Author: Bitieal Mehari

Supervisor: Yvonne Terjestam

Examinor: Jens Agerström

Linnaeus University Department of psychology Psychology Master Thesis 4PS012, 30 credits Spring 2015

Transformational leadership and well-being: The mediating role of trust in leadership, meaningfulness and job satisfaction

Abstract

The aim of this research study is to explore the mechanisms involved in the relationship between

transformational leadership style and employee well-being in the workplace. Previous evidence

has shown that transformational leadership is linked with employee well-being. However, it is not

clear whether transformational leadership have an indirect effect on employees work environment,

and that this subsequently meditates that relationship. A theory driven model was tested by

applying a parallel multiple mediation analysis. This was conducted on a cross-sectional data

sample of 82 employees working in a public psychiatric hospital in Sweden. The results indicated

that transformational leadership and employee well-being is correlated, and that job satisfaction

indirectly mediated this relationship. However, contrary to previous studies, the results did not

indicated that transformational leadership had an indirect effect on employees‘ wellbeing, though,

its effect on trust in leadership and employees‘ sense of meaning in work. Theoretical and practical

contributions as well as limitations of the research study are discussed.

Keywords: transformational leadership, well-being, psychosocial work environment, trust in

management, meaningfulness, job satisfaction

1

Introduction

“When good people have problems, managers and companies need to carry them. This should

be a personal mission. If we learn to carry people when they most need it, we become a

stronger community and we empower people in ways that we probably can‟t imagine when we

are young.‖ - Shane Rodgers, Editor at The Australian

Research has found that between a fifth and a quarter of the variation of an adults life

satisfaction can be explained by satisfaction in the workplace (Harten, Schmidt, Keyes,

2002). Because people spend a great deal of their adult life in the work place, it is

logical to assume that the psychosocial work environment is a great influential factor to

people‘s health and well-being. Prior research has shown that employee well-being is

linked with employee productivity, and the success of the organization as whole

(Harten, Schmidt, Keyes, 2002). It has also shown that it is affected by both the physical

work and psychosocial environment (e.g., Gilbreath & Benson, 2004). Understanding

employees‘ well-being within organizational boarders is important not only for ethical

reasons, but also to plan, design, and execute appropriate and effective interventions.

Interventions that help prevent employee suffering and promote well-being.

Depending on which level and perspective one takes, there might be several different

answers to the question ―who hold the responsibility of people‘s well-being in the

workplace?‖. The formal organizational leaders have a substantial amount of power to

impact the individual person‘s life and the work place environment. It is the leaders

within the organizations that are able to shape and impact the organizational culture

which involves workplace norms and values (Bass & Avolio,1993; Jaskyte, 2004), as

well as the work climate, and the physical work environment. It is the leaders who have

the power to provide employees with the right resources, and create or change policies

and procedures which enables employees to grow, and develop their skills and

competences.

Research (e,g., Cherniss,1995; Van Dierendonck et al., 2004) demonstrates that

employees perceptions of their work environment is associated with leadership

behaviour (Nielsen et al., 2008). According to Sparks, Faragher, and Cooper (2001)

leadership style is one of the main psychosocial work factor which is a concern in the 21

century workplace, as it has been linked with both positive and negative employee

outcomes. For instance, a study conducted by Gilbreath and Benson (2004) indicated

2

that supervisory behaviour is the strongest predictor of employee well-being compared

to other workplace factors. The interest in understanding the effects leaders have on

employee wellbeing has grown over the past three decade (Tafvelin, Armelius,

Westerberg,2011). Several studies have discovered that leadership behaviour affect

employee well-being within and without the work place boarders (e.g., Kauppala et al.,

2008; Skakon, et al., 2010). One of the most well documented leadership styles is

transformational leadership. Transformational leadership has been associated with

several different positive organizational outcomes, including employee well-being.

However, the process of this association is poorly understood (Nyberg, bernin, Theorell,

2005), and some researchers propose that this association may be indirect.

On the basis on previous findings within the leadership and occupational health

literature, the aim of this thesis is to explore the mechanisms involved in the association

between transformational leadership style and employee wellbeing. The objective is to

further increase our knowledge of how leaders influence employees‘ well-being. The

first part of the thesis will provide a review of the concept leadership, in particularly

transformational leadership, as well as well-being. Secondly, an overview of the current

empirical research and the hypotheses of my research study will be provided. This will

follow with a description of the methodology used in this study to explore the

hypothesis, and then the empirical results. The last part of the thesis will provide an in-

depth discussion of the results and my finale conclusions.

Transformational leadership

According to Hogan & Kaiser (2005) leadership is an important topic within

organisations, as good leadership leads to successful and effective organisations which

eventually leads to financial and psychological wellbeing for employees, executives,

stakeholders and citizens (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). It is also an important topic in human

science (Yukl, 2012), and it is a concept which has long excited interest among

researchers. However, it was not until the late twentieth century the concept of

transformational leadership (TL) started to emerge. TL was firstly introduced by James

MacGregor Burns (1978) who suggested that there are two forms of leadership

transformational and transactional. Burns described TL as a process whereby ―leaders

and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation” (Burns,

1978) (Givens, 2008 p.5). Over the past 30 years, TL research has grown and become

the most researched leadership theory out of all other leadership theories combined,

3

and is currently dominating leadership research (Avolio et al., 2009; Judge & Piccolo,

2004; Westerlaken & Woods, 2013). The reason for its growth is due to its effectiveness

relating to a number of different positive organizational and employee outcomes. The

literature shows, that (TL) is related to subordinates extra effort and the tendency to go

the extra mile for the organization (OCB) (e.g., Barling et al., 1996), commitment to the

organization (e.g., Koh et al., 1995), managerial satisfaction and effectiveness (e.g.,

Michel et al., 2011), employee job satisfaction (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004), creative

performance (e.g., Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). It has also been linked to positive group

processes such as increase level of group effectiveness (e.g., Bass, et al., 2003),

collective efficacy (Kark et al., 2003), and group cohesiveness (e.g., Hoyt & Blascovich,

2003).

Within the occupational health literature studies have showed that workplace factors,

such as leadership behaviour, predict workplace ill health (e.g., Landeweerd &

Boumans, 1994; Tepper, 2000). On the contrary, positive leadership behaviours similar

to TL, might prevent employee bad health and improve employee well-being (Skakon et

al., 2010). Burns version of leadership has been developed several times sense his

introduction, and one the most widely used versions was conducted by Avolio & Bass

(1991). Unlike Burns model, Avolio and Bass‘s (1991) the full range leadership model

includes an additional leadership component, namely Laizze-faire leadership style

(Avolio, et al., 2003; Kelloway et al., 2012).

According to this model TL is composed by four different behavioural dimensions:

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence or charisma and

individualized consideration. 1) Inspirational motivation refers to a leader who

communicates a convincing vision of the future, promotes powerful symbols to

followers, and motivates followers to make greater efforts. This enables followers to

achieve beyond their expectations and to feel a sense of belonging (Nyberg, Bernin,

Theorell, 2005). 2) Intellectual stimulation refers to the TL ability to encourage followers

to think of problems in new ways and perspectives, and to find answers to their own

questions themselves (Nyberg et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2007). 3) Idealized influence

refers to the charismatic characteristic of the leader and their ability to exhibiting moral

behaviours and doing what is ―right‖, express dedication and self-sacrifice to benefit of

the followers. Consequently, the TL is regarded as a role model, and followers identify

with their leader (Nyberg et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2007; Yukl, 2012). Lastly 4)

Individualized consideration refers to a leader who treat followers as a person, and

4

takes their time to listen to their concerns and support them, listen to their ideas, coach,

and encourage the followers and demonstrate appreciation of their achievements

(Arnold et al., 2007; Nyberg et al., 2005).

Well-being

The definition of well-being seems to vary depending on researchers‘ specific domain.

Nevertheless, it is largely accepted that well-being can be conceptualized in two ways.

Firstly, well-being can be defined and measured in relation to actual symptomatology

and epidemiology rates, whereby the definition encompasses both the psychological

and physiological presence of illness or disease (Danna & Griffin, 1999). Secondly, well-

being can be defined in relation to mental, psychological or emotional states of workers

(Danna & Griffin, 1999). For the past decade or so, there has been a rise of positive

psychology among organizational researchers (Fisher, 2010). This has allowed

researchers to focus on positive experiences as opposed to the previously dominate

total attention on the disease model, which focus on negative states and outcomes such

as illnesses, stress, burnout, and depression (Fisher, 2010).

Within the psychology domain, there are three defining characteristics of well-being;

firstly, well- being is a phenomenological experience, thus people rate their level of

happiness based on their subjective belief of how happy they are (Wright &

Cropanzano, 2000). Secondly, it also contains an emotional aspect, whereby

psychologically well individuals tend to experience more positive emotions than

negative ones (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Third, well-being is often considered to go

beyond physical health and encompass the ―the whole person‖ as well (Danna &

Griffin,1999).

Occupational Well-being

Within an organisational context, well-being in the workplace is often operationalized

based on employee affective well-being. Affective well-being is conceptually similar to

the medical criterion of ―ill‖ and ―not ill‖ (Danna & Griffin, 1999). It is often treated within

the pleasure–displeasure axis (Van horn et al., 2004), which consists of positive vs.

negative emotional experience such as anxiety–comfort, depression–pleasure,

boredom–enthusiasm, tiredness–vigour and anger–placidity (Daniels, 2000). Thus,

many current measuring instruments for occupational well-being primarily tap into this

affective dimension (Van horn et al., 2004). Specifically they tend to tap into the

5

pleasure-displeasure axis in a work context, as empirical evidence indicates that this

axis accounts for most of the covariance in affective well-being (Daniels, 2000).

Some researchers believe it is important to measure both context free e.g. life

satisfaction, and context related aspects of well-being (e.g., Danna & Griffin, 1999).

However, Warr (1987, 1994) argued that there is an advantage to focus on context

specific elements of well-being, as job related antecedents e.g. intrinsic job factors, and

work relationships, are stronger for job related well-being ( Van horn et al., 2004).

Similarly, Van Horn, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs (2004) concluded that affective well-

being (e.g., mood, emotional exhaustion) constitutes the core of occupational well-

being. They also argued that cognitive weariness at work (e.g., capacity to take up new

information and loss of concentration) and psychosomatic complains (e.g., headaches

and back pains) also play a part in occupational well-being. This is because prior

research (e.g., Broadbent et al., 1982; Taris et al., 2001) has found that these are linked

with affective well-being (Van horn et al., 2004). Based on these arguments, this paper

conceptualizes well-being in the context of work and affective components. Thus,

measures of well-being used in this study will incorporate measure of context related

affective well-being (emotions at work), physical well-being (cognitive and

psychosomatic complaints), and health measures taping into stress, sleep and burnout.

Transformational leadership and employee well-being

Several empirical studies have demonstrated a specific relationship between TL and

subordinates well-being (e.g. Arnold et al., 2007; Densten, 2005; Seltzer et al., 1989;

Sivanathan et al., 2004). Kelloway et al. (2012) argued that each components of TL

leadership are relevant to employee‘s well-being. Thus, idealized influence allows

leaders to be guided by ethical reasoning when they commit to their employees, and are

able to take actions which benefit their employees‘ health and well-being in the long-

term. They are also able to consider the organization as a whole, rather than their own

short term self-interest. Leaders who exhibit individual consideration focus on

employees need for achievement and development, and demonstrate empathy and

compassion, and provide employees with guidance and support which impacts the

employee‘s wellbeing, but also fosters a supportive team climate within the

organization. Empirical evidence indicate that leadership support leads to higher

employee well-being (e.g., Gilbreath & Benson, 2004), less burnout (e.g., Price &

Weiss, 2000; Tourigny, et al., 2005), less stress (e.g., Moyle, 1998) and less

6

psychosomatic complaints (e.g., Elfering et al., 2002), positive affective well-being (e.g.,

Gilbreath & Benson, 2004).

Frank & Felfe (2011) suggested that the components idealized influence and individual

consideration influences employees own self-concept by providing application and

empathy, which fosters perceptions of confidence and trust, which eventually leads to

decreased perceived strain (Zwingmann et al., 2014). Through Intellectual stimulation,

employees are able to make sense of their situation and to feel an increased sense of

self-confidence when solve when they solve work related problems in their own way

they and achieve beyond their own expectations and also enables them to make sense

of their situation. This in turn enhances their well-being (Kelloway et al., 2012).

Intellectual stimulation could also influence employee‘s task clarity, and decrease

uncertainty and ambiguity, when the leader describes expected performance (Liu et al.

2010), which in turn leads to low levels of perceived stress and less stress symptoms

(Liu et al. 2010). Thus, empirical research seems to support the positive effect of

transformational leadership on employee well-being, especially the dimension

individualized influence and individualized consideration. Therefore, based on these

theoretical arguments and empirical findings, this study hypothesises that perceived

transformational leadership leads to higher employee well-being.

H1: There is a positive relationship between perceived transformational leadership and employee well-being.

Despite the vast amount of studies conducted on TL and its relation to outcomes, the

influence process of TL is, according to many researchers still poorly understood (e.g.,

Avolio et al., 2009; Van Knippenberg, & Sitkin, 2013). According to Bass (1999), further

examination of the process of TL is needed. Although Bass conclusions still ring true,

some researches have since then explored different aspects of TL, such as the

antecedents of TL (e.g., Wright & Pandey, 2010; Bono et al., 2012), moderators of TL

and outcomes (e.g., Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2008), as well as mediators that directly

or indirectly effect TL and outcomes (e.g., Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). However, research

in this area is still lacking, in order to fully explain how and why TL influences

employee‘s attitudes, motivations, behaviours and well-being. Thus, this has led the

process to be referred to as the ―blackbox‖ of TL (Avolio et al., 2009; Yukl, 1999).

The aim of this paper is to investigate the mechanisms between TL and employee well-

being, through mediation analysis. The mediation process examines potential

7

intervening or mediating variables which function as a connection between TL and

wellbeing. Several studies have indicated that employees perceived work

characteristics, such as meaningfulness (Arnold et al., 2007; Nielsen et al., 2008) and

trust in leadership (Liu, Siu, Shi, 2010; Kelloway et al., 2012), mediates the relationship

between TL and employee well-being. However, previous research often considers job

satisfaction as an outcome or antecedent of TL and well-being. In order to find a

significant mediation, it is important to demonstrate that TL and well-being is related. It

is also important that these two variables relate to each mediating variable. Based on

the model for mediation and previous empirical evidence, it only seems logical to

assume that employees‘ satisfaction with their jobs, sense of meaningfulness at work

and trust in their leader, could potentially be mediating the relationship between TL and

well-being. Thus, the following section will demonstrate the theoretical reasoning behind

this proposed mediation model.

Transformational leadership and the mediating variables

According to the empirical evidence, TL is positively linked with employees trust in

leader (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 1990, 1996; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), a sense of

meaningfulness at work (e.g., Brossoit, 2001; Sparks & Schenk, 2001; Nyberg et al.

2005), and increase level of job satisfaction (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 1990; Fuller et al.,

1996; Nielsen et al., 2009; Turner et al., 2002; Djibo, et al., 2010; Kovjanic et al. 2012).

The literature suggest that TL adhere to employees basic psychological needs such as

relatedness, by showing concern, consideration, and support to their employees (Arnold

et al., 2007). This in turn confirms their needs and feelings and fosters a sense of

meaningfulness, moral purpose, and commitment to their work (Arnold et al. 2007).

Empirical evidence also indicate that leadership support leads to higher job satisfaction

(e.g., Moyle,1998; Sellgren et al., 2008).Through the dimension individualized

consideration TL develop deep relationships with their employees, and as a

consequence instils trust and respect (Den hartog et al., 2002), and positive affective

response such as job satisfaction (Butler et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2010).

The dimension inspirational motivation allows the leader to also foster meaningfulness

and job satisfaction. TL ability to communicate a shared future vision has been argued

to influence employees to be optimistic regarding future goals, and thus to feel a sense

of meaning for the task at hand, and to see a higher purpose in their work, as they are

able to understand where they fit in (Nielsen et al., 2008). This in turn increases

employees‘ personal core values, and increases the likelihood of employees to perceive

8

their work as purposeful, motivational, and important (Nielsen et al., 2008).

Furthermore, providing a future vision, as well as other TL behaviours such as leading

by example, coaching, developing employees and share information, has been argued

to energize and empower employees (Arnold et al., 2007). Empirical evidence indicates

that empowerment increases levels of job satisfaction (e.g., Appelbaum & Honeggar,

1998).

Furthermore, Ghadi, Fernando, Caputi (2013) suggest that TL component intellectual

stimulation leaders encourage employees to find their own solutions to their problems

and to be creative, thus employees perception of them self-enhances which increases

their self-esteem and make work meaningful. This leadership behaviour will make

employees feel safe to express their opinion without fear of being criticized. This help

employees to control and prevent an environment where feelings of rejection, prejudice,

and misunderstanding manifests itself, and thus preclude meaning in work to foster

(Ghadi et al., 2013).

Trust in leadership and well-being

Previous research has found that employee trust in their leader mediate the association

between TL and employee well-being (Liu et al., 2010; Kelloway et al., 2012). According

to Liu, Siu, Shi (2010) and Kelloway et al. (2012) employees who trust their leader

experience a sense of safety and comfort. This is because employees feel their leader

cares about them, and therefor feel less exposed to being harmed by their leader, which

leads to an increase in psychological safety. When the sense of risk and vulnerability is

limited, through trust, it affects followers‘s psychological well-being (Kelloway et al.

2012). To the contrary, Dirks & Ferrin (2002) argue that employees can experience a

sense of psychological distress if they do not trust their leaders which can negatively

affect their well-being. Kelloway et al. (2012) suggest that employees are consumed by

emotional and cognitive energy when they distrust their leader, because their emotional

and physical resources becomes reduced when the then attempt to safeguarding

themselves from their leader.

Meaningfulness and well-being

Researchers (e.g., Frank, 1963) argue that finding meaning in different events

increases peoples will to live (Arnold et al., 2007) and recognizes the benefits in

stressful circumstances (Britt et al., 2001). The literature generally recognizes that

people make evaluation of their life in affective terms i.e. as the experience of

9

unpleasant or pleasant emotions in reaction to life (Diener, 2000). Based on the

circumplex model, work engagement is a sign of positive affective well-being, which is

characterized by enthusiasm, energy and happiness, and the opposite of burnout,

sadness and tiredness. Furthermore, Kahn‘s model of work engagement, propose that

meaningfulness, together with psychological safety and availability, are antecedent to

work engagement. Studies have found positive association between engagement and

health (e.g., Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2008). For instance studies

conducted by Demerouti et. al. (2001) and Rothbord (2001) found that those scoring

high on engagement measures experience better physical and psychological health,

and other studies have found that those that are engaged in their jobs, see their work as

meaningful, relevant, and personally important (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001). A study

conducted by May et al. (2004) found that psychological meaningfulness was the

strongest predictor (37% of the variance) of work engagement, and research conducted

by Ghadi, Fernando, & Caputi (2013) found that perception of meaning in work

mediated the relationship between TL and work engagement. Westaby, Versenyi, &

Hausmann (2005) study found that intrinsic reasons for working, such as finding work

as meaningful, was predictive of intention to work in individuals who were suffering from

terminal illness. To the contrary, employed people compared with unemployed,

experienced better psychological health (Arnold et al., 2007). According to Winefield &

Tiggemann (1990) employment after graduating school has a positive effect on well-

being (Arnold et al., 2007).

Job satisfaction and well-being

Research has shown that there is a strong link between job satisfaction and people s

health and well-being. For instance a meta-analysis conducted by Fargher, Cass &

Cooper (2005) on 485 cross-sectional studies found a correlation between job

satisfaction and a variety of different health outcomes. These include outcomes such as

burnout, self-esteem issues, depression, anxiety, and physical well-being. The

researchers proposed that job satisfaction can have a positive affect on a person‘s

feelings about themselves and their life, which eventually reduces their health,

especially their mental health (Fragher et al., 2005). Thus, the authors concluded that

job satisfaction plays an important role for determining individual well-being. They

further argue that there are good enough reasons to hypotheses that job satisfaction is

a causal influence on health and mental well-being (Fragher et al., 2005).Other

researchers have also highlighted the causal influence job satisfaction has on health

10

and well-being. For instance, Kelloway and Barling (1991) identified job satisfaction as a

key factor influencing people‘s mental health. In addition, Zhai et al. (2013) proposed

that job satisfaction can ―spill over‖, and influence subjective well-being.

A study conducted by Kern et al. (2014) indicated that positive emotions at work and

physical health is positively correlated with job satisfaction, and negative emotions,

whereas somatic symptoms were negatively related to job satisfaction. Based on all of

these theoretical and empirical explanations, this paper expects to find a positive

correlation between TL and all three mediating variables, and between all mediating

variables and well-being, and therefor hypotheses to find a significant mediation

between TL and well-being.

H2: Employee trust in their leader will mediate the relationship between perceived transformational leadership and well-being H3: The relationship between perceived transformational leadership and well-being is mediated by the experience of meaningful work H4: The relationship between perceived transformational leadership and employee well-being is mediated by job satisfaction

Method Participants The subjects in this study are all staff working in a large public psychiatric hospital. The

hospital is divided and located in three different cities within a specific county in

Sweden. Each city is similarly populated. The hospital provides both adult outpatient

clinic and general psychiatric clinic. Care in the outpatient clinic caters to people with

mental health problems, with or without referral, that require specialist care. Care in a

general psychiatric unit offers care and treatment for various psychiatric conditions e.g.

depression, anxiety, mania. Questionnaires were distributed to 200 employees, and 82

were returned, yielding a response rate of 41 %. The study participants were

predominantly female (80 %), and the

average age between 41-45 (M = 5,1, SD = 2,61) and they have been working in this

particular workplace on average between 2-5 years (M = 3,5, SD = 1,83). The majority

were healthcare‘s (47 %), 22 % nurses, 19 % psychiatric nurses, 6% medical secretary,

1 Age was divided into nine categories. M =5,1 represent the fifth category which include age between 41-45

2 The b- values are the unstandardized regression coefficient that indicates the strength of relationship between a

given predictor of many and an outcome in the units of measurement s of the predictor. It is the change in the

11

3 % occupational therapist, 2 % psychologist, 1 % social workers. Eight managers in

total were rated by their employees.

Procedure

The HR department of the hospital was approached via email and telephone by the

researcher asking whether they wanted to take part in the study. The study was

introduced to the subjects by their respective leader, thus each leader received a letter

detailing the purpose of the study from the researcher. The questionnaires were then

handed out to the subjects by their respective leaders. In order to adhere to ethical

principles, each questionnaire included an introduction which highlighted the purpose of

the study, confidentiality and anonymity, and their right to withdraw from the study. The

respondents were reminded that this study intend protect respondents' and the

organizations identity. Due to the sensitive nature of rating one‘s own boss, the subjects

were urged to hand in their answers in an envelope with the researchers address on it,

in order to further assure their anonymity. However, one of the subjects did report to the

researcher that this procedure was not followed within one unit. However, the

researcher contacted HR and all leaders were reminded again via email to provide an

envelope for all subjects taking part in the study. No other complains emerged.

Measurements

The TL, trust in leadership and job satisfaction scales, were translated into Swedish,

and back translated into English by the researcher. These scales were later reviewed by

English to Swedish translation expert, and by the supervisor of this thesis. Based on

their feedback, some corrections were made. All six scales were piloted for this

particular study on a small group of Swedish speaking participants (n=7), in order to

ensure that the questions were understandable. The first participant, provided some

feedback, and some additional corrections were made. The remaining six participants

found that the questionnaire was not too long and the questions were understandable.

Transformational leadership This was measured using the Global Transformational

Leadership Scale (GLT) developed by Carless, Wearing, and Mann (2000). The

instrument includes seven items which measures all underlying dimensions of TL

including vision, employee development, supportive leadership, empowerment,

innovation or lateral thinking, led by example or role modelling and charismatic

leadership (Carless, et al., 2000). Examples of items are „„My leader communicates a

12

clear and positive vision of the future‘‘ and ‗‗My leader encourages thinking about

problems in new ways and questions assumptions.‘‘ Response categories ranged from

1= To a very small extent, to 5= to a very large extent. The GLT has been found to have

higher convergent validity than the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)

(Carless, et al., 2000). Furthermore, previous chronbach alpha for this scale was

calculated as .93, which indicates that the GLT is a highly reliable measure of TL.

Carless et. al. (2000) also reported significant Discriminant validity for this scale when

the test compared groups of managers who would be expected to have different scores

on the GLT. Furthermore, they also tested for convergent validity which indicated that

the GLT was highly correlated with other TL measures such as the MLQ and the

Leadership and the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). Chornbach alpha calculated

in this study was .96.

Well-being

DNA. The health section of the Det nya arbetslivet (DNA) instrument was used to

measure well-being. It was developed by Metodicum and The stress research institute

part of Stockholm University, based on good theoretical foundations. Four

subcomponents out of the eight components included within the health section of DNA

were used for this particular study; 14 items measuring emotions at work, three items

measuring psychosomatic stress, three items measuring cognitive stress, and one item

measuring general health. Response rate on the emotions at work scale ranged from 1=

to a very high degree, to 4= to a very low degree/not at all. Example of an item is ―to

what extent do the following words describe how you feel during a normal working day

at the job: Happy‖. The psychosomatic stress was reported on response scale which

ranged from 1 = yes, to 4 = No almost never/never. An example of an item is ―How

often, during the last three months have you had headache?‖ Response rate on the

cognitive complaints scale ranged from 1 = always, to 5 = never. Example of an item is

―How often, during the last three months, have you had problems with concentration?”.

This instrument has been found to have good validity and reliability. The questions

included in DNA are also included in The Swedish Longitudinal Survey of Occupational

Health (SLOSH) (Oxenstierna et al., 2008). Previous chronbach alpha for

psychosomatic stress has been found to be .68, and .88 for cognitive stress

(Oxenstierna et al., 2008). Chornbach alpha found in this study include .59 for emotions

at work, however the mean inter-item correlations for this scale was 2.7 with values

ranging from 1.8 to 3.7. For psychosomatic stress chronbach alpha was found to be .66

and .83 for cognitive stress.

13

COPSOQ II. Questions in the wellbeing scale revolving stress, burnout, and sleep

problems were taking from the Swedish version of The Copenhagen psychosocial

questionnaire (COPSOQ II). This instrument was developed by the National research

centre for the working environment (NRCWE). Each scale had four items with five

response options which ranged from 1= Always, to 5= Never/hardly ever. Examples of

items include ―How often have you had problems relaxing?‖, ―How often have you felt

worn out?‖, and ―How often have you found it hard to go to sleep?‖. The instrument, has

been found to show good validity and reliability (Bjorner & Pejtersen, 2010; Thorsen &

Bjorner, 2010). COPSOQ is based on good theoretical foundations, and has been used

in several studies (e.g. Aust et al., 2007; Kristensen et al., 2005; Nielsen et al. 2008).

Furthermore, Bjorner & Pejtersen (2010) found that external variables such as gender,

age, education, social class, employment in private or public sector had no statistical

significant differential item functioning (DIF) effect on all three scales. On a population

of n= 3517, Pejtersen et al. (2010) found high Chronbach alfa levels of .83 for burnout,

.86 for sleep and .91 for stress. Chronbach alpha in this study was found to be .57,. 82,

and .64, respectively.

Job satisfaction. The satisfaction with job facet questionnaire developed by Andrew

and Withey (1976) was used for this study. The measure uses five items to measure

satisfaction with specific job facets such as work in general, work demands, work

environment, work supervision, and the work itself (Fields, 2002). Answers for this

measurement was reported on a scale ranging from 1 = terrible, to 7 = delighted.

Examples of item is ―How do you feel about your job?” and ―What is it like where you

work --- the physical surroundings, the hours, the amount of work you are asked to

do?”. The scale has both good reliability and validity. The questionnaire has been found

to positively correlate with organizational commitment, supervisory rated performance,

positive conversations with boss, amount of decision making, and mental efforts

required (Fields, 2002). The measure has also previously been found to positively

correlate with satisfaction on scales from the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire and

the job descriptive index (JDI) (Fields, 2002). It has also been found to correlate with

JDI work facets such as pay, supervision, promotions, co-workers, and the work itself

(Fields, 2002). Previous studies conducted by McFarlin & Rice (1992), Rentsch & Steel

(1992) Steel & Rentsch, (1995, 1997), found that chronbach alpha levels for this scale

range from .79 to .91 (Fields, 2002). Chronbach alpha in this study was found to be .83.

14

Trust in leader. The managerial interpersonal trust instrument developed by McAllister

(1995) was used in this study to measure subordinates trust in their leader. This

instrument measures two dimensions of trust including affective and cognitive trust. A

total of six items were used to assess affective trust e.g. “ I can talk freely to this

individual about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen‖

and five items to asses cognitive trust e.g. “Given this person‟s track record, I see no

reason to doubt his/her competence and preparation”. Answers for this measurement

was rated on a scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The

instrument has acceptable convergent, discriminant, nomological validity (McEvily &

Tortoriello, 2011). The instrument is based on good theoretical foundation, and initially

the instrument was tested within an organizational context (McAllister, 1995). The

instrument has also been used in over 12 studies (Dietz et al., 2006). Furthermore, the

instrument showed a good reliability. McAllister (1995) conducted a confirmatory factors

analysis on this instrument, and the analysis showed that chronbach alpha levels for all

items met or exceeded .90, which indicates that the measure meets the standard

criteria for acceptability (McAllister, 1995). Chornbach alpha in this study indicated .93.

Meaningfulness at work. This was measured by using the subcomponent

Meaningfulness part of the Swedish version of The Copenhagen psychosocial

questionnaire (COPSOQ II). Three items were used to measure meaningfulness at work

e.g. ―Is your work meaningful?‖ and answers for this measure were rated on a scale of

1=To a very small extent and 5= To a very large extent. Chronbach alpha levels for this

scale has been found to range from .66 to .63, in a longitudinal study with a similar RQ

as in this current study (Nielsen et al., 2008). Furthermore, it has been used in several

different countries including Sweden as well as within a variety of both private and

public occupational sectors including the health services. It has also been tested across

different professions, age, and gender (Nielsen et al., 2008). Chornbach alpha in this

study indicated .85.

Data analysis

A parallel multiple mediation analysis with the bootstrapping method (Preacher &

Hayes, 2008) was performed. Mediation analysis is a statistical method used to help

answer the question to how the causal or antecedent variable TL (x) transmit its effect

on well-being (Y), by adding a third mediating variable (s) (M) which may explain that

relationship (Field, 2013; Hayes, 2013). The conceptual model test mediation through a

15

series of regression models. These models indicate the relationship between the

antecedent variable and the outcome variable, which must show a significant direct

effect in order to perform a mediation analysis. The models also indicate whether

these two variables are related to a third intervening variable (s) i.e. the mediator, in a

specific way. Lastly, the models show whether the relationship between antecedent

variable and outcome variable is different when the mediator is included in the model,

and the other mediators in the model are hold constant. This is called an indirect effect.

The analysis examines these following pathways:

a) The relationship between TL and employee well-being (Path c) b) The relationship between TL and M (Path a) c) The relationship between M and employee well-being (Path b) d) The relationship between TL and employee well-being, when M is included in the model, and all other mediators are hold constant (Path c‘)

Thus, a full mediation is said to have occurred when TL and employee wellbeing is no

longer associated when the mediation variable is accounted for in the model (i.e.

regression for path c‘ is insignificant). A partial mediation has occurred when TL predicts

well-being much less when the mediation variable is in the model (i.e. regression for

part c‘ is less than for path c). Prior to conducting the main mediation analysis all

variables were tested for correlation using Spearman‘s correlation coefficient test.

Results As part of the preliminary analyses descriptive statistics were computed. A reliability test

was performed in order to test the reliability of all the scales, the results were mentioned

in the method section, and the test showed that all scales had acceptable chronbach

alpha values. However the emotions at work component of the DNA scale and the

burnout component of the COPSOQ II scale, had relatively low chronbach alpha values

and inter-item correlation for the emotions scale exceeded 1.00. Thus, this may effect

the reliability of these two scales. All the variables were tested for heteroscedasticity,

and the Anova test was insignificant F (4, 31) = .199, p = .937 and thus H0 of

homoscedasticity assumption was accepted and H1 for heteroscedasticity was rejected.

All variables were assessed for skewness and kurtosis. As trust in leader scale, TL and

meaningfulness was positively skewed, and both Kolmogorov-simirnov and Shapiro

walks test for normality was significant for these respective scales, the data violated the

assumptions for a parametric normal distributional test. Thus, all variables were tested

16

for correlation using Spearman‘s correlation coefficient test (see table 1). The results

indicated that there was a strong, positive monotonic correlation between TL and

employee well-being (rs= .403, p < .001), TL and trust in leader (rs = .830, p < .001), TL

and job satisfaction (rs = .545, p < .001), but no significant correlation was found

between TL and employees sense of meaningfulness at work (rs = .138, p = n.s.).

Contrary to expectations, the test indicated that there was no significant relationship

between meaningfulness at work and well-being (rs= .194, p = n.s.). However, the test

indicated that there was a positive relationship between trust in leader and employee

well-being (rs= .309, p < .005), well-being and job satisfaction (rs= .47, p < .001).

Table 1. Mean, Standard deviations, minimum and maximum values, and intercorrelations

Scale M SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5

1.Meaningfulness 12.5 1.9 6 15

2.Trust in leader 49.6 13.5 14 73 .14

3.Jobsatisfaction 25.0 3.8 15 35 .39** 46**

4.Transformational 23.7 7.2 7 35 .13 .83** .54** Leadership

5.Well-being 108.0 11.0 82 128 .19 .30** .47** .40** -

Note: N for correlations = 82 M= Mean SD= Standard diviation **p <.01 (2-tailed) *p <.05 (2-tailed)

A parallel multiple meditational analysis with 1000 bootstraping was run. As can be seen

in figure 1 and Table 2, the results revealed that when controlling for other mediators in

the model, and for cofounding variables such as workplace tenure, time spend with the

boss, and age, there was a significant relationship between TL and job satisfaction (a3 =

0.254, p < .001), and job satisfaction and employee well-being (b3 = 1.143, p = .003).

Path c was also significant, which indicated that there was a direct relationship between

TL and employee well-being (c = .53, p <.05), Based on these significant results, a

mediation analysis was conducted to test whether path c significantly changed when job

satisfaction was included in the model (path c'). The test showed that job satisfaction fully

mediated the relationship between TL and employee well-being, as the direct relationship

between TL and employee well-being changed from significant (c = .53, p < .05) to

17

insignificant path c' 2(b= 0.460, p =.215 ). There for the test shows that there is a

significant indirect effect of TL on employee well-being through job satisfaction, b =

0.285, 95 % CI [0.10, 0.54], sobel test also indicated a positive mediating effect (SE=

.114, z = 2.49, p <.05) with an effect size of 28, 5 %. Thus, the test accepts both H1 and

H4. Consistent with the spearman‘s correlation test mediation analysis indicated that the

relationship between TL and trust in leadership was significant (a1 = 1.66, p < .001), and

regression model showed that perceived TL behaviours explains about 81.1 % of the

variance in employee trust in their leader (R2 = 0.811, F (4, 74) 0 79.4, p <.001).

However, the relationship between trust in leader and employee well-being (b1 = -.120, p

=.531), and the indirect effect of TL on employee well-being through employee trust in

leadership was insignificant b = -.207, 95 % CI [-.74, .32]. Thus, the test rejects H2.

Contrary to expectations, the test indicated that there was insignificant relationship

between TL and meaningfulness (a2 = .110, p = 0.25), employees sense of

meaningfulness at work and their well-being (b2 = -0.175, p= .794.). Thus, the test also

rejects H3, as no significant meditational effect of TL on employee well-being through

employees‘ sense of meaningfulness at work b = -.003, 95 % CI [-.12, .02].

Table 2 Regression coefficients, Standard Errors, and model summary information

M1(Trust) M2 (Meaningfulness) M3 (Job satisfaction) Y(well-being)

Antecedents Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

X (TL (a1) 1.660 .093 <.001 a2 .0110 .023 .525 (a3) .254 .053 <.001 (c’) .460 .360 .215

M1 - - - - - - - - - b1 -.120 .190 .531 (Trust) M2 - - - - - - - - - b2 -.175 .670 .794 (Meaningfulness) M3 - - - - - - - - - b3 1.143 .372 .003 (Job satisfaction)

Constant iM1 10.34 2.310 <.001 im2 11.98 .731 <.001 im3 18.99 1.306 <.001 iy 76.41 .186 .531 R2= 0.811 R2= 0.118 R2= 0.251 R2=0.263

F (4, 74)=79.4, p <.001 F(4,74)= 2.48, p= .054 F (4,74)= 6.21, p < .005 F(7,71)=3.63, p < .005

2 The b- values are the unstandardized regression coefficient that indicates the strength of relationship between a

given predictor of many and an outcome in the units of measurement s of the predictor. It is the change in the outcome associated with a unit change in the predictor (Field, 2013)

18

Figure 1: A statistical diagram of the parallel multiple mediator model

b = 1.66, p <.001 b = -.120, p = .531 (n.s.)

Direct effect (X on Y) b = 0.460, p =.215 (n.s)

Indirect effect (M3) b = 0.285, 95 % CI [0.10, 0.54]

b =0.254,p <.001 b =1.143, p < .003

b =0.110, p = .25 (n.s.) b = -0.175, p = .794 (n.s)

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between TL and employee well-

being, and to examine the mediating role of meaningfulness, trust in management, and

job satisfaction between these two variables. From a parallel multiple mediation analysis

the result indicated that TL significantly correlated with employees trust in leader,

employee job satisfaction, and employee well-being. In addition, TL indirectly influenced

employee well-being through its effect on employee‘s job satisfaction. The significant

mediation results indicates that as exhibiting TL behaviours in the workplace such as,

communicating a shared vision, coaching and mentoring, and encourage employees to

engage in problem solving may increase employees job satisfaction, which then ―spill

over‖ and increases employee well-being. Although, generally meditational effects are

conceptualized as causal (Arnold et al., 2007), the proposed model is based on cross-

sectional data. Therefor this study does not conclude any causational effect based on

these results. Future research should use longitudinal analyses in order to account for

variation over time, which may help to conclude causal interferences of TL on employee

well-being through job satisfaction. Nevertheless, this model provides further

understanding, and a good basis for future studies to investigate this further in order to

get a better understanding of the relationship between these three variables.

Contrary to previous research (e.g. Liu et al., 2010; Arnold et al., 2007; Nielsen et al.,

2008; Kelloway et al., 2012) and H2 and H3, the mediation analysis did not find that TL

Trust in

leadership

Transformational

leadership

Well-being

Job

satisfaction

Meaningfulness

at work

19

effects employee wellbeing through employees trust in their leader and a sense of

meaningfulness at work. Using spearmans correlation test, a positive correlation was

found between trust in leadership and employee well-being. However, the mediation

analysis indicated that trust in leader was not significantly correlated with employee

well-being, which indicates there is no mediation. It possible that path b was not

statistically significant due to multicollinerity between TL and Trust in leader, as these

two variables were found to be highly interrcorrelated .81. If TL explains all the variation

in employee well-being, there will not be any unique variation caused by employees

trust in leader, which may explain the variance in employee well-being. The

measurement scales used in this study for TL and trust in leadership are quite

problematic, as they ask fairly similar questions. Thus, it could be possible that these

two variables in reality can be equally regarded as one predictor variable. A study

conducted by Arnold et al. (2007) found that mediation between TL and wellbeing,

through trust in leadership was only significant at the individual level, and not the group

level. The researchers concluded that it is the individual experience with a particular

leader that predicts employee well-being, rather than the shared perception among

employees of a particular leader (Arnold et al. (2007). Based on this logic, another

plausible explanation of the insignificant results could be that there might be some

individual differences that are not present in the model, which may affect whether a

participant trust in leader will affect their well-being.

Similar reasons may explain the insignificant mediation found for the variable

meaningfulness. Individual differences in work values i.e. employees implicit beliefs

whether work should be meaningful, may have influenced the relationship between

meaningfulness and employee well-being. Future studies may also want to include

other covariates, in order to find different results. Because the relationship between TL

and meaningfulness at work has previously been found, it could also be possible that

the conceptualization of the meaningfulness scale used in this study did not correlate

with TL. Thus, future research should consider other measures of meaningfulness

which taps into different conceptualizations, in order to find a relationship between these

two variables (Arnold et al., 2007).

Study limitations

There are some limitations to this study which should be considered for those

interpreting the results. Firstly, it is important to note that the sample size is small

(N=82) in regards to the aims of this study and the statistical methodology. According to

20

Ma & Zeng (2014) the sample size in a study needs to be sufficient enough to reach an

adequate statistical power of 0.8. Statistical power helps calculate the probability of

accepting an alternative hypothesis after rejecting a false null hypothesis. Therefor it is

important to calculate power analysis for a multiple mediation model prior to data

analysis. This way one is able to confirm how many samples are required and decide

whether to increase sample size in order to reach a power of 0.8. Although

bootstrapping method was applied in this study, power analysis was not conducted,

which increases the risk of making a type II error and thus may impact the interpretation

of the results. According to Ma & Zeng (2014) low power is one possible reason for no

statistically significant results being identified in a study. Based on these arguments, this

study may have underestimated the existence of a meditational effect of

meaningfulness and trust in leadership variables due to the small sample size.

Secondly, even though the measurement of well-being used both context free and

context related assessments of well-being, it did not include object measurements e.g.

blood pressure, and other measures taping into subjective well-being e.g. life

satisfaction.

Thirdly, the results are found based on cross-sectional data as mentioned earlier, but

also the data rely on answers on all scale from a single source. This raises the risk that

the relationship found between the variables in this study is influenced by common

method variance. Although most of the measures had good reliability except the

emotions at work component, and burnout, and validity, it may have been possible that

the length of the questionnaire affected the response rate, as only 41 % answered the

questionnaire. The lengthy questionnaire could have also affected the answers on the

questions. The low response rate could also be due to the fact that I was not present at

the work place the data was collected from, but rather the data was distributed by the

participant‘s bosses. Another limitation is that one leader was collecting the data at

his/her office, rather than providing an envelope to the employees. Due to the sensitive

nature of the study questions and that participants (employees) were asked to rate their

leader, it could have affected the response rate and may also have skewed the data.

Unfortunately I was unable to perform a statistical test which could have explored for

any differences among groups of employees. This is because it was impossible to trace

which sample belonged to what particular leader, as the samples were mixed and

arrived in an envelope.

21

Theoretical implications and future research

The findings of this study have some important theoretical implications, as it is able to

support previous research (e.g. Liu et al., 2010) which have found a significant

correlation between TL and the mediating variables. The results also supports previous

researchers who have found that TL is related to an increase in job satisfaction (e.g.

Podsakoff et al., 1996), and proposed that job satisfaction may cause employee

wellbeing (e.g. Fragher et al., 2005). Furthermore, these results adds to the current

literature as it demonstrated that it is possible to consider job satisfaction also as a

potential mediator rather than just as an antecedent variable or an outcome variable of

TL and employee well-being.

Theoretically, job satisfaction in this study was measured based on components such

as satisfaction with work in general, work demands, work environment, work

supervision, and the work itself. Because the TL measurement in this study refers

directly to the supervisors behaviour, it is possible that TL had a strong direct effect on

one component of the job satisfaction measure i.e. satisfaction with work supervision

(Liu et al., 2010). Furthermore, the current literature suggests that certain components

of TL inspirational motivational and individualized consideration increases employee‘s

job satisfaction.

Although the aim of this study was not to investigate different forms of TL and job

satisfaction, the measurements used in this study may suggest that certain facets of TL

and job satisfaction correlated with each other. Future research should examine these

elements, in order to extend our theoretical knowledge regarding which specific aspects

of TL influences particular facets of work which are relevant for employees‘ satisfaction.

This is important for both practical and scientific reasons. Firstly, in addition to

increasing our theoretical knowledge of the relationship between these variables,

researchers are able to improve and use appropriate measurements of TL and job

satisfaction in line with their research question. Secondly, practitioners in organisations

are able to design goal specific interventions. For example, if the aim is to increase

employee satisfaction through improving relationships between supervisors and

employees, interventions could focus on coaching specific TL behaviours which are in

line with their goal.

Future research could also focus on investigating the effects of intervention programs

that aim towards developing leaders transformational behaviours. Leadership

development focus on changing the leaders in order to change the employees, however

22

it could also be possible that leadership development influence leaders own well-being,

as they enhance their attitudes and self-efficiency. Furthermore, leaders own perception

of their psychosocial environment may also influence whether they exhibit TL

behaviours. Thus, it would be interesting if future research investigate what workplace

factors encourage such behaviours, and how leaders own well-being is influenced by

this process. This may provide further information on how leaders TL behaviours can be

encouraged, and provide a more holistic picture of how TL and employee well-being can

be promoted in the workplace.

Conclusions

Despite the limitations in this study, the results provide some theoretical contribution to

the field. Firstly, this study was able to replicate previous findings which demonstrate a

positive relationship between TL and employee well-being. Secondly, the results also

extend the research area in the sense that it has increased our knowledge about the

mechanisms involved of the influence TL behaviours have on employee well-being. In

addition, this research paper also provides some practical contributions. The results

suggest that it is possible to increase employees‘ well-being, through leadership

development interventions which effects employees‘ perceptions of their psychosocial

work environment. Organisations and employees can benefit from leadership training,

which focus on applying positive TL behaviours e.g. communicating a shared vision.

This way, organisations‘ is able to implementing individual-level intervention on a small

group, rather than organizational-level interventions that may involve the whole

workforce. This makes interventions easier to control and organizations are also able to

be both cost effective and efficient enough to increase the work force well-being.

Organisations can also make these transformational behaviours more sustainable in the

long term by using goal setting interventions. Thus, transformational training can be

added into supervisors and managers yearly developmental assessments such as 360-

degree feedback instruments and managerial skills surveys.

References

Appelbaum, S.H., Honegar, K. (1998). Empowerment: A contrasting overview of organisations in general and nursing in particulare- An examination of organisational factors, managerial behaviours, job design, and structural power. Empowerment in organisations, 6 (2), 29-50. Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K., & McKee, M.C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203.

23

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–49. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9 - 32. Bass, M.B., Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. Public administration quarterly, Vol. 17, No.1, 112-121. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207 - 218. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training and attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827-832 Bjorner, J. B., & Pejtersen, J. H. (2010). Evaluating construct validity of the second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through analysis of differential item functioning and differential item effect. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3), 90–105. Bono, J. E., Hooper, A. C., & Yoon, D. J. (2012). Impact of rater personality on transformational and transactional leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 132–145. Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 53–63. Brossoit, K.B. (2001). Understanding employee empowerment in the workplace: Exploring the relationships between transformational leadership, employee perceptions of empowerment, and key work outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B, Vol. 61, 9-B. Butler, J., Cantrell, R., & Flick, R. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviours, upward trust and satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17(1), 13-28. Carless, S.A., Wearing, A.J., &Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformationalleadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press. Daniels, K. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations, 53, 275–294.

24

Danna, K., Griffin, W.R. (1999). Health and Well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of management, Vol. 25, No. 3, 357-384. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001).Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, 279-286. Densten, I.L. (2005). The relationship between visioning behaviours of leaders and follower burnout. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 105–118. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43. Dietz, D., Deanne N. Den Hartog, N.D. (2006).Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 5. Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628. Djibo, I. J. A., Desiderio, K. P., & Price, N. M. (2010). Examining the role of perceived leader behaviour on temporary employees‘ organizational commitment and citizenship behaviour. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 321–342. Faragher, E.B., Cass, M., Cooper, C.L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: a meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med., 62, 105-112. Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications Inc. pp. 408-418 Fields, L.D. (2013). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. pp. 31-32. Fisher, D.C. (2010). Happiness at work. International journal of management reviews, Vol. 12, 384-412. Fuller, J.B., Patterson, C.E.P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D.Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78(1), 271–287. Ghadi, Y.M., Fernando, M., Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership & Organization development Journal,Vol. 34, No. 6, 532-550. Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 18, 255-266. Givens, J.R. (2008). Transformational Leadership: The Impact on Organizational and Personal Outcomes. Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1, Iss. 1, 4-24. Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). ―Same same‖ but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European psychologist, 11, 119-127.

25

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Keyes, C.L. (2002). Wellbeing in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In Keyes, C.L., Haidt. J.(Eds.).Flourishing: the positive person and the good life. (pp.205-224). Washington D.C.: American psychological Association. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. Hogan, R., Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of general psychology, vol. 9, 169-180. Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678 - 715. Jaskyte, K. (2004). Transformational Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Innovativeness in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 15, No. 2, 153-168. Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–68. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 246–255. Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, Vol. 24, No. 3, 260-279. Kelloway, E.K., & Barling, J. (1991). Job characteristics, role stress, and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 291-304 Kelloway, K.E., Turner, N., Barling, J., Loughlin,C. (2012). Transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work & Stress, Vol. 26, No. 1, 39-55. Kern, L.M., Waters, L., Adler, A., White, M. (2014). Assessing Employee Wellbeing in Schools Using a Multifaceted Approach: Associations with Physical Health, Life Satisfaction, and Professional Thriving. Psychology,5, 500-513. Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Development, 16, 319-333. Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Van Dick, R. (2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees‘ needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1031–1052. Kristensen, S.T, Hannerz, H., Høgh, A., Borg, V. (2005). The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health, 31(6):438-449. Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., Vainio, H. (2008).Leadership, job well-being, and health effects-a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50, 904-915.

26

Landeweerd, A.J.,Boumans, G.P.N. (1994). The effect of work dimensions and need for autonomy on nurses' work satisfaction and health. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,Vol.67, Issue 3, 207–217 Liu J., Siu, O-L., Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of trust in the leader and self-efficacy. Applied psychology: an international review, 58 (3), 454-479. Ma, Z-W., Zeng, W-N. (2014). A multiple mediation model: power analysis based on Monto carlo simulation. American journal of applied psychology. Vol. 3, No. 3, 72-79 McAllister, J.D. (1995). Affect-and Cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, 24-59. Michel, W.J., Lyons, D.B., Cho, J. (2011). Is the full-range model of Leadership really a full-range model of effective leader behavior? Journal of leadership & organizational Studies, 18(4), 493–507 Moyle, P. (1998). Longitudinal influences of managerial support on employee well-being. Work & Stress,12, 29-49. Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., Brenner, S-O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on followers‘ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, Vol. 22, No. 1, 16-32. Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., Brenner, S-O., Randall, R., Borg, V. (2008). The importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees working with older people. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63(5), 465–475. Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1236–1244. Nyberg, A., Bernin, P., Theorell, T. (2005). The impact of leadership on the health of subordinates.Sweden: National Institute for Working Life. Oxenstierna, G., Widmark, M., Finnholm, K., Elofsson, S. (2008). Psykosociala faktorer i dagens arbetsliv och hur man matter och beskriver dem. Vällingby: Elanders. Pejtersen, J.H., Kristensen, T.S., Borg, V. & Bjorner, J.B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3),8-24. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behavior and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment and trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership behaviours and their effects on followers‘ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

27

Price, M.S., & Weiss, M.R. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviours,and athletes‘ psychological responses. Sport Psychologist, 14, 391409. Rothbard, N.P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee wellbeing? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173-203. Sellgren, S.F., Ekvall, G.R., & Tomson, G.R. (2008). Leadership behaviour of nurse managers in relation to job satisfaction and work climate. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 578 587. Seltzer, J., Numerof, R.E., & Bass, B.M. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more or less burnout or stress? Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 12, 174–185. Sivanathan, N., Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2004). Leading well: Transformational leadership and well-being. In A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 241–255). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well-being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24, 107-139. Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 489–509. 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 Behaviour, 22, 849–869. Tafvelin, S. Armelius, K., Westerberg, K. (2011). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of leadership & organizational studies, 18 (4), 480-492. Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management journal, 43 (2), 178–190. Thorsen, S. V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). Reliability of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3 Suppl), 25–32. Tourigny, L., Baba, V.V., & Lituchy, T.R. (2005). Job burnout among airline employees in Japan: A study of the buffering effects of absence and supervisory support. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5, 67-85. Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 304–311.

28

Van Horn, E.J.,Taris, W.T., Schaufeli, B.,W., Schreurs, G.J.P. (2004). The structure of occupational well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 365–375. Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic- transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60. Westaby, J. D., Versenyi, A., & Hausmann, R. C. (2005). Intentions to work during terminal illness: An exploratory study of antecedent conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1297–1305. Westerlaken, K.M, Woods, P.R.(2013). The relationship between psychopathy and the full range leadership model. Personality and individual differences, 54, 41-46. Wright, A.T., Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of occupational health psychology, Vol. 5, NO. 1, 84-94. Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). Transformational leadership in the public sector: Does structure matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (1), 75–89. Yukl, A.G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. Yukl. A.G.( 2012).Leadership in organizations (8th ed). Person education limited. Zhai, Q., O‘Shea, B., Zhai, Y., Yang., Y. (2013). Big Five personality traits, job satisfaction and subjective wellbeing in China. International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 6, 1099–1108. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2008). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 35(5), 590-619. Zwingmann, I., Wegge, J., Wolf, S., Rudolf, M., Schmidt, M., Richter, P. (2014). Is transformational leadership healthy for employees? A multilevel analysis in 16 nations. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 28 (1-2), 24-51.