Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rajnandini Pillai Ethlyn A. Williams, (2004),"Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness,
commitment, and performance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 Iss 2 pp. 144 159
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530584
Downloaded on: 04 October 2015, At: 20:50 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10243 times since 2006*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
JOCM
17,2
144
Received September
2002
Revised September 2003
Accepted December 2003
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
Transformational leadership,
self-efficacy, group
cohesiveness, commitment,
and performance
Rajnandini Pillai
Department of Management, College of Business,
California State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, California, USA
Ethlyn A. Williams
Department of Management, International Business and
Entrepreneurship, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University,
Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Keywords Transformational leadership, Self development, Fire services,
Autonomous work groups
Abstract We tested a model proposing that transformational leaders build committed and high
performing work groups by enhancing employee self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Questionnaires
were completed by 303 fire department personnel following preliminary in-depth interviews with
fire rescue personnel. After accounting for missing data, 271 responses were included in our data
analysis. Results indicated support for the theoretical model in comparison to three alternative
models that were considered. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.
The attacks of 11 September 2001 brought into sharp focus the role of
firefighters in times of crisis. Perceptions of firefighter heroism were magnified
as people witnessed several acts of self-less leadership by firemen and women
in New York and Washington. Some have suggested that one of the biggest
challenges that the fire service faces in the 21st century is effective leadership
aimed at retaining fire service men and women (Murphy, 1999). Others have
examined the importance of leadership interventions to train fire department
leaders who are then perceived as role models by the fire fighters and who
work to reduce stress in one of the most stressful jobs in America (Beaton et al.,
2001). Leadership researchers in recent years have accumulated a large body of
evidence in support of leadership models such as transformational and
charismatic leadership (House and Shamir, 1993). However, few of these studies
have explored or tested the many networks of linkages proposed to explain
how the transformational leadership process works and this has been
particularly disappointing to researchers of this promising leadership
paradigm (Bass, 1995). Some exceptions in this regard are work by Shamir
et al. (1993) who proposed a linkage between charismatic leadership and
followers self-efficacy and self-concept and others who have shown a linkage
Leadership,
between transformational leadership and justice, trust and collective self-efficacy and
self-efficacy (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Podsakoff et al.,
cohesiveness
1990).
This study focuses on the processes that may explain how transformational
leadership affects outcomes in the context of a fire department. We propose
145
that perceptions of follower self-efficacy and work group cohesion play an
important role in the relationship between transformational leadership and
outcomes such as commitment and performance. Earlier research has shown
that leader-subordinate and peer-peer relationships play an important role in
the development of burnout among fire-fighters which, in turn, affects their
ability to deliver effective services in life-threatening situations (Reichel, 1996).
We argue, in this study, that when transformational leaders emerge in such
contexts or appointed leaders are trained to engage in transformational
leadership interventions, they will motivate their subordinates to higher levels
of service and commitment. Our conceptualization of transformational
leadership is consistent with the prevalent literature that transformational
leaders influence followers to higher levels of commitment and performance by
articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals and developing
individual group members to reach their highest potential (Podsakoff et al.,
1996). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study of transformational
leadership in a fire service organization. In the following paragraphs, we
develop arguments in support of our proposed model.
Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, performance and
commitment
Bandura (1997, p. 2) has defined perceived self-efficacy as . . .beliefs in ones
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in managing
prospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel,
motivate themselves, and act. Several studies have demonstrated the
importance of self-efficacy for improving performance in the organizational
context (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). Originally conceived of as a task-specific
variable, support has been shown for general self-efficacy which is a
disposition predicting individual behavior across situations (Lennings, 1994).
Among the determinants of self-efficacy are enactive mastery (personal
attainment), vicarious experience (modeling), verbal persuasion and
physiological arousal; all of which serve to increase self-efficacy perceptions
(Gist and Mitchell, 1992).
Schunk (1983) noted that self-efficacy is particularly salient in a crisis
situation. The conceptualization of self-efficacy as a stable characteristic that
individuals possess describes it as . . .ones overall estimate of ones ability to
effect requisite performances in achievement situations (Eden and Zuk, 1995,
p. 629). Ones past experiences will create a general set of expectancies that get
JOCM
17,2
146
carried over into new situations. In the context of fire-rescue operations the
situations faced are often critical and unique in many ways and we expect that
these generalized expectancies will . . .influence the individuals expectations
of mastery in the new situations (Sherer et al., 1982, p. 664).
House and Shamir (1993) have suggested that the primary motivational
mechanism through which transformational and charismatic (or outstanding)
leaders influence their followers is by enhancing followers self-efficacy and
self-worth. Transformational leadership behaviors and its effects, especially
role modeling, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal appear to parallel
the determinants of self-efficacy. Podsakoff et al. (1990) suggested that
transformational leaders influence followers by role modeling the appropriate
behaviors. Followers identify with role models who are then perceived in a
positive light (Bandura, 1986), this serves to empower them to achieve the
leaders vision through the development of self-efficacy and self-confidence
(Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Yukl, 1998). Eden (1992) argued that leadership
was the mechanism through which managers raised performance expectations
and enhanced self-efficacy which, in turn, increased performance.
Frost et al. (1983) showed that in both military combat and fire-fighting
situations, the leader who set an example by personal risk-taking was judged to
be the most effective. Redmond et al. (1993) also showed that leader behaviour
aimed at increasing follower self-efficacy resulted in higher levels of
subordinate creativity in problem-solving situations. It would, therefore, be
important for transformational leaders to enhance followers beliefs, which
together they would be able to find a solution for the problem at hand. Once
self-efficacy is established, followers will begin to trust the leader which will
increase their commitment to the leader and the organization (Yukl, 1998).
Thus, we hypothesize that transformational leaders enhance followers
self-efficacy, which in turn, results in higher performance and commitment.
Transformational leadership, cohesiveness, performance and
commitment
Festinger (1950, p. 274) described group cohesiveness as the resultant forces
which are acting on the members to stay in a group. This definition has been
widely accepted by researchers on group cohesion. Other researchers describe
cohesiveness as the degree to which group members are attracted to and
motivated to stay with a group (Zaccaro et al., 1995). Earlier research has
shown that leaders who show consideration for their followers cause them to
become more attached to the group (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Such leaders may
thus draw the group closer together towards the attainment of group goals.
The collectivistic focus of groups led by transformational leaders where
there is a consensual sharing of meaning (Bass, 1985) may be a catalyst in
eliciting higher levels of commitment and performance especially given the
need for fire fighters and other emergency personnel to work in closely
coordinated teams in the face of great personal danger. By using the strategies
Leadership,
of visioning, setting high performance expectations for the group and self-efficacy and
participation in group goal setting, transformational leaders may be successful
cohesiveness
in motivating group members to remain attracted to the group, make personal
sacrifices and work towards a common goal. Thus, by internalizing the values
of the leader, followers of transformational leaders identify the vision
147
and become committed to collective interests (Yukl, 1998) which can bring
about the desired organizational change. It therefore, appears that a
transformational leader is capable of facilitating the formation of a cohesive
group which performs at higher levels and is committed to the group and
the organization.
In our theoretical model shown in Figure 1 and consistent with the
arguments presented above, direct relationships are specified from leadership
to self-efficacy, cohesiveness, performance and commitment. In the presence of
transformational leadership, cohesive groups with members who have high
levels of self-efficacy are motivated in turn, to perform at higher levels and be
highly committed to the organization. We therefore hypothesize the following.
H1. There will be a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and both cohesiveness and self-efficacy.
H2. There will be a positive relationship between both cohesiveness and
self-efficacy and the outcome variables of commitment and
performance.
Figure 1.
JOCM
17,2
148
together, interact for long hours within the close confines of the station and
Leadership,
have to depend on each other when they are out handling emergency situations. self-efficacy and
Several of them observed that they were likely to respect and emulate their
cohesiveness
leaders only if they had proved themselves in action. We felt that the kinds of
situations they faced (e.g. warehouse blazes, aircraft accidents) called for
exceptional leadership and teamwork.
149
Method
Sample and procedure
Three hundred and three fire rescue employees in active service (working in the
field) completed a survey questionnaire. Respondents were employed at a fire
department in the southeastern United States and completed questionnaires
while on duty at their respective fire stations. The authors were available on
site to answer any questions. The Fire Chief sent out memos encouraging
employees to participate, but no incentives were offered. The response rate was
over 95 percent. The fire stations that participated in the earlier interviews
were not included in the study. After accounting for missing data, 271
responses were used for our data analysis.
The sample was 85.5 percent male with an average age of 40.2 years.
Fifty-eight percent were white, 13.3 percent were black, and 25.2 percent were
Hispanic. Average tenure in the fire service was 13 years and 9.3 years in their
current jobs. Each station received approximately 13 emergency calls per day
and had an average group size of four (fire rescue personnel on each shift at
each station). Thirty-one percent of respondents had a high school education,
56.7 percent had bachelors degrees and 4.2 percent had masters degrees.
All fire rescue employees had received professional emergency management
training. Over 56 percent of the respondents were firefighters, 8.5 percent were
paramedics, 21.5 percent were lieutenants, 11.9 percent were fire captains and
1.5 percent were battalion chiefs. Thus, we were able to tap various levels of
leadership. Each respondent indicated who they considered as their immediate
supervisor and used this individual as their referent in ratings of
transformational leadership: 36.3 percent indicated that they considered their
lieutenant to be their supervisor, 29.8 considered the fire captain to be their
supervisor and 24.2 percent considered the battalion chief to be their supervisor
(9.7 percent indicated other). A reason for this is that we surveyed firefighters
at different levels in the organization, but we also observed that for some
people, the referent was the fire station rather than the immediate group by
virtue of the fact that they worked in different shifts and had different leaders
on their assignments. Thus, in order to preserve these distinctions and
maintain consistency with our conceptualization and earlier research that
examines individual perceptions, all variables were measured and analyzed at
the individual level.
JOCM
17,2
150
Measures
Transformational leadership. The twenty-three item measure developed by
Podsakoff et al. (1990) was employed to measure the transformational
leadership. Respondents were asked to describe the behaviors of their
supervisors in their current work situation using a seven-point scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The six key leader behaviors
identified by Podsakoff et al. (1990) are (examples of behavior in parentheses):
identifying and articulating a vision(e.g. inspires others with his/her plans for
the future), providing an appropriate model for employees (e.g. leads by
example), fostering the acceptance of group goals (e.g. encourages employees
to be team players), high performance expectations (e.g. will not settle for
second best), providing individualized support (e.g. shows respect for my
personal feelings), and intellectual stimulation (e.g. challenges me to think
about old problems in new ways). The coefficient a of reliability for these
subscales were 0.85, 0.88, 0.93, 0.71, 0.85 and 0.85, respectively. In accordance
with the earlier research on this scale, the composite of these scales was created
by combining them to obtain a global measure of transformational leadership
(Pillai and Williams, 1998) which is used in the analyses. The coefficient a of
reliability for this composite was 0.95.
Group cohesiveness. Group cohesiveness was measured as individual
perceptions of cohesiveness using the six-item scale presented in the study by
Podsakoff et al. (1993) in a manner consistent with our conceptualization and its
use in the earlier study. Respondents were asked to use a seven-point scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to report on the perceived
level of trust and cooperation among group members. (e.g. the members of my
work group know that they can depend on each other).
Self-efficacy. General self-efficacy was measured using the seventeen-item
scale developed by Sherer et al. (1982). Respondents used a seven-point scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree to describe how they feel
about their ability to achieve their goals (e.g. if I cant do a job the first time,
I keep trying until I can and when I make plans I am certain I can make them
work).
Organizational commitment. Employee commitment refers to the
psychological attachment of workers to their workplaces and was measured
using the scale developed by OReilly and Chatman (1986). Some research has
indicated an inability of this measure to separate the two components of
identification and internalization (Caldwell et al., 1990). We found that in our
sample the correlation between identification and internalization was high
r 0:68: However, the results of a confirmatory factor analysis on the
measure supported treating them as independent dimensions (the chi-square
change between a single-factor and a two-factor model was significant at 78.94
for a change in 1 degree of freedom). The two-factor model produced a
goodness of fit index (GFI) of 0.91 and normed fit index (NFI) of 0.91.
JOCM
17,2
152
Variables
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations, and
intercorrelations
Mean
N 271
Transformational leadership
4.81
Cohesiveness
5.56
Self-efficacy
5.66
Commitment (internalization)
4.58
Perceptions of unit performance
3.78
Notes: Reliabilities appear in bold along the
Model
Table II.
Results of model
comparisons
SD
1.01 0.95
1.07
0.42* 0.93
0.70
0.14*
0.27*
1.13
0.26*
0.35*
0.65
0.36*
0.47*
diagonal; *p , 0.01.
0.83
0.33*
0.28*
0.81
0.35*
0.86
Dx 2
RMSR
GFI
CFI
NFI
2
19.01
1
15.35
3.66
6 105.69 86.68
4
32.57 13.56
theoretical model.
0.047
0.044
0.110
0.061
0.98
0.98
0.86
0.96
0.92
0.94
0.55
0.87
0.92
0.93
0.55
0.86
df
x2
and 0.34 for perceptions of unit performance. These results indicate that the
Leadership,
paths specified explain significant variance for each variable. Figure 2 shows self-efficacy and
the parameter estimates from a standardized solution. All paths specified in the
cohesiveness
theoretical model were statistically significant p , 0:05: H1 and H3 are
supported with direct effects of transformational leadership on cohesiveness,
self efficacy, commitment and perceptions of unit performance. H2 is supported
153
with direct effects of cohesiveness and self-efficacy on commitment and
perceptions of unit performance. H4 is supported with transformational
leadership having both direct and indirect effects on commitment and
perceptions of unit performance, with cohesiveness and self-efficacy serving as
partial mediating variables.
The conditions for partial mediation are present based on the following three
conditions specified by Baron and Kenny (1986).
(1) The independent variables are significantly related to the dependent
variables and mediators (H1 and H3).
(2) The mediator variables are significantly related to the dependent
variables (H2)
(3) When the independent variables and the mediators are considered
simultaneously, the direct relationship between the independent and
dependent variables decreases by a magnitude that is statistically
significant ( p of 0.05) (H4).
Figure 2.
JOCM
17,2
154
Full mediation requires that in the presence of the mediators the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables are no longer significant.
In the direct model, the parameter estimates of the paths from
transformational leadership to cohesiveness, self-efficacy, commitment and
perceptions of unit performance were 0.45 p , 0:001; 0.18 p , 0:01; 0.27
p , 0:001; and 0.41 p , 0:001; respectively. Figure 2 shows that in the
presence of the mediators the parameter estimates of the paths from
transformational leadership to commitment and perceptions of unit
performance were 0.15 p , 0:05 and 0.18 p , 0:05; respectively.
Discussion
Overall, the results of the study provide support for the model we proposed.
Transformational leadership was related to perceptions of unit performance
and commitment through self-efficacy and cohesiveness. Transformational
leadership also influenced commitment and perceptions of unit performance
directly, consistent with the earlier research (Bass, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
The importance of self-efficacy and cohesiveness as partial mediating variables
was established by the fact that the data did not provide a good fit to the direct
model in which we showed all paths leading directly from transformational
leadership to self-efficacy, cohesiveness, commitment and perceptions of unit
performance. The current study extends existing knowledge by testing the role
of self-efficacy and group cohesiveness in the transformational leadership
process. We believe that this is one of the first such studies carried out in the
US. The study also shows that transformational leadership is effective in yet
another unique setting, namely, a fire rescue organization, one that faces a
constantly changing environment, especially in a post 11 September world
with heightened fears with respect to terrorism and requiring innovative
responses, in which there is a great need for outstanding leadership.
Emergency situations such as those often faced by military combat units,
police patrols, and fire-fighting units may provide a context in which the
effectiveness of transformational leadership is influenced by variables such as
group cohesiveness and self-efficacy.
Future research must explore the relationship between leadership and
cohesive groups over a period of time. Transformational leaders may be able to
inspire group members with their vision for the future in the initial stages of
group formation, but what if the vision fails? Does the cohesive group lose faith
in and turn against the leader? The fact that we used generalized self-efficacy
rather than task-specific self-efficacy may have influenced the relationship
between self-efficacy and transformational leadership. The correlation was
weaker than that between transformational leadership and group cohesion.
Future studies should explore the role of task specific self-efficacy in
facilitating the impact of transformational leadership on individual and
organizational outcomes.
JOCM
17,2
156
JOCM
17,2
158
Hayduk, L.A. (1987), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD.
House, R.J. and Shamir, B. (1993), Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and
visionary theories, in Chemers, M.M. and Ayman, R. (Eds), Leadership Theory and
Research: Perspectives and Directions, Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, pp. 81-103.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide, Scientific Software,
Chicago, IL.
Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002), Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance,
Small Group Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 313-36.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1996), Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51.
Korsgaard, M.A., Schweiger, D.M. and Sapienza, H.J. (1995), Building commitment, attachment,
and trust in strategic decision making teams: the role of procedural justice, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 60-84.
Lennings, C.J. (1994), An evaluation of a generalized self-efficacy scale, Personality and
Individual Differences, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 745-50.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), A review of current practice for evaluating
causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research,
Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.
Murphy, J. (1999), Building bridges to the 21st century, Fire Engineering, Vol. 152 No. 2,
pp. 8-10.
Nunally, J. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
OReilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosaic behavior, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Pillai, R. and Williams, E.A. (1998), Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter
perceptions of candidates transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 US
Presidential vote, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 283-302.
Platt, J.R. (1964), Strong inference, Science, Vol. 146 No. 364, pp. 347-53.
Podsakoff, P.M. and McKenzie, S.B. (1997), Kerr and Jermiers substitutes for leadership model:
background, empirical assessment, and suggestions for future research, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-33.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self reports in organizational leader reward and
punishment behavior and research: problems and prospects, Journal of Management,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,
trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 259-98.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, S.B. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.
Podsakoff, P.M., Niehoff, B.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Williams, M.L. (1993), Do substitutes for
leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermiers
Leadership,
self-efficacy and
cohesiveness
159
fire service training environments. International Journal of Emergency Services 2:2, 119-130. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
17. Joseph A. Schafer. 2013. The role of trust and transparency in the pursuit of procedural and organisational
justice. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 8, 131-143. [CrossRef]
18. Khanyapuss Punjaisri, Heiner Evanschitzky, John Rudd. 2013. Aligning employee service recovery
performance with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. Journal of Marketing Management
29, 981-1006. [CrossRef]
19. Karina Nielsen, Johan Simonsen Abildgaard. 2013. Organizational interventions: A research-based
framework for the evaluation of both process and effects. Work & Stress 27, 278-297. [CrossRef]
20. Julia E. Hoch. 2013. Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee
Integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology 28, 159-174. [CrossRef]
21. Daan van Knippenberg, Sim B. Sitkin. 2013. A Critical Assessment of CharismaticTransformational
Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board?. The Academy of Management Annals 7, 1-60.
[CrossRef]
22. Julia E. Hoch, James H. Dulebohn. 2013. Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and
human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review 23, 114-125.
[CrossRef]
23. Silke Astrid Eisenbei, Sabine Boerner. 2013. A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and
Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management 24:10.1111/bjom.2013.24.issue-1, 54-68. [CrossRef]
24. Beverly Alimo-MetcalfeA Critical Review of Leadership Theory 13-47. [CrossRef]
25. Torsten J. Holstad, Thomas Rigotti, Kathleen Otto. 2013. Prozedurale Fairness als Mediator zwischen
transformationaler Fhrung und psychischer Beanspruchung am Arbeitsplatz. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und
Organisationspsychologie A&O 57, 163-176. [CrossRef]
26. Minkyun Kim, Raj Sharman, Catherine P. Cook-Cottone, H. Raghav Rao, Shambhu J. Upadhyaya. 2012.
Assessing roles of people, technology and structure in emergency management systems: a public sector
perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology 31, 1147-1160. [CrossRef]
27. Auli Airila, Jari Hakanen, Anne Punakallio, Sirpa Lusa, Ritva Luukkonen. 2012. Is work engagement
related to work ability beyond working conditions and lifestyle factors?. International Archives of
Occupational and Environmental Health 85, 915-925. [CrossRef]
28. Xavier Dumay, Benot Galand. 2012. The multilevel impact of transformational leadership on teacher
commitment: cognitive and motivational pathways. British Educational Research Journal 38, 703-729.
[CrossRef]
29. Jong-Seok Lee, Tae-Hyung Kim, Yong-John Shin. 2012. The Impact of Communication and Conflict
on Group Cohesiveness and Organization Effectiveness in Ship Organization. Journal of Korean navigation
and port research 36, 489-499. [CrossRef]
30. BaekKyoo (Brian) Joo, Hea Jun Yoon, ChangWook Jeung. 2012. The effects of core selfevaluations
and transformational leadership on organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 33:6, 564-582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Jun Ishikawa. 2012. Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles of norm for
maintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management
29, 265-283. [CrossRef]
32. Karina Nielsen, Kevin Daniels. 2012. Does shared and differentiated transformational leadership predict
followers' working conditions and well-being?. The Leadership Quarterly 23, 383-397. [CrossRef]
33. Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans. 2012. How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of
a consensus model. Human Resource Management 51:10.1002/hrm.v51.3, 361-385. [CrossRef]
34. Marco A. de Oliveira, Osmar Possamai, Luiz V.O. Dalla Valentina, Carlos A. Flesch. 2012. Applying
Bayesian networks to performance forecast of innovation projects: A case study of transformational
leadership influence in organizations oriented by projects. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 5061-5070.
[CrossRef]
35. Jun Ishikawa. 2012. Leadership and performance in Japanese R&D teams. Asia Pacific Business Review
18, 241-258. [CrossRef]
36. CHIN-YI CHEN, CHIN-YUAN YANG, CHUN-I LI. 2012. Spiritual Leadership, Follower Mediators,
and Organizational Outcomes: Evidence From Three Industries Across Two Major Chinese Societies1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42:10.1111/jasp.2012.42.issue-4, 890-938. [CrossRef]
37. Trker Kurt, Ibrahim Duyar, Temel alik. 2011. Are we legitimate yet?. Journal of Management
Development 31:1, 71-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Kyle Ehrhardt, Janice S. Miller, Sarah J. Freeman, Peter W. Hom. 2011. An examination of the
relationship between training comprehensiveness and organizational commitment: Further exploration
of training perceptions and employee attitudes. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22:10.1002/
hrdq.v22.4, 459-489. [CrossRef]
39. Marisa Salanova, Laura Lorente, Maria J. Chambel, Isabel M. Martnez. 2011. Linking transformational
leadership to nurses extra-role performance: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work engagement.
Journal of Advanced Nursing 67:10.1111/jan.2011.67.issue-10, 2256-2266. [CrossRef]
40. Jun Ishikawa. 2011. Leadership and performance in Japanese R&D teams. Asia Pacific Business Review
1-18. [CrossRef]
41. , Shin Hong Chul. 2011. A study on the Relationship among Hotel Employees' Personality
Type, Emotional Intelligence, Psychological Well-being and Job Performance. Jounal of Korea Service
Management Society 12, 57-86. [CrossRef]
42. Payyazhi Jayashree, Syed Jamal Hussain. 2011. Aligning change deployment: a Balanced Scorecard
approach. Measuring Business Excellence 15:3, 63-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Laura Illia, Marino Bonaiuto, Erica Pugliese, Johan van Rekom. 2011. Managing membership threats
through collective efficacy. Journal of Business Research 64, 631-639. [CrossRef]
44. Anyi Chung, IHeng Chen, Amber YunPing Lee, Hsien Chun Chen, Yingtzu Lin. 2011. Charismatic
leadership and selfleadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:3, 299-313. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
45. Rose Utley, Rachel Anderson, Jan Atwell. 2011. Implementing Transformational Leadership in LongTerm Care. Geriatric Nursing 32, 212-219. [CrossRef]
46. Manuel Carlos Vallejo. 2011. A model to study the organizational culture of the family firm. Small Business
Economics 36, 47-64. [CrossRef]
47. Mareen Sturm, Stephanie Reiher, Kathrin Heinitz, Renate Soellner. 2011. Transformationale,
transaktionale und passiv-vermeidende Fhrung. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O
55, 88-104. [CrossRef]
48. Jiayan Liu, Oi-Ling Siu, Kan Shi. 2010. Transformational Leadership and Employee Well-Being:
The Mediating Role of Trust in the Leader and Self-Efficacy. Applied Psychology 59:10.1111/
apps.2010.59.issue-3, 454-479. [CrossRef]
49. Laura Borgogni, Laura Petitta, Andrea Mastrorilli. 2010. Correlates of Collective Efficacy in the Italian
Air Force. Applied Psychology 59:10.1111/apps.2010.59.issue-3, 515-537. [CrossRef]
50. Sabine Korek, Jrg Felfe, Ute Zaepernick-Rothe. 2010. Transformational leadership and commitment:
A multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating processes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 19, 364-387. [CrossRef]
51. F. K. Marsh. 2010. High Performance Team: Building a Business Program With Part- and Full-Time
Faculty. Journal of Education for Business 85, 187-194. [CrossRef]
52. Karina Nielsen, Joanna Yarker, Raymond Randall, Fehmidah Munir. 2009. The mediating effects of
team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and
psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International
Journal of Nursing Studies 46, 1236-1244. [CrossRef]
53. Nikolaos Panagopoulos, Sergios Dimitriadis. 2009. Transformational leadership as a mediator of the
relationship between behaviorbased control and salespeople's key outcomes. European Journal of
Marketing 43:7/8, 1008-1031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Milly Casey-Campbell, Martin L. Martens. 2009. Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of
the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 11:10.1111/
ijmr.2009.11.issue-2, 223-246. [CrossRef]
55. Simon A. Moss, Nicki Dowling, John Callanan. 2009. Towards an integrated model of leadership and self
regulation. The Leadership Quarterly 20, 162-176. [CrossRef]
56. Laura Borgogni, Silvia Dello Russo, Laura Petitta, Gary P. Latham. 2009. Collective Efficacy and
Organizational Commitment in an Italian City Hall. European Psychologist 14, 363-371. [CrossRef]
57. Sean T. Hannah, Bruce J. Avolio, Fred Luthans, P.D. Harms. 2008. Leadership efficacy: Review and
future directions. The Leadership Quarterly 19, 669-692. [CrossRef]
58. Karina Nielsen, Joanna Yarker, Sten-Olof Brenner, Raymond Randall, Vilhelm Borg. 2008. The
importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees working with older
people. Journal of Advanced Nursing 63:10.1111/jan.2008.63.issue-5, 465-475. [CrossRef]
59. Manuel Carlos Vallejo. 2008. Is the Culture of Family Firms Really Different? A Value-based Model for
Its Survival through Generations. Journal of Business Ethics 81, 261-279. [CrossRef]
60. Esther Lpez-Zafra, Rocio Garcia-Retamero, Jos M. Augusto Landa. 2008. The role of transformational
leadership, emotional intelligence, and group cohesiveness on leadership emergence. Journal of Leadership
Studies 2:10.1002/jls.v2:3, 37-49. [CrossRef]
61. Masuma Bahora, Sonya Hanafi, Victoria H. Chien, Michael T. Compton. 2008. Preliminary Evidence
of Effects of Crisis Intervention Team Training on Self-Efficacy and Social Distance. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 35, 159-167. [CrossRef]
62. Robin F. Goodman, Elissa J. Brown. 2008. Service and Science in Times of Crisis: Developing, Planning,
and Implementing a Clinical Research Program for Children Traumatically Bereaved After 9/11. Death
Studies 32, 154-180. [CrossRef]
63. Lavinia Cicero, Antonio Pierro. 2007. Charismatic leadership and organizational outcomes: The mediating
role of employees' workgroup identification. International Journal of Psychology 42, 297-306. [CrossRef]
64. John W. Whiteoak. 2007. The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and
Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups. Journal of Business and Psychology 22, 11-20. [CrossRef]
65. G. Maxwell, S. Ogden. 2006. Career development of female managers in retailing: Inhibitors and enablers.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13, 111-120. [CrossRef]
66. Olugbenga Jelil Ladebo. 2006. PERCEPTIONS OF TRUST AND EMPLOYEES ATTITUDES:
A LOOK AT NIGERIAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION WORKERS. Journal of Business and
Psychology 20, 409-427. [CrossRef]
67. Hettie A. Richardson, Robert J. Vandenberg. 2005. Integrating managerial perceptions and
transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26:10.1002/job.v26:5, 561-589. [CrossRef]