Influential leadership and employee well being: the

mediating role of meaningful work

A synopsis
2014-1015

Department of Psychology
The IIS University
Jaipur.
Supervised by:

Submitted by:

Dr. Chandrani Sen.

MS Reeva chaudhary
MA
SEM III
P
SYCHOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SR.NO. TOPIC
INTRODUCTION
1.
REVIEW OF
2.
3.
4.
5.

LITERATURE
METHODOLOGY
REFERENCES
APPENDIX

PAGE NO.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to thank all those have helped me in the preparation and
successful completion of this project work. I wish to express my deepest gratitude
to Dr. Ashok Gupta, Vice Chancellor, The IIS University; Dr, Rakhi Gupta, Rector
and Registrar, The IIS University for providing me the required facilities to
complete my project work and supporting and cooperating in various ways.
I acknowledge with a deep gratitude the continual support and guidance of my
supervisor and HOD, Dr. Roopa Mathur. She helped me throughout with a positive
approach and gave her valuable inputs which helped me complete my project
work on time.
I am also thankful to my parents, faculty members and classmates who supported
me throughout the project work.

Reeva chaudhary

RATIONALE
Influential leadership has been the focus of much research interest,
comparatively
less is known about the processes through which Influential leadership exerts
its effects
(Sivanathan, Arnold, Turner, & Barling, 2004). Transformational leaders go
beyond exchange relationships and motivate others to achieve more that
they thought was possible (Bass, 1998, Bass &Riggio, 2006). Some
researchers have argued that this kind of leadership gives meaningfulness
to work by infusing work . . . with moral purpose and commitment
(Shamir et al., 1993, p. 578).

INTRODUCTION

Influential leadership
The concept of Influential leadership was initially introduced by leadership expert and
presidential biographer James Macgregor Burns. Burns (1978) created the concept of Influential
leadership as a description of political leaders who transform the values of their followers.
According to Burns, Influential leadership can be seen when "leaders and followers make each
other to advance to a higher level of morality and motivation. Through the strength of their
vision and personality, transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to change
expectations, perceptions, and motivations to work towards common goals. Unlike in the
transactional approach, it is not based on a "give and take" relationship, but on the leader's
personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation of an energizing
vision and challenging goals. Transforming leaders are idealized in the sense that they are a
moral exemplar of working towards the benefit of the team, organization and/or community.
Burns theorized that transforming and transactional leadership was mutually exclusive styles.
Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded upon Burns' original ideas to develop what is today
referred to as Bass Influential leadership Theory. According to Bass, Influential leadership can
be defined based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass
suggested, garner trust, respect, and admiration from their followers.
Bernard M. Bass (1985), extended the work of Burns (1978) by explaining the psychological
mechanisms that underlie transforming and transactional leadership. Bass introduced the term

"transformational" in place of "transforming." Bass added to the initial concepts of Burns (1978)
to help explain how Influential leadership could be measured, as well as how it impacts follower
motivation and performance. The extent, to which a leader is transformational, is measured first,
in terms of his influence on the followers. The followers of such a leader feel trust, admiration,
loyalty and respect for the leader and because of the qualities of the transformational leader are
willing to work harder than originally expected. These outcomes occur because the
transformational leader offers followers something more than just working for self-gain; they
provide followers with an inspiring mission and vision and give them an identity. The leader
transforms and motivates followers through his or her idealized influence (earlier referred to as
charisma), intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. In addition, this leader
encourages followers to come up with new and unique ways to challenge the status quo and to
alter the environment to support being successful. Finally, in contrast to Burns, Bass suggested
that leadership can simultaneously display both transformational and transactional leadership.
Influential leadership is a style of leadership where the leader is charged with identifying the
needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through inspiration, and executing the
change in tandem with committed members of the group. It also serves to enhance the
motivation, morale, and job performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms; these
include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the project and the collective
identity of the organization; being a role model for followers in order to inspire them and raise
their interest in the project; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and
understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, allowing the leader to align followers
with tasks that enhance their performance.

Since then, Influential leadership has become one of the most widely-studied leadership styles
due to its emphasis on changing workplace norms and motivating employees to perform beyond
their own expectations (Yukl, 1989). Transformational leaders are believed to achieve such
results through aligning their subordinates goals with those of the organization and by providing
an inspiring vision of the future (Bass, 1985).

Influential leadership is typically divided into four major components:

(1) Inspirational motivation: Inspirational motivation involves the ability to communicate
clearly and effectively while inspiring workers to achieve important organizational goals.
Transformational leaders are considered to be enthusiastic and optimistic when speaking
about the future, which arouses and heightens their followers motivation (Dubinsky,
Yammarino, & Jolson, 1995).

(2) Idealized influence: Idealized influence refers to behaviors that help to provide a role model
for followers. Such behaviors could involve displaying strong ethical principles and stressing
group benefits over individual benefits (Bono & Judge, 2004).
(3) Individualized consideration: Individualized consideration involves treating each 6
Follower as an individual with his or her own unique needs and attending to these needs
appropriately (Judge & Bono, 2000). The focus of behaviors falling under the individualized
consideration category is on the development of the follower (Bass, 1985).
(4) Intellectual stimulation lastly, intellectual stimulation involves
encouraging the follower to be creative and challenging him or her to think
of old problems in new ways (Bass, 1985).Transformational leaders create a
culture of active thinking through intellectual stimulation, and this culture
encourages followers to become more involved in the organization (Tims et
al., 2011).

WELL BEING
The term "wellbeing" covers several aspects of the way people feel about their lives, including
their jobs and their relationships with the people around them. Of course, a person's wellbeing is
to do with their own character and home or social life along with the workplace, but research
shows that employers can have an influence on an individual's sense of wellbeing in the way they
run a workplace.
Perhaps the most important factor in employee well-being is the
relationships employees have with their immediate manager. Where there
are strong relationships between managers and staff, levels of well-being
are enhanced. A good manager will recognize the strengths, likes and
dislikes of their team members and will be able to recognize when the
volume or complexity of the work is too much for a particular team member.
The more capable that line managers are in identifying the personal
interests and concerns of the individual, the more likely they will be able to
create a team where employee well-being becomes an integral part of
getting the job done.
Employee well-being involves:
maintaining a healthy body by making healthy choices about diet,
exercise and leisure

 developing an attitude of mind that enables the employee to have self

confidence, self-respect and to be emotionally resilient
having a sense of purpose, feelings of fulfillment and meaning
possessing an active mind that is alert, open to new experiences,
curious and creative
having a network of relationships that are supportive and nurturing
(Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2002).

How can individual wellbeing at work be improved?

Employers have the potential to influence the wellbeing of their staff. There is no 'one size fits
all' but where employers are able to raise wellbeing in their workforce, they are also likely to see
improvements in the performance of their workplace.
There will be different factors that influence wellbeing at an individual level, but detailed
analysis of a wide range of research studies has suggested that there are 11 key factors for
increasing wellbeing to boost performance in general. The research suggests that employers who
are able to focus effort on a number of these areas should be able to increase wellbeing.

Where employees have a degree of autonomy over how they do their job - this does not
mean that people should ignore set processes, but could mean that staff have a level of
discretion about how they undertake their work. Involvement in organisational decisionmaking can also be beneficial. Good communication and consultation is an element of
this, as is having a 'voice' at work, whether through unions or more direct forms of
involvement.

Variety in the work employees undertake, which could be addressed through job design.

Staff responds positively to a sense that their job has significance within the workplace,
as well as the perceived value of the job to society.

Being clear about what is expected of staff, including feedback on performance, which
could be addressed through a combination of effective induction, clear terms and
conditions and a regular appraisal process

Supportive supervision, which may be addressed through ensuring that line-managers are
adequately trained; and an environment in which co-workers offer support can also be
positive.

Staff also benefit from positive interpersonal contact with other people. This includes
contact with managers and co-workers, as well as with customers or the general public
(where the job requires it).

Opportunities for employees to use and develop their skills, which could be through
training on and off the job, and/or by increasing the variety of work they undertake.

A sense of physical security is important for employees, including the safety of work
practices the adequacy of equipment and the pleasantness of the work environment.

A sense of job security and clear career prospects both help increase wellbeing.

Staff responds well to the perception of fairness in the workplace, both in terms of how
the employee is treated but also how they see their co-workers being treated. Negative
behavior such as bullying can be damaging to well being - be it from co-workers,
customers or managers. Effective use of procedures for responding to bullying coupled
with disciplinary and grievance procedures where needed would be one way for
employers to address this.

Higher pay was also registered as a strong positive motivator. However, this relationship
depends not only on the absolute level of pay but how this compares with pay of other
workers.

MEANINGFULL WORK
Rosso et al. (2010) have defined meaningful work as work that is significant and that has
positive meaning for individuals, which means that people make sense of it in a positive way
within the context of their lives. Meaning (as in meaning in life or meaningful

work) is obviously important. Its important to a person for its own sake. It
also affects other peoplefor example; it could be a motivational factor,
affecting purpose, goals, and behavior. Most adults spend most of their
waking hours working, so its important for people to find meaningful work,
and to find more meaning in the work theyre currently doing.
Michael F. Steger has done some research work in this area, and concludes that meaningful work
has three, central components:
First, the work we do must make sense; we must know whats being asked of us and be able to
identify the personal or organizational resources we need to do our job.

Second, the work we do must have a point; we must be able to see how the little tasks we engage
in build, brick-by-brick if you will, into an important part of the purpose of our company.
Finally, the work that we do must benefit some greater good; we must be able to see how our toil
helps others, whether thats saving the planet, saving a life, or making our co-workers jobs
easier so that they can go home and really be available for their families and friends.
Workers experience meaningfulness when they feel as though they have
something to contribute. They must feel useful, worthwhile, and valuable as
if they can make a difference. To experience meaningfulness, they must also
feel as though they are not taken for granted, as though they are recognized
for their contribution and are gaining something in return. They must feel as
though they are receiving a return on the investments that are made in
terms of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy. Meaningfulness is
experienced when workers receive feedback at the job that confirms these
feelings. Such feedback can come from ones working relationships and/or
from the work itself. With regard to relationships, this confirmation is
manifested in high-quality Co-worker relationships and supportive
supervisors. High-quality relationships with others in the workplace promote
self-appreciation, dignity, and a sense of worth wholeness. They are an
invaluable source of meaning in peoples lives because they meet
relatedness needs (Alderfer, 1972): they allow people to feel known and
appreciated and that they are sharing their existential journeys with others
(May et al., 1958) (Kahn, 1990, p.707). In terms of the work itself, when
individuals experience both a sense of competence (from the routine) and
growth and learning (from the new) in their tasks, they receive confirmation
that they have something to contribute as well as something to gain. The
validation that this provides them with, in turn, makes the work Meaningful
to them. Theoretically then, meaningfulness was expected to only be
affected
by job features because it depends largely upon workers assessment of the
context in which they find themselves characteristics of their relationships
with others in the workplace (e.g., co-worker and supervisor relations) and
characteristics of the job itself(e.g., level of autonomy, skill variety, PJ fit).
Psychological meaningfulness. Kahn (1990) defined meaningfulness as
a
feeling that one is receiving a return on investments of ones self in a
currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy. People [experience]
meaningfulness when they [feel] worthwhile, useful, and valuable as though
they [make] a difference and [are] not taken for granted (p.704). He argued
that it tended to be associated with elements that created incentives or
disincentives for workers to personally engage. Kahn is not alone in
recognizing the importance of meaningfulness.

The idea that individuals have an inherent need to lead a work life that they
consider meaningful was first introduced by classic humanistic psychologists
and motivation theorists (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959; Maslow, 1943, 1954, 1971; McClelland, 1965; McGregor, 1960; Rogers,
1959, 1961). Maslow (1971), one of these classic motivation theorists, stated
that individuals who do not believe their work to be full of meaning and
purpose will not work up to their professional potential. His hierarchy of
needs theory argued that individuals are initially motivated to take actions
based upon fulfilling needs that are inherent to all human beings(e.g.,
breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping). As these basic survival needs are
satisfied, individuals move on to higher order needs, which are more intrinsic
and reflective in nature. These higher order needs are reflective of life values
such as working toward a higher cause and leading a purposeful life.
Specifically, he theorized that individuals have the potential to reach selfactualization or a level in which an individual focuses on the process of
developing his or her potential to the fullest possible extent in a manner that
is personally fulfilling.
Darling and Chalofsky (2004) discussed that in the late 1990s and early
2000s,meaning and spirituality at work emerged in reaction to the loss of job
security. Perhaps the underlying reason why psychological meaningfulness is
starting to appear in research and the workplace today is because the
struggling economy, which has caused so many individuals to lose their
sense of job security, has driven workers to realize just how much meaning
their job carries in their life. In accordance with Maslows hierarchy of needs,
the meaningfulness of a job can extend anywhere from it being the medium
through which individuals are able to put food on the table and shelter over
their heads, to it being the channel through which they can carry out their
life work and say to themselves This is what I was meant to do in life. A job
is meaningful to the extent that the needs that the individual expects to be
fulfilled by the job are actually fulfilled.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Influential leadership:
Many researches have been conducted on Influential leadership. A past
Study has found that by aligning values of followers to their own and to the
Organizations, transformational leaders are able to increase their followers intrinsic motivation
more than other leadership styles (Gardner & Avolio, 1998, as cited inLee, 2008). The enhanced
motivation of each individual in a team would result in an improved motivation of the team overall,
and thus, inspire them to think and perform outside the norms. This is supported by Gumusluoglu
and Ilsev (2009) who discovered that Influential leadership is positively related to individual
creativity and organizational innovation.

transformational leaders attempt to stimulate and motivate their followers to perform

beyond the status quo and to achieve remarkable results (Bass & Riggio, 2006).A
transformational leader is aware of the needs of his or her followers and motivates and
helps them to develop and achieve their fullest potential (Northouse, 2009). As opposed to
transactional leaders also, leaders exhibiting Influential leadership behaviors support out
of the box thinking which results in the generation of more creative ideas and solutions
(Sosik, Avolio & Kahai, 1997, as cited in Jung, Chow &Wu, 2006). Therefore, theoretically,
it has been said that Influential leadership enhances followers performance (Burns, 1998;
Yukl, 1998, as cited in Stone et al., 2004) esteem (Battista & Almond, 1973), and are more
satisfied with their lives (Chamberlain & Zika, 1988).
.

Furthermore, studies have found that Influential leadership is positively correlated to

leader effectiveness ratings, leader and follower satisfaction, followers efforts, and overall
organizational performance (Avolio, Waldman & Einstein, 1988;Bass, Avolio & Goodheim,
1987; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Lowe, Kroeck &Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Seltzer & Bass,
1990; Waldman, Bass & Einstein, 1987;Yammarino, Spangler & Bass, 1993, as cited in
Humphreys, 2002). Transformational leaders inspire change and encourage their followers
to share convergent values towards achieving higher levels of performance (House &
Shamir, 1993; Jung &Avolio, 2000, as cited in Jung et al., 2006). Similarly, other
researchers have shown that Influential leadership improves performance beyond
expectations (Avolio
& Yammarino, 2002; Bass, 1985, 1988, 1990, as cited in Dionne et al., 2004).
Specifically, at the team level, Influential leadership is positively related to team potency,
which in turn leads to an improvement in team performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, as
cited in DuBrin, 2009).

Some researchers have suggested that Influential leadership is enhanced

by a lack of proximity (Hollander, 1978; Yammarino, 1994, as cited in Humphreys,2002),
whereas others have found that physical distance moderates the effect between a
charismatic leadership style and follower performance (Howell, Neufeld & Avolio,1998).
However, in a laboratory study conducted by Kelloway, Barling, Kelley, Comtois, and
Gatien (2003), it was revealed that remote Influential leadership still affects performance
and attitudes positively. Thus, it can be surmised that Influential leadership affects
performance regardless of the physical proximity between the leader and the followers. It
has also been suggested that Influential leadership is more appropriate for leading
employees who are well educated and enjoy challenging work (Hater & Bass, 1988, as cited
in Hotzel, 2004).
Recent studies have shown that Influential leadership is important
Regardless of industries (Avolio & Yammering, 2002, as cited in Bass & Riggio,2006).
Studies have also been conducted in non-Western societies, hence suggesting that
Influential leadership is effective in various settings (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dvir &

Shamir, 2003; Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003; Lim & Ploy hart, 2004; Shin &Zhou, 2003;
Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003, as cited in Schaubroeck et al., 2007).
Innes et al. (2010) examined the impact of supervisor Influential
leadership on employee safety performance (safety participation and
compliance) and further explored whether the effects of Influential
leadership were confined to one organizational context (i.e. contextspecific) or whether they carried over across different contexts (i.e.
context spill over). The authors carried out a cross-sectional survey of 159
individuals who held two jobs in different organizations. The findings
showed a positive relationship between Influential leadership and safety
participation but not safety compliance (in either the primary or
secondary jobs). Further, the effects of Influential leadership were contextspecific whereby Influential leadership in the primary job did not predict
safety performance (e.g. safety compliance and participation) in the
secondary job.

Influential leadership promotes employees affective commitment to change by influencing

their perception of change benefits and expectations fulfillment (Hill et al., 2012) and
building trust in them (Caldwell et al., 2008). It influences the attitude of the top
management personnel towards goals (Barrick et al., 2008) and makes them committed to
the change, that results in their active involvement, support and management of the change
(Gill, 2003). Sensitivity and responsiveness of transformational leaders to employee
emotions (Huy &Sanchez-burks, 2009) and their own commitment to change (Levay, 2010)
strongly impact employee commitment to change. Weak Influential leadership can result in
cynicism towards change (Neubert, Wu, & Yi, 2007).
Bass and Avolio (1993) found that transformational leaders
increase their followers levels of motivation and self-efficacy
through inspirational appeals (inspirational motivation) and clear
communication of high performance expectations (idealized
influence). These leader behaviors establish organizational norms
that foster follower initiative, achievement-oriented behaviors, and
goal-attainment (Masi & Cooke, 2000), thereby leading to a culture
of employee empowerment (Harrison, 1995).
In another study, Bass (1985a) performed exploratory factor
analysis on data collected from 104 military officers attending Army
War College. The officers were asked to complete a 73-item
questionnaire describing their supervisor. Three dimensions of
Influential leadership were identified from the research: charismatic
leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual
stimulation. Avolio, Waldman, andYammarino (1991) later added
another component, inspiration motivation, and changed
charismatic leadership to idealized influence to create the 4 Is of
Influential leadership.

In his study of 70 senior executives, Bass (1985b) reported that respondents

likened the transformational leader to a benevolent father who inspired them to
work long hours to meet the leaders expectations. The transformational leader
encouraged self-development by allowing the follower to work autonomously,
but remained accessible to provide the follower with support, advice, and
recognition. The transforming leader engendered trust, admiration, loyalty, and
respect (Bass, 1985b).
Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1997) conducted a longitudinal study of 36
undergraduate student work groups performing a creativity task using a Group
Decision Support System. They evaluated the effects of leadership style on
group effectiveness and found that transform One of the most researched
outcomes is financial performance.
In fact, Parry (2000) stated that decades of research have provided consistent
evidence (i.e., correlations of 0.30 or higher) that Influential leadership has a
significant positive impact on the financial measures of organizations. It was
also shown to affect employee perception of firms financial standing relative to
industry peers (Zhu, et al., 2005).Influential leadership had both a direct and
indirect relationship with performance of the group.

Studies have found significant and positive relationships between Influential leadership and the
amount of effort followers are willing to exert, satisfaction with the leader, ratings of job
performance, and perceived effectiveness (Bass, 1998). Leaders vision and vision
implementation through task cues affects performance and many attitudes of
subordinates (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996). Zhu et al. (2005) found that humancapital-enhancing human resource management fully mediated the relationship between CEO
Influential leadership and subjective assessment of organizational outcomes.
Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) found that Influential leadership was positively rel ated
to perceived leve ls of the five core j ob charac teris t ics (varie t y, iden tit y,
significance, autonomy, and feedback), which were related to intrinsic motivation and
goal commi t me nt. Intr ins ic mot ivat ion w as relat ed to both tas k perfor man ce
and organi zat ional citi zens hip behav ior (O CB). G oot y
e t a l . (2009) s how ed that Influent ial leaders hip enhanced follow ers
pos itiv e ps yc hologi cal capit al a higher-order cons truct that repres ents an
indiv idual s mo tiv ationa l propens it y and perseverance toward goals.

EMPLOYEE WELL BEING:

Although employee well-being has become an important topic in scholarly
research journals, there is considerable variation in the conceptualization of
well-being (Danna &Griffin, 1999). A first distinction can be made between
peoples overall well-being or happiness and more specific domains of wellbeing such as family or work (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999). In this

review the interest is on well-being at work, as the aim ofthis review is to

examine linkages between two work concepts of management
activities(HRM), and organizational performance. Employee well-being at
work can broadly be described as the overall quality of an employees
experience and functioning at work (Warr, 1987).
Different dimensions of employee well-being at work are distinguished in the
literature, for example, job satisfaction and job stress. Within the
organizational context, two general types of employee well-being are
differentiated (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Grant, Christianson & Price, 2007). In
the first type, employee well-being is focused on subjective experiences and
functioning at work. This refers to job-related experiences as overall job
satisfaction, facet specific work satisfaction (e.g. satisfaction with pay,
promotion opportunities), and organizational commitment. On the other
handwork-related health is distinguished. Health in the workplace
encompasses both physiological and psychological indicators related to
employee health (Danna & Griffin , 1999), for example job strain, or job
stress. In sum, both dimensions are defined as properties of the individual
employee.
Employee psychological health is of central importance for organizations, as promoting
employee resilience and preventing stress-related illness ultimately reduces costs to
organizations, such as turnover (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). Given the importance of
employee psychological health, an extensive body of research has investigated its antecedents
and outcomes (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). Over the past decade, it has been concluded that
leadership is one of the most important factors to consider in relation to employees
psychological well-being (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). The style of trans-formational leadership,
in particular, has been shown to have positive impacts on followers psychological health in a
variety of contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Less is known, however, about the specific processes through which Influential leadership
influences employee well-being. Sivanathan, Arnold, Turner, and Barling (2004) have suggested
that transformational leaders have an indirect impact on employees psychological health, and
research has begun to further uncover mediators of this relationship. We propose, using
Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a theoretical framework, that
transformational leaders impact employee well-being through enabling the creation of valued
resources for followers (Clarke, Arnold, & Connelly, forthcoming). In the current study we
examine the mediating roles of two positive resources: employees perceptions of procedural
justice of the organization and psychological empowerment. Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013)
argue that there has been a lack of investigation into how Influential leadership has a distinct
influence on mediating processes and outcomes (p.2), and our study contributes to filling this
research gap. In the sections that follow we define Influential leadership and our theoretical
framework in more detail, and will develop hypotheses based on COR theory and relevant
empirical finding.

Meaningful work
Hackman and Oldham (1980) suggested that the antecedents likely to
impact meaningfulness at work are those tasks which facilitate personal
growth. Furthermore, Kahn (1990) identified interpersonal relationships as a
predictor of experienced meaningfulness, asserting that good interpersonal
interactions foster a strong sense of belonging, which then increase ones
sense of meaningfulness (May et al., 2004).
Research confirms the hypothesized link between PJ fit and psychological
meaningfulness. May (2003) examined the relationship between work-role fit
and experienced meaningfulness in a manufacturing company and found
that they were significantly (and positively) related to one another. May et al.
(2004) confirmed that psychological meaningfulness mediated the
relationship between work-role fit and engagement. Finally, Olivier and
Rothmann (2007) found that work-role fit and coworker relations were
significantly related to engagement through their positive relationships with
psychological meaningfulness. This reasoning and research supported the
expectation that there would be a positive relationship between PJ fit and
psychological meaningfulness.
Kahn (1990) found that people experienced meaningfulness when their jobs
included rewarding interpersonal relations with clients and co-workers. These
favorable interactions promoted self-appreciation, dignity, and a sense of
worthwhileness. They created a condition in which people felt the desire to
give to and receive from others. Relations with others are an invaluable
source of meaning in individuals lives as they meet the relatedness needs
(Alderfer, 1972). They enable people to feel appreciated and known, as
though they are sharing their life journey with others (May et al., 1958).
Individuals are also likely to experience meaningfulness from the social
identities that they receive from being members of a group. Interactions with
co-workers that make individuals feel as though they belong are likely to
foster experienced meaningfulness (May et al., 2004).
To the researchers knowledge, only one quantitative study has provided
empirical support for the positive relationship between supervisor support
and perceived psychological meaningfulness of the job. In their test of Kahns
(1990) model, Oliver and Rothmann (2007) found a positive correlation
between supervisor relations and meaningfulness. However, it was believed
that Kahns observation that meaningful interactions [promote] dignity, selfappreciation, and a sense of worthwhileness could be extended beyond just
co-workers to supervisors support of employees and, in turn, has a
significant effect on workers sense of meaningfulness of the job.
MEANINGFYULL WORK: Transformational leaders add to their subordinates
sense of challenge in the workplace (Zhu et al., 2009). By challenging their

employees to think creatively and proactively (Bass, 14 1990), transformational

leaders work to re-frame seemingly routine, everyday tasks into exciting work
that instills in the employee a greater sense of meaning (Sparks & Schenk,
2001). The process of challenging employees to see problems from a new
perspective is known as intellectual stimulation, one of the main components of
Influential leadership (Bass, 1985). The benefits of intellectual stimulation are
plentiful. For example, Bolkan and Good boy (2010) found that when teachers
were viewed as intellectually stimulating, their students reported high levels of
motivation, satisfaction, and empowerment. Intellectual stimulation has also
been shown to relate to subordinate feelings of significance and autonomy in
the workplace (Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001). Kahn (1990)
proposed that psychological meaningfulness arises out of feelings that an
individual is worthwhile, useful, and valuable, which are associated with high
levels of felt significance and autonomy. Thus, it appears as though
transformational leaders foster engagement through increasing employees
sense of meaning.
Social Learning Theory (SLT; Bandura, 1977) may explain how followers of transformational leaders
adopt meaningfulness and are therefore more engaged in their work. Although SLT is generally
thought of as explaining how individuals modify their behavior based on the observation of others
(Manz & Sims, 1981), it has also been conceptualized as a mechanism in which leaders pass on
abstract concepts such as values, attitudes, and beliefs (Lam, Krause, & Ahearn, 2010; Weiss 1977,
1978). One reason why leaders achieve this transference of concepts is because they are often viewed
by their followers as the face of the organization (i.e.., the agents of the organization), and as such
they are seen as social referents worthy of imitation (Weiss, 1977). It is far more difficult to pass on
values and beliefs than it is to pass on behaviors; however, it may be that transformational leaders do
so, most likely through their use of inspirational motivation in which they develop and articulate a
shared vision and 15 high expectations that are motivating, inspiring, and challenging (Wang et al.,
2011, p. 230). This articulation of expectations and goals, along with the individualized consideration
and support that transformational leaders provide, add to their followers sense of meaning, as well as
the belief that they can accomplish great things (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Thus, as the
transformational leader is viewed as a social referent and articulates a value system that includes
making meaning out of work, consistent with SLT followers adopt similar values in a desire to be
like and identify with the leader.

At the personal level, meaningfulness enhances psychological wellbeing (Ryff & Singer,
1998; Zika &Chamberlain, 1992) and meaninglessness undermines it (Debats, 1996).
To the extent that meaningful work is a part of leading a genarly meaningful life ,people
who consider their lives to be meaningful are better able to cope with stressful
events(park& folkman,1997),have a higher self esteem esteem (Battista & Almond,
1973), and are more satisfied with their lives (Chamberlain & Zika, 1988).

Influential leadership and Well-Being

Several studies have found that leaders behavior affects employees wellbeing. Gilbreath and Benson (2004) investigated the effect of supervisory
behavior on employee well-being (conceptualized as psychiatric disturbance)
using a structure versus consideration conceptualization of supervisory
behavior. Findings indicated that positive supervisory behavior (e.g., allowing
more employee control, communicating and organizing well, considering
employees and their well-being) made a statistically significant contribution
to employee well-being over and above the effects of age, lifestyle, social
support from coworkers and at home, and stressful work and life events.
Van Dierendonck et al. (2004) investigated a similar conceptualization of
leader behavior and the effects of this on both job-related affective wellbeing and context-free psychological well-being, suggesting that high-quality
leadership behavior was associated with increased employee well-being.
Evidence specific to Influential leadership is also beginning to accrue.
A recent experimental study (Bono & Ilies, 2006) focused on the effect of
charismatic leaders on the mood of followers and showed that charismatic
leaders enable their followers to experience positive emotions (p. 331).
Positive moods and emotions would be forms of positive affective well-being
conceptually similar to the outcome we focus on in our first study. The
potential mechanism accounting for this finding may be that charismatic
leaders express more positive emotions themselves and these positive
emotions are caught by their followers (the contagion hypothesis).
Influential leadership may also reduce stress experienced by individuals
through its impact on mentoring functions (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). One
study found that Influential leadership behavior was positively related to
mentoring functions received, and in turn negatively related to job-related
stress (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEDEARSHIP AND MEANINGFULL WORK

Individuals perceptions of their jobs do not depend entirely on the objective
characteristics of the job (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Hack man and Oldhams (1980) job

characteristics model describes meaningful work as it is related to jobs with

characteristics such as task variety, identity and significance, Feedback, and
autonomy. Recent research has demonstrated a positive link between
Influential leadership and employee perceptions of meaning in terms of
these job characteristics (Piccolo &Colquitt, 2006).
Transformational leaders aspire to raise followers levels of morality to more
principled levels of judgment(Burns, 1978, p. 455) and also activate higher
order needs in followers based on Maslows hierarchy(Bass, 1985). Some
researchers have argued that this kind of leadership gives meaningfulness
to work by infusing work . . . with moral purpose and commitment
(Shamir et al., 1993, p. 578). Second, the individual respect that a
transformational leader exhibits for each follower should also apply to the
actual work in which each follower is engaged. The verbal cues that
individuals in the work environment give one another about work and the
work they do are powerful (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; White & Mitchell, 1979),
and the transformational leader is likely to provide positive verbal cues to
followers about the importance and purpose of their work.
Sparks and Schenk (2001) found that Influential leadership was associated
with
Finding a higher purpose in the work. The concept of a higher purpose in
that study was broad in that it did not measure any specific purpose, but it
was clearly a more important purpose than making money (Sparks &
Schenk, 2001, p. 858). Higher purpose was associated with increased job
satisfaction, perceptions of unit cohesion, and work effort. Ascribing a higher
moral purpose to ones work, in this case, mediated the Influential
leadershipsatisfaction and performance relationships.

METHODOLOGY
The present study was designed to examine the Influential leadership and
employee well being: the mediating role of meaningful work.
OBJECTIVES:
To study the relationship between Influential leadership and employee well
being.
To study the mediating role of meaningful work on Influential leadership
and employee well being.

HYPOTHESIS:

Influential leadership is positively associated with psychological

well-being.

The positive relationship between Influential leadership and

psychological wellbeing is mediated by perception of meaningful
work.

RESEARCH DESIGN
In the view of above aims and hypothesis, co relation design was
employed
Meaningful Work

Influential
leadership

Employee
Wellbeing

SAMPLE
The total sample will consists of 100 individuals who are in leadership
position. The participants were contacted through organization. The random sampling
will be used for selection of sample.

Criteria of inclusion:

Employees in leadership position.

Employees working in BPO.

Criteria of exclusion:

Gender was not considered in selecting employees in leadership.

Employees at lower level position.

Measurement of tools

Influential leadership behavior (TLB) and its subscales (IIA, IIB, was measured by the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Short Form (MLQ 5X) (Bass & Avolio, 1995).
The measure of the meaning of work used in this study is taken from Ashmos
and Duchons (2000) Workplace Spirituality scale (six items, _ _ .84).
For well being Ryffs Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWB), 42 Item versions
are used.

REFERENCES