Week 5 - Assess an Organization's Structure and Propose Changes

Transformationalleadershippsychologicalempowermentandthemoderatingroleofmechanistic-organiccontexts.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Week 5 - Assess an Organization's Structure and Propose Changes

Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic–organic contexts

SCOTT B. DUST1*, CHRISTIAN J. RESICK2 AND MARY BARDES MAWRITZ2 1Department of Management, Marketing, and International Business, College of Business and Technology, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, U.S.A. 2Department of Management, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.

Summary The current study examines the empowering effects of transformational leaders and the extent to which these effects differ across mechanistic–organic organizational contexts. Psychological empowerment is hypothesized to provide a comprehensive motivational mechanism explaining the relationships between transformational lead- ership and employee job-related behaviors. In addition, the relationships between transformational leadership, employee psychological empowerment, and job-related behaviors are hypothesized to be stronger in organiza- tions with more organic as opposed to mechanistic structures. Results based on a cross-organizational sample of employees and their immediate supervisors provide support for the hypothesized relationships. Psychological empowerment mediated relationships between transformational leadership and employee task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. The mediating role of psychological empowerment was then found to be conditional upon mechanistic–organic contexts. More specifically, organic structures enhanced, whereas mechanistic structures constrained, the empowering influence of transformational leaders. In highly mechanistic contexts, the indirect effects were no longer statistically significant. Implications for theory, research, and orga- nizational management are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: transformational leadership; psychological empowerment; organizational structure

Over the past 25 years, transformational leadership has emerged as a popular theoretical lens to examine the linkages between leadership behaviors and leadership effectiveness (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011). As a result, a substantial body of empirical evidence that associates transformational leadership behaviors with the performance of individuals, units, and organizations has accumulated (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Through creating and communicating a compelling vision, role modeling a commitment to that vision, promoting outside-the-box thinking, and taking the wants, needs, and talents of their staff into consideration, transformational leaders inspire their employees to put forth the effort needed to accomplish extraordinary goals (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995). Motivation, therefore, is a key psychological mechanism through which trans- formational leaders promote individual and unit effectiveness (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Bono & Judge, 2003; Ilies, Judge, & Wagner, 2006; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Surprisingly, however, rela- tively few studies have examined employee motivation as a linking mechanism between transformational leadership behaviors and employee outcomes (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). As such, we investigate psychological empowerment as a mediator of the relationship between transformational lead-

ership and employee performance-related behaviors. Psychological empowerment is a comprehensive motivational pro- cess that embodies a self-expressive and intrinsically motivated orientation toward work. Psychologically empowered individuals are competent in their abilities, exhibit self-determined orientations, and view their work as having meaning and impact (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Employees who form a sense of

*Correspondence to: Scott B. Dust, Department of Management, Marketing, and International Business, College of Business and Technology, Eastern Kentucky University, 521 Lancaster Ave., BTC 011, Richmond, Kentucky 40475, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Revised 15 May 2013, Accepted 30 September 2013

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 35, 413–433 (2014) Published online 25 October 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1904

R esearch

A rticle

empowerment approach their work proactively and are resilient in their efforts (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) because they view their work as serving an important purpose (Blau, 1964; Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Transformational leadership theory has long pointed to the empowering effects of transformational leaders. For

example, Burns (1978) noted that “the function of [transformational] leadership is to engage followers, not merely to activate them” (p. 461). Transformational leaders engage and empower followers by promoting identification with the organization’s goals, values, and members (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; Shamir et al., 1993) and by activating intrinsic concerns regarding self-development, achievement, and fulfillment (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). In addition to suggesting the motivational mechanism of psychological empowerment, extant research has suggested

that some organizational settings may enable or constrain the motivational influence of transformational leaders (Tosi, 1991; Yukl, 1999). For example, drawing on Mischel’s (1973) theory of situational strength, Shamir et al. (1993) argued that the motivational effects of transformational leadership should be enhanced in organic organizations (e.g., fluid structures that emphasize reciprocal communication and decentralized decision making) because the latitude for indi- vidual expression is high and there are few formal rules to constrain behavior. In contrast, more mechanistic organiza- tions (e.g., rigid and formally structured organizations with centralized decision making and authority) are likely to constrain the motivational effects of transformational leaders because the latitude for individual expression is low and role expectations are clear. However, surprisingly little empirical attention has been devoted to determining how the motivational effects of transformational leaders vary across the mechanistic–organic continuum. Thus, the purpose of the current study is to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the empowering influ-

ence of transformational leaders by determining how mechanistic–organic contexts play a role in shaping the rela- tionships between transformational leadership, employee psychological empowerment, and performance-related behaviors. To date, prior studies have independently examined the motivational effects of transformational leaders and the contextualization of transformational leader influence. However, the extent to which organizational contexts affect the motivational influence of transformational leaders remains unclear. The current study seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of the motivational effects of transformational leaders by demonstrating the constraining and enabling effects of organizational contexts. Likewise, the current study offers insights into why organizational structures enhance or constrain the relationships between transformational leadership and employee behavior by highlighting the mediating role of psychological empowerment. The current study also contributes to the psycholog- ical empowerment literature by providing insights into the joint effects of leadership and structural characteristics in working to promote or restrict employee psychological empowerment.

Transformational Leadership and Psychological Empowerment

Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership is generally conceptualized as a set of interrelated behaviors including idealized influ- ence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass, 1985). By providing idealized influence, leaders role model a commitment to high standards and achieving the organization’s vision. Through inspirational motivation, leaders use emotional appeals to offer a compelling vision of the future and inspire followers to commit to a shared vision. Leaders use intellectual stimulation to encourage followers to challenge the status quo and to solve problems using novel ideas. Using individual consideration, leaders attend to the individualized needs of followers by listening, mentoring, and giving feedback. By engaging in these actions, transformational leaders motivate their staff to contribute extraordinary efforts and achieve extraordinary goals (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass, 1985; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Shamir et al. (1993) proposed that transformational leaders communicate salient messages to employees about the

meaningfulness and impact of the group’s mission and how employees’ efforts contribute to the group’s success. By doing so, transformational leaders encourage their followers to internalize the group’s goals and make organizational membership a salient aspect of their working self-concepts. As employees contribute efforts toward achieving the

414 S. B. DUST ET AL.

organization’s vision, they experience a heightened sense of self-worth through the organization’s successes (Liao & Chuang, 2007). Thus, transformational leadership behaviors alter employees’ perceptions in ways that foster heightened motivation, whereby employees feel a proactive orientation to perform well through participation in organizational goals.

Psychological empowerment

Building on prior empowerment theory (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), Spreitzer (1995) defined psychological empowerment as a form of intrinsic motivation that reflects a proactive orientation toward and sense of control over work that is “manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact” (p. 1444). Meaning represents the extent to which personal values and beliefs fit the demands of a job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Impact is the degree to which an individual believes he or she can influence the strategic direction, operational processes, and outcomes of the unit or organization (Ashforth, 1989). Self-determination involves a sense of autonomy and control over the initiation, regulation, and continuance of work behaviors (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). Finally, competence refers to beliefs about the extent to which one possesses the proficiencies needed to be successful at work (Bandura, 1989). A recent meta-analysis found that, across studies, leadership had one of the strongest effect sizes (rc = .36) with

psychological empowerment (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). The meta-analysis of Seibert et al. (2011) further found that effect sizes for the relationships between psychological empowerment and task performance (rc = .36) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; rc = .38) were consistently positive. From these findings and the theoret- ical emphasis on the empowering effects of transformational leaders (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), we suggest that psychological empowerment represents a comprehensive mechanism for understanding the motiva- tional effects of transformational leaders and the linkages with followers’ job performance and citizenship behaviors. Transformational leaders have the ability to influence their follower’s perceptions of their role within the organi-

zation (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Wright, Moynihan, & Pandey, 2012) and therefore may have a particularly impor- tant relationship with employee psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 2008). To date, two studies provide some empirical understanding of the empowering influence of transformational leaders. Kark et al. (2003), for one, found that transformational leaders had an empowering effect on followers via followers’ social identification with the group as opposed to personal identification with the leader. In addition, psychological empowerment has been found to link transformational leadership with organizational commitment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). However, the role of psychological empowerment as a motivational mechanism linking transformational leadership with employee performance behaviors, such as task performance or citizenship, remains unclear.

Psychological empowerment as a linking mechanism

We draw upon the self-concept-based theory of transformational leadership (Shamir et al., 1993) and sensemaking theory (Weick, 1993, 1995) to examine the linkages between transformational leadership, psychological empower- ment, and job-related behaviors. The self-concept-based theory of transformational leadership helps explain the in- fluence of transformational leaders on followers through altering employee self-concept (Shamir et al., 1993), which is the collection of beliefs about oneself including self-image, self-worth, self-esteem, and the ideal self (Rogers, 1959). Transformational leaders are optimistic about the future and enthusiastic and confident in expressing what needs to be accomplished (Avolio & Bass, 1988), which encourages employees to view the organization’s vision as meaningful (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000) and to perceive their own work as making a contribution toward achieving the organization’s goals (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). In addition, by providing individual support, spending time teaching and coaching, and developing employees’ strengths, transformational leaders help em- ployees become self-aware of their full potential and encourage them to believe in their abilities (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002), which should enhance perceptions of competence. Also, through a transformational leader’s enthu- siastic and optimistic expressions of confidence, employees feel competent in their ability to perform and master tasks

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 415

(Ashkanasy & Tse, 2000). Finally, transformational leaders encourage employees to reexamine critical assumptions, challenge the status quo, and provide input in solving difficult problems (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003), which conveys to followers that they have autonomy over their work and a legitimate impact in work initiatives and the direction of the organization. Thus, transformational leadership behaviors alter an employee’s self-concept by fostering an em- ployee’s psychological sense of the meaning and impact of their work and of their competence and self-determination in completing their work, which encompass the four facets of psychological empowerment described earlier. Transformational leaders also manage the meaning of their employees’ work by engaging in sensemaking (Weick,

1993, 1995). Sensemaking is a social construction process (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) through which individuals interpret organizational situations and form perceptions of the meaning of an event (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Leaders are critical to sensemaking processes because they monitor the environment, interpret issues and events, and construct meaning, which influences employee interpretations “toward a preferred redefinition of orga- nizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Leader narratives are an integral component of sensemaking processes (Cunliffe & Coupland, 2012; Weick, 2012). Narratives that are conveyed in an animated manner help to capture and sustain the attention of staff (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis, 2005; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), whereas narrative content that is structured and organized enables staff to form a comprehensive understand- ing of the meaning of events (Maitlis, 2005). Transformational leaders engage in sensemaking by framing organizationally driven initiatives as necessary adap-

tations that lead to mutual benefits for employees and the organization (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Nemanich & Keller, 2007). By embracing challenges, remaining optimistic, and encouraging employees to look for creative solutions to problems, transformational leaders help employees understand the impact and importance of their work, thereby “managing the meaning” of the employees’ experience (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). As transformational leaders discuss with employees the role they play in the organization’s suc- cess, explanations are framed in an inspired and idealized way, influencing employees to view their work as more meaningful and impactful (Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006; Sparks & Schenk, 2001). Transformational leaders also have a unique approach to making sense of work obstacles. For one, transformational leaders frame work obstacles as opportunities for learning, development, and growth (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Sosik, Godshalk, & Yammarino, 2004), which in turn, fosters feelings of em- ployee competence. Second, transformational leaders frame the method in which employees overcome work obsta- cles as being opportunities to express individual strengths and insight, thereby encouraging employees to approach their work with self-determination. Hence, transformational leaders participate in sensemaking by framing an employee’s work as meaningful and impactful and by framing work obstacles in ways that promote feelings of competence and self-determinism, all of which are cognitive manifestations of psychological empowerment. Understanding the empowering influence of transformational leaders is important for organizations because

psychological empowerment is related to increased employee task performance and citizenship behaviors. As employees find meaning in their work and recognize that their work has a tangible impact on others, they have a stronger internal drive to deliver a better work product (Grant, 2008). Also, when employees feel a sense of compe- tence and self-determination, they pursue their work initiatives with confidence, and their work becomes intrinsically important. Through these cognitive manifestations of psychological empowerment, employees become resilient in their work tasks and feel comfortable taking initiative, which results in high levels of performance (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Psychologically empowered employees also approach their work proactively, feel responsible for constructive change, and exert extra effort toward organizational goals, resulting in citizenship behaviors (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995). Transformational leaders may be particularly apt at developing employee psychological empowerment. Through

their inspiring narratives of collective purpose and compelling vision of the future, employees manifest cognitions of meaning and impact, and through their individualized coaching and promotion of creative problem solving, em- ployees manifest cognitions of competence and self-determinism (Grant, 2012). Thus, it is through these cognitions of psychological empowerment that transformational leaders motivate employees to higher levels of performance and citizenship behaviors. Hence, we propose the following hypothesized relationships, which are depicted in Figure 1.

416 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Hypothesis 1: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between supervisor transformational leader- ship and employee task performance.

Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between supervisor transformational leader- ship and employee (a) interpersonal-focused organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI; H2a) and (b) organiza- tion-focused organizational citizenship behavior (OCBO; H2b).

Organizational structure and the transformational leadership process

Leaders function within the context of their organizations (House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Johns, 2006), which may enhance or constrain their efforts to empower employees (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Structure is an organi- zational contextual factor that signals the types of behaviors that are expected and the forms of leadership that are endorsed or rejected (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006a). Context also influences how much discretion employees believe they have in making decisions, forming plans, and executing tasks (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987; Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990). Burns and Stalker (1961) offered an enduring and widely used perspective on organizational structures, proposing that

structures exist along a continuum ranging from mechanistic to organic forms. According to Burns and Stalker (1961), mechanistic structures seek to gain operating efficiencies through role specialization and centralized decision making. Employees have a clear understanding of the scope of their job responsibilities, and jobs are layered in a hierarchy that offers a clear chain of command. Downward communication is the norm, whereas upward communication occurs less frequently. Also, behaviors of organizational members are expected to follow specific guidelines, which are illustrated through formally outlined policies, practices, and procedures. Hence, mechanistic structures are strong environments that provide explicit cues regarding expected behavior (Mischel, 1973), which suppress managerial discretion (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987) and provide limited latitude of action for leaders and employees (Shamir & Howell, 1999). On the other end of the continuum, Burns and Stalker (1961) proposed that organizations with organic structures seek

to be adaptable to environmental conditions by creating roles that are more fluid and broadly defined than those in mech- anistic organizations. Organic organizations are flat, with reciprocal communication patterns that flow upward as well as downward. Behaviors are guided by shared values and goals, as opposed to specific policies or procedures. Thus, or- ganic structures are weak environments that offer little guidance on specific role expectations (Mischel, 1973), provide a high level of managerial discretion (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987), and offer latitude of action for both leaders and employees (Shamir & Howell, 1999). As such, we expect that mechanistic and organic organizational contexts play a role in shaping both the leader influence and individual motivational processes that occur within them.

Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationships depicting the mediating role of psychological empowerment and the moderating role of organizational structure

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 417

In organic, as opposed to mechanistic organizations, transformational leaders have a higher likelihood of success- fully empowering employees because they have a high level of managerial discretion in their execution of transfor- mational leadership behaviors (Fredrickson, 1986). Additionally, employees should be more likely to gain a sense of psychological empowerment in response to the motivational efforts of transformational leaders because they see that the environment tolerates and even encourages empowered behavior (Oldham & Hackman, 1981). The lack of ex- plicit behavioral expectations as well as the communication patterns inherent in organic structures allows employees to feel they can accept their leaders’ motivational influence and change their level of empowerment and subsequent behaviors in accordance with this influence (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989). In turn, empowered employees are intrinsically motivated to take initiative, complete assignments with a sense of purpose, and be good organiza- tional citizens. Therefore, we expect that the characteristics of organically structured organizations provide a context that enhances transformational leaders’ efforts to psychologically empower their employees. At the other end of the continuum, mechanistic organizations signal to members that roles are expected to be

performed according to set standards to promote consistency and efficiencies. Work within mechanistic organiza- tions is highly specialized, and rewards are contingent on completing well-defined tasks (Burns & Stalker, 1961). These organizational structures may limit errors and create efficiencies, but they reduce freedom in decision making (Weber, 1947), leaving members with limited opportunities for self-expression in their work or latitude in deciding how to approach work initiatives. As a result, leaders have a limited amount of managerial discretion and may see fewer opportunities to empower employees or limited utility in doing so. Additionally, employees may be less likely to form a sense of empowerment because the structure requires participation in narrowly defined tasks according to specific standards. When work is guided by procedures and instructions, employees may be less likely to respond to transformational leaders’ efforts at encouraging social identification or seeing the meaning or impact of their work (Oldham & Hackman, 1981). As a result, when employees work for transformational leaders in more mechanistic organizations, the environment is less tolerant of self-expressive behavior and employees are less likely to be psycho- logically empowered, less motivated to take initiative or approach their work with meaning, and have fewer opportuni- ties to engage in discretionary citizenship behaviors. Therefore, we expect that the characteristics of mechanistically structured organizations provide a context that constrains the empowering influence of transformational leaders.

Hypothesis 3: Organizational structure moderates the mediated relationship between transformational leadership and employee task performance such that relationships are stronger in organically structured organizations.

Hypothesis 4: Organizational structure moderates the mediated relationship between transformational leadership and employee (a) interpersonal-focused organizational citizenship behavior (OCBI; H4a) and (b) organization- focused organizational citizenship behavior (OCBO; H4b) such that relationships are stronger in organically structured organizations.

Method

Sample and procedure

A total of 306 individuals participated in this study including 153 employee–supervisor matched pairs. Participants represented different organizations from a variety of industries (27 percent service, 19 percent financial/insurance, 13 percent education, 12 percent retail, 10 percent health care, 8 percent manufacturing, and 11 percent other) located throughout the Northeastern United States. Employee participants were predominantly female (53 percent) with a mean age of 21.4 years and an average of 1.1 years of experience with their employing organization. Super- visors were also predominantly female (54 percent) with a mean age of 42.3 years and a mean of 9.7 years of

418 S. B. DUST ET AL.

experience. Employees represented a variety of job titles (e.g., administrative assistant, assistant project manager, communications associate, loan officer’s assistant, network engineer, pharmacy technician, software tester, and teller) across a diverse set of functional areas including entry level (21 percent), analyst (18 percent), customer service (10 percent), assistant level (9 percent), assistant management (8 percent), sales (7 percent), management (6 percent), and non-specified (21 percent). Participants were recruited from an upper-level, undergraduate organizational behavior course at a large

northeastern university in the United States. Potential participants had to have worked for their current organization 20 or more hours per week and with their current supervisor for a minimum of six consecutive months to be eligible to participate. Eligible students who were interested in participating in the study were asked to invite their immediate supervisor to also participate by completing a brief questionnaire. Participating students received course extra credit. A total of 480 students were invited to participate in the research; 174 students participated in the study, and re- sponses were received from 167 supervisors. Complete sets of responses were received from 153 pairs for a response rate of 31.9 percent. Employee participants were instructed to go to a secure website to complete the survey at a time and location of

their choice. Similar survey instructions for supervisors were relayed through employee participants. Employees completed demographics, transformational leadership, and psychological empowerment measures. Supervisors completed the organizational structure measures and rated employee task and citizenship performance. As a check to determine if employee and supervisor surveys were completed by different people, we verified that IP addresses were different for employee and corresponding supervisor surveys. In addition, participants were expressly warned that falsifying employee or supervisor surveys would be a violation of the university’s academic honesty and code of conduct policies. Finally, to ensure accurate responses and minimize socially desirable responding, statements regarding confidentiality and anonymity were clearly and repeatedly stated. A number of researchers have used similar approaches when collecting data (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Greenbaum, Mawritz, & Eissa, 2012; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Moore, Detert, Treviño, Baker, & Mayer, 2012; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).

Measures

Transformational leadership Employees rated their supervisors’ transformational leadership behaviors (α = .96) using 21 items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X Short (Bass & Avolio, 1995). A sample item is “Talks optimistically about the future.” Employees completed the transformational leadership and empowerment measures using a 7-point response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Psychological empowerment Employees indicated their level of psychological empowerment (α = .87) by completing Spreitzer’s (1995) 12-item scale. A sample item includes “I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.”

Organizational structure Supervisors completed Khandwalla’s (1976/1977) seven-item organizational structure measure (α = .88) by indicat- ing the degree to which one of two paired statements best describes their organization’s structure. Higher scores indicated that the structure was perceived as more organic, whereas lower scores indicated that the structure was perceived as more mechanistic. All items follow the following stem: “In general, the management philosophy in my organization favors…” A sample item is “Tight formal control of most operations by means of sophisticated control and information systems” versus “Informal control; heavy dependence on informal relationships and the norm of cooperation for getting things done.”

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 419

Task performance Supervisors rated employee task performance (α = .83) using William and Anderson’s (1991) seven-item measure. A sample item is “Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance.” Supervisor completed both the task performance and citizenship behavior measures using a 7-point response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Organizational citizenship behavior Supervisors rated employees’ citizenship behaviors using Lee and Allen’s (2002) OCB measure. Four items assessed interpersonal-focused OCBs (α = .86). A sample item is “[The employee] helps others who have been absent.” Four items assessed organization-focused OCBs (α = .90). A sample item is “[The employee] attends func- tions that are not required but that help the organizational image.”

Controls We controlled for employee age and gender because these variables may affect employee performance variables. In particular, age and performance are thought to have an inverted-U-shaped relationship (Waldman & Avolio, 1986), and gender may affect engagement in citizenship behaviors (Kidder, 2002). We also controlled for the number of months the employee and supervisor had worked together because greater tenure may influence perceptions of rela- tionship quality, which may inflate perceptions of psychological empowerment (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Wat & Shaffer, 2005). Finally, we controlled for organizational size as larger organizations may trend toward mechanistic structures to build efficiencies (Child, 1972).

Analytical approach

To assess the indirect effect of transformational leadership on employee performance and OCBs through psycholog- ical empowerment (Hypotheses 1 and 2), we used hierarchical multiple regression along with a bootstrap algorithm procedure (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Bootstrapping is a nonparametric approach, which imposes no assumptions regarding distribution shape. The bootstrapping procedure assumes a full-mediation model and derives an empirical sampling distribution to compute confidence intervals (CIs) of indirect effects that are considered to be more accu- rate than coefficients derived from regression methods (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). We used macros created by Preacher and Hayes (2008) and constructed bias-corrected CIs around the product coefficient of the mediated effect; mediation is supported when the 95 percent CIs around the product coefficients do not include zero. Specific to our analysis, 5000 iterations (with replacement) were used, and the indirect effect was computed and retained for each sample. The point estimate of the indirect effect is the mean computed over the samples, and the estimated standard error is the standard deviation of the estimates. To test the moderated-mediation model (Hypotheses 3 and 4), we used Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes’ (2007) macro, which gives a statistical significance test of the conditional indi- rect effect of transformational leadership on each of the dependent variables via psychological empowerment at var- ious levels of the moderator.

Results

Prior to testing the hypothesized relationships, we first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test the expected factor structure of the main study variables. The expected six-factor model fit the data well (χ2(89) = 148.09, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.97) and offered a significant improvement in chi-squares over a five-factor model combin- ing interpersonal and organizational citizenship behaviors (χ2(94) = 200.64, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.95, Δχ2(5) = 52.55, p < .01) or a four-factor model combining interpersonal and organizational citizenship behaviors and task performance (χ2(98) = 388.85, p < .01, RMSEA = 0.13, CFI = 0.85, Δχ2(9) = 240.76, p < .01). Next, we

420 S. B. DUST ET AL.

calculated the average variance extracted (AVE) for each latent construct following procedures set forth by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The AVE estimates the variance explained by a latent construct; AVE values above 0.50 indi- cate that the explained variance exceeds variance due to measurement error. The AVE values can then be used to evaluate discriminant validity among the study variables. Sufficient discriminant validity is said to exist if the square root of the AVE of each construct exceeds the zero-order correlations between the latent constructs (Gefen & Straub, 2005). As illustrated in Table 1, the AVE for each construct was greater than 0.50, and the square root of the AVE values exceeded the zero-order correlations among constructs offering evidence of discriminant validity. Finally, be- cause transformational leadership and empowerment ratings were provided by a single source, we checked for item cross-loadings using an exploratory factor analysis including only the items from these two scales. As illustrated in Appendix A, each item loaded onto the appropriate construct, and none of the items were found to cross-load onto the other construct. Table 1 summarizes the zero-order correlations for the entire sample, and Table 2 summarizes the zero-order cor-

relations separately for organizations with organic versus mechanistic structures. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, we first examined the relationships between transformational leadership and employee psychological empowerment, task performance, and OCBs. Results indicated that transformational leadership was positively related to psychological empowerment (β = .39, p < .01; ΔR2 = .19), task performance (β = .16, p < .01; ΔR2 = .03), OCBI (β = .28, p < .01; ΔR2 = .07), and OCBO (β = .40, p < .01; ΔR2 = .08). Next, we tested the relationship between employee psycholog- ical empowerment and task performance or OCBs while controlling for transformational leadership. Results indi- cated that psychological empowerment was positively related to task performance (β = .26, p < .01, ΔR2 = .05), OCBI (β = .29, p < .01, ΔR2 = .04), and OCBO (β = .38, p < .01, ΔR2 = .05). For task performance (Z = 3.17, p < .05) and OCBI (Z = 3.28, p < .05), Sobel tests indicated that transformational leadership had statistically significant indi- rect effects while the coefficient for the direct effect was no longer statistically significant, providing evidence of full mediation. For OCBO, transformational leadership had statistically significant indirect (Z = 3.56, p < .05) and direct effects, providing evidence of partial mediation. The results are summarized in Table 3. Next, we conducted bootstrapping analyses to further examine the indirect effects of transformational leadership

on task performance, OCBI, and OCBO, via psychological empowerment. The results are summarized in Table 4. The confidence intervals for the indirect effect of transformational leadership on task performance (point estimate = 0.10, 95%CI [0.04, 0.18]), OCBI (point estimate = 0.11, 95%CI [0.03, 0.22]), and OCBO (point estimate = 0.15, 95%CI [0.05, 0.29]) through psychological empowerment did not include zero. Therefore, we concluded that the pattern of results provided support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. To test the moderated-mediation relationships proposed in Hypotheses 3 and 4, we first conducted a moderation

analysis to determine if organizational structure moderated the relationships between transformational leadership and psychological empowerment. Variables were centered, and a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted by entering the control variables in Step 1, transformational leadership and organizational structure in Step two, and the Transformational Leadership × Organizational Structure interaction term in Step 3 (which was statistically significant: β = .13, p < .01, ΔR2 = .04). We then plotted the interaction at one SD above and below the mean of organizational structure (Figure 2) and conducted simple slopes analyses to determine the magnitude of the relation- ships. Consistent with the hypothesized relationships, results indicated that transformational leadership was more strongly related to employee psychological empowerment in organizations with more organic (β = .20, t = 5.94, p < .01) as opposed to mechanistic structures (β = .10, t = 3.55, p < .01). Next, we examined the extent to which the indirect effects of transformational leadership on employee perfor-

mance and OCBs were conditional on organizational structure using the Preacher et al. (2007) macro. Results, which are summarized in Table 5, indicate that the indirect effects of transformational leadership were stronger in organi- zations with more organic (1 SD above the mean) as opposed to more mechanistic structures (1 SD below the mean) for task performance (β = .17, p < .01 vs. β = .08, p < .05), OCBI (β = .19, p < .05 vs. β = .09, p < .05), and OCBO (β = .23, p < .05 vs. β = .11, p < .05). As a robustness check, we also tested the moderated-mediation hypotheses using Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) technique. Once again, the indirect effects of transformational leadership were stronger in organizations with more organic (1 SD above the mean) as opposed to more mechanistic structures (1 SD

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 421

T ab le

1 . Z er o -o rd er

co rr el at io n s, d es cr ip ti v e st at is ti cs , an d av er ag e v ar ia n ce

ex tr ac te d an al y si s.

V ar ia b le

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

A V E

sq u ar e ro o t

1 . E m p lo y ee

ag e

2 . E m p lo y ee

g en d er

�. 0 5

3 . E x p er ie n ce

w it h m an ag er

.2 0 * *

�. 0 9

4 . O rg an iz at io n si ze

�. 0 4

�. 0 3

�. 1 0

5 . T ra n sf o rm

at io n al

le ad er sh ip

.0 8

.0 6

�. 0 5

�. 0 3

0 .9 0

0 .9 5

6 . E m p ow

er m en t

.1 8 *

�. 0 5

.1 3

�. 0 5

.4 4 * *

0 .7 2

0 .8 5

7 . T as k p er fo rm

an ce

�. 0 4

.1 3

.0 6

.0 8

.1 7 *

.2 7 * *

0 .8 6

0 .9 3

8 . O C B I

.0 6

.1 7 *

.0 5

.0 6

.2 6 * *

.2 9 * *

.4 5 * *

0 .9 6

0 .9 8

9 . O C B O

.0 5

.0 8

.1 9 *

.0 0

.2 7 * *

.3 2 * *

.3 8 * *

.6 7 * *

0 .9 8

0 .9 9

1 0 . O rg an iz at io n al

st ru ct u re

.0 7

.1 3

�. 1 1

�. 0 5

.2 1 * *

.1 6 *

�. 0 1

.0 5

.1 3

0 .9 1

0 .9 5

M 2 1 .6 2

1 .4 7

1 2 .3 6

5 .3 0

5 .6 3

5 .1 7

6 .0 5

5 .2 2

5 .1 3

3 .8 6

S D

2 .6 6

.5 0

1 2 .4 2

2 .8 1

0 .9 7

0 .8 6

0 .8 4

1 .0 5

1 .3 3

N o te : A V E = av er ag e v ar ia n ce

ex tr ac te d ; g en d er

(m al e = 1 , fe m al e = 2 ); ex p er ie n ce

w it h m an ag er = m o n th s em

p lo ye e h as

w o rk ed

w it h m an ag er ; o rg an iz at io n al si ze

= n um

b er

o f in d i-

v id u al s em

p lo ye d w it hi n th e o rg an iz at io n (0 .0 0 0) ; em

po w er m en t=

p sy ch o lo g ic al

em p o w er m en t; O C B I=

in te rp er so n al -f o cu se d ci ti ze n sh ip

b eh av io rs ; O C B O = o rg an iz at io n -f o cu se d

ci ti ze n sh ip

b eh av io rs . N = 1 5 3 .

*p < .0 5 ; * * p < .0 1.

422 S. B. DUST ET AL.

below the mean) for task performance (β = .12, p < .01 vs. β = .05, p < .01), OCBI (β = .14, p < .01 vs. β = .06, p < .01), and OCBO (β = .20, p < .05 vs. β = .08, p < .05). Therefore, a similar pattern of results is found using either the Preacher et al. (2007) or Edwards and Lambert (2007) procedure. We also tested the conditional indirect effects at various values of the moderator, allowing for the identifi-

cation of organizational structure values for which the conditional indirect effect was statistically significant. As shown in Table 5, the results indicated that the conditional indirect effect for task performance, OCBI, and OCBO was statistically significant at p < .05 for any value of organizational structure greater than 2.5. The overall pattern of results suggests that the indirect effects of transformational leadership on employee task performance and citizenship were stronger in organizations with more organic as opposed to mechanistic struc- tures. Additionally, at high levels of mechanistic structure, the indirect effect of transformational leadership on employee performance and OCBs was not statistically significant. Therefore, we concluded that Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported.

Discussion

Findings from the current study suggest that psychological empowerment is an important motivational mech- anism linking transformational leadership with employee job-related behaviors. The findings further demon- strate that these empowering effects are bounded by an organization’s structural characteristics. Therefore, this research contributes a nuanced understanding of the motivational effects of transformational leaders by demonstrating the constraining and enabling effects of organizational contexts. It appears that the fluid and open nature of organically structured organizations enables transformational leaders to empower their employees, who in turn are motivated to perform their jobs well and be good organizational citizens. In con- trast, it appears that the rigid nature of mechanistically structured organizations constrains the empowering effects of transformational leaders.

Table 2. Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics for organic and mechanistic structures.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Employee age �.09 .20 �.03 .11 .17 �.05 .12 .05 2. Employee gender .04 �.03 .02 �.06 .01 .03 .19 .01 3. Experience with manager .01 �.19 �.10 �.11 .06 �.03 �.05 .16 4. Organization size �.05 �.17 �.13 .00 �.01 .09 .01 �.02 5. Transformational leadership �.03 .24* .04 �.09 .39** .13 .25** .24** 6. Empowerment .17 �.12 .16 �.11 .46** .37** .27** .27** 7. Task performance .00 .25* .13 .09 .26* .19 .48** .38 8. OCBI .00 .15 .14 .20 .32** .36** .48** .56** 9. OCBO .04 .12 .21 .11 .34** .38** .40** .80**

M (organic) 21.55 1.53 12.84 3.28 5.75 5.30 6.08 5.21 5.22 SD (organic) 1.34 .50 12.66 1.62 0.83 0.84 0.87 1.13 1.30 M (mechanistic) 21.51 1.44 12.17 9.08 5.50 5.03 6.02 5.20 4.98 SD (mechanistic) 3.24 .50 12.54 3.94 1.08 0.85 0.82 0.98 1.40

Note: Organic = structures rated at 4.00 or above (n = 80); correlations in more organic organizations are listed below the diagonal. Mechanistic = structures rated at 3.99 or below (n = 73); correlations in more mechanistic organizations are listed above the diagonal. Gender (male = 1, female = 2). Experience with manager = months employee has worked with manager; organizational size = number of individuals employed within the organization (0.000); empowerment = psychological empowerment; OCBI = interpersonal-focused citizenship behaviors; OCBO = organization-focused citizenship behaviors. N = 153. *p < .05; **p < .01.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 423

Table 4. Bootstrap analyses of the indirect effects of transformational leadership.

Model PEa Boot Bias SE

Bias-corrected confidence intervalb

Lower Upper

Task performance Transformational leadership–empowerment–task performance .10 .10 .00 .04 .04 .18

Interpersonal citizenship Transformational leadership–empowerment–OCBI .11 .12 .01 .05 .03 .22

Organizational citizenship Transformational leadership–empowerment–OCBO .15 .15 .00 .06 .05 .29

Note: N = 153. Empowerment = psychological empowerment; OCBI = interpersonal-focused citizenship behaviors; OCBO = organization-focused citizenship behaviors. aPoint estimate; 5000 bootstrap resamples. bNinety-five percent level of confidence for confidence interval.

Table 3. Regression analyses—transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, employee performance, and citizenship behaviors.

Empowerment Task performance OCBI OCBO

Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 1 β Step 2 β Step 1 β Step 2 β

Step 1 Employee age .05 .04 �.01 �.02 .02 .01 .01 .00 Employee gender �.05 �.10 .25 .22 .37 .32 .26 .19 Experience with manager .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02** .02** Organization size .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00

Step 2 TFL .39** .16* .28** .40**

R2 .04 .23 .03 .07 .04 .11 .05 .13 F 1.82 9.81** 1.29 2.13 1.56 3.50** 1.76 4.35** ΔR2 .19 .04 .07 .08 Finc 40.02** 5.37* 10.81** 14.10**

Step 1 Employee age �.02 �.10 .01 .00 .00 �.02 Employee gender .22 .15 .32 .35* .19 .23 Experience with manager .01 .07 .01 .01 .02** .02* Organization size .00 .10 .00 .00 .00 .00 TFL .16* .07 .28** .17 .40** .26*

Step 2 Empowerment .26** .29** .38**

R2 .07 .12 .11 .15 .13 .17 F 2.13 3.33** 3.50** 4.28** 4.35** 5.14** ΔR2 .05 .04 .05 Finc 8.74** 7.44** 8.06**

Note: Gender (male = 1, female = 2); experience with manager = months employee has worked with manager; TFL = transformational leadership; empowerment = psychological empowerment; OCBI = interpersonal-focused citizenship behaviors; OCBO = organization-focused citizenship behaviors. N = 153. *p < .05; **p < .01.

424 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Table 5. Bootstrap analyses of the conditional indirect effects of transformational leadership.

Organizational structure

Task performance OCBI OCBO

CIE SE z CIE SE z CIE SE z

�1 SD (mechanistic) 0.08 0.03 2.29 0.09 0.04 1.99 0.11 0.05 1.96 +1 SD (organic) 0.17 0.06 2.82 0.19 0.08 2.50 0.23 0.10 2.31

Range of values 1.0 0.03 0.05 0.57 0.03 0.04 0.62 0.03 0.04 0.61 1.3 0.04 0.05 0.86 0.04 0.04 0.90 0.04 0.04 0.90 1.6 0.05 0.04 1.16 0.05 0.04 1.21 0.05 0.04 1.22 1.9 0.06 0.04 1.46 0.06 0.04 1.54 0.06 0.04 1.56 2.2 0.07 0.04 1.74 0.07 0.04 1.86 0.07 0.04 1.88 2.5 0.09 0.04 1.98 0.08 0.04 2.15 0.08 0.03 2.18 2.8 0.10 0.05 2.17 0.09 0.04 2.40 0.09 0.04 2.43 3.1 0.11 0.05 2.31 0.10 0.04 2.59 0.10 0.04 2.62 3.4 0.12 0.05 2.40 0.11 0.04 2.72 0.11 0.04 2.75 3.7 0.13 0.05 2.45 0.12 0.04 2.80 0.12 0.04 2.82 4.0 0.15 0.06 2.48 0.13 0.04 2.84 0.13 0.04 2.86 4.3 0.16 0.06 2.49 0.14 0.05 2.86 0.14 0.05 2.87 4.6 0.17 0.07 2.49 0.15 0.05 2.85 0.15 0.05 2.86 4.9 0.18 0.07 2.48 0.16 0.06 2.84 0.16 0.06 2.84 5.2 0.19 0.08 2.46 0.17 0.06 2.81 0.17 0.06 2.82 5.5 0.20 0.08 2.44 0.18 0.06 2.78 0.18 0.06 2.79 5.8 0.21 0.09 2.42 0.19 0.07 2.75 0.19 0.07 2.76 6.1 0.23 0.09 2.40 0.20 0.07 2.72 0.20 0.07 2.72 6.4 0.24 0.10 2.38 0.21 0.08 2.69 0.21 0.08 2.69 6.7 0.25 0.11 2.36 0.22 0.08 2.66 0.22 0.08 2.66 7.0 0.26 0.11 2.34 0.23 0.09 2.63 0.23 0.09 2.63

Note: CIE= conditional indirect effect; SE= standard error; OCBI= interpersonal-focused organizational citizenship behaviors; OCBO = organization- focused citizenship behaviors.

Figure 2. Relationship between transformational leadership and employee psychological empowerment

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 425

Theoretical implications

The findings from the current study have several implications for transformational leadership research. First, the study provides evidence that employees who work for transformational leaders appear to put forth the efforts needed to be high performers on their jobs and be good organizational citizens because of the influence transformational leaders have on their employees’ psychological empowerment. Although the mediating role of several motiva- tion-related mechanisms has been examined in prior studies (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, & Sutton, 2011), theory has argued that transformational leaders motivate followers to engage in extraordinary per- formance and citizenship behaviors by enhancing their sense of psychological empowerment (Bass, 1985; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). The current study is the first to provide empirical support for these assertions. By encompassing be- liefs about the meaning and impact of one’s work as well as a sense of personal competence and self-determination (Spreitzer, 1995), psychologically empowered individuals are proactive and self-expressive, approaching their work with a sense of purpose and self-confidence (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Psychological empowerment, therefore, provides a more comprehensive perspective on the motivational influ- ence of transformational leaders, compared with prior studies that have focused on a single dimension of psychological empowerment (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Dvir et al., 2002; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). Psychological empowerment provides a unique perspective on intrinsic motivation be- cause empowerment reflects an active orientation toward work, “in which an individual wishes and feels able to shape his or her work role and context” (Spreitzer, 1995, p. 444). Thus, psychological empowerment entails a participative and proactive approach to work, making it a construct that closely represents the self-expressive orientation toward work that is central to self-concept-based theories of transformational leadership influence (Shamir et al., 1993). Second, our findings suggest that the influence of transformational leaders on employee behaviors can be stronger

when embedded within an environment that fosters the empowering influence of leaders. It appears that organic or- ganizational characteristics enable managers and employees to have more discretion and latitude in their behavior. This discretion facilitates transformational leadership behaviors and employee receptivity to the empowering influ- ence of transformational leaders. Transformational leadership theory has long suggested that organic organizational structures may enhance the positive relationships between transformational leadership behaviors and employee be- havioral outcomes (Shamir et al., 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999; Tosi, 1991; Yukl, 1999). However, it was unclear how and why the underlying motivational process of employees was altered in varying organizational contexts. Psy- chological empowerment appears to provide a clearer understanding of the cognitive processes underlying these transformational leadership contextualization propositions. Third, our findings also suggest that organizational environments that thwart psychological empowerment may

diminish the transformational leader’s influence on employee behaviors. Transformational leadership may still be important in mechanistic organizations. However, it appears that the lack of discretion inherent in highly mechanistic organizational structures may impede empowering efforts. Findings from the current study also have important implications for psychological empowerment theory. Leadership

and organizational structure have been identified as two significant social-structural antecedents of psychological em- powerment (Maynard, Gilson, & Mathieu, 2012; Seibert et al., 2011). Psychological empowerment theory suggests that leaders—transformational leaders in particular—are important promoters of employee empowerment given their ability to influence employees’ subjective perceptions of their work (Spreitzer, 2008). Psychological empowerment theory also suggests that organizations structured for high employee involvement, which is conceptually similar to organic organi- zational structures, should lead to heightened levels of employee empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996). Our findings illustrate that transformational leadership and organic structures interact in influencing empowerment, whereby increased effect sizes result through the combination of both conditions. In addition, psychological empowerment theory typically looks at the positive relationships between social-structural characteristics and psychological empowerment. Our findings illustrate a scenario in which social-structural characteristics may be in conflict, whereby mechanistic structures have detrimental characteristics that constrain the positive effects of transformational leadership on employee psychological empowerment, task performance, and citizenship behaviors.

426 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Practical implications

The findings from the current research suggest that it is important for managers to understand the structural charac- teristics of their organizations, and how these features may impact their attempts to psychologically empower em- ployees within their unit. When managers reside within organizations where roles are well defined and rigidly structured and decision making is highly centralized, their transformational behaviors are likely to have little to no effect on the psychological empowerment that their employees experience. To circumvent the restricting effects of mechanistic organizational structures, transformational leaders may want to consider creating a more fluid and open environment within their unit. For example, restructuring the unit so that operating information is transparent, using incentives to encourage employees to improvise or take initiative, and creating opportunities for capable em- ployees to take on new roles should facilitate more organic organizational processes, which in turn should facilitate the empowerment process. The current study indicates that psychological empowerment is a key mechanism through which transformational

leaders motivate high levels of performance and citizenship among their employees. As such, the current study of- fers additional support for the utility of training and development efforts designed to enhance transformational lead- ership behaviors ( Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Dvir et al., 2002). At the same time, managers should also be encouraged to think about the influence of contextual factors. To gain the full benefits of transformational leadership, managers must be aware of their organizational environment because these environments are likely to impact their ability to empower and motivate members of their staff (Johns, 2006).

Strengths, limitations, and future research

As with all research, the current study has limitations that should be noted. First, the sample of focal employees, which was drawn from adult students working on a full or part-time basis, may not be entirely representative of the larger population of working adults. Although this type of sampling approach is common in organizational be- havior research (e.g., Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler, Wayne, & Marinova, 2012; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Den Hartog, & Folger, 2010), participants tended to be relatively young (M = 21.1 years of age) and occupy positions with more entry-level as opposed to advanced responsibilities. As such, caution should be used in generalizing findings to the larger population of working adults. However, it should be noted that most of the students who were asked to participate are part of a cooperative education program in which they complete approximately 18 months of full-time work before graduating, giving them an opportunity to gain substantial work experiences. Nevertheless, perhaps the results are most generalizable to employees who are in the early stages of their professional career. Future studies should examine similar models within a broader sample to more fully understand the empowering influence of trans- formational leaders. Second, cross-sectional surveys are not an appropriate design for testing causal relationships owing to ambiguity

in the direction of the relationships. For example, employees who have a sense of confidence in their work, and see their work as meaningful and impactful, may attribute their beliefs to the leadership provided by their supervisor. In turn, they may rate their supervisor as highly transformational because they are experiencing psychological empow- erment as opposed to being psychologically empowered because they work for a transformational leader. Therefore, the results of the current study are correlational in nature, and caution should be used in drawing causal inferences from the findings. Third, employee participants provided ratings of both transformational leadership and psychological empower-

ment. As such, the relationships between these variables may be inflated because of common method bias (CMB). However, our findings from the confirmatory factor analysis and AVE analysis suggest that the constructs are distinct. Additionally, supervisors provided ratings of employee job-related behaviors, and the focus on the mod- erating role of structure may mitigate some of these concerns, as interactions are unlikely to be influenced by CMB (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2009). A related concern is that the quality of the relationship between the supervisor

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 427

and the employee may influence employees’ ratings of their supervisor’s transformational leadership or their own psychological empowerment. We did not measure or control for relationship quality. However, we did control for the length of time that the employee and supervisor had worked together, which may serve as a partial proxy for relationship quality, given that longer-term work relationships may involve higher levels of trust and more support- ive behaviors than shorter-duration work relationship. In addition, although we took steps to check that the employee and supervisor surveys were completed by individuals with different IP addresses, we have no way of knowing whether the supervisor surveys were completed by the employees’ actual supervisors. Although we indicated to par- ticipants that any fabrication of study data would be considered a violation of the university’s academic honesty and code of conduct policies, the potential for inaccuracies to exist is unknown. Fourth, our operationalization of the organizational structure construct may be problematic. We used a key infor-

mant approach to assess organization structure, which relies on the ratings of a single organizational member who understands the nuances and features of the organization’s structure (Huber & Power, 1985). Because of their posi- tion of authority within the organization’s formal or informal chain of command, supervisors as opposed to em- ployee participants are likely to be more knowledgeable of and have a greater appreciation for the organization’s channels of communication, formality/informality of policies and procedures, interdependencies among organiza- tional members and units, and the boundaries of decision-making authority. However, different raters may be cog- nizant of different stimuli within the environment, and aggregating multiple sources may lead to a more complete picture of the overall phenomenon (Lance, Hoffman, Gentry, & Baranik, 2008). Although the key informant approach has been widely used in organizational research (e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1989; Oldham & Hackman, 1981; Spell & Arnold, 2007; Terziovski, 2010; Wally & Baum, 1994), several other studies have also viewed per- ceptions of mechanistic–organic organizational structure as a shared property representing a type of organizational climate (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Dickson, Resick, & Hanges, 2006b). Future research should consider using multisource ratings of organizational structure to provide a more comprehensive perspective on structural character- istics or recruiting secondary informants to check the consistency of perspectives across individuals (Slevin & Covin, 1997). We also recognize that perceptions of structure may not adequately reflect actual structural practices. Future research could assess mechanistic–organic structural features using both perceptual indicators and evalua- tions of organizational features such as number and pervasiveness of formal policies or number of layers in the organizational hierarchy. Finally, departments or functional areas embedded within an organization may differ in the level of organic versus

mechanistic practices (Williamson, 1975). Future research should examine how mechanistic and organic structural characteristics operate across organizational levels to influence leadership and motivational processes. Additionally, the centralization and formalization components of mechanistic and organizational structures may have a differential moderating effect on the relationships between transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and work behaviors. For example, Walter and Bruch (2010) found that centralization constrained relationships between trans- formational leadership climate and organizational energy, whereas formalization practices enhanced these relationships. Future research could extend the findings of the current study by focusing on facets of organizational structure. Finally, leadership is likely to have an influence on units as well as individuals within units (Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). As our study focused exclusively on individual-level relationships, the linkages between unit transformational leader- ship and team-level empowerment are unclear. Future research should examine the extent to which the empowering influence of transformational leaders extends across individuals and across levels.

Conclusion

Findings from the current study provide a nuanced perspective on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee motivation by demonstrating that psychological empowerment is an important motivational mechanism linking transformational leadership with employee performance-related behaviors and that organizational structures provide an important boundary condition on these relationships. It appears that organizations with organic structures

428 S. B. DUST ET AL.

provide a natural setting for transformational leaders to empower their employees and enable them to approach their work with a sense of purpose, autonomy, and self-expression. By contrast, in mechanistically structured organizations, it appears that transformational leaders have fewer opportunities to empower employees and employees are likely to be less receptive to these efforts.

Author biographies

Scott B. Dust is an Assistant Professor at the College of Business and Technology at Eastern Kentucky University. He received his PhD in Organizational Behavior from Drexel University. Scott’s research on leadership, work design, and the work–home interface has appeared in journals such as Human Relations and Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. Christian Resick is an Associate Professor at the LeBow College of Business at Drexel University. He received his PhD in Organizational Psychology from Wayne State University. Christian’s research on leadership, team effective- ness, and organizational culture has appeared in leading journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and Human Relations. Mary Mawritz is an Assistant Professor in the LeBow College of Business at Drexel University. She holds a PhD in Business Administration from the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include leadership, organiza- tional justice, and counterproductive behavior. She has published research articles in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology and the Journal of Management.

References Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–269.

Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207–242.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Tse, B. (2000). Transformational leadership as management of emotion: A conceptual review. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (pp. 221–235). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, H. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 29–49). Lexington, MA: Heath.

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.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, September, 44(9), 1175–1184. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. 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 and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for research: Permission set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 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.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 429

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331–346.

Child, J. (1972). Organization structure and strategies of control—A replication of the Aston study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 163–177.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.

Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., & Rogers, L. E. (1989). Interaction patterns in organic and mechanistic systems. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 773–802.

Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Manage- ment Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

Cunliffe, A., & Coupland, C. (2012). From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations, 65, 63–88.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580–590.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: A meta- analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.

Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006a). Systematic variation in organizationally-shared cognitive prototypes of effective leadership based on organizational form. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 487–505.

Dickson, M. W., Resick, C. J., & Hanges, P. J. (2006b). When organizational climate is unambiguous, it is also strong. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 351–364.

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.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 484–503.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Fredrickson, J. W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 280–297.

Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91–109.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448.

Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary condi- tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108–124.

Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transforma- tional leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 458–476.

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as inter- active predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912.

Greenbaum, R. L., Mawritz, M. B., & Eissa, G. (2012). Bottom-line mentality as an antecedent of social undermining and the moderating roles of core self evaluation, conscientiousness, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 343–359.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: A bridge between the polar views of organizational outcomes. In B. M. Staw, and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organization behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 369–406). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.

Herold, D. M., Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership 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(4), 1137–1177.

Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person–organization value congruence: How transforma- tional leaders influence work group effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 779–796.

House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso-paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 41–114.

Huber, G. P., & Power, D. J. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 171–180.

Ilies, R., Judge, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 1–22.

430 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525–544.

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

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley. Khandwalla, P. N. (1976/1977). Some top management styles, their context and performance. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 7(4), 21–51.

Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Manage- ment, 28, 629–648.

Lance, C. E., Hoffman, B. J., Gentry, W. A., & Baranik, L. E. (2008). Rater source factors represent important subcomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 223–232

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–42.

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

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49. Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive super- vision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357.

Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. (2009). How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 1–13.

Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2012). Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1231–1281.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality, Psychological Review, 80, 200–213. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: Moral disengage- ment and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65, 1–48.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehen- sive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.

Nemanich, L. A., & Keller, R. T. (2007). Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 4–68.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66–83.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job charac- teristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.

Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259–278.

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. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, and L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, method, and prescrip- tions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.

Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19: 1–22.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered frame- work. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 184–256). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multilevel model of empow- erment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.

Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003.

Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257–283.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 431

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommenda- tions. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2009). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–467.

Slevin, D. P., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Strategy formation patterns, performance, and the significance of context. Journal of Management, 23(2), 189–209.

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2(3), 257–273. Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 365–390.

Sosik, J. J., Godshalk, V. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). Transformational leadership, learning goal orientation, and expecta- tions for career success in mentor–protégé relationships: A multiple levels of analysis perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 241–261.

Sparks, J. R., & Schenk, J. A. (2001). Explaining the effects of transformational leadership: An investigation of the effects of higher-order motives in multilevel marketing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 849–869.

Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. J. (2007). A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure, and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33(5), 724–751.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural levers to individual empowerment in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Terziovski, M. (2010). Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the manufacturing sector a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 892–902.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681.

Tosi, H. L. (1991). The organization as a context for leadership theory: A multilevel approach. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 205–228.

Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 33–38.

Wally, S., & Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 932–956.

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765–782.

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.

Wat, D., & Shaffer, M. A. (2005). Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment. Personnel Review, 34(4), 406–422.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628–652.

Weick K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Weick, K. E. (2012) Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65, 141–153.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of internal organization. New York: Free Press.

Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206–215.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.

432 S. B. DUST ET AL.

APPENDIX A

Exploratory Factor Analysis of Transformational Leadership and Psychological Empowerment

Item Item #

Factor

1 2

Reexamines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate TFL 1 0.75 0.19 Talks about his or her most important values and beliefs TFL 2 0.59 0.28 Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems TFL 3 0.71 0.13 Talks optimistically about the future TFL 4 0.73 0.07 Instills pride in me for being associated with him or her TFL 5 0.77 0.12 Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished TFL 6 0.74 0.17 Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose TFL 7 0.79 0.24 Spends time teaching and coaching TFL 8 0.76 0.14 Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are achieved TFL 9 0.66 0.29 Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group TFL 10 0.79 0.16 Treats me as an individual rather than just as a member of a group TFL 11 0.74 0.06 Acts in ways that build my respect TFL 12 0.82 0.10 Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions TFL 13 0.68 0.13 Displays a sense of power and confidence TFL 14 0.77 0.09 Articulates a compelling vision of the future TFL 15 0.76 0.20 Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others TFL 16 0.69 0.18 Gets me to look at problems from many different angles TFL 17 0.72 0.17 Helps me to develop my strengths TFL 18 0.82 0.17 Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments TFL 19 0.78 0.16 Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission TFL 20 0.76 0.20 Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved TFL 21 0.74 0.20 The work I do is very important to me EMP 1 0.23 0.69 My job activities are personally meaningful to me EMP 2 0.17 0.75 The work I do is meaningful to me EMP 3 0.11 0.77 I am confident about my ability to do my job EMP 4 0.07 0.55 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities EMP 5 0.06 0.58 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job EMP 6 0.10 0.37 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job EMP 7 0.07 0.60 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work EMP 8 0.05 0.64 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job EMP 9 0.21 0.66 My impact on what happens in my department is large EMP 10 0.15 0.61 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department EMP 11 0.20 0.58 I have significant influence over what happens in my department EMP 12 0.23 0.61

Note: TFL = transformational leadership; EMP = psychological empowerment.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPOWERMENT 433

Copyright of Journal of Organizational Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.