TIL = trust in the leader; TIO = trust in the organization; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = task performance; WE = work engagement.

397T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

relationships discussed thus far were predicted to be positive in direction, the following discussion focuses on estimates that sup- port that prediction.

Examining the TFL-performance relationship

Hypothesis 1 predicted that TFL was positively related to TP (H1a), OCB (H1b), and IB (H1c). As shown in Table 1, TFL was positively related to non-self-report measures of TP at the individual (ρ = 0.27), team (ρ = 0.30), and organization (ρ = 0.20) levels, fully supporting H1a. TFL was also related to non-self-report measures of OCB at the individual (ρ = 0.26) and team (ρ = 0.42) levels, supporting H1b. Finally, TFL was related to non-self-report measures of IB at the three levels of analysis (ρ = 0.18, 0.19, and 0.33, respectively), supporting H1c.

Two methodological issues are noteworthy. First, this study considered whether individual-level meta-analytical correlations differed from aggregated correlations. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the credibility intervals associated with the effect sizes for the individual- and aggregate-level data overlapped, which suggests that the level of analysis was not a confounding factor here (Whitener, 1990). Second, it examined whether measures of TFL altered the effect sizes. As noted earlier, the two most wide- ly used scales were the MLQ measure and the measure used by Podsakoff et al. (1990). Tables 1 and 2 show that the credibility intervals associated with the effect size for the group of studies that used MLQ overlapped with that for the group of studies that used the measure adopted by Podsakoff et al. These results suggest that the choice of TFL measure did not appear to substantially affect the current set of findings and data interpretation.

Examining the five mediating models

The parameter estimates in meta-analytical path analysis (using individual-level correlations as inputs) are shown in Fig. 2. Hypothesis 2 predicted that job satisfaction mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H2a), OCB (H2b), and IB (H2c). Hypothesis 3 pre- dicted that affective organizational commitment mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H3a), OCB (H3b), and IB (H3c). The fit of this affective model was acceptable: IFI was 0.98, CFI was 0.98, and SRMR was 0.04. TFL was related to job satisfaction (β = 0.48), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.31) and OCB (β = 0.25). In the same model, TFL was related to affective organizational commitment (β = 0.44), which in turn was related to OCB (β = 0.17) and IRB (β = 0.18). Table 4 shows a summary of the re- sults of mediation analyses. Job satisfaction did mediate the relationships of TFL with TP and OCB, and affective organizational commitment mediated the relationships of TFL with OCB and IB. Thus, H2a, H2b, H3b, and H3c were supported, but H2c and H3a were not.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that job self-efficacy mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H4a), OCB (H4b), and IB (H4c). Hypothesis 5 predicted that work engagement mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H5a), OCB (H5b), and IB (H5c). The motivation mechanism model had an acceptable fit: IFI was 0.99, CFI was 0.99, and SRMR was 0.02. As shown in Fig. 2, TFL was related to job self-efficacy (β = 0.31), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.24), OCB (β = 0.12), and IB (β = 0.11). TFL was also related to work engage- ment (β = 0.46), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.28), OCB (β = 0.38), and IB (β = 0.37). As shown in Table 4, mediation analyses revealed that both job self-efficacy and work engagement mediated the relationship between TFL and all three perfor- mance outcomes. Thus, H4a–H4c and H5a–H5c were all supported.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that identification with the leader mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H6a), OCB (H6b), and IB (H6c). Hypothesis 7 predicted that identification with the organization mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H7a), OCB (H7b), and IB (H7c). The identification mechanism model had an acceptable fit: IFI was 0.98, CFI was 0.98, and SRMR was 0.02. TFL was related to identification with the leader (β = 0.67), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.23) and OCB (β = 0.12). In the same model,

Table 4 A summary of tests of mediation relationships.

Independent variable (IV) Mediator (M) Dependent variable (DV) β1 (IV➔M) β2 (M➔DV) Significance of the indirect effect (β1 ∗ β2)

The affective mechanism TFL JS TP 0.48⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 10.14⁎⁎

TFL JS OCB 0.48⁎⁎ 0.09⁎⁎ 3.89⁎⁎

TFL JS IB 0.48⁎⁎ ns – TFL AOC TP 0.44⁎⁎ ns – TFL AOC OCB 0.44⁎⁎ 0.14⁎⁎ 5.96⁎⁎

TFL AOC IB 0.44⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎ 6.12⁎⁎

The motivational mechanism TFL JSE TP 0.31⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 10.58⁎⁎

TFL JSE OCB 0.31⁎⁎ 0.11⁎⁎ 5.85⁎⁎

TFL JSE IB 0.31⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ 6.13⁎⁎

TFL WE TP 0.46⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 11.72⁎⁎

TFL WE OCB 0.46⁎⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 15.22⁎⁎

TFL WE IB 0.46⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ 16.26⁎⁎

The identification mechanism TFL LID TP 0.67⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 9.78⁎⁎

TFL LID OCB 0.67⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 5.13⁎⁎

TFL LID IB 0.67⁎⁎ ns – TFL OID TP 0.51⁎⁎ 0.25⁎⁎ 11.65⁎⁎

TFL OID OCB 0.51⁎⁎ 0.41⁎⁎ 17.60⁎⁎

TFL OID IB 0.51⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ 5.55⁎⁎

The social exchange mechanism TFL LMX TP 0.76⁎⁎ 0.20⁎⁎ 7.17⁎⁎

TFL LMX OCB 0.76⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 8.32⁎⁎

TFL LMX IB 0.76⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎ 15.97⁎⁎

TFL POS TP 0.52⁎⁎ ns – TFL POS OCB 0.52⁎⁎ 0.06⁎⁎ 3.17⁎⁎

TFL POS IB 0.52⁎⁎ −0.09⁎⁎ 4.50⁎⁎

The justice enhancement mechanism TFL DJ TP 0.44⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎ 6.79⁎⁎

TFL DJ OCB 0.44⁎⁎ ns – TFL DJ IB 0.44⁎⁎ ns – TFL PJ TP 0.55⁎⁎ ns – TFL PJ OCB 0.55⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 8.70⁎⁎

TFL PJ IB 0.55⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎ 12.17⁎⁎

DJ TIL TP ns 0.23⁎⁎ – DJ TIL OCB ns 0.55⁎⁎ – DJ TIL IB ns ns – DJ TIO TP 0.18⁎⁎ −0.07⁎⁎ 2.86⁎⁎

DJ TIO OCB 0.18⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 5.23⁎⁎

DJ TIO IB 0.18⁎⁎ −0.37⁎⁎ 9.39⁎⁎

PJ TIL TP 0.40⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ 8.52⁎⁎

PJ TIL OCB 0.40⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎ 16.90⁎⁎

PJ TIL IB 0.40⁎⁎ ns – PJ TIO TP 0.30⁎⁎ −0.07⁎⁎ 2.91⁎⁎

PJ TIO OCB 0.30⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 5.56⁎⁎

PJ TIO IB 0.30⁎⁎ −0.37⁎⁎ 11.80⁎⁎

Note. ns = not significant; AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfaction; JSE = job self- efficacy; LID = leader identification; LMX = leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organizational identification; PJ = - procedural justice; POS = perceived organizational support; TIL = trust in the leader; TIO = trust in the organization; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = - task performance; WE = work engagement. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.

398 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

TFL was related to identification with the organization (β = 0.51), which in turn was positively related to TP (β = 0.25), OCB (β = 0.40), and IB (β = 0.15). As shown in Table 4, mediation analyses revealed that identification with the leader mediated the relationships of TFL with TP and OCB, and identification with the organization mediated the relationships of TFL with all three performance outcomes. Thus, H6a, H6b, and H7a\\H7c were all supported, but H6c was not.

Hypothesis 8 predicted that LMX mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H8a), OCB (H8b), and IB (H8c). Hypothesis 9 predicted that perceived organizational support mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H9a), OCB (H9b), and IB (H9c). The social exchange mech- anism model had an acceptable fit: IFI was 0.98, CFI was 0.98, and SRMR was 0.02. TFL was related to LMX (β = 0.76), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.27), OCB (β = 0.27), and IB (β = 0.37). TFL was also related to perceived organizational support (β = 0.52), which in turn was related to OCB (β = 0.07) but not to TP and IB. As shown in Table 4, mediation analyses revealed that LMX mediated the relationship between TFL and all three performance outcomes, and perceived organizational support

Table 5 Meta-analytical correlations among all study variables (harmonic mean = 3142).

TFL TP OCB IB JS AOC SE WE OID LMX POS DJ PJ

1. TFL – 2. TP (non-self-reports)

0.27 (61, 14,646)

–

3. OCB (non-self-reports)

0.27 (48, 11,766)

0.23 a

(24, 9912)

–

4. IB (non-self-reports)

0.18 (24, 5905)

0.53 (30, 6846)

0.63 (8, 1918)

–

5. JS 0.48 (84, 32,667)

0.30 b

(312, 54,471)

0.26 j

(22, 5549)

0.12 (3, 418)

–

6. AOC 0.44 (100, 34,873)

0.19 c

(59, 14,906)

0.27 k

(8, 1815)

0.18 (4, 854)

0.65 k

(69, 23,656)

–

7. SE 0.32 (41, 15,825)

0.37 d

(217, 32,123)

0.29 (11, 3463)

0.28 (5, 1243)

0.45 (71, 32,000)

0.43 (26, 12,354)

–

8. WE 0.46 (25, 7678)

0.39 e

(4, 1139) 0.43 e

(5, 1159)

0.42 (4, 944)

0.53 e

(20, 9725)

0.52 e

(14, 7569)

0.45 (19, 7519)

–

9. OID 0.51 (19, 6636)

0.38 h

(24, 8575)

0.47 h

(16, 5513)

0.17 (5, 1647)

0.54 n

(38, 8759)

0.78 n

(16, 4263)

0.25 (5, 1172)

0.31 e

(4, 4695)

–

10. LMX 0.75 (26, 9246)

0.29 f

(108, 23,672)

0.31 f

(72, 15,365)

0.31 (14, 4105)

0.49 l

(88, 22,520)

0.41 l

(21, 8118)

0.39 (12, 3644)

0.62 m

(39, 19,214)

0.46 (13, 3549)

–

11. POS 0.52 (13, 4024)

0.18 g

(12, 2873)

0.22 g

(16, 4050)

0.09 (3, 500)

0.52 m

(56, 22,430)

0.62 m

(66, 15,760)

0.19 (11, 3544)

0.53 (6, 2013)

0.56 h

(25, 7810)

0.54 I

(7, 2444)

–

12. DJ 0.44 (7, 2592)

0.26 i

(45, 11,336)

0.21 i

(36, 10,100)

0.17 (5, 1266)

0.56 o

(24, 57,515)

0.40 p

(14, 3426)

0.08 (5, 2018)

0.39 (4, 1304)

0.45 (10, 3059)

0.44 l

(32, 6693)

0.51 i

(17, 7085)

–

13. PJ 0.57 (16, 6863)

0.24 i

(57, 14,258)

0.30 i

(71, 16,864)

0.30 (3, 707)

0.62 o

(40, 31,774)

0.38 p

(14, 4384)

0.23 (11, 4431)

0.42 (6, 1825)

0.48 (19, 6285)

0.55 l

(30, 7211)

0.59 i

(29, 11,072)

0.61 i

(184, 67,956)

–

Note. The first figure in parentheses represents the number of studies cumulated (k). The second figure represents the total sample size (N). The data from new meta-analyses are in boldface. AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfaction; LMX = - leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organizational identification; PJ = procedural justice; POS = perceived organiza- tional support; SE = self-efficacy; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = task performance; WE = work engagement. The letter superscripts in the body of the table indicate the source of the meta-analytical correlations: “a,” Harrison et al. (2006); “b,” Judge et al. (2001); “c,” Riketta (2002); “d,” Judge et al. (2007); “e,” Christian et al. (2011); “f,” Martin et al. (2016); “g,” Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002); “h,” Ng (2015); “i,” Colquitt et al. (2013); “j,” Organ and Ryan (1995); “k,” Meyer et al. (2002); “l,” Dulebohn et al. (2012); “m,” Ahmed et al. (2015); “n,” Riketta (2005); “o,” Colquitt et al. (2001); “p,” Meyer et al. (2002).

399T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

mediated the relationship between TFL and OCB in the expected direction. Thus, H8a\\H8c and H9b were supported, but H9a and H9c were not.

Hypothesis 10 predicted that distributive justice mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H10a), OCB (H10b), and IB (H10c). Hypothesis 11 predicted that procedural justice mediated the effects of TFL on TP (H11a), OCB (H11b), and IB (H11c). The model with only justice perceptions as mediators (not shown here) had an acceptable fit: IFI was 0.97, CFI was 0.97, and SRMR was 0.03. TFL was related to distributive justice (β = 0.44), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.18) but not to OCB or IB. In the same model, TFL was related to procedural justice (β = 0.55), which in turn was related to TP (β = 0.13), OCB (β = 0.27), and IB (β = 0.39). As shown in Table 4, mediation analyses revealed that distributive justice mediated the relation- ship of TFL with TP, and procedural justice mediated the relationships of TFL with OCB and IB. Thus, H10a, H11b, and H11c were supported, but H10b, H10c, and H11a were not.

Extending the preceding justice mechanism, Hypothesis 12 predicted that trust in the leader and trust in the organization me- diated the relationship of justice perceptions with performance outcomes. The extended justice enhancement model had an ac- ceptable fit: IFI was 0.98, CFI was 0.98, and SRMR was 0.02. As shown in Fig. 2, distributive justice was related to trust in the organization (β = 0.18), and procedural justice was related to both trust in the leader (β = 0.40) and trust in the organization (β = 0.30). Trust in the leader was related to TP (β = 0.28), OCB (β = 0.48), and IB (0.10), and trust in the organization was related to OCB (β = 0.08). Mediation analyses reported in Table 4 show that (a) trust in the leader mediated the effects of both distributive and procedural justice on TP and OCB, (b) trust in the organization mediated the effects of distributive justice on OCB and IB, and (c) trust in the organization mediated the effects of procedural justice on OCB. Thus, H12a and H12b received modest support.

TFL

JS

AOC

TFL

JSE

WE

OCB

(A) The affective mechanism

(IFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .04)

IB

TFL

LID

OID

OCB

IB

OCB

IB

.44

.31

.17

.18

.46

TFL

.24

LMX

POS

TP

.37

OCB

(B) The motivational mechanism

(IFI = .99, CFI = .99, SRMR = .02)

IB

.12

(D) The social exchange mechanism

(IFI = .99, CFI = .99, SRMR = .02)

TP

.11

TFL

TP

.28

TP

DJ

PJ

TP

OCB

.38

(C) The identification mechanism

(IFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .02)

.17

IB

.51

(E) The justice enhancement mechanism

(IFI = .99, CFI = .99, SRMR = .01)

.23

TIL

TIO

76.13.52.84. .12

.40

.15

.76

.52

.37

.27

.27

.07

.44

.55

.18

.40

.28

.30 .08

.40

.48

.10

.25

Fig. 2. Significant positive parameter estimates. Note. All effect sizes are significant at α = 0.01. For the sake of simplicity, the direct effects of TFL on job perfor- mance are not shown. AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IRB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfaction; JSE = job self-ef- ficacy; LID = leader identification; LMX = leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organizational identification; PJ = procedural justice; POS = perceived organizational support; TIL = trust in the leader; TIO = trust in the organization; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = task performance; WE = work engagement.

TFL

JS

AOC

TP

OCB

IB

TFL

JSE

WE

TP

OCB

IB

LMX LMX

TFL

LID

OID

TP

OCB

IB

(C) The extended identification mechanism

(IFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .02)

TFL

DJ

PJ

TP

OCB

IB

(D) The extended justice enhancement mechanism

(IFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .02)

LMX LMX

.75 .30

.18

.23

.13

.14

.32

.19

.22

.26

.30

.34

(A) The extended affective mechanism

(IFI = .99, CFI = .99, SRMR = .01)

(B) The extended motivational mechanism

(IFI = .98, CFI = .98, SRMR = .03)

.18

.13

.20

.52

.75

.18

.07

.06

.26

.34

.35

.85

.17

.88

.38

.25

.22

.20

.36

.21

.25

.75

.15

.22

.18

.76 .10

.30

.24

.21

.41

.06

.28

Fig. 3. Extended mediating mechanisms and significant positive parameter estimates. Note. All effect sizes are significant at α = 0.01. For the sake of simplicity, the direct effects of TFL on job performance are not shown. AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfaction; JSE = job self-efficacy; LID = leader identification; LMX = leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organiza- tional identification; PJ = procedural justice; POS = perceived organizational support; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = task performance; WE = work engagement.

400 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

401T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

As shown in Table 4, across the 10 theoretical mediators, TFL had the strongest effect on LMX and the weakest effect on job self-efficacy. The strongest mediator-performance relationship was between LMX and IB, and the weakest (albeit significant) re- lationship was between perceived organizational support and OCB. To directly compare the five mediating mechanisms, a model containing all of the mediators was tested. The mediating effects observed in this model therefore controlled for one another's influences. Next, the averages of the standardized positive mediating effects representing each mechanism were compared. It was found that the identification mechanism (0.56) was the strongest mediating mechanism, followed by the motivation (0.35), affective (0.33), social exchange (0.21), and justice enhancement (0.19) mechanisms.

LMX as the central explanatory mechanism

Research Question 1 asked whether LMX mediated the effects of TFL on other mediating variables (which were related to the performance outcomes in turn). To examine this research question, the model that was originally proposed for the affective, mo- tivational, identification, and justice enhancement mechanisms was extended by treating LMX as the mediator in the relationships between TFL and the mediating variables. The mediating variables, in turn, were specified as related to the three performance out- comes. These four models are shown in Fig. 3 along with the fit indices and parameter estimates. Each of the four extended models had an acceptable fit.

In the extended affective mechanism model, TFL was related to LMX (β = 0.75), which in turn was related to both job satis- faction (β = 0.30) and affective organizational commitment (β = 0.18). These mediating variables were in turn related to TP, OCB, and IB (β ranged from 0.06 to 0.23). In the extended motivational mechanism model, TFL was again related to LMX (β = 0.75), which was in turn related to job self-efficacy (β = 0.34) but not work engagement. Both job self-efficacy and work engagement were in turn related to TP, OCB, and IB (β ranged from 0.07 to 0.35). In the extended identification mechanism model, TFL was related to LMX (β = 0.76), which was in turn related to identification with both the leader (β = 0.85) and the organization (β = 0.17). These mediating variables were in turn related to TP, OCB, and IB (β ranged from 0.21 to 0.41). Finally, in the modified justice enhancement mechanism model, TFL was related to LMX (β = 0.75). LMX was in turn related to both dis- tributive justice (β = 0.25) and procedural justice (β = 0.28), which were in turn related to TP, OCB, and IB (β ranged from 0.15 to 0.22). The preceding findings affirm the prediction made in Research Question 1.

Finally, this study tested an integrative model that specified TFL as related to LMX, which was in turn related to all of the other mediating variables except for perceived organizational support and identification with the leader. Perceived organizational support was excluded from this integrative model because it captured the same type of mechanism (that is, the social exchange

TFL LMX .75

SE

WE

OID

TP

JS

AOC

DJ

PJ

.30

.18

.18

.25

.28

.30

.36

.38

.25

.52

.12

.15

.38

.20

.11

.15

.23

.45

.07

.23

.62

OCB

.61

.16

.28

IB

.34

.26

Fig. 4. The integrated model and significant positive parameter estimates. Note. Model fit: IFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, SRMR = 0.03. All effect sizes are significant at α = 0.01. For the sake of simplicity, the direct effects of TFL on performance outcomes, the correlated residuals among mediators, and the correlated residuals among performance outcomes are not shown. AOC = affective organizational commitment; DJ = distributive justice; IB = innovative behavior; JS = job satisfac- tion; JSE = job self-efficacy; LMX = leader-member exchange; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OID = organizational identification; PJ = procedural justice; POS = perceived organizational support; TFL = transformational leadership; TP = task performance; WE = work engagement.

402 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

mechanism) as LMX. Identification with the leader was excluded because, even after a thorough search, there were not enough empirical studies to conduct meta-analyses of its relationships with other mediating variables (e.g., work engagement, justice), which were needed to successfully test the integrative model. Each of the remaining seven mediating variables was then specified to affect the three performance outcomes. To account for the interrelationships between these seven variables, their residuals were allowed to be freely estimated. This integrative model is shown in Fig. 4 along with the parameter estimate and fit indices. The meta-analytical correlations used to test this integrative model are shown in Table 5.

Several specific findings are noteworthy. First, this integrative model had an acceptable fit: IFI was 0.98, CFI was 0.98, and SRMR was 0.03. Second, TFL was positively related to LMX (β = 0.73). This relationship was the strongest in the integrative model. LMX was in turn positively related to each of the seven mediating variables except for work engagement. Third, all of the mediating variables were positively related to at least one performance outcome. In some cases (e.g., job self-efficacy), the mediating variable was related to all three performance outcome variables. Finally, as expected, in addition to the mediating effect of LMX, TFL positively affected each of the seven mediating variables except for job self-efficacy.

Overall, supportive evidence showed that TFL affected performance outcomes through the affective, motivational, social ex- change, identification, and justice enhancement mechanisms, with the social exchange mechanism being the most important, as evidenced by the central role of LMX in the integrative model and its strongest magnitude with TFL (β = 0.75). Of the remain- ing four mechanisms, the motivational mechanism had the strongest mediating effects, as evidenced by the finding that job self- efficacy and work engagement were the only mediators that related positively to all three performance outcome variables (al- though LMX was related to job self-efficacy only and not to work engagement). The identification mechanism was equally impor- tant, as evidenced by its strong relationship with both TP (β = 0.62) and OCB (β = 0.61).

Discussion

Contribution of the present study

Although multiple mediating mechanisms have been identified in previous research related to TFL and performance outcomes, no attempt has been made to integrate the plethora of mechanisms. Consequently, the field has grown in different directions, hin- dering its forward movement. To address this gap, this study attempted to integrate the diverse literature in this area by identi- fying and testing five core mediating mechanisms supported by at least one established social or psychological theory. This attempt was important because the TFL research has been criticized for a lack of clarity as a result of the different approaches used by different researchers and for the lack of theoretical justification in the mediating processes tested (Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Thus, identifying theory-based mediating mechanisms helped to unify the field by identifying some common frame- works for TFL researchers to approach their investigations. It also contributes above and beyond the Wang et al. (2005) meta- analysis, which only examined the bivariate relationship between TFL and performance outcomes. No mediating mechanisms were tested in that study. The current meta-analysis fills that gap and unravels the multiple pathways through which TFL can draw a favorable performance.

The results were generally supportive. Based on meta-analytical data gathered from 600 articles, this study showed that five theory-driven mechanisms help to explain the effects of TFL on performance outcomes. Each of these five mediating mechanisms is unique. The affective mechanism focuses on the positive emotional experience of being led by transformational leaders. The motivational mechanism focuses on the effects of TFL on employees' confidence and excitement in doing their work tasks. The identification mechanism unravels the influence of TFL on employees' value beliefs. The social exchange mechanism addresses the quality of social exchange between followers and transformational leaders (and the organization). The justice enhancement mechanism addresses the social cues created by TFL around resource allocation in the workplace, thereby affecting their trust in leaders and their job efforts.

Most importantly, the current study contributes to the literature by integrating the five mechanisms and highlighting the crit- ical role of LMX. The social exchange mechanism (and LMX in particular) arguably plays the most central role of the five mech- anisms, as it is the only mediator examined here that tapped into how employees directly felt about their leaders. That feeling should be the most proximal and immediate reaction to TFL. In fact, this study observed that TFL had the strongest influence on LMX out of all of the mediators examined. LMX was in turn positively related to each of the other mediators except for work engagement. Therefore, this study unraveled one core way in which TFL draws better performance: TFL significantly en- hances the quality of the relationship between leaders and followers. An improved LMX not only enhances job performance by strengthening the reciprocation norm (as suggested by the social exchange mechanism), but also strengthens other mediating variables, including affect intensity (job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment), motivation level (job self-efficacy), value system (identification with the leader and the organization), and justice perceptions (distributive and procedural justice), all of which, in turn, relate to performance outcomes.

In summary, all five mechanisms received general support in this study, suggesting that they are all useful for explaining the pathways through which TFL affects employees' job performance. This study also integrated various streams of the literature re- lated to TFL research, including LMX, social and psychological processes, and performance. There are certainly other ways in which TFL affects employees. However, these five mechanisms were generated from established social and psychological theories and are therefore likely to be applicable across different settings and disciplines. It is important to consider all five in future TFL theories because they are not independent; instead, they are likely to occur simultaneously.

403T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Implications for future research

The five mechanisms can be extended both separately and together in multiple ways in future research. First, the supportive evidence favoring the affective mechanism suggests that TFL, affect, and performance are closely related. However, this study did not examine mood, but instead used job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment to represent employees' pos- itively charged affective experience. Although mood does not have targets, attitudes do, which is why this study examined the latter. Future research can extend the affective mechanism by considering howmood may play an additional role in influencing this affective process. Affective events theory indeed emphasizes that employees' affective experiences are governed by both individual differences and the work environment. Future research can also consider the role of negative moods/attitudes in the affective mechanism, given that transformational leaders can help to remove job stress for their followers (Liu, Siu, & Shi, 2010a).

Second, this study identified supportive evidence for the motivational mechanism. It is indeed the only mechanism of the five examined here in which the two mediators mediated the effects of TFL on all three types of job performance. The robust findings here were not surprising given that one of the major goals of TFL is to help followers to see meaning in their jobs and to endorse organizational goals as worthy of their efforts (Grant, 2012). To extend this mechanism further, future research should (a) differ- entiate between different types of self-efficacy beliefs (e.g., task, role-breadth, and creative self-efficacy) and different dimensions of work engagement (vigor, absorption, and dedication), (b) compare why job self-efficacy generally has a weaker mediating ef- fect than work engagement (as evidenced in Table 4 of the current study), and (c) examine how job self-efficacy and work en- gagement influence each other. In the model tested, the correlations between the residuals of job self-efficacy and work engagement were controlled for so that they could be treated as though they influenced each other (and were influenced by the same other variables). Future research should disentangle whether and why job self-efficacy leads to a higher level of work engagement and vice versa. Finally, to fully understand how TFL enriches followers' resources (as captured by their work engage- ment intensity), more direct measures of the resources valued by the followers are needed.

Third, this study found that identification with the leader mediated the relationships of TFL with TP and OCB and that identifi- cation with the organization mediated the relationships of TFL with all three performance outcomes. Some possible ways to further extend the identification mechanism include (a) investigating identification with other targets directly or indirectly affected by the transformational leaders, such as the team and unit; (b) directly measuring followers' person-leader value fit, which this study argued was the major reason why identification occurred, according to social identity theory; and (c) determining how identification may hinder IB, as endorsing a leader's values may mean fewer independent thoughts and challenges to stimulate innovation. Indeed, among the three performance outcomes in this study, both identification with the leader and identification with the organization had the weakest effects on followers' IB.

Fourth, this study also found supportive evidence for the social exchange mechanism. As shown in Table 4, there was more supportive evidence for LMX than for perceived organizational support, although both were seen as indicators of social exchange quality (Wayne et al., 1997). Future research can extend this mechanism by further differentiating between the different types of social exchange relationships at work (Maurer, Pierce, & Shore, 2002). Future research can also address why perceived organiza- tional support has such a limited mediating effect in the presence of LMX. One reason is that LMX should emerge as the more relevant mediator in studies of leadership. The level of organizational support, as signaled by the degree of TFL, involves a more indirect inference on the part of followers. The level of analysis may play a role here; unit-level LMX may create a support- ive culture that in turn robustly enhances the unit's performance. As this study focused on the individual level of analysis only, future research is encouraged to examine the social exchange mechanism at other levels of analysis. Finally, future research can directly measure the perceived reciprocation norm, which is the core element in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). As this study argued, TFL enhances LMX (and also perceived organizational support) in part because the reciprocation norm is strengthened, which in turn motivates followers to reciprocate with greater performance.

Fifth, the justice enhancement mechanism is certainly in need of more future research, as the supportive evidence, although positive, is not strong. The justice enhancement mechanism has some non-significant (or even unexpectedly negative) estimates for the relationships between TFL, justice perceptions, and performance outcomes (Table 4). Therefore, to extend the justice en- hancement mechanism further, future research should (a) consider overall justice perceptions instead of subcomponents of jus- tice, as high correlations between the different types of justice perceptions may contribute to unexpected estimates (Landis, 2013), and (b) further address the roles of trust in the process. Although the current study showed that trust mediated the effects of justice perceptions on job performance, there was no clear pattern of why a certain type of trust mediated a certain type of justice on a certain type of job performance. Further disentangling the effects of different types of justice on different types of trust is therefore important to boost the utility of this mechanism. Finally, how TFL affects justice and trust may benefit from in- corporating research highlighting the downsides of TFL, such as creating pressure for followers to conform (Samnani & Singh, 2013).

Future research should also directly measure the core constructs in the group value model, which this study used to explain the justice enhancement mechanism. The group value model (Tyler, 1989; Tyler et al., 1996) suggests that fair treatment by leaders has special motivational benefits because it symbolizes the value of followers to the leader or organization. Being fairly treated by transformational leaders is an important cue that one is a highly valued and respected member of the group. The feel- ings of respect and pride can in turn motivate one to trust the leader and organization and dedicate more effort to serving the group's interest (Restubog et al., 2008). Thus, the group value model suggests that multiple social and psychological variables such as justice, respect, pride, trust, and perceived insider status are important for explaining why TFL affects performance.

404 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Finally, the supportive evidence for the integrative model suggested that LMX played a central and mediating role in the no- mological network of TFL; it mediated most of the mediating effects of other variables in the TFL-performance link. The integrative model can be extended by (a) further specifying the directions of the effects of some pairs of variables, such as those between affective organizational commitment and justice perceptions and between identification with leaders and work engagement, as this study controlled for these interrelationships only by allowing residual correlations to be freely estimated, and (b) incorporat- ing perceived organizational support into the model, which was excluded from analysis in this study because both LMX and per- ceived organizational support were from the same mediating mechanism. It is, however, possible that some of the effects of LMX on other mediating variables were transferred via perceived organizational support. In addition, the integrative model can be ex- tended by examining (c) why LMX is not positively related to work engagement, as found by this study; (d) how one's perfor- mance feeds back to affect the degree of TFL received, thereby extending the static view presented in the integrative model; and (e) shifting the level of analysis to the team, unit, or organizational level and examining whether the integrative model also holds at these levels.

Limitations of the present research

Interpretation of the findings of this study must take some limitations into consideration. First, although this study tested me- diations, causal inferences should not be inferred because the data were non-experimental in nature. For instance, followers who perform poorly may attribute the cause to the poor TFL displayed by the leaders, an argument consistent with the romance of the leadership literature (which highlights the overemphasis on the influence of leaders on organizational success; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). In that scenario, job performance may affect TFL. Second, although an integrative model was tested in this study, there are certainly other ways to specify the relationships between the variables contained in this integrative model. As noted previously, the interrelationships between the mediators were controlled for by specifying the correlations between their resid- uals as freely correlated. Despite this specification, readers should be cognizant of other ways in which the mediators may affect one another.

Third, this study limited its investigation of each mediating mechanism to two mediating variables that best represented that mechanism. However, the choice of variables representing each mechanism is not limited to those chosen here. The test could be expanded to include other variables in the same theoretical domain. Fourth, because its goal was to identify mediating effects, this study did not examine moderators in its original meta-analyses. Readers should be aware that the meta-analytical correlations presented here reflected the average across studies conducted in different settings with different samples.

Fifth, in testing the proposed models, some relationships were either non-significant or even became negative. For instance, the relationships of TP and IRB with perceived organizational support were either non-significant or negative. As none of the orig- inal meta-analytical correlation inputs (presented in Table 3) were negative in nature, it is likely that the negative estimates re- sulted from including other variables in the testing model. When a variable is related moderately or even strongly to another variable, the effect of that original variable (on a third variable) may be vastly weakened or even forced to become negative in a model that contains both (Friedman & Wall, 2005). According to Landis's (2013) recommendation, when the meta-analytical correlations between the input variables are high and result in unexpected path estimates, those variables can be considered to load on a higher-level latent factor. As the goal of the current study was to identify the specific effect of each mediator, such an approach was not adopted, but future research should certainly consider it.

Sixth, although the current study focused on individual-level relationships only, TFL has been examined at a higher aggregated level. The relationships held at the individual level should logically hold at a higher level, although it is not a must (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Future research should reexamine the research questions posed here when more studies conducted at other levels of analysis accumulate. The final limitation is the relatively small number of studies that could be aggregated to investigate some of the proposed relationships. Although meta-analysis can be executed with as few as two studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), the cumulated effect sizes are more stable when the number of cumulative studies is higher. However, this study's meta-analysis is timely and important because it helps to move forward the field of TFL by identifying the most important medi- ating mechanisms explaining why TFL affects performance.

Managerial implications

It is hoped that managers, like academics, will also attend to the mediating mechanisms through which TFL affects employees. Although many managers believe that TFL is important, they do not necessarily understand why it is important. The current study identifies five major reasons why TFL plays such a vital role in promoting followers' job performance. It suggests that followers of transformational leaders are more productive in different areas of work because (a) they are happier at their jobs and more com- mitted to their organizations, (b) they are more motivated to work hard when they are inspired by the leaders, (c) they want to perform better because they feel as though they personally identify with the transformational leader and the organization, as poor performance of the organization directly hurts their value beliefs, (d) they are more willing to reciprocate to their transformation- al leaders by increasing their job efforts, and (e) they see their transformational leaders as fair and trust that the leaders appre- ciate their performance efforts and recognize their benevolence and competence. Taken together, these five pathways reveal to managers a more accurate and dynamic picture of the various social and psychological mechanisms by which TFL affects fol- lowers. Managers should consider devising leadership forums, training workshops, or assessment centers that communicate these benefits of TFL to current and potential leaders.

405T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

This study also highlights to managers the important role of LMX in particular. It shows that LMX mediates the mediating re- lationships between TFL, perceptual and psychological variables, and performance outcomes. This is an important finding, as man- agers can more readily and quickly change the quality of the relationships they share with their followers rather than change their employees' perceptions and psychological attitudes, which are unobservable, subjective, and take time to alter. In contrast, when transformational leaders are able to focus on improving LMX through, for instance, giving employees individualized consideration (one of the major dimensions of TFL), they are likely to successfully enhance employees' positive affect, motivational level, value fit with the leader, and justice perceptions to improve performance.

Indeed, there are multiple ways in which transformational leaders (or those who hope to be more transformational) can show individualized consideration and therefore help to sustain and improve a high quality exchange with their followers, such as by acknowledging their accomplishments, granting developmental opportunities, involving them in the decision-making process, giv- ing positive and constructive feedback, and implementing performance-based pay (Fuller et al., 2006; Grover, 2013; Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). All of these measures are likely to make employees feel that they have an elevated status in the workplace, there- by making them more likely to reciprocate with improved performance. The psychosocial support rendered by the transforma- tional leader is also key to promoting LMX, such as hearing out and listening to followers' concerns, expressing genuine interest in their positions and career development, recognizing and understanding what goes into their work, emphasizing their good sides, and expressing appreciation and respect for their contribution, efforts, and time (Carmeli, Dutton, & Hardin, 2015). These are all important ways in which transformational leaders can strategically build LMX with their followers, thereby benefitting the organization's productivity in the long run. Managers are again encouraged to communicate these specific ways of building LMX to current and potential leaders.

Conclusion

TFL research has been accumulating for a few decades now; there is already a plethora of findings on the effects of TFL on em- ployees. The current study integrated the diverse literature within this area of research by identifying and testing five theory-driv- en mediating mechanisms through which TFL affects employees' job performance. Although all five mechanisms received general support in the current empirical investigation, the extent of the support depended on the mechanism and variable involved. An integrative model highlighting the important role of LMX was also proposed and tested, and the evidence was generally positive. It is hoped that the five mechanisms identified here will be further expanded and incorporated into future studies to help re- searchers understand the psychological and social processes by which transformational leaders promote their followers' job performance.

References

⁎Abualrub, R. F., & Alghamdi, M. G. (2012). The impact of leadership styles on nurses' satisfaction and intention to stay among Saudi nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 20, 668–678.

⁎Adebayo, D. O. (2015). Perceivedworkplace fairness, transformational leadership andmotivation in the Nigeria police: Implications for change. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 7, 110–122.

⁎Aggarwal, J., & Krishnan, V. R. (2013). Impact of transformational leadership on followers' self-efficacy: Moderating role of follower's impression management. Management and Labor Studies, 38, 297–313.

Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Ali, G., & Islam, T. (2015). Perceived organizational support and its outcomes: A meta-analysis of latest available literature. Management Research Review, 38, 627–639.

⁎Allameh, S. M., Heydari, M., & Davoodi, S. M. R. (2012). Studying the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological empowerment of teachers in Abade township. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 224–230.

⁎Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C. P. (2012). The relation between self-leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of virtuality. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 68–82.

Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Liu, Y., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2014). What makes articles highly cited? The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 152–179. ⁎Antoni, C. H., & Syrek, C. J. (2012). Leadership and pay satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological contracts. International Studies of Management and

Organization, 42, 87–105. ⁎Aragon-Correa, J. A., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain.

Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 349–359. Arneli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 288–297. ⁎Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaning-

ful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193–203. ⁎Aryee, S., & Chu, C. W. L. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of challenging job experiences: A social cognitive perspective. Human Performance, 25, 215–234. ⁎Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and mod-

eration processes. Human Performance, 25, 1–25. Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Mondejar, R., & Chu, C. W. L. (2015). Accounting for the influence of overall justice on job performance: Integrating self-determination and

social exchange theories. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 231–252. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. (1989). Social identity theory and the organisation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Gorley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34,

325–374. ⁎Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and

moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. ⁎Ayman, R., Korabik, K., & Morris, S. (2009). Is transformational leadership always perceived as effective? Male subordinates' devaluation of female transformational

leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 852–879. ⁎Ayoko, O. B., & Chua, E. L. (2014). The importance of transformational leadership behaviors in team mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict.

Group and Organization Management, 39, 504–531.

406 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Bae, S. H., Song, J. H., Park, S., & Kim, H. K. (2013). Influential factors for teachers' creativity: Mutual impacts of leadership, work engagement, and knowledge creation practices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26, 33–58.

⁎Bai, Y., Li, P. P., & Xi, Y. (2012). The distinctive effects of dual-level leadership behaviors on employees' trust in leadership: An empirical study from China. Asian Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 213–237.

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal control and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164–180. ⁎Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group and Organization Management, 31, 300–326. ⁎Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implemen-

tation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 111–135. ⁎Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Please accept my sincerest apologies: Examining follower reactions to leader apology. Journal of Business Ethics,

119, 99–117. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Manual: The multifactor leadership questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003a). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied

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

Psychology, 88, 207–218. ⁎Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader-member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader-member

dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 477–499. ⁎Batram, T., & Casimir, G. (2007). The relationship between leadership and follower in-role performance and satisfaction with the leader: The mediating effects of em-

powerment and trust in the leader. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28, 4–19. ⁎Bell-Rountree, C. V. (2004). Does manager behavior influence knowledge transfer worker job satisfaction and organizational commitment attitudes? A validation of Kouzes

and Posner's transformational leadership theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation The University of Alabama in Huntsville. ⁎ Den Hartog, D., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-

efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 194–202. ⁎Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behavior: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475–498. ⁎Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians: How to translate Machiavellians' selfishness into pro-organizational behavior.

Journal of Management, 41, 1934–1956. ⁎Bernhard, F., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2011). Psychological ownership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily-employees' work attitudes and

behaviors. Group and Organization Management, 36, 345–384. ⁎Berson, Y., & Linton, J. D. (2005). An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative en-

vironments. R&D Management, 35, 51–60. ⁎Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80,

165–180. ⁎Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of

transactional leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1622–1629. ⁎Biswas, S. (2009). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of employee performance. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 44,

611–627. ⁎Biswas, S. (2012). Impact of psychological climate and transformational leadership on employee performance. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 48, 105–119. ⁎Blankenship, S. L. (2010). The consequences of transformational leadership and/or transactional leadership in relationship to job satisfaction and organizational commit-

ment for active duty women serving in the Air Force medical service. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Nova Southeastern University. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ⁎Boehm, S. A., Dwertmann, D. J. G., Bruch, H., & Shamir, B. (2015). The missing link? Investigating organizational identity strength and transformational leadership cli-

mate as mechanisms that concern CEO charisma with firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 156–171. ⁎Boerner, S., & Von Streit, C. F. (2007). Promoting orchestral performance: The interplay between musicians' mood and a conductor's leadership style. Music and

Psychology Research, 35, 132–143. ⁎Bommer, W. H., Rich, G. A., & Rubin, R. S. (2005). Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leaders behavior on employee cynicism

about organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317–334. ⁎Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management

Journal, 46, 554–571. ⁎Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1357–1367. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10,

99–109. ⁎Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The

Leadership Quarterly, 24, 270–283. Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311. ⁎Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. D., Demerouti, E., Sleebos, D. M., & Maduro, V. (2014a). Uncovering the underlying relationship between transformational leaders and fol-

lowers' task performance. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13, 194–203. ⁎Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. D., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014b). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee en-

gagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 138–157. ⁎Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. D., Demerouti, E., & Derks, D. (2016). Who takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 309–325. ⁎Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 245–272. ⁎Brown, M. E., Trevino, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117–134. ⁎ De Jong, S. B., & Bruch, H. (2013). The importance of a homogenous transformational leadership climate for organizational performance. International Journal of

Leadership Studies, 8, 1–18. ⁎Burch, T. C., & Guarana, C. L. (2014). The comparative influence of transformational leadership and leader-member exchange on follower engagement. Journal of

Leadership Studies, 8, 6–25. Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83–92. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. ⁎Burpitt, W. (2009). Exploration versus exploitation: Leadership and the paradox of administration. Journal of Business and Applied Management, 10, 227–245. Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. (2013). How important are work-family support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1–25. ⁎Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Bass's (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 468–478.

407T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Byrne, A., Dionisi, A. M., Barling, J., Akers, A., Robertson, J., Lys, R., ... Dupre, K. (2014). The depleted leader: The influence of leaders' diminished psychological resources on leadership behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 344–357.

⁎Caillier, J. G. (2014a). Do transformational leaders affect turnover intentions and extra-role behaviors through mission valence? American Review of Public Administration, 46, 226–242.

⁎Caillier, J. G. (2014b). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership, public service motivation, mission valence, and em- ployee performance: A preliminary study. Public Personnel Management, 43, 218–239.

⁎Caillier, J. G. (2015). Transformational leadership and whistle-blowing attitudes: Is this relationship mediated by organizational commitment and public service mo- tivation? American Review of Public Administration, 45, 458–475.

Callero, P. L. (1985). Role-identity salience. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 203–214. Carless, S., Wearing, A., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 389–405. ⁎Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z., Binyamin, G., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Shimoni, T. (2013). Transformational leadership and creative problem-solving: The mediating role of psy-

chological safety and reflexivity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 115–135. Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. (2015). Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking respective engagement, relational information processing and creativity

among employees and teams. Human Relations, 68, 1021–1047. ⁎Carter, M. Z., Mossholder, K. W., Field, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2014). Transformational leadership, interactional justice, and organizational citizenship behavior: The

effects of racial and gender dissimilarity between supervisors and subordinates. Group and Organization Management, 39, 691–719. ⁎Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Hickmann, M. (2012). Effects of leader intelligence, personality and emotional intelligence on transformational leadership and managerial

performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 443–455. ⁎Cavazotte, F., Moreno, V., & Bernardo, J. (2013). Transformational leaders and work performance: The mediating roles of identification and self-efficacy. Brazilian

Administration Review, 10, 490–512. ⁎Cetin, M., Karabay, M. E., & Efe, M. N. (2012). The effects of leadership styles and the communication competency of bankmanagers on the employee's job satisfaction:

The case of Turkish banks. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science, 58, 227–235. ⁎Chang, J., Bai, X., & Li, J. J. (2015). The influence of leadership on product and process innovations in China: The contingent role of knowledge acquisition capability.

Industrial Marketing Management, 50, 18–29. ⁎Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1521–1534. ⁎Chen, Y., & Chang, C. (2013). The determinants of green product development performance: Green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and green

creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 107–119. ⁎Chen, X., & Fahr, J. (2001). Transformational and transactional leader behaviors in Chinese organizations: Differential effects in the People's Republic of China and

Taiwan. Advances in Global Leadership, 2, 101–126. Chen, C., & Lin, M. (2011). An assessment of post-M&A integration influences on new product development performance: An empirical analysis from China, Taiwan,

and HK. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28, 807–831. Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationship among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-

related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209–230. ⁎Chen, Y., Lin, C. Y., Lin, H., & McDonough, E. F. (2012). Does transformational leadership facilitate technological innovation? Themoderating roles of innovative culture

and incentive compensation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 239–264. ⁎Chen, G., Farh, J., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., &Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems:Multilevelmotivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 98, 1018–1027. ⁎Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q., & Li, J. (2014). CEO's transformational leadership and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and

technology orientation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 2–17. ⁎Chen, Z., Zhu, J., & Zhou, M. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group composition

climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 511–521. ⁎Cheung, M. F. Y., & Wong, C. (2011). Transformational leadership, leader support, and employee creativity. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 32,

656–672. ⁎Chi, N., & Huang, J. (2014). Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective

tone. Group and Organization Management, 39, 300–325. ⁎Chi, N., & Pan, S. (2012). A multilevel investigation of missing links between transformational leadership and task performance: Themediating roles of perceived per-

son-job fit and person-organization fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 43–56. ⁎Chi, N., Chung, Y., & Tsai, W. (2011). How do happy leaders enhance team success? Themediating roles of transformational leadership, group affective tone, and team

processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1421–1454. ⁎Cho, J. (2007). Psychological processes underlying the relationship between transformational leadership and multi-foci organizational citizenship behaviors: A multi-level

approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation The State University of New York at Buffalo. ⁎Cho, J., Park, I., & Michel, J. W. (2011). How does leadership affect information system success? The role of transformational leadership. Information and Management,

48, 270–277. ⁎Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behavior: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1396–1420. ⁎Chou, H., Lin, Y., Chang, H., & Chuang, W. (2013). Transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and collective efficacy.

Sage Open, 3, 1–10. Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel

Psychology, 64, 89–136. ⁎Chu, L., & Lai, C. (2011). A research on the influence of leadership style and job characteristics on job performance among accountants of country and city government

in Taiwan. Public Personnel Management, 40, 101–118. ⁎Chun, J. U., Sosik, J. J., & Yun, N. Y. (2012). A longitudinal study of mentor and protégé outcomes in formal mentoring relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

33, 1071–1094. ⁎Chun, J. U., Cho, K., & Sosik, J. J. (2016). A multilevel study of group-focused and individual-focused transformational leadership, social exchange relationships, and

performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 374–396. ⁎Cohen, A., Ben-Tura, E., & Vadashi, D. R. (2012). The relationship between social exchange variables, OCB, and performance. Personnel Review, 41, 705–731. ⁎Colbert, A. E., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 51, 81–96. Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top management

teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 81–96. ⁎Colbert, A. E., Barrick, B. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness.

Personnel Psychology, 67, 351–387. ⁎Cole, M. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2007). Leadership consensus as a cross-level contextual moderator of the emotional exhaustion-work commitment relationship. The

Leadership Quarterly, 18, 447–462. ⁎Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., & Field, H. S. (2006). The measurement equivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformational leadership: A mul-

tidimensional test. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 339–368. ⁎Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Shamir, B. (2009). Social distance as amoderator of the effects of transformational leadership: Both neutralizer and enhancer.Human Relations,

62, 1697–1733. ⁎Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., & Bruch, H. (2011). Linking leader behavior and leadership consensus to team performance: Integrating direct consensus and dispersion

models of group discussion. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 383–398.

408 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Colquitt, J. A., & Rodwell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1183–1206.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: Ameta-analytical test of their unique relationshipswith risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236.

⁎Conchie, S. M., Taylor, P. J., & Donald, I. J. (2012). Promoting safety voice within safety-specific transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 105–115.

⁎Conger, J. A., Kanungo, B. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747–767. Cook, J. D., & Wall, T. D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 53, 39–52. ⁎Corona, M. A. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership: A Hispanic American examination. The Business Journal of

Hispanic Research, 4, 22–34. Courtright, S. H., Thurgood, G. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pierotti, A. J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 100, 1825–1846. ⁎Craig, P. (2013). The relationship between leadership and employee job satisfaction in military community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Phoenix. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic

test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. Davis, M. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 25–38. ⁎Dayan, M., Di Benedetto, A., & Colak, M. (2009). Managerial trust in new product development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management, 39,

25–37. ⁎DeClerk, C. C. (2007). The relationship between retail store manager leadership styles and employee generational cohort, performance, and satisfaction. Unpublished doc-

toral dissertation University of Phoenix. ⁎Deichmann, D., & Stam, D. (2015). Leveraging transformational and transactional leadership to cultivate the generation of organization-focused ideas. The Leadership

Quarterly, 26, 204–219. ⁎De Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2012b). Climate control? The relationship between leadership, climate for change, andwork outcomes. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 694–713. ⁎ De Poel, F. M., Stoker, J. I., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2014). Leadership and organizational tenure diversity as determinants of project team effectiveness. Group and

Organization Management, 39, 532–560. DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative

validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52. ⁎Detamore, J. A. (2007). An analysis of the relationships between job satisfaction, leadership, and intent to leave within an engineering consulting firm. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation Capella University. ⁎Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11,

618–634. Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004–1012. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450–467. ⁎Dixon, T. B. (2012). The relationship of organizational commitment and transformational leadership use in project managers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Capella

University. ⁎Douglas, C. (2012). Themoderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the leadership behavior-leader effectiveness relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 23,

163–175. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Inte-

grating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past

With an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759. ⁎Dumay, X., & Galand, B. (2012). The multilevel impact of transformational leadership on teacher commitment: Cognitive and motivational pathways. British

Educational Research Journal, 38, 703–729. ⁎Dussault, M., Payette, D., & Leroux, M. (2008). Principals' transformational leadership and teachers' collective efficacy. Psychological Reports, 102, 401–410. ⁎Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic-organic contexts.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 413–433. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of

Management Journal, 45, 735–744. ⁎Effelsberg, D., Solga, M., & Gurt, J. (2014a). Getting followers to transcend their self-interest for the benefit of their company: Testing a core assumption of transfor-

mational leadership theory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 131–143. ⁎Effelsberg, D., Solga, M., & Gurt, J. (2014b). Transformational leadership and follower's unethical behavior for the benefit of the company: A two-study investigation.

Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 81–93. ⁎Eisenbeig, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational leadership and individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24, 54–68. ⁎Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93, 1438–1446. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. ⁎Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support

and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565–573. ⁎Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2009). Senior expatriate leadership's effects on innovation and the role of cultural intelligence. Journal of World Business, 44,

357–369. ⁎Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of cus-

tomer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict, 11, 77–90. ⁎Engelson, A., Gupta, V., Strenger, L., & Brettel, M. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership be-

haviors. Journal of Management, 41, 1069–1097. ⁎Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for

the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231. ⁎Eo, Y., Kim, Y., & Lee, N. (2014). Path analysis of empowerment and work effectiveness among staff nurses. Asian Nursing Research, 8, 42–48. ⁎Epitropaki, O. (2013). Amulti-level investigation of psychological contract breach and organizational identification through the lens of perceived organizational mem-

bership: Testing a moderated-mediated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 65–86. ⁎Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and

organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 569–589.

409T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2013). Transformational-transactional leadership and upward influence: The role of relative leader-member exchanges (RLMX) and per- ceived organizational support (POS). The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 299–315.

⁎Erturenten, A., Cemalcilar, Z., & Aycan, Z. (2013). The relationship of downsizing mobbing with leadership style and organizational attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 205–216.

⁎Ewen, C., Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Oerder, K., Ellen, B. P., Douglas, C., et al. (2013). Further specification of the leader political skill-leadership effectiveness relationships: Transformational and transactional leader behaviors as mediators. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 516–533.

⁎Farrell, J. B., Flood, P. C., Curtain, S. M., Hannigan, A., Dawson, J., & West, M. (2005). CEO leadership, top team trust, and the combination and exchange of information. The Irish Journal of Management, 26, 22–40.

⁎Ferres, N., Connell, J., & Travaglione, A. (2005). The effect of future redeployment on organizational trust. Strategic Change, 14, 77–91. ⁎Fortin-Bergeron, C., Doucet, O., & Hennebert, M. (2013). Le leadership transformationnel comme source d'engagement syndical: le rôle modérateur de la justice.

Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 68, 409–430. ⁎Franke, F., & Felfe, J. (2011). How does transformational leadership impact employees' psychological strain? Leadership, 7, 295–316. ⁎Freeborough, R. E. (2012). Exploring the affect of transformational leadership on nonprofit leader engagement and commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Ca-

pella University. Friedman, L., & Wall, M. (2005). Graphical view of suppression and multicollinearity in multiple linear regression. American Statistician, 59, 127–136. ⁎Fu, P. P., Tsui, A. S., Liu, J., & Li, L. (2010). Pursuit of whose happiness? Executive leaders' transformational behaviors and personal values. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 55, 222–254. Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., Relyea, C., & Beu, D. (2006). Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identifi-

cation process. Human Relations, 59, 815–846. ⁎Gakovic, A. (2002). Social exchange, transformational leadership, and employee behavior: The role of organizational identification and career commitment. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation University of Houston. ⁎Garcia-Morales, V. J., Llorens-Montes, F. J., & Verdu-Jover, A. J. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge

and innovation. British Journal of Management, 19, 299–319. ⁎Garcia-Morales, V. J., Jimenez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. (2012). Transformational leadership influence on organizational commitment organiza-

tional learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1040–1050. Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct ideas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. ⁎Gillet, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2014). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: The mediating role of job characteristics. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 25, 321–347. ⁎Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Bonnaud-Antignac, A., Mokounkolo, R., & Colombat, P. (2013). Themediating role of organizational justice in the relationship between trans-

formational leadership and nurses' quality of work life: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 50, 1359–1367. Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 691–701. ⁎Gilmore, P. L., Hu, X., Wei, F., Tetrick, L. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Positive affectivity neutralizes transformational leadership's influence on creative performance and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1061–1075. ⁎Gilstrap, J. B., & Collins, B. J. (2012). The importance of being trustworthy: Trust as a mediator of the relationship between leader behavior and employee job satis-

faction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 152–163. ⁎Giri, V. N., & Santra, T. (2008). Analyzing the association of leadership style, face-to-face communication, and organizational effectiveness. Management and Labour

Studies, 33, 53–63. Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472–485. ⁎Golla, E. J. (2012). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership styles and innovation commitment and output at commercial software compa-

nies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Phoenix. ⁎Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative

self-efficacy. Academy of Management, 52, 765–778. ⁎Goodwin, V. L., Wofford, J. C., & Whittington, J. L. (2001). A theoretical and empirical examination to the transformational leadership construct. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 22, 759–774. ⁎Goodwin, V. L., Whittington, J. L., Murray, B., & Nichols, T. (2011). Moderator or mediator? Examining the role of trust in the transformational leadership paradigm.

Journal of Managerial Issues, 23, 409–425. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:

Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. ⁎Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of

Management Journal, 55, 458–476. ⁎Griffith, J. (2010). When does soldier patriotism or nationalism matter? The role of transformational small-unit leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40,

1235–1257. Grover, S. L. (2013). Unraveling respect in organization studies. Human Relations, 67, 27–51. ⁎Groves, K. S., & LaRocca, M. A. (2011). Responsible leadership outcomes via stakeholder CSR values: Testing a value-centered model of transformational leadership.

Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 37–55. ⁎Guay, R. P., & Choi, D. (2015). Towhom does transformational leadershipmatter more? An examination of neurotic and introverted followers and their organizational

citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 851–862. ⁎Guglielmi, D., Simbula, S., Mazzetti, G., Tabanelli, M. C., & Bonfiglioli, R. (2013). When the job is boring: The role of boredom in organizational contexts. Work, 45,

311–322. ⁎Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009a). Transformational leadership and organizational innovation: The roles of internal and external support for innovation. Journal of

Product Innovation Management, 26, 264–277. ⁎Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009b). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461–473. ⁎Gumusluoglu, L., Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z., & Hirst, G. (2013). Transformational leadership and R&D workers' multiple commitments: Do justice and span of control

matter? Journal of Business Research, 66, 2269–2278. ⁎Gundersen, G., Hellesoy, B. T., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading interpersonal project teams: The effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work environ-

ments. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 46–57. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work inter-

ference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465. ⁎Hamstra, M. R. W., Van Yperen, N. W., Wisse, B., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Transformational-transactional leadership styles and followers' regulatory focus. Journal of

Personnel Psychology, 10, 182–186. ⁎Handsome, J. (2009). The relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Phoenix. ⁎Hannah, S. T., Jennings, P. L., Bluhm, D., Peng, A. C., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2014). Duty orientation: Theoretical development and preliminary construct testing.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 220–238. ⁎Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11,

2–14. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time se-

quences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325. ⁎Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,

73, 695–702.

410 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

Hellman, C. M., Fuqua, D. R., & Worley, J. A. (2006). A reliability generalization study on the survey of perceived organizational support: The effects of mean age and number of items on score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 631–642.

⁎Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees' commitment to a change: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 346–357.

Hiller, N. J., DeChurch, L. A., Murase, T., & Doty, D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37, 1137–1177. ⁎Hinduan, Z. R., Wilson-Evered, E., Moss, S., & Scannell, E. (2009). Leadership, work outcomes and openness to change following an Indonesian bank merger. Asia

Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 47, 59–78. ⁎Hirst, G., Van Dick, R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,

963–982. ⁎Ho, T. V. (2013). Relationship between leadership styles and employee job satisfaction at local companies in Vietnam. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Northcentral

University. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. ⁎Hoffman, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509–522. ⁎Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effec-

tiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 779–796. ⁎Holstad, T. J., Korek, S., Rigotti, T., & Mohr, G. (2014). The relation between transformational leadership and follower emotional strain: The moderating role of profes-

sional ambition. Leadership, 10, 269–288. ⁎Holtz, B. C., & Harold, C. M. (2008). When your boss says no! The effects of leadership style and trust on employee reactions to managerial explanations. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 777–802. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. ⁎Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-

business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902. ⁎Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader-member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on

predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694. ⁎Howell, J. M., Neufeld, D. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2005). Examining the relationship of leadership and physical distance with business unit performance. The Leadership

Quarterly, 16, 273–285. ⁎Hsieh, W. (2004). Organizational commitment in Taiwan and its relationship to transformational leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Nova Southeastern

University. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to unparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 1–55. ⁎Hughes, L. W., Avey, J. B., & Nixon, D. R. (2010). Relationships between leadership and followers' quitting intentions and job search behaviors. Journal of Leadership and

Organizational Studies, 17, 351–362. Hughes, A., Galbraith, D., & White, D. (2011). Perceived competence: A common core for self-efficacy and self-concept? Journal of Personality Assessment, 93,

278–289. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ⁎Hur, Y., Van den Berg, P. T., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2011). Transformational leadership as a moderator between emotional intelligence and team outcomes. The

Leadership Quarterly, 22, 591–603. ⁎Hyland, P. K. (2007). Resistance to organizational change: The impact of followers' disposition toward change and supervisors' leadership style. Unpublished doctoral dis-

sertation Columbia University. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equation models perform better than regressions. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 17, 139–153. ⁎Ishikawa, J. (2012a). Leadership and performance in Japanese R&D teams. Asia Pacific Business Review, 18, 241–258. ⁎Ishikawa, J. (2012b). Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles norm formaintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance.

Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 265–283. ⁎Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transfor-

mational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 982–1007. ⁎Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 5–18. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,

287–302. ⁎Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15,

153–168. ⁎Jaskyte, K. (2011). Predictors of administrative and technological innovations in nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 71, 77–86. ⁎Jha, S. (2013). Managerial practices, transformational leadership, customer satisfaction and self efficacy as antecedents of psychological empowerment. Journal of

Management Research, 13, 105–117. ⁎Jiao, C., Richards, D. A., & Zhang, K. (2011). Leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: OCB-specific meanings asmediators. Journal of Business and Psychology,

26, 11–25. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. ⁎Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological

Bulletin, 127, 376–407. Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy andwork-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92, 107–127. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341–367. Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and

transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949–964. ⁎Jung, D., Chow, C. W., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings.

The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525–544. ⁎Jung, D., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs' transformational leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership

Quarterly, 19, 582–594. ⁎Jung, D., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates' attitudes on transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-

level perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 586–603. Kaldo, V., Ramnerö, J., & Jernelöv, S. (2015). Involving clients in treatment methods: A neglected interaction in the therapeutic relationship. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 83, 1136–1141. ⁎Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2013). Ethical leadership and follower helping and courtesy: Moral awareness and empathic concern as mod-

erators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 211–235. ⁎Kalu, K. A. (2010). National culture and leadership: Followers' preference of transformational or transactional leadership in a power distance culture. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation Capella University.

411T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Kam, C., Risavy, S. D., Perunovic, E., & Plant, L. (2014). Do subordinates formulate an impression of their managers' implicit person theory? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63, 267–299.

⁎Kang, J. H., Solomon, G. T., & Choi, D. Y. (2015). CEOs' leadership styles and managers' innovative behavior: Investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 531–554.

⁎Kara, D., Uysal, M., Sirgy, M. J., & Lee, G. (2013). The effects of leadership style on employee well-being in hospitality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 9–18.

⁎Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255. ⁎Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, trans-

formational leadership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 620–640. ⁎Kastenmuller, A., Greitemeyer, T., Zehl, S., Tattersall, A. J., George, H., Frey, D., & Fischer, P. (2014). Leadership and information processing: The influence of transfor-

mational and transactional leadership on selective information search, evaluation, and conveying. Social Psychology, 45, 357–370. ⁎Kearney, E. (2008). Age differences between leader and followers as a moderator of the relationship between transformational leadership and team performance.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 803–811. ⁎Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,

77–89. ⁎Keegan, A. E., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Transformational leadership in a project-based environment: A comparative study of the leadership styles of project man-

agers and line managers. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 609–617. ⁎Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501. ⁎Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202–210. ⁎Kelley, E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2012). Context matters: Testing a model of remote leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 437–449. ⁎Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2012). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: Themediating role of employee trust

in leadership. Work and Stress, 26, 39–55. ⁎Kelloway, E. K., Weigand, H., McKee, M. C., & Das, H. (2013). Positive leadership and employee well-being. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20,

107–117. ⁎Kessler, S. R., Bruursema, K., Rodopman, B., & Spector, P. E. (2013). Leadership, interpersonal conflict, and counterproductive work behavior: An examination of the

stressor-strain process. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6, 180–190. ⁎Khasawneh, S., Omari, A., & Abu-Tineh, A. M. (2012). The relationship between transformational leadership and organizational commitment: The case for vocational

teachers in Jordan. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 40, 494–508. ⁎Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2015). A cross-level study of transformational leadership and organizational affective commitment in the Korean local governments:Mediating role

of procedural justice and moderating role of culture. Leadership, 11, 158–185. ⁎Kimura, T. (2012). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of perceptions of politics and market orientation in the Japanese context.

International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 7, 29–42. ⁎Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-

level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764. ⁎Kissi, J., Dainty, A., & Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of Project

Management, 31, 485–497. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational research methods, 3,

211–236. ⁎Klinsontorn, S. (2005). The influence of leadership styles on organizational commitment and employee performances. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Nova Southeast-

ern University. Kluemper, D. H., Little, L. M., & Timothy, D. (2009). State or trait: Effects of state optimism on job-related outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 209–231. ⁎Ko, J. (2005). Impact of leadership and team members' individualism-collectivism on team processes and outcomes: A leader-member exchange perspective. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation The University of Arizona. ⁎Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16, 319–333. ⁎Kopperud, K. H., Martinsen, O., & Humborstad, S. I. W. (2014). Engaging leaders in the eyes of the beholder: On the relationship between transformational leadership,

work engagement, service climate, and self-other agreement. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21, 29–42. ⁎Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Dick, R. (2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determi-

nation-based analysis of employees' needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1031–1052. ⁎Krishnan, V. R. (2008). The impact of transformational leadership on followers' duty orientation and spirituality. Journal of Human Values, 14, 11–22. ⁎Krishnan, V. R., & Arora, P. (2008). Determinants of transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Asia-Pacific Business Review, 4, 34–43. ⁎Laglera, J. M., Collado, J. C., & de Oca, J. M. M. (2013). Effects of leadership on engineers: A structural equation model. Engineering Research Manuscript, 25, 7–16. Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28,

251–261. ⁎Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., Grau, A. L., Read, E. A., & Stam, L. M. P. (2011). The influence of leadership practices and empowerment on Canadian nurse manager

outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 20, 877–888. Leary, M. R., Wheelers, D. S., & Jenkins, T. B. (1986). Aspects of identity and behavioral preference: Studies of occupational and recreational choice. Social Psychology

Quarterly, 49, 11–18. ⁎Lee, J. (2012). The effects of leadership behavior on workplace harassment, employee outcomes, and organizational effectiveness in small business. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation George Washington University. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

131–142. ⁎Lee, C., Lee, W., & Kim, J. (2007). Effects of transformational leadership and self-leadership on innovative behaviors: Mediating roles of empowerment. International

Area Review, 10, 163–176. ⁎Lee, Y., Kim, Y., Son, M. H., & Lee, D. (2011). Do emotions play a mediating role in the relationship between owner leadership style and manager customer orientation,

and performance in service environment? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 942–952. ⁎Lee, U. H., Kim, H. K., & Kim, Y. H. (2013). Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior and its outcomes. Global Business and Management Research: An

International Journal, 5, 54–65. ⁎Lenka, U., Suar, D., & Mohapatra, P. K. J. (2010). Customer satisfaction in Indian commercial banks through total quality management approach. Total Quality

Management, 21, 1315–1341. Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23, 438–458. ⁎Li, N., Chiaburu, D. S., Kirkman, B. L., & Xie, Z. (2013). Spotlight on the followers: An examination of moderators of relationships between transformational leadership

and subordinates' citizenship and taking charge. Personnel Psychology, 66, 225–260. ⁎Li, F., Yu, K. K., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. (2014a). Authentic leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context. Management and Organization

Review, 10, 249–273. ⁎Li, G., Shang, Y., Liu, H., & Xi, Y. (2014b). Differentiated transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: A cross-level investigation. European Management Journal,

32, 554–563. ⁎Li, C., Zhao, H., & Begley, T. M. (2015). Transformational leadership dimensions and employee creativity in China: A cross-level analysis. Journal of Business Research,

68, 1149–1156.

412 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Liang, S., & Chi, S. S. (2013). Transformational leadership and follower task performance: The role of susceptibility to positive emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 17–29.

⁎Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long- term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006–1019.

⁎Liaw, Y., Chi, N., & Chuang, A. (2010). Examining the mechanisms linking transformational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: The mediating roles of perceived supervisor and coworker support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 477–492.

Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and the potential for the future. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowlands (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management. Vol. 15. (pp. 47–119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

⁎Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.

⁎Lin, L. (2004). The relationship between manager's leadership style and employee job satisfaction in Taiwan fashion retail department stores. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation University of the Incarnate Word.

⁎Ling, Y., Simsek, Z., Lubatkin, M. H., & Veiga, J. F. (2008). The impact of transformational CEOs on the performance of small- to medium-sized firms: Does organiza- tional context matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 923–934.

⁎Liu, J., Siu, O., & Shi, K. (2010a). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 454–479.

⁎Liu,W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010b). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189–202.

⁎Liu, M., Liu, N., Ding, G. G., & Lin, C. (2015). Exploring team performance in high-tech industries: Future trends of building up teamwork. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91, 295–310.

⁎Lopez-Dominguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., & Simo, P. (2013). Transformational leadership as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behav- ior. Journal of Business Research, 66, 2147–2152.

Madrid, H. P., Patterson, M. G., Birdi, K., Leiva, P. I., & Kausel, E. E. (2014). The role of weekly high-activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 234–256.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma-mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

⁎Majid, E. A. E., & Cohen, A. (2015). The role of values and leadership style in developing OCB among Arab teachers in Israel. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36, 308–327.

⁎Mandanipour, M. (2013). The influence of attachment style on the relationship between leadership, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Alliant International University Los Angeles.

⁎Marinova, S., Van Dyne, L., & Moon, H. (2014). Are good citizens good transformational leaders as well? An employee-centric perspective on transformational lead- ership. Group and Organization Management, 40, 62–87.

⁎Martin, C. A., & Bush, A. J. (2006). Psychological climate, empowerment, leadership style, and customer-oriented selling: An analysis of the sales manager-salesperson dyad. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 419–438.

⁎Martin, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2001). Role of organizational identification on implicit leadership theories (ILTs), transformational leadership and work attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 247–262.

Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69, 67–121.

⁎Mathieu, C., & Babiak, P. (2015). Tell me who you are, I'll tell you how you lead: Beyond the full-range leadership model, the role of corporate psychopathy on em- ployee attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 8–12.

Maurer, T. J., Pierce, H. R., & Shore, L. M. (2002). Perceived beneficiary of employee development activity: A three-dimensional social exchange model. Academy of Management Review, 27, 432–444.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38,

24–59. ⁎McCann, J. A., Langford, P. H., & Rawlings, R. M. (2006). Testing Behling and McFillen's syncretial model of charismatic transformational leadership. Group and

Organization Management, 31, 237–263. ⁎McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 549–559. ⁎McMurray, A. J., Islam, M. M., Sarros, J. C., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2013). Workplace innovation in a nonprofit organization. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23,

367–388. Meeker, B. F. (1971). Decisions and exchange. American Sociology Review, 36, 485–495. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. ⁎Men, L. (2012). The effects of organizational leadership on strategic internal communication and employee outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of

Miami. ⁎Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational leadership climate: Performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the orga-

nizational level. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 893–909. ⁎Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Shih, E. (2007). Transformational leadership andmarket orientation: Implications for the implementation of competitive strategies and business

unit performance. Journal of Business Research, 60, 314–321. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment

that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152–156. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 78, 538–551. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of ante-

cedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,

665–683. ⁎Miao, Q., Newman, A., & Lamb, P. (2012). Transformational leadership and the work outcomes of Chinese migrant workers: The mediating effects of identification

with leader. Leadership, 8, 377–395. Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: A within-person approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 112, 43–57. ⁎Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., & Joyce, P. (2014). Transformation through tension: The moderating impact of negative affect on transformational leader-

ship in teams. Human Relations, 67, 1095–1121. Molm, L. D., Whitham, M. M., & Melamed, D. (2012). Forms of exchange and integrative bonds: Effects of history and embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 77,

141–165. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. ⁎Moss, S. (2009). Cultivating the regulatory focus of followers to amplify their sensitivity to transformational leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational

Studies, 15, 241–259. ⁎Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style and follower performance, creativity andwork attitudes.

Leadership, 3, 433–456.

413T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Moss, S. A., Ritossa, D., & Ngu, S. (2006). The effect of follower regulatory focus and extraversion on leadership behavior: The role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 93–107.

⁎Moss, S. A., McFarland, J., Ngu, S., & Kijowska, A. (2007). Maintaining an openmind to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on the association between openness to experience and organizational commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 259–275.

⁎Munir, F., & Nielsen, K. (2009). Does self-efficacy mediate the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and healthcare workers' sleep quality? A longitudinal study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 1833–1843.

⁎Munir, F., Nielsen, K., & Carneiro, I. G. (2010). Transformational leadership and depressive symptoms: A prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 120, 235–239.

⁎Munir, F., Nielsen, K., Garde, A. H., Albertsen, K., & Carneiro, I. G. (2012). Mediating the effects of work-life conflict between transformational leadership and health- care workers' job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Journal of Nursing Management, 20, 512–521.

⁎Nahum-Shani, I., & Somech, A. (2011). Leadership, OCB and individual differences: Idiocentrism and allocentrism as moderators of the relationship between trans- formational and transactional leadership and OCB. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 353–366.

⁎Nasra, M. A., & Heilbrunn, S. (2015). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in the Arab educational system in Israel: The impact of trust and job satisfaction. Education Management Administration and Leadership, 44, 380–396.

⁎Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 49–68. Ng, T. W. H. (2015). The incremental validity of organizational commitment, organizational trust, and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88,

154–163. Ng, T. W. H., Feldman, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behavior: A latent growth

modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 744–751. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of

Management Journal, 52, 744–764. ⁎Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2012). Does shared and differentiated transformational leadership predict followers' working conditions and well being? The Leadership

Quarterly, 23, 383–397. ⁎Nielsen, K., & Munir, F. (2009). How do transformational leaders influence followers' affective well-being? Exploring the mediating role of self-efficacy. Work and

Stress, 23, 313–329. ⁎Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job

satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1236–1244.

⁎Nubold, A., Dorr, S. L., & Maier, G. W. (2015). Considering the orphan: Personal identification and its relations with transformational leadership, trust, and perfor- mance in a three-path mediation model. Leadership, 11, 230–254.

⁎O'Cass, A., & Sok, P. (2013). Exploring innovation driven value creation in B2B service firms: The roles of the manager, employees, and customers in value creation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1074–1084.

Ohly, S., & Schmitt, A. (2015). What makes us enthusiastic, angry, feeling at rest or worried? Development and validation of an affective work events taxonomy using concept mapping methodology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 15–35.

⁎Olcer, F., Florescu, M. S., & Nastase, M. (2014). The effects of transformational leadership and emotional intelligence of managers on organizational citizenship behav- iors of employees. Review of International Comparative Management, 15, 385–401.

⁎Omar, Z., Zainal, A., Omar, F., & Khairudin, R. (2009). The influence of leadership behavior on organizational citizenship behavior in self-managed work teams in Ma- laysia. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 7, 1–11.

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547–557. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48,

775–802. ⁎O'Shea, P. G., Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2009). Are the best leaders both transformational and transactional? A pattern-oriented analysis. Leadership, 5,

237–259. ⁎Ozer, F., & Tinaztepe, C. (2014). Effect of strategic leadership styles on firm performance: A study in a Turkish SME. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150,

778–784. ⁎Palrecha, R., Spangler, W. D., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). A comparative study of three leadership approaches in India. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 146–162. ⁎Panagopoulos, N. G., & Avlontis, G. J. (2010). Performance implications of sale strategy: The moderating effects of leadership and environment. International Journal of

Research in Marketing, 27, 46–57. ⁎Parr, A. D., Hunter, S. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2013). Questioning universal applicability of transformational leadership: Examining employees with autism spectrum disor-

der. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 608–622. ⁎Patiar, A., & Mia, L. (2009). Transformational leadership style, market competition and departmental performance: Evidence from luxury hotels in Australia.

International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 254–262. ⁎Peltokorpi, V., & Hasu, M. (2014). Moderating effects of transformational leadership between external team learning and research team performance outcomes. R&D

Management, 45, 304–316. ⁎Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-tech-

nology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35, 348–368. ⁎Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: Themediating role of core job characteristics. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49,

327–340. ⁎Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The relative impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matter most? The

Leadership Quarterly, 23, 567–581. ⁎Pierro, A., Raven, B. H., Amato, C., & Belanger, J. J. (2013). Bases of social power, leadership styles, and organizational commitment. International Journal of Psychology,

48, 1122–1134. ⁎Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of

psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609–623. ⁎Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample

study. Journal of Management, 25, 897–933. ⁎Pittman (2003). Antecedents and consequences of the feedback environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Florida. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. ⁎Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer,W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,

commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. ⁎ De Oliveira, M. A., Possamai, O., Dalla Valentia, L. V. O., & Flesch, C. A. (2012a). Applying Bayesian networks to performance forecast of innovation projects: A case

study of transformational leadership influence in organizations oriented by projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 5061–5070. ⁎Prasad, S. H. C., Suar, D., & Taraban, R. (2014). Antecedents and moderators of software professionals' performance. Sage Open, 4, 1–17. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral

Research Methods, 40, 879–981. ⁎Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., & Rudd, J. (2013). Aligning employee service recovery performance with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. Journal of

Marketing Management, 29, 981–1006.

414 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 286–299.

⁎Quigley, N. R. (2003). The relationship between leader core self-evaluations, team feedback, leader efficacy, transformational leadership, team efficacy, team goals, team ac- tion and transition processes, and team performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Maryland at College Park.

⁎Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 329–354. Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 432–446. ⁎Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance: Subordinates' self-esteem and self-presentation as mod-

erators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 465–489. Restubog, S. L. D., Hornsey, M. J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S. R. (2008). Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational citizenship behavior: Insights from the

Group Value Model. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1377–1400. ⁎Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: Exploring the relevance of

gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17, 227–244. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635. ⁎Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involve-

ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 561–589. ⁎Rickards, T., Chen, M., &Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and performance relationships. British Journal

of Management, 12, 243–250. Riggs, M. L., & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755–766. Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257–266. Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358–384. ⁎Ritz, A., Giauque, D., Varone, F., & Anderfuhren-Biget, S. (2014). From leadership to citizenship behavior in public organizations: When values matter. Review of Public

Personnel Administration, 34, 128–152. Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130. ⁎Rothfelder, K., Ottenbacher, M. C., & Harrington, R. J. (2013). The impact of transformational, transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in

the German hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12, 201–214. Rousseau, V., Salek, S., Aube, C., & Morin, E. M. (2009). Distributive justice, procedural justice, and psychological distress: The moderating effect of coworker support

and work autonomy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 305–317. ⁎Rowold, J., & Borgmann, L. (2014). Interpersonal affect and the assessment of and interrelationship between leadership constructs. Leadership, 10, 308–325. ⁎Rowold, J., & Rohmann, A. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership styles, followers' positive and negative emotions, and performance in German non-

profit orchestras. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20, 41–59. ⁎Saboe, K. N., Taing, M. U., Way, J. D., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). Examining the unique mediators that underlie the effects of different dimensions of transformational

leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 22, 175–186. ⁎Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martinez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses' extra-role performance: The mediating role of self-

efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 2256–2266. ⁎Samad, S. (2012). The influence of innovation and transformational leadership on organizational performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57,

486–493. Samnani, A., & Singh, P. (2013). When leaders victimize: The role of charismatic leaders in facilitating group pressures. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 189–202. ⁎Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Building a climate for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational culture. Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies, 15, 145–158. Scandura, T., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 69, 428–436. ⁎Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Mentoring and transformational leadership: The role of supervisory career mentoring. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,

448–468. ⁎Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96, 863–871. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. Gilliland, D. Steiner, & D.

Skarlicki (Eds.), Research in social issues in management. Vol. 5. (pp. 135–177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. ⁎Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human

Relations, 61, 1593–1616. Schleicher, D. J., Watt, J. D., & Greguras, G. J. (2004). Reexamining the job satisfaction-performance relationship: The complexity of attitudes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 165–177. ⁎Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & DeChurch, L. A. (2006). An investigation of path-goal and transformational leadership theory predictions at the individual

level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 21–38. ⁎Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X., Egold, N. W., Graf, M. M., Pandey, D., & Van Dick, R. (2012). Leader and follower organizational identification: The mediating role of leader be-

havior and implications for follower OCB. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 421–432. ⁎Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X., & Tian, P. (2013). For the good or the bad? Interactive effects of transformational leadership withmoral and authoritarian leadership behaviors.

Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 629–640. ⁎Schwepker, C. H., & Good, D. J. (2010). Transformational leadership and its impact on sales force moral judgment. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 30,

299–317. Searle, T. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2013). A multilevel framework: Expanding and bridgingmicro andmacro levels of positive behavior with leadership. Journal of Leadership

and Organizational Studies, 20, 274–286. ⁎Selamet, N., Nordin, N., & Adnan, A. A. (2013). Rekindle teacher's organizational commitment: The effects of transformational leadership behavior. Procedia – Social

and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 566–574. ⁎Seo, M., Taylor, M. S., Hill, N. S., & Zhang, X. (2012). The role of affect and leadership during organizational change. Personnel Psychology, 65, 121–165. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effect of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594. ⁎Shannahan, K. L. J., Bush, A. J., & Shannahan, R. J. (2013). Are your salespeople coachable? How salesperson coachability trait competitiveness, and transformational

leadership enhance sales performance. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 41, 40–54. ⁎Shelton, E. J. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its impact on Hispanic immigrant workers in a production/processing plant environment. Unpublished doctoral disser-

tation Capella University. ⁎Shin, Y. Y., & Eom, C. (2014). Team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team

creative performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 89–114. ⁎Shin, Y. Y., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714. ⁎Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership

as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.

415T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Shin, S. J., Kim, T., Lee, J., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual teammember creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197–212.

⁎Shiva, M., & Suar, D. (2010). Leadership, LMX, commitment and NGO effectiveness: Transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, organizational commit- ment, organizational effectiveness and programme outcomes in non-governmental organizations. International Journal of Rural Management, 6, 117–150.

⁎Singh, N., & Krishnan, V. R. (2007). Transformational leadership in India: Developing and validating a new scale using grounded theory approach. Cultural Perspectives, 7, 219–236.

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A., & Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.

⁎Smith, B., Andras, T. L., & Rosenbloom, B. (2012a). Transformational leadership: Managing the twenty-first century sales force. Psychology and Marketing, 29, 434–444. ⁎Smith, M. B., Byran, L. K., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2012b). The counter-intuitive effects of flow on positive leadership and employee attitudes: Incorporating positive psy-

chology into the management of organizations. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15, 174–198. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equationmodels. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive performance feedback improve citizenship intentions and job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportuni-

ties for advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 177–201. ⁎Song, L. J., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. (2009). Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms: The role of social and economic exchange percep-

tions. Journal of Management, 35, 56–93. ⁎Song, J. H., Kang, I. G., Shin, Y. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012a). The impact of an organization's procedural justice and transformational leadership on employees' citizenship

behaviors in the Korean business context. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19, 424–436. ⁎Song, J. H., Kolb, J. A., Lee, U. H., & Kim, H. K. (2012b). Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of

employees' work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 65–101. ⁎Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2004). Self-other rating agreement in mentoring: Meeting protégé expectations for development and career advancement. Group and

Organization Management, 29, 442–469. ⁎Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multilevel market-

ing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 849–869. ⁎Srinivas, E. S., Kumar, G. A., & Vikramaditya, E. (2006). An examination of transformational and transactional leadership: A study of dimensions and outcomes in In-

dian context. Management and Labor Studies, 31, 208–227. ⁎Staheli, N. (2013). Return and report: The role of leadership and performance measurement systems in employee engagement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Univer-

sity of Hawaii at Manoa. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. ⁎ Van Dierendonck, D., Stam, D., Boersma, P., deWindt, N., & Alkema, J. (2014). Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and

transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 544–562. Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1996). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56–77. ⁎Stoker, J. I., Grutterink, H., & Kolk, N. J. (2012). Do transformational CEOs always make the difference? The role of TMT feedback seeking behavior. The Leadership

Quarterly, 23, 582–592. ⁎Stordeur, S., D'hoore,W., & Vandenberghe, C. (2001). Leadership, organizational stress, and emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing staff: Experience before and

throughout the nursing career. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35, 533–542. ⁎Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role breadth self-

efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279–291. ⁎Strom, D. L., Sears, K. L., & Kelly, K. M. (2014). Work engagement: The roles of organizational justice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21, 71–82. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: A theory and research example. InW. Ickes, & E. C. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles,

and social behavior (pp. 199–218). New York: Springer-Verlag. ⁎Sun, L., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55–65. ⁎Sun,W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, team climate, and team performance with the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 31, 127–147. ⁎Sutherland, M. A. (2010). An examination of ethical leadership and organizational commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Nova Southeastern University. ⁎Tafvelin, S., Armelius, K., & Westerberg, K. (2011). Toward understanding the direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on well-being: A longitudinal

study. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 480–492. ⁎Tai, C. L., Chang, C., Hong, J., & Chen, L. (2012). Alternativemodels for the relationship among leadership organizational citizenship behavior, and performance: A study

of new product development teams in Taiwan. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57, 511–517. ⁎Tesfaw, T. A. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The case of government secondary school teachers in Ethiopia.

Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42, 903–918. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytical review

and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. ⁎Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22,

121–131. ⁎Tonkin, T. H. (2013). Authentic versus transformational leadership: Assessing their effectiveness on organizational citizenship behavior of followers. International

Journal of Business and Public Administration, 10, 40–61. ⁎Top, M., Tarcan, M., Tekingunduz, S., & Hikmet, N. (2013). An analysis of relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, organizational commit-

ment and organizational trust in Turkish hospitals. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 28, 217–241. ⁎Tremblay, M. A. (2010). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators on the relationship between leadership style, unit commitment, and turnover intentions of Ca-

nadian Forces personnel. Military Psychology, 22, 510–523. ⁎Trepanier, S., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2012). Social and motivational antecedents of perceptions of transformational leadership: A self-determination theory perspec-

tive. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 44, 272–277. ⁎Tsai, W., Chen, H., & Cheng, J. (2009). Employee positive moods as mediators linking transformational leadership and employee work outcomes. The International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 206–219. ⁎Tse, H. H. M., & Chiu, W. C. K. (2014). Transformational leadership and job performance: A social identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67,

2827–2835. ⁎Tse, H. H. M., Huang, X., & Lam, W. (2013). Why does transformational leadership matter for employee turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective. The

Leadership Quarterly, 24, 763–776. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838. Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the Group-Value Model.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930. ⁎Vaccaro, I. G., Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). Management innovation and leadership: The moderating role of organizational size.

Journal of Management Studies, 49, 28–51. Vallieres, E. F., Vallerland, R. J., Bergeon, J., & McDuff, P. (2014). Intentionailty, anger, coping, and ego defensiveness in reactive aggressive driving. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 44, 354–363. Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of

Management Annals, 7, 1–60.

416 T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎ VanWoerkom, M., & De Reuver, R. S. M. (2009). Predicting excellent management performance in an intercultural context: A study of the influence of multicultural personality on transformational leadership and performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 2013–2029.

⁎Vandenbeghe, C., Stordeur, S., & D'hoore, W. (2002). Transactional and transformational leadership in nursing: Structural validity and substantive relationships. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 16–29.

⁎Vasilaki, A. (2011). The relationship between transformational leadership and postacquisition performance. International Studies of Management and Organization, 41, 42–58.

⁎Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a path- goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 71–82.

⁎Vermeulen, M., Van Acker, F., Krejins, K., & Van Buuren, H. (2014). Does transformational leader encourage teachers' use of digital learning materials. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43, 1006–1025.

Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Colledge, J., & Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 308–333.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995s). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. ⁎Waldman, D. A., Carter, N. Z., & Hom, P. W. (2015). A multilevel investigation of leadership and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 1724–1744. ⁎Walker, C. T. (2011). Psychological climate for engagement and the role of leader behavior patterns in fostering employee engagement and performance measures. Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation University of Connecticut. Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2009). An affective events model of charismatic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, and research agenda. Journal of

Management, 35, 1428–1452. ⁎Walumbawa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515–530. ⁎Walumbawa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008a). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-basedmeasure.

Journal of Management, 34, 89–126. ⁎Walumbawa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu,W. (2008b). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and

efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–825. ⁎Walumbwa, F. O., & Hartnell, C. A. (2011). Understanding transformational leadership-employee performance links: The role of relational identification and self-ef-

ficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 153–172. ⁎Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., & Shi, K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and

self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, 2–16. ⁎Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross-cultural investigation. Applied Psychology:

An International Review, 56, 212–230. ⁎Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32, 4–24. ⁎Wang, G. (2011). What role does leaders' emotional labor play in effective leadership? An empirical examination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University

of Iowa. ⁎Wang, X., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134–1144. ⁎Wang, H., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 775–790. ⁎Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate.

Human Relations, 63, 1105–1128. ⁎Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly programs, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leader-

ship. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397–427. ⁎Wang, P., & Zhu, W. (2011). Mediating role of creative identity in the influence of transformational leadership on creativity: Is there a multilevel effect? Journal of

Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 25–39. ⁎Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership

and followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432. Wang, G., Oh, I., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of

research. Group and Organization Management, 36, 223–270. ⁎Wang, P., Rode, J. C., Shi, K., Luo, Z., & Chen,W. (2013). Aworkgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership,workgroup diversity,

and employee creativity. Group and Organizational Management, 38, 334–360. ⁎Wang, C., Tsai, H., & Tsai, M. (2014). Linking transformational leadership and employee creativity in the hospitality industry: The influences of creative role identity,

creative self-efficacy, and job complexity. Tourism Management, 40, 70–89. ⁎Washington, R. R. (2007). Empirical relations among servant, transformational, and transactional leadership: Similarity, differences, and correlations with job satisfaction

and organizational commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Auburn University. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 40, 82–111. ⁎Wefald, A. J., Reichard, R. J., & Serrano, S. A. (2011). Fitting engagement into a nomological network: The relationship of engagement to leadership and personality.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 522–537. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1997). Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vocational rehabilitation: XXII.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center Work Adjustment Project. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41,

540–555. ⁎Weng, L., Su, C., & Lai, Y. (2011). Supervisor service performance through transformational leadership: A cross-sectional study of a large Taiwanese commercial bank.

Asia Pacific Management Review, 16, 181–195. ⁎Weng, R., Huang, C., Chen, L., & Chang, L. (2015). Exploring the impact of transformational leadership on nurse innovation behavior: A cross-sectional study. Journal of

Nursing Management, 23, 427–439. ⁎Westerberg, K., & Tafvelin, S. (2014). The importance of leadership style and psychosocial work environment to staff-assessed quality of care: Implications for home

help services. Health and Social Care in the Community, 22, 461–468. Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321. ⁎Whitford, T., & Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformational leadership in distributed work groups: The moderating role of follower regulatory focus and goal orientation.

Communication Research, 36, 810–837. ⁎Whittington, J. L., Goodwin, V. L., & Murray, B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: Independent and interactive effects on employee

outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 593–606. ⁎Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 301–324. ⁎Wolfram, H., & Gratton, L. (2014). Gender role self-concept, categorical gender, and transactional-transformational leadership: Implications for perceived workgroup

performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 21, 338–353. ⁎Wolfram, H., &Mohr, G. (2009). Transformational leadership, team goal fulfillment, and follower work satisfaction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15,

260–274.

417T.W.H. Ng / The Leadership Quarterly 28 (2017) 385–417

⁎Woodlock, C. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee commitment: The moderating role of perceived organizational support and individual level of collectivism/ individualism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Northern Illinois University.

Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: An examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout. Journal of Business and Management, 9, 389–406.

⁎Wu, C., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2007). Transformational leadership, cohesion perceptions, and employee cynicism about organizational change: The mediating role of justice perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 327–351.

⁎Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Dubinsky, A. J. (1998). Transformational and contingent reward leadership: Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 27–54.

⁎Yang, Y. (2014). Studies of transformational leadership: Evaluating two alternative models of trust and satisfaction. Psychological Reports: Employment Psychology and Marketing, 114, 740–757.

⁎Yang, J., Zhang, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2010). Middle manager leadership and frontline employee performance: Bypass, cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 654–678.

⁎Yang, F., Wu, M., Chang, C., & Chien, Y. (2011). Elucidating the relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, commitment foci and commitment bases in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 40, 265–278.

⁎Yildiz, S., Basturk, F., & Boz, I. T. (2014). The effect of leadership and innovativeness on business performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 785–793. ⁎Yucel, I., McMillan, A., & Richard, O. C. (2014). Does CEO transformational leadership influence top executive normative commitment? Journal of Business Research, 67,

1170–1177. ⁎Zacher, H., Pearce, L. K., Rooney, D., & McKenna, B. (2014). Leaders' personal wisdom and leader-member exchange quality: The role of individualized consideration.

Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 171–187. ⁎Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees' self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploita-

tion behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50, 24–46. ⁎Zehir, C., Sehitoglu, Y., & Erdogan, E. (2012). The effect of leadership and supervisory commitment to organizational performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 58, 207–216. ⁎Zeinabadi, H. (2013). Social exchange outcomes of transformational leadership. International Journal of Education Management, 27, 730–743. ⁎Zeinabadi, H., & Rastegarpour, H. (2010). Factors affecting teacher trust in principal: Testing the effect of transformational leadership and procedural justice. Procedia

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1004–1008. ⁎Zhang, Z., & Peterson, S. J. (2011). Advice networks in teams: The role of transformational leadership andmembers' core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,

96, 1004–1017. ⁎Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011a). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22, 851–862. ⁎Zhang, X., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011b). Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management

Studies, 48, 1586–1611. ⁎Zhang, Z., Jia, M., & Gu, L. (2012). Transformational leadership in crisis situations: Evidence from the People's Republic of China. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 23, 4085–4109. ⁎Zhang, Y., LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Wei, F. (2014). It's not fair…or is it? The role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor-job performance relation-

ships. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 675–697. ⁎Zhang, X., Li, N., Ullrich, J., & Van Dick, R. (2015). Getting everyone on board: The effect of differentiated transformational leadership by CEOs on top management

team effectiveness and leader-rated firm performance. Journal of Management, 41, 1898–1933. ⁎Zhu, Y., & Akhtar, S. (2014). How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior: The role of trust and prosocial motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 35, 373–392. ⁎Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human capital-enhancing

human resource management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 39–52. ⁎Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group

and Organization Management, 34, 590–619. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. (2011). The effect of authentic transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22,

801–817. ⁎Zhu, W., Sosik, J. J., Riggio, R. E., & Yang, B. (2012a). Relationships between transformational and active transactional leadership and followers' organizational identi-

fication: The role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 13, 186–212. ⁎Zhu,W.,Wang, G., Zheng, X., Liu, T., &Miao, Q. (2012b). Examining the role of personal identification with the leader in leadership effectiveness: A partial nomological

network. Group and Organization Management, 38, 36–67. ⁎Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust in transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a

difference? The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 94–105.