Case Study

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Laval] On: 20 October 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 926382340] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Work & Stress Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713697904

The effects of transformational leadership on followers' perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study Karina Nielsena; Raymond Randallb; Joanna Yarkerc; Sten-Olof Brennera a National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark b Department of Psychology, Leicester University, UK c Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

To cite this Article Nielsen, Karina , Randall, Raymond , Yarker, Joanna and Brenner, Sten-Olof(2008) 'The effects of transformational leadership on followers' perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study', Work & Stress, 22: 1, 16 — 32 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02678370801979430 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370801979430

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The effects of transformational leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study

Karina Nielsen a *, Raymond Randall

b , Joanna Yarker

c and Sten-Olof Brenner

a

a National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark;

b Department of

Psychology, Leicester University, UK; c Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Transformational leaders employ a visionary and creative style of leadership that inspires employees to

broaden their interest in their work and to be innovative and creative. There is some evidence that

transformational leadership style is linked to employee psychological well-being. However, it is not clear

whether this is due to (1) a direct relationship between leadership behaviour and affective well-being

outcomes, or (2) a relationship between leadership behaviour and well-being that is mediated by

followers’ perceived work characteristics. (Such characteristics include role clarity, meaningfulness, and

opportunities for development.) This study aims to extend previous work by examining the validity of

these two mechanisms in a longitudinal questionnaire study. The study was carried out within the

elderly care sector in a Danish local governmental department. A theory-driven model of the

relationships between leadership, work characteristics, and psychological well-being was tested using

Structural Equation Modelling. The results indicated that followers’ perceptions of their work

characteristics did mediate the relationship between transformational leadership style and psychological

well-being. However, there was only limited evidence of the existence of a direct path between leadership

behaviour and employee well-being. These findings have implications for design, implementation, and

management of efforts to improve employee well-being.

Keywords: transformational leadership; well-being; mediation; work characteristics; longitudinal;

healthcare

Introduction

The aim of this study is to examine the mechanisms through which transformational, or

‘‘inspiring’’ leadership behaviour influences employee well-being. The paper reports the use of

a longitudinal study design to test the validity of two mechanisms. In the first mechanism,

leadership behaviour is hypothesized to have a direct impact on followers’ affective well-

being. In the second mechanism, the impact of leadership behaviour on perceived work

characteristics is hypothesized to mediate the leadership�well-being relationship. To do this the study builds upon the findings of two bodies of well-being research: studies of the

influence of (1) leadership and (2) work characteristics on employee well-being. The study

focuses on transformational leadership style due to its dominant position in high quality

leadership research (Bass, 1990; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Lowe & Gardner, 2001).

Transformational leadership occurs when ‘‘leaders broaden and elevate the interests of

their followers, generate awareness and commitment of individuals to the purpose and

*Corresponding author: Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online

# 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02678370801979430

http://www.informaworld.com

Work & Stress

Vol. 22, No. 1, January�March 2008, 16�32

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

mission of the group, and when they enable subordinates to transcend their own self-interests

for the betterment of the group’’ (Seltzer, Numerof, & Bass, 1989, p. 174). Transformational

leaders establish a shared vision through which leaders provide a meaningful and creative

basis from where change is brought about in people and contexts (Bass, 1985). The concept is

composed of idealized influence/charisma (the leader acts as a role model and promotes

desirable behaviour), inspirational motivation (the leader formulates a clear and attractive

vision), intellectual stimulation (the leader encourages followers to make their own decisions and be creative and innovative), and individualized consideration (the leader acts as a coach

and a mentor) (Bass, 1985).

There is a small body of empirical research that has shown a link between leadership style

and measures of employee well-being. Bono and Ilies (2006) found a relationship between

charismatic leaders and positive emotions and mood. Gilbreath and Benson (2004) found

that supervisory behaviour explained incremental variance over and above other workplace

factors when predicting general health. A few studies have examined the relationship between

transformational leadership and subordinate health and well-being outcomes including

measures of burnout (Seltzer et al., 1989), well-being (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, &

McKee, 2007), and job-related stress (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). However, all of these studies

have been cross-sectional. The only evidence of a causal link between leadership behaviour

and follower well-being comes from a longitudinal study by Van Dierendonck, Haynes,

Borril, and Stride (2004). They also found a reciprocal relationship whereby followers who

reported higher levels of well-being also reported that their manager had a more active and

supportive leadership style over time. This link may exist because leaders’ behaviour is likely to provoke emotional responses in subordinates which have implications for their well-being

(Druskat, 1994). However, the study by Van Dierendonck et al. (2004) did not directly

examine the possibility that the relationship between leadership behaviour and well-being

might be mediated by the impact of leadership behaviour on followers’ perceived work

characteristics.

Research on the relationship between transformational leadership and performance-

related outcomes tends to find that followers’ perceptions of work characteristics mediate

transformational leadership�performance relationships. Psychological empowerment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004; Jung & Sosik, 2002), trust and value congruence (Jung & Avolio,

2000), cohesiveness and collective efficacy (Jung & Sosik, 2002), and goal clarity and support

for creative thinking (Nemanich & Keller, 2007) have all been found to mediate this

relationship. Similarly, mediation of the relationship between transformational leadership

and well-being is also plausible. This is because of the existence of significant associations

between (1) the perceived work characteristics that can be influenced by leaders, such as job

demands and control (Cherniss, 1995) and (2) a range of self-report measures of well-being

and general health, and observed health outcomes such as coronary heart disease (Bosma, Marmot, Hemingway, Nicholson, Brunner, & Stansfeld, 1997; Karasek & Theorell, 1990).

Arnold et al. (2007) found in their cross-sectional study that perceptions of having

meaningful work mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and well-

being. It is possible that these effects also exist over time and for more work characteristics.

Transformational leaders may have a profound impact on followers’ perceptions of their

work characteristics because they provide personal attention to promoting development

through individualized consideration, enable new ways of working, encourage novel problem

solving, and provide coaching and encouragement of specific behaviours in subordinates

through intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1999; Sashkin & Rosenbach, 1993). Some cross-

sectional studies do suggest that a link between leadership and well-being may be explained

Work & Stress 17

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

by examining how leadership behaviour affects followers’ perceptions of their work

characteristics. For example, in studies of workplace control, Cooper and Cartwright

(1997) and Offerman and Hellmann (1996) found that leaders played a significant role in

monitoring the amount of control individuals have over their role. They also found, in a

separate analysis, that increased delegation and participation were associated with increased

levels of well-being. High levels of social support from superiors have also been shown to be

associated with lower stress and burnout (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Both of these work

characteristics may be associated with transformational leadership behaviour. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of longitudinal research (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, &

Bongers, 2003) has found strong evidence for causal relationships between a number of work

characteristics and employee health and well-being; work characteristics that could be heavily

influenced by leaders.

Hypothesized mediators

To fully understand how leadership behaviour influences employee well-being, the nature and

extent of any mediation by perceived work characteristics needs to be examined. Mathieu and

Taylor (2006) identify three types of mediation that need to be examined: (1) indirect effects,

where the independent variable is related to the mediator, and the dependent variable is

related to the mediator, but there is no direct relationship between the independent and the

dependent variable, (2) partial mediation where a direct relationship between leadership

behaviour and well-being is present together with the mediated effect, and (3) a fully mediated model where the direct relationship no longer exists after the mediator is introduced into the

model. As the relationship between transformational leadership and well-being has

previously been established (e.g., Van Dierendonck et al., 2004), we propose that either the

second or the third mechanism will be present in our model. The nature of transformational

leadership behaviour means that specific predictions can be made about some of the work

characteristics that may mediate its relationship with well-being. We propose that there are

three work characteristics that may mediate the relationship between transformational

leadership behaviour and well-being in followers: increased role clarity, increased mean-

ingfulness, and increased opportunities for development.

Increased role clarity

Several specific aspects of leadership behaviour that are defined as ‘‘transformational’’ may

also positively influence followers’ perceived role clarity. In setting a clear and attractive vision (inspirational motivation), leaders may help followers to understand the ends to which

they are working: the leader formulates clear goals and facilitates the achievement of these,

e.g., the leader influences followers to focus on some things and not others (Bass, 1990). By

displaying a set of clear values and through role modelling (idealized influence), followers can

observe how they may themselves take responsibility for their own actions and development.

For example, it has been found that those who work with leaders exhibiting high standards

and expectations feel more comfortable and able to engage in decisions concerning the task

(Bass & Avolio, 1994). The transformational leader may also influence followers’ perceptions

of the level of role clarity by (1) ensuring that they have the necessary information that is

required to work towards the shared vision and (2) giving them knowledge and support to

enable them to develop the skills required to analyse the information for themselves (Sofarelli

& Brown, 1998).

18 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Increased meaningfulness

The definition of transformational leadership identifies a number of aspects of leaders’

behaviour which may be linked with followers’ perceptions of the meaningfulness of work.

Recent studies have reported positive associations between transformational leadership and

perceived meaningful work (Arnold et al., 2007; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). The transforma-

tional leader is described as giving people meaning, purpose, and a sense of higher value in

their work (Bass, 1990). Beyond that, they are also described as giving people the ability to see

beyond the present problems of day-to-day endeavours and provide stimulation to work

harder and collectively with others, realizing the meaningful interrelationship of both the

vision and their work. Inspirational motivation may be used to formulate a clear vision that

allows employees to see the where their work fits in with organizational objectives (Burke,

Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006), to construct a common framework that

creates a common sense of purpose (Nemanich & Keller, 2007), and to communicate

optimism about future goals and provide meaning for the task at hand. By establishing a

shared vision, transformational leaders can provide a meaningful and creative basis from

where change can occur in people and their work environment (Bass, 1985). The

transformational leader is also described as having the ability to find meaning in piecemeal

actions and to help create meaning for others, enabling them to see the macrolevel while

dealing with the microlevel (Sofarelli & Brown, 1998).

Increased opportunities for development

Several aspects of transformational leadership behaviour may be associated with subordi-

nates’ perceptions of their opportunities to develop. Transformational leaders are often

described as constructing organizational contexts that permit followers to exercise and

expand their own cognitive abilities, and to become more capable of defining and enacting

their own visions independently of the leader’s immediate control and supervision (Jung &

Sosik, 2002; Sashkin & Rosenbach, 1993). They may help followers unlearn past routines,

develop creative solutions, and respond appropriately to new environments (Bass, 1985; Bass,

Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Through intellectual stimulation, the transformational leader

may facilitate follower development by challenging their assumptions, thoughts, and

imagination (Avolio et al., 2004; Bass et al., 2003). Moreover, transformational leaders

may actively encourage followers to take calculated risks, and to seek out opportunities and

to solve complex organizational problems. Through inspirational motivation, leaders can also

engage their followers ‘‘above and beyond the call of duty,’’ encouraging them to take charge

of their own development at work (Bass, 1990; Tichy & Ulrich, 1984). Furthermore, idealized

influence involves the display of clear values and, through role modelling, followers can

observe how they may themselves take responsibility for their own actions and development.

Coaching and mentoring may be used to encourage followers to make their own decisions in

a supportive environment (Avolio et al., 2004). Our analysis of how transformational leadership behaviour could impact upon work

characteristics suggests that some aspects of leadership behaviours may impact on more than

one work characteristic. Furthermore, meaningfulness, role clarity, and opportunities for

development often co-vary. This means that it may not be possible to identify separate

mediating mechanisms for each work characteristic if they were shown to be highly correlated

with each other. In such circumstances, the research question would need to be examined

using as a mediator a combined measure of these work characteristics.

Work & Stress 19

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

The present study

To our knowledge there have not yet been any longitudinal studies that have investigated

whether perceived work characteristics mediate the relationship between leadership behaviour

and subordinate health and well-being. This study aims to build on previous research by

testing the following hypothesis:

The relationship between leadership and followers’ psychological well-being is partially or fully

mediated by followers’ perceived work characteristics (i.e., role clarity, meaningfulness and

opportunities for development).

By using a longitudinal design, we examine whether there is evidence of such mediation in

both cross-sectional data (i.e., at Time 1 and at Time 2) and longitudinal data (i.e., in the

relationships between Time 1 and Time 2 measures).

Data from workers providing care to the elderly is used to test the hypothesis. Although

transformational leadership has been shown to be important in a variety of organizational

contexts, within both the private and the public sectors (Bass, 1999), it may be of particular

importance within the healthcare sector. Healthcare workers are in close contact with the

patient and thus they are the first to notice changes in patients’ health and can most easily

assess the needs of the patient. They often follow the patient over long periods of time and

therefore they have an in-depth knowledge of how to address the problems and concerns

raised by their patients. Therefore employees who are encouraged to solve problems and take

responsibility are a necessity in healthcare (Corrigan & Garman, 1999; Dunham-Taylor,

2000; Morrison, Jones, & Fuller, 1997). It has been argued that raising employees’ exposure

to transformational leaders and leadership behaviour is the key to improving healthcare

provision in the future (Sofarelli & Brown, 1998; Thyer, 2003). Transformational leaders may

be particularly important in advancing the development of staff in healthcare settings since it

may encourage staff to find innovative solutions, to extend beyond their boundaries of

comfort, and to test new ways of working (Sofarelli & Brown, 1998).

Method

Design and procedure

The study used a longitudinal questionnaire survey design. Questionnaires were distributed

on two occasions to employees with an 18-month interval between them. On both occasions,

participants were asked questions about their perceived work characteristics, psychological

health, and well-being, and asked to rate their immediate manager (line manager) on a variety

of leadership behaviours. Transformational leadership has been shown to operate, and be

important, at this managerial level (Bass, 1999). Participants returned their completed

questionnaires directly to the research group.

Participants

The sample consisted of staff working within the elderly care sector of a large Danish local

government department. In Denmark, the elderly care sector is organized into units where

some staff provide care to elderly who are still in their own home and others provide care in

elderly care homes. Two units including both types of staff were included (in this sample, 51%

of the healthcare staff worked in homecare and the remainder in the elderly care homes).

Although only one type of human service organization was included, we tried to ensure a

20 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

variety of settings and job content in order to examine whether the effects were context-

independent. First, two independent centres were included in the study with different

management and different cultures (one centre was larger than the other and 61% of staff

came from this centre). Results of t-tests revealed that there were no significant differences between the two centres and, in subsequent analyses, they were treated as one. Second, all

categories of staff from the centres participated. This presented different groups of staff

ranging from cleaning personnel, canteen personnel, healthcare assistants, nurses, phy-

siotherapists, and maintenance staff. All staff had direct contact with clients. Staff were

organized in groups, e.g., home care staff covering a geographical area or staff covering a

nursing home would constitute a group. Each group had a formal leader with managerial

responsibilities; this was the manager whom they were asked to rate.

At Time 1, questionnaires were distributed to 551 staff. A total of 447 questionnaires were returned yielding a response rate of 81% for Time 1 analysis. A total of 93% were female, the

average age was 44 years (SD�11.13), and they had been working in their current workplace for 12 years on average. The majority of staff were healthcare assistants (62%), 12% were

nurses, 18% had other health-related educations, and the remaining 8% had no healthcare-

related education.

At Time 2, the questionnaire was distributed to 521 staff. A total of 274 returned the

questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 53% for Time 2 analysis. Surveys were sent to all

employees working at the centres and thus new members of staff were included in the second round of the survey. A total of 91% were female, the average age was 45 years (SD�10.93), and they had been working in their current workplace for 7 years on average. The majority of

staff were healthcare assistants (65%), 10% were nurses, 19% had other health-related

educations, and the remaining 6% had no healthcare-related education.

A total of 188 participants provided data at both Time 1 and Time 2. Of these, 93% were

female. The mean age was 45 years (SD�9.90) and they had been working in their current workplace for 9 years on average (at Time 1). The majority of staff were healthcare assistants

(61%), 12% were nurses, 21% had other health-related educations, and the remaining 8% had no healthcare-related education. This sample is representative of the T1 and T2 samples.

Measures

Transformational leadership was measured using the Global Transformational Leadership

Scale developed by Carless, Wearing, and Mann (2000). It consists of seven items and has

been found to have a high degree of convergent validity with more established and lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and the LPI (Carless et al., 2000). Examples of items are:

‘‘My leader communicates a clear and positive vision of the future,’’ ‘‘My leader gives

encouragement and recognition to staff,’’ and ‘‘My leader encourages thinking about

problems in new ways and questions assumptions.’’ Response categories were: 1�To a very large extent, 2�To a large extent, 3�Somewhat, 4�To a small extent, 5�To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at Time 1 was .90, and .94 at Time 2.

Scales measuring the possible mediating variables (role clarity, meaningful work,

opportunities for development) and well-being were all taken from the COpenhagen PsychoSOcial Questionnaire (COPSOQ; Kristensen, Borg, & Hannerz, 2002; Kristensen,

Hannerz, Hogh, & Borg, 2006). These scales have been used in a number of studies and have

been found to show good reliability and validity (Aust, Rugulies, Skakon, Scherzer, & Jensen,

2005; Borritz, Rugulies, Bjorner, Villadsen, Mikkelsen, & Kristensen, 2006; Lund, Labriola,

Work & Stress 21

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Christensen, Bültmann, Villadsen, & Burr, 2006; Nielsen, Rugulies, Christensen, Smith-

Hansen, & Kristensen, 2006). The scales are relatively short (thus helping to protect response

rates) and provide adequate measures multi-faceted constructs. Within this data set, the

reliabilities of the scales were acceptable when compared to the level of reliability typically

found for other, longer, measures of these constructs.

Role clarity (three items). This measured the degree to which employees reported that they

knew their roles and responsibilities. An example of an item is: ‘‘Does your work have clear objectives?’’ Response categories were: 1�To a very large extent, 2�To a large extent, 3� Somewhat, 4�To a small extent, 5�To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at Time 1 was .59, and .75 at Time 2.

Meaningful work (three items). This scale was based on the work of Hackman and

Oldham (1980). Employees were asked to rate the degree to which they experienced their jobs

to be meaningful and their work to be part of a greater whole. An example of an item is: ‘‘Do

you feel that the work you do is important?’’ Response categories were: 1�To a very large extent, 2� To a large extent, 3�Somewhat, 4�To a small extent, 5�To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at Time 1 was .66, and .63 at Time 2.

Opportunities for development (four items). This scale examined the degree to which

employees reported having the opportunities to develop new skills and grow in their job. An

example of an item is: ‘‘Does your work require you to take the initiative?’’ Response

categories were: 1�To a very large extent, 2� To a large extent, 3�Somewhat, 4�To a small extent, 5�To a very small extent. Cronbach’s alpha at Time 1 was .76, and .59 at Time 2.

Well-being (five items). This scale measured the degree to which employees reported

having been in a positive state of mind, e.g., happy and vivacious. An example of an item is:

‘‘Have you over the past two weeks felt active and energetic?’’ Response categories were: 1� All the time, 2�Most of the time, 3�A bit more than half of the time, 4�A bit less than half of the time, 5�Only a little of the time, 6�Not at all. Cronbach’s alpha at Time 1 was .87, and .85 at Time 2.

As all outcomes were measured on different scales, these were transformed to

standardized scales so they ranged from 0�100 with 100 representing a high score on the construct. For scales with five response categories, responses were transformed such that 1� 0, 2�25, 3�50, 4�75, 5�100. This was done to enhance clarity in the interpretation and meaning of the results. This standardization does not impact on the relationship between

variables and thus does not influence the covariance matrix on which the analyses are based.

Analysis

Testing was carried out at T1, T2, and from Time 1 to Time 2. The mediating effect of work characteristics was tested using structural equation modelling (SEM) with pairwise deletion

(LISREL 8.7; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1999). Scale scores were used as indicators for each

construct in the models. We accounted for the effects of measurement error by fixing the

value of the unique variance indicator to be one minus the reliability multiplied by the scale

variance (Lim, 2003; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Sinclair, Martin, & Croll, 2002). As the

three different kinds of work characteristics were found to correlate and we assume they exert

the same mediating mechanism we decided to create a factor covering all three characteristics.

We call this scale ‘‘work characteristics’’.

To confirm the proposed three-factor structure of our measures we tested a measurement

model including our measures: transformational leadership, perceived work characteristics

(combined in one variable), and well-being. This was done to confirm whether our three work

22 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

characteristics (meaningfulness, role clarity, and opportunities for development) could be

meaningfully combined in one scale. The measurement model provided a good fit to the data,

x2�(845, N�542)�1715.26, RMSEA�.045. This confirmed that the three work char- acteristics could be combined in one scale in further analyses.

Mediation effects were tested in three ways: at Time 1, at Time 2 (synchronous effects),

and between Time 1 and 2 (i.e., temporal causality). Temporal mediation may occur through

two possible one-step mechanisms: Transformational leadership T1 influences work

characteristics T2 which in turn is related to well-being at Time 2, or Transformational

leadership at Time 1 is related to work characteristics T1 which in turn influences well-being

at Time 2. However, temporal mediation may also occur through a two-step mechanism:

Transformational leadership T1 is related to work characteristics at T1 which influences work

characteristics at T2 which in turn are associated with employee well-being at T2. The

maximum likelihood method of parameter estimation was used with the covariance matrix as

input. First, we tested the stability of our measures over time (Stability Model) by regressing

Time 2 transformational leadership over Time 1 transformational leadership, with the same

procedure used to examine the stability of perceived job characteristics and well-being

measures.

We tested the mediating mechanism of work characteristics through four models. A full

mediation model (M1) was tested that assumed that the direct relationships previously found

in research would not be present because of the mediating effects of followers’ perceptions of

their work characteristics. To test for partial mediation we tested three different partial

mediation models. First, we tested synchronous partial mediation at Time 1 by including a

direct path between transformational leadership T1 and well-being T1 (M2). Next, we tested

synchronous partial mediation at Time 2 including a direct path from transformational

leadership T2 to well-being T2 (M3). Finally, we also explored partial mediation over time

(M4). We included a direct path from transformational leadership T1 to well-being T2. Based

on the findings by Van Dierendonck et al. (2004), that there could be a reciprocal relationship

between well-being and transformational leadership, a path between Time 1 well-being and

Time 2 transformational leadership was included in the model. See Figure 1 for an overview

of the tested models.

M1 serves as a baseline model against which the other, more complex, models (M2, M3,

M4) are examined to see if they offer significant gains in explanatory power. Comparison of

M1 to other models will reveal which model accounts best for the data. A model is considered

to fit the data better than a rival model if the x2 value is significantly lower (pB.05) than that of the one to which it was compared. The acceptable levels of fit used to assess the adequacy

of each model were according to the recommendations made by Marsh, Balla, and

McDonald (1988), Brown and Cudek (1993), and Anderson and Gerbing (1988).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 1 displays the scales, means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and intercorrelations

of all variables in this study. All measures relevant to our mediation models were significantly

correlated, i.e. measures of transformational leadership, the hypothesized mediating variables

and employee well-being were correlated at both Time 1 and Time 2, and between Time 1 and

Time 2. This calls for further analyses of the interrelationships between transformational

leadership, perceived work characteristics, and well-being.

Work & Stress 23

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Next, we tested whether measures were stable over time. The results of the Stability Model

indicated strong relationships between transformational leadership at Time 1 and Time 2

(b�.50, pB.001), work characteristics at Time 1 and Time 2 (b�.56, pB.001), and well- being at Time 1 and Time 2 (b�.60, pB.001). However, the overall model presented a poor fit to the data, indicating that further relationships existed across the constructs; this was also

confirmed by modification indices that suggested further relationships.

Testing the hypotheses

The first fully mediated model (Model 1) testing the mediating mechanism of perceived work

characteristics revealed a good fit to the data. AGFI, CFI, and NNFI were all above the

recommended level of .90, but the RMSEA was .04, below the recommended .05 for a good

model. Second, we tested for partial mediation at Time 1 by including a direct path from

transformational leadership Time 1 to well-being at Time 1 (M2). This model also presented a

good fit to the data. CFI, AGFI, and NNFI were all well above .90 and the RMSEA was .00.

The partially mediated model revealed a significantly better fit to the data than did the fully

mediated model; D x2 (2)�7.28, p�.05. We then went on to test the third model (M3) exploring the synchronous partial

mediation of work characteristics at Time 2. Model fit revealed a good fit to the model: CFI,

AGFI and NNFI were all above the recommended .90 and the RMSEA was .04. However, the

model did not prove to represent a better fit to the data; D x2 (1)�1.26, pB.05. Finally, we went on to test for partial mediation over time (M4). This model also revealed

a good fit to the data. CFI, NNFI, and AGFI were all above .90 and the RMSEA was .05.

Transformational leadership T1

Transformational leadership T2

Work characteristics

T1

Work Characteristics

T2 Well-being T2

Well-being T1

M1

.M1

M1

M1

M1 tests full mediation, while M2, M3, and M4 test various partial mediation models

M1

M1

M1

M2

M1

M1

M1

M3

M4

Figure 1. The theoretical models that were tested.

24 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Table 1. Intercorrelations between the scales.

Scale M (T1) SD (T1) M (T2) SD (T2) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Transformational leadership 59.10 20.64 61.54 20.26 .48** .38** .16* .31** .27**

2. Role clarity 48.34 19.30 72.67 13.44 .25** 54** .21** .32** .30**

3. Meaningful work 76.60 13.74 76.30 12.49 .25** .49** 41** .52** .36**

4. Opportunities for development 57.03 16.83 71.35 13.03 .41** .53** .51** 45** .27**

5. Well-being 66.47 17.21 67.62 15.79 .27** .30** .36** .34** .53**

Note: Correlations below the diagonal are from Time 1 and above the diagonal from Time 2. Correlations in the diagonal are between Time 1 and Time 2. *pB.05; **pB.01.

W o

rk &

S tre

ss 2

5

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

However, this model did not represent a significantly better fit to our baseline model (M1); D x2 (1)�.35, pB.05.

Although all models showed a good fit to the data, in the following we discuss M2 (partial

mediation at Time 1) because it was the best fit to the data: it represented a better fit when

comparing the x2, the RMSEA was better that those of the other models and because inspection of the paths testing partial mediation at Time 2 and over time showed these to be

non-significant. Table 2 provides an overview of the fit indices for all models.

In Figure 2, the partially mediating model with the best fit is reported (M2). It provides an

overview of the direct and mediated relationships between transformational leadership and

well-being as well as the reciprocal relationship between transformational leadership and

well-being. For all constructs, Time 2 measures were influenced by the baseline level. The

hypothesized mediating effect of work characteristics was confirmed, both synchronously and

Table 2. Fit indices for nested sequence of longitudinal models.

Model x2 df NNFI CFI AGFI RMSEA

Stability model 108.41 9 .81 .89 .86 .14

Work characteristics

M1: Full mediation model 8.65 5 1.00 1.00 .98 .04

M2: Partial mediation model T1-T1 2.07 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 .00

M3: Partial mediation model T2-T2 7.39 4 .99 1.00 .98 .04

M4: Partial mediation model T1-T2 8.30 4 .98 1.00 .87 .05

Note: NNFI�nonnormed fit index; CFI�comparative fit index; AGFI�adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA� root-mean-square error of approximation.

Transformational leadership T1

Transformational leadership T2

Work characteristics

T1

Work Characteristics

T2 Well-being T2

Well-being T1

.45*** .01

.45***

.31***

.49***

.36***

.50***

.37***

-.13*

.13**

.13**

*p<.05; **p < .01; * < .001. Dotted lines represent non-significant relationships

Figure 2. Standardized maximum likelihood estimates for model M2.

26 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

over time through a two-step mechanism (with Time 1 and Time 2 measures of the work

characteristics involved in the mediating mechanism). A direct path existed between

transformational leadership and well-being at Time 1, indicating partial mediation. However,

this partial mediation was neither found at Time 2 nor over time. Transformational leadership

at Time 1 was related to work characteristics at Time 1. The Time 1 work characteristics all

predicted the Time 2 work characteristics, which in turn were related to well-being at Time 2.

Thus, the mediating mechanism operated through the followers’ perceptions of the work

characteristics at both Time 1 and Time 2. Further, a slight negative relationship was found

between work characteristics T1 and well-being at T2.

Discussion

This study aimed to enhance understanding of the previously established link between

transformational leadership and psychological well-being. We found support for our

hypotheses: followers’ experience of a meaningful work environment, role clarity, and

opportunities for development partially mediated the relationship between transformational

leadership and followers’ well-being. This relationship was confirmed at three levels. First,

although there was a direct link between transformational leadership at Time 1 and well-

being at Time 1, work characteristics at Time 1 also partially mediated this relationship. In

the same way, work characteristics at Time 2 fully mediated the relationship between

transformational leadership and well-being at Time 2. Most importantly, our results showed

that transformational leadership behaviour at Time 1 was related to employee well-being at

Time 2, through a relatively complex mechanism. The work characteristics at Time 1 and

Time 2 were found to form a 2-stage mediating mechanism for the relationship between

transformational leadership at Time 1 and well-being at Time 2. No direct relationship was

found between transformational leadership at T1 and well-being at T2. The absence of a

direct link over time casts doubt on whether transformational leadership behaviour can cause

changes in employee well-being unless it results in changes in perceived work characteristics.

Our results strongly indicate that transformational leadership is closely related to the

perception of some aspects of the work characteristics of followers, and that previous studies

that have suggested a direct relationship (e.g., Dunham-Taylor, 2000; Seltzer et al., 1989;

Shieh, Mills, & Waltz, 2001; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000) may have underestimated the

importance of the mediating effects of followers’ perceived work characteristics. However, the

existence of a direct effect cannot be entirely discounted: some behaviours may provoke an

automatic emotional response in followers that is independent of work characteristics

(Druskat, 1994). However, our research suggests that this relationship may not be robust over

an extended period.

Our results also supported the reciprocal nature of the relationship between the managers’

perceived transformational leadership style and well-being (Van Dierendonck et al., 2004). In

all four models, we found a significant relationship between Time 1 well-being and Time 2

transformational leadership. This supports the notion that the followers’ level of self-reported

well-being also influences the reporting of leadership behaviour, i.e., it establishes a ‘‘feedback

loop’’ linking employee well-being and leader behaviour. This may occur for two reasons. The

first reason is that employees with poor well-being may find it hard to engage in activities

encouraged by the transformational leader: engaging in independent decision-making and

problem solving. Thus leaders may find it hard to lead the way and make employees perform

‘‘beyond the call of duty’’ if they have no energy and engagement in work. Conversely,

employees with high levels of energy and enthusiasm may encourage managers to take the

Work & Stress 27

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

lead, create a vision, and make an effort to develop his or her employees. This gives rise to the

second possible reason: employees experiencing poor well-being may perceive their leaders’

behaviour in a negative way, perceiving the leader to be unsupportive, even if the manager

does engage in transformational leadership behaviours.

Limitations

Some limitations should be considered when interpreting our results. The transformational

leadership paradigm provides a useful, but not exhaustive, account of leadership style. Our

study used a broad, but reliable and valid, measure of transformational leadership to test the

validity of mediated relationships. The measure chosen was well suited to a study population

that had few academic educational qualifications: it was feared that a lengthy questionnaire

would adversely influence response rates without leading to substantial gains in reliability and

validity. There has been a debate as to whether research should use uni-dimensional scales of

transformational leadership. It has been recommended that one single scale of transforma-

tional leadership is used for research purposes as the subcomponents are highly inter-

correlated (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). However, in future research it would be

interesting to examine whether the sub-components of transformational leadership are

similarly mediated or if any exhibit direct effects on well-being (e.g., by provoking a strong

and long-lasting emotional response among followers). Of course, analysis of training needs

may suggest that for training purposes it may be more desirable to focus on the measurement

and development of specific sub-components of transformational leadership. It is also possible that transformational leadership influences a much wider range of

perceived work characteristics than the ones included in our study. However, the aim of this

paper was to test for the existence of mediation with a sample of different perceived work

characteristics that can be argued to be directly influenced by transformational leadership: it

is important that future research examines whether other work characteristics also act as

mediators. Furthermore, future research is also needed to tease apart the specific mediating

role played by different work characteristics (e.g., in work environments where role clarity

does not co-vary with meaningfulness).

Implications for practice

The results indicate the importance of making managers aware of the degree to which they

influence their subordinates’ perceptions of work characteristics and self-reported well-being.

Exerting behaviours associated with transformational leadership (such as stimulating

employees to engage in complex decision making and problem solving, providing a clear

vision, coaching and mentoring individuals, etc.) may increase the well-being of their followers but only if their behaviour alters the way followers perceive their work. This, in

turn, may support the manager in exerting these kinds of behaviour through the feedback

loop suggested by our results.

The results also have implications for those aiming to implement organizational-level

interventions to improve employee health and psychological well-being. The longitudinal

nature of our study indicates that it is likely that by training leaders to exert certain

behaviours it may be possible to change work characteristics. Rather than implementing

wide-ranging organizational-level changes to job design and work organization of followers’

work, these results suggest that training their superiors may have a similar impact. For

example, training managers in transformational leadership behaviours may bring about

28 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

higher levels of involvement for subordinates who also perceive their job as meaningful and

experience high levels of influence. Training managerial employees may prove to be both

more cost-effective and easy to control than implementing wide-ranging organizational

changes to improve the working environment. Previous studies have confirmed that transformational leadership behaviours can be trained (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996;

Parry & Sinha, 2005). However, we need to emphasize that transformational leadership

should not be seen as a substitute for poor job design. Transformational leadership should

support the redesign of jobs in promoting health and well-being at work (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996).

Our results also indicate that, when evaluating the impact of leadership training,

organizations should seek to observe the effects of changed leadership behaviour on

subordinates (e.g., by gathering data from subordinates about their perceived work characteristics) and not just by examining changes in leaders’ knowledge and attitudes.

Unless it is accompanied by behaviours that impact on employees’ perceived work

characteristics, increases in knowledge of transformational leadership are unlikely to result

in improvements in employee well-being.

Conclusion

This study highlights two new and important implications for research and practice. First, the

study has drawn together important research concepts from two separately researched areas

of occupational health psychology literature. It is proposed that through combining research

into leadership and work characteristics, new advances in understanding how to manage well- being may be realized. Future research would benefit from developing the framework by

further combining (1) leadership and well-being research and (2) perceived work character-

istics and well-being research. Considering work characteristics in the absence of studying

leadership behaviour (or vice versa) may reveal an incomplete picture of the impact of work

and work relationships on well-being.

Second, also valuable is the reciprocal relationship over time between well-being and

transformational leadership styles. Employees with poor psychological well-being may either

make it difficult for the manager to exert transformational leadership behaviours or may have difficulties in benefiting from these behaviours because they appraise the managers’

behaviour in a negative manner. Third, the findings have implications for intervention

research. For example, work design interventions that are focused on role clarity may benefit

from considering the training of managers to exert transformational leadership behaviours.

Employing a systemic view regarding training managers when implementing interventions

may improve followers’ well-being through the creation of a meaningful job that provides role

clarity and promotes opportunities to develop.

References

Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and

recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411�423. Arnold, K., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. & McKee, M.C. (2007). Transformational leadership

and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12, 193�203. Aust, B., Rugulies, R., Skakon, J., Scherzer, T., & Jensen, C. (2005). Psychosocial work environment of

hospital workers: Validation of a comprehensive assessment scale [Electronic version]. International

Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 814�825.

Work & Stress 29

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W. & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational

commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment role and moderating role of structural

distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951�968. Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on

attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827�832. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9�32. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207�218. Bono, J.E. & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly,

17, 317�334. Borritz, M., Rugulies, R., Bjorner, J.B., Villadsen, E., Mikkelsen, O.A. & Kristensen, T.S. (2006).

Burnout among employees in human service work: design and baseline findings of the PUMA Study.

Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 34, 49�58. Bosma, H., Marmot, M., Hemingway, H., Nicholson, A., Brunner, E. & Stansfeld, S. (1997). Low job

control and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort study). British Medical

Journal, 314, 558�565. Brown, M.W. & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J.S. Long

(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136�162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Burke, C.S., Stagl, K., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. & Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type of

leadership behaviors are functional in teams? The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288�307. Carless, S., Wearing, A. & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 14, 389�405. Cherniss, C. (1995). Beyond burnout: Helping teachers, nurses, therapists & lawyers recover from stress &

disillusionment. New York: Routledge.

Cooper, C.L. & Cartwright, S. (1997). An intervention strategy for workplace stress. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 43, 7�16. Corrigan, P. & Garman, A. (1999). Transformational and transactional leadership skills for mental

health teams. Community Mental Health Journal, 35, 301�312. de Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D. & Bongers, P.M. (2003). The very best

of the millennium: Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282�305. Druskat, V.U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: transformational and transactional leadership in the

Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 99�119. Dunham-Taylor, J. (2000). Nurse executive transformational leadership found in participative

organizations. Journal of Nursing Administration, 30, 241�250. Gilbreath, B. & Benson, P.G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee

psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 18, 255�266. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.3: Users reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific

Software International.

Judge, T. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review

of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755�768. 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.

30 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Jung, D.I. & Sosik, J.J. (2002). Transformational leadership in groups: The role of empowerment,

cohesiveness, and collective effectiveness. Small Group Research, 33, 313�336. Karasek, R. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. New York: Basic Books.

Kristensen, T., Borg, V. & Hannerz, H. (2002). Socioeconomic status and psychosocial work

environment: results from a Danish national study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 30, 41�48. Kristensen, T., Hannerz, H., Hogh, A. & Borg, V. (2006). The Copenhagen Psychosocial questionnaire

(COPSOQ). A tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment.

Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 31, 438�449. Lee, R.T. & Ashforth, B.E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three

dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123�133. Lim, V.K.G. (2003). Managing HIV at the workplace: An empirical study of HIV and HR managers in

Singapore. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 235�246. Lowe, K.B. & Gardner, W.L. (2001). Ten years of the leadership quarterly: Contributions and challenges

for the future. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 459�514. Lund, T., Labriola, M., Christensen, K.B., Bültmann, U., Villadsen, E. & Burr, H. (2006). Psychosocial

work environment exposures as risk factors for long-term sickness absence among Danish employees:

results from DWECS/DREAM. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 47, 1141�1147. Marsh, H., Balla, J. & McDonald, R. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis:

The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391�410. Mathieu, J.E. & Taylor, S.R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type

inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031�1056. Morrison, R., Jones, L. & Fuller, B. (1997). The relation between leadership style and empowerment on

satisfaction of nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 27, 27�34. Nemanich, L.A. & Keller, R.T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of

employees. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 49�68. Niehoff, B.P. & Moorman, R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of

monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527�556. Nielsen, M.L., Rugulies, R., Christensen, K.B., Smith-Hansen, L. & Kristensen, T.S. (2006).

Psychosocial work environment predictors of short and long spells of sickness absence during a

two-year follow-up. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 48, 591�595. Offerman, L.R. & Hellmann, P.S. (1996). Leadership behaviour and subordinate stress: A 3608 view.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 382�390. Parry, K.W. & Sinha, P.N. (2005). Researching the trainability of transformational organisational

leadership. Human Resource Development International, 8, 165�183. Piccolo, R.F. & Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating

role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327�340. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. & Bommer, M. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and

substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 22, 259�298. Sashkin, M., & Rosenbach, W. (1993). A new leadership paradigm. In W. Rosenbach (Ed.),

Contemporary issues in leadership (pp. 87�108). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Seltzer, J., Numerof, R., & Bass, B. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more burnout

and stress? Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 174�185. Shieh, H.-L., Mills, M.E. & Waltz, C.E. (2001). Academic leadership style predictors for nursing faculty

job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 203�209. Sinclair, R.R., Martin, J.E. & Croll, L.W. (2002). A threat-appraisal perspective on employees’ fears

about antisocial workplace behaviour. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 37�56. Sofarelli, D. & Brown, D. (1998). The need for nursing leadership in uncertain times. Journal of Nursing

Management, 6, 201�207.

Work & Stress 31

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0

Sosik, J. & Godshalk, V. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress:

a conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365�390. Thyer, G. (2003). Dare to be different: transformational leadership may hold the key to reducing nursing

shortage. Journal of Nursing Management, 11, 73�79. Tichy, N.M. & Ulrich, D.O. (1984). SMR Forum: The leadership challenge*A call for the

transformational leader. Sloan Management Review, 26, 59�67. Van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borril, C. & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate

well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 165�175.

32 K. Nielsen et al.

D o w n l o a d e d B y : [ U n i v e r s i t y o f L a v a l ] A t : 1 2 : 1 4 2 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 0