the good leadership research paper

Leadership agility in the context of organisational agility: a systematic literature review

• Published: 17 April 2024

Cite this article

• Latika Tandon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9937-072X 1 ,
• Tithi Bhatnagar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8469-7658 1 , 2 &
• Tanushree Sharma   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7727-0258 3  

17 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Organisations across the globe are looking to become agile and are seeking leaders to guide their transformation to agility. This paper conducts a systematic literature review across eighty-six papers spanning over 25 years (1999–2023), to develop an overview of how leadership agility is conceptualized in the context of organisational agility in the extant literature. This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA framework. The databases searched for the review were: EBSCO, Emerald Insight, JStor, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, and Scopus. The data thus collected was organised and integrated using reflective thematic synthesis. Literature suggests that leadership agility is one of the key dimensions to foster organisational agility, though challenging in practice and difficult to implement. Based on the analysis of extant literature, this paper identifies four emergent themes of leadership agility: Leadership Agility Mindsets; Leadership Agility Competencies; Leadership Agility Styles; and Leadership Organisational Agility Functions . This study has conceptualized a framework of leadership agility in the context of organisational agility, anchored in the interplay of the emergent themes and their categories, contributing to leadership agility research, and promoting its adoption by the practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Agile Leadership and Bootlegging Behavior: Does Leadership Coping Dynamics Matter?

Positive Leadership: Moving Towards an Integrated Definition and Interventions

Leadership and Change Management: Examining Gender, Cultural and ‘Hero Leader’ Stereotypes

Data availability.

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Adhiatma A, Fachrunnisa O, Lukman N, Majid MNA (2023) Comparative study on workforce transformation strategy and SME policies in Indonesia and Malaysia. Eng Manage Prod Ser 15(4):1–11. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2023-0024

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed J, Mrugalska B, Akkaya B (2022) Agile management and VUCA 2.0 (VUCA-RR) during industry 4.0. In: Akkaya B, Guah MW, Jermsittiparsert K, Bulinska-Stangrecka H, Kaya Y (eds) Agile management and VUCA-RR: opportunities and threats in industry 4.0 towards society 5.0. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80262-325-320220002

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Akkaya B, Tabak A (2020) The link between organizational agility and leadership: a research in science parks. Acad Strateg Manag J 19:1–17

Google Scholar  

Akkaya B, Waritay-Guah M, Jermsittiparsert K, Bulinska-Stangrecka H, Kaya-Koçyiğit Y (2022) Agile management and VUCA-RR opportunities and threats in industry 4.0 towards society 5.0. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley

Book   Google Scholar  

Akkaya B, Üstgörül S (2020) Leadership styles and female managers in perspective of agile leadership. Agile Bus Leadersh Methods Ind 4:121–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-380-920201008

Akkaya B, Sever E (2022) Agile leadership and organization performance in the perspective of VUCA. In: Post-pandemic talent management models in knowledge organizations. IGI Global

Aldianto L, Anggadwita G, Permatasari A, Mirzanti IR, Williamson IO (2021) Toward a business resilience framework for startups. Sustainability (switzerland) 13(6):1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063132

Appelbaum SH, Calla R, Desautels D, Hasan L (2017a) The challenges of organizational agility (part 1). Ind Commer Train 49(1):6–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-05-2016-0027

Appelbaum SH, Calla R, Desautels D, Hasan LN (2017b) The challenges of organizational agility: part 2. Ind Commer Train 49(2):69–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-05-2016-0028

As Global Growth Slows, Developing Economies Face Risk of ‘Hard Landing.’ (2022) The World Bank

Asseraf Y, Gnizy I (2022) Translating strategy into action: the importance of an agile mindset and agile slack in international business. Int Bus Rev 31(6):102036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2022.102036

Attar M, Abdul-Kareem A (2020) The role of agile leadership in organisational agility. In: Akkaya B (ed) Agile business leadership methods for industry 40. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-380-920201011

Avery CM (2004) The mindset of an agile leader. Cut IT J 17(6):22–27

Balázs V, Éva S (2023) Unlocking the key dimensions of organizational agility: a systematic literature review on leadership, structural and cultural antecedents. Soc Econ 45. https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2023.00023

Benchea L, Ilie AG (2023) Preparing for a new world of work: leadership styles reconfigured in the digital age. Eur J Interdiscip Stud 15(1):135–143. https://doi.org/10.24818/ejis.2023.10

Booth A, Sutton A, Papaioannou D (2016) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Brandt EN, Kjellström S, Andersson A-C (2019) Transformational change by a post-conventional leader. Leadersh Org Dev J 40(4):457–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2018-0273

Buttigieg SC, Cassia MV, Cassar V (2023) The relationship between transformational leadership, leadership agility, work engagement and adaptive performance: a theoretically informed empirical study. In: Chambers N (ed) Research handbook on leadership in healthcare. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 235–251

Chakraborty T, Awan TM, Natarajan A, Kamran M (eds) (2023) Agile leadership for industry 4.0: an indispensable approach for the digital era, 1 edn. AAP/Apple Academic Press

Chatwani N (2019) Agility revisited. In: Chatwani N (ed) Organisational agility. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 1–21

De Smet A, Lurie M, St George A (2018) Leading agile transformation: The new capabilities leaders need to build 21st-century organizations. Mckinsey.com, October 2018.

Denning S (2016) Agile’s ten implementation challenges. Strategy Leadersh 44(5):15–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-08-2016-0065

Denning S (2018a) Succeeding in an increasingly Agile world. Strategy Leadersh 46(3):3–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-03-2018-0021

Denning S (2018b) The role of the C-suite in Agile transformation: the case of Amazon. Strategy Leadersh 46(6):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-10-2018-0094

Denning S (2019a) Lessons learned from mapping successful and unsuccessful Agile transformation journeys. Strategy Leadersh 47(4):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-04-2019-0052

Denning S (2019b) The ten stages of the Agile transformation journey. Strategy Leadersh 47(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-11-2018-0109

Doz Y, Kosonen M (2008) The dynamics of strategic agility: Nokia’s rollercoaster experience. Calif Manage Rev 50(3):95–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166447

Dulay S (ed) (2023) Empowering educational leaders: How to thrive in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. Peter Lang, Lausanne

Eilers K, Peters C, Leimeister JM (2022) Why the agile mindset matters. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 179:121650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121650

Esamah A, Aujirapongpan S, Rakangthong NK, Imjai N (2023) Agile leadership and digital transformation in savings cooperative limited: impact on sustainable performance amidst COVID-19. J Hum Earth Future 4(1):36–53. https://doi.org/10.28991/HEF-2023-04-01-04

Fachrunnisa O, Adhiatma A, Lukman N, Ab-Majid MN (2020) Towards SMEs’ digital transformation: the role of agile leadership and strategic flexibility. J Small Bus Strategy 30:65–85

Felipe CM, Roldán JL, Leal-Rodríguez AL (2016) An explanatory and predictive model for organizational agility. J Bus Res 69(10):4624–4631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.014

Fernandes V, Wong W, Noonan M (2023) Developing adaptability and agility in leadership amidst the COVID-19 crisis: experiences of early-career school principals. Int J Educ Manag 37(2):483–506. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2022-0076

Garton E, Noble A (2017) How to make agile work for the C-Suite. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/07/how-to-make-agile-work-for-the-c-suite

Govuzela S, Mafini C (2019) Organisational agility, business best practices and the performance of small to medium enterprises in South Africa. S Afr J Bus Manag 50(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v50i1.1417

Gren L, Ralph P (2022) What makes effective leadership in agile software development teams? In: Proceedings of the 44th international conference on software engineering, pp. 2402–2414. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510003.3510100

Gren L, Lindman M, Stray V, Hoda R, Paasivaara M, Kruchten P (2020) Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming. 21st International Conference on Agile Software Development XP 2020 Copenhagen Denmark June 8–12, 2020 Proceedings What an Agile Leader Does: The Group Dynamics Perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49392-9

Grześ B (2023) Managing an agile organization – key determinants of orgnizational agility. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology Organization and Management Series. 2023(172). https://doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.172.17

Hartney E, Melis E, Taylor D, Dickson G, Tholl B, Grimes K, Chan M-K, Van Aerde J, Horsley T (2022) Leading through the first wave of COVID: a Canadian action research study. Leadersh Health Serv 35(1):30–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-05-2021-0042

Hill L (2020) Being the agile boss. MIT SMR, Fall (2020)

Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2005) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. Choice Rev 42(10):42–5937. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.42-5937

Holbeche L (2018) Organisational effectiveness and agility. J Organ Eff People Perform 5(4):302–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-07-2018-0044

Holbeche L (2019) Designing sustainably agile and resilient organizations. Syst Res Behav Sci 36(5):668–677. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2624

Horney N, Pasmore B, O’Shea T (2010) Leadership agility: a business imperative for a VUCA world. People Strategy 33(4):34

Howieson B, Grant K (2022) Wicked leadership development for wicked problems. In: Holland P, Bartram T, Garavan T, Grant K (eds) The emerald handbook of work, workplaces and disruptive issues in HRM. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80071-779-420221030

Jansen JJP, Vera D, Crossan M (2009) Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: the moderating role of environmental dynamism. Leadersh Q 20(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008

Joiner B (2009) Creating a culture of agile leaders: a developmental approach. People Strategy 32(4):28–35

Joiner B (2012) How to build an agile leader. Chief Learn off 11(8):48–51

Joiner B, Josephs S (2007) Developing agile leaders. Ind Commer Train 39(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850710721381

Jones S, Cass D (2022) Agile leadership: eight steps to becoming an agile team leader. Eff Exec 25(1):7–12

Kaya Y (2023) Agile leadership from the perspective of dynamic capabilities and creating value. Sustainability 15(21):15253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115253

Keleş HN (2023) Agile leadership in schools. In: Empowering educational leaders: How to thrive in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world. Peter Lang AG

Konrad-Maerk M, Gfrerer A, Hutter K (2022) From transformational to agile leadership: what future skills it takes to act as agile leaders. Acad Manag Proc 2022(1):12343. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.12343abstract

Kumar S, Ray S (2023) Moving towards agile leadership to help organizations succeed. IUP J Soft Skills 17(1):2023. ProQuest

Lang D, Rumsey C (2018) Business disruption is here to stay: What should leaders do? Qual Access Success 19(S3):35–40

Leslie J (2015) The leadership gap: what you need, and still don’t have, when it comes to leadership talent. Cent Creative Leadersh. https://doi.org/10.35613/ccl.2015.1014 (2015).

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339(1):b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700

Luthia M (2023) Agile Leadership for Industry 4.0. An Indispensable Approach for the Digital Era. Apple Academic Press, New York

MacLean D, MacIntosh R, Seidl D (2015) Rethinking dynamic capabilities from a creative action perspective. Strateg Organ 13(4):340–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015593274

McKenzie J, Aitken P (2012) Learning to lead the knowledgeable organization: developing leadership agility. Strateg HR Rev 11(6):329–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/14754391211264794

McPherson B (2016) Agile, adaptive leaders. Hum Resour Manag Int Dig 24(2):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-11-2015-0171

Menon S, Suresh M (2021) Factors influencing organizational agility in higher education. Benchmark Int J 28(1):307–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0151

Meyer R, Meijers R (2017) Leadership Agility: Developing Your Repertoire of Leadership Styles, 1st edn. Routledge, London

Modi S, Strode D (2020) Leadership in agile software development: a systematic literature review. In: ACIS 2020 proceedings. 55. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2020/55

Morton J, Stacey P, Mohn M (2018) Building and maintaining strategic agility: an agenda and framework for executive IT leaders. Calif Manage Rev 61(1):94–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618790245

Muafi M, Diamastuti E, Pambudi A (2020) Service innovation strategic consensus: a lesson from the Islamic banking industry in Indonesia. J Asian Finance Econ Bus 7(11):401–411. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO11.401

Muafi M, Uyun Q (2019) Leadership agility, the influence on the organizational learning and organizational innovation and how to reduce imitation orientation. Int J Qual Res 13(2):467–484. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR13.02-14

Mukherjee T (2023) The power of empathy: rethinking leadership agility during transition. In: Agile leadership for industry 4.0. An indispensable approach for the digital era , 1st edn. Apple Academic Press

Naslund D, Kale R (2020) Is agile the latest management fad? A review of success factors of agile transformations. Int J Qual Serv Sci 12(4):489–504. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-12-2019-0142

Oliveira SRM, Saraiva MA (2023) Leader skills interpreted in the lens of education 4.0. Procedia Comput Sci 217:1296–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.327

Orski K (2017) What’s your agility ability? Nurs Manage 48(4):44–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000511922.75269.6a

O’Brien E, Robertson P (2009) Future leadership competencies: from foresight to current practice. J Eur Ind Train 33(4):371–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590910959317

O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res Organ Behavior 28:185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

Paul J, Criado AR (2020) The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? Int Bus Rev 29(4):101717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101717

Pesut DJ, Thompson SA (2018) Nursing leadership in academic nursing: The wisdom of development and the development of wisdom. J Prof Nurs 34(2):122–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.11.004

Piwowar-Sulej K, Sołtysik M, Różycka-Antkowiak JŁ (2022) Implementation of management 3.0: its consistency and conditional factors. J Organ Change Manage 35(3):541–557. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2021-0203

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, Duffy S (2006) Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Lanc Univ https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Psychogios A (2022) Re-conceptualising total quality leadership: a framework development and future research agenda. TQM J. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-01-2022-0030

Rigby D, Elk S, Steve B (2020) The agile C-suite a new approach to leadership for the team at the top. Harv Bus Rev

Roux M, Härtel CEJ (2018) The cognitive, emotional, and behavioral qualities required for leadership assessment and development in the new world of work. In: Petitta L, Härtel CEJ, Ashkanasy NM, Zerbe WJ (eds) Research on emotion in organizations, vol 14, pp 59–69. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-979120180000014010

Rožman M, Oreški D, Tominc P (2023a) A multidimensional model of the new work environment in the digital age to increase a company’s performance and competitiveness. IEEE Access 11:26136–26151. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3257104

Rožman M, Tominc P, Štrukelj T (2023b) Competitiveness through development of strategic talent management and agile management ecosystems. Glob J Flex Syst Manage 24(3):373–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-023-00344-1

Şahin S, Alp F (2020) Agile leadership model in health care: Organizational and individual antecedents and outcomes. In: Akkaya B (ed) Agile business leadership methods for industry 4.0. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 47–68

Sampson CJ (2023) How agile leadership can sustain innovation in healthcare. Front Health Serv Manage 40(2):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/HAP.0000000000000186

Saputra N (2023) Digital quotient as mediator in the link of leadership agility to employee engagement of digital generation. In: 2023 8th International conference on business and industrial research (ICBIR), pp 706–710. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBIR57571.2023.10147472

Sharifi H, Zhang Z (1999) Methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: an introduction. Int J Prod Econ 62(1):7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00217-5

Sheffield R, Jensen KR, Kaudela-Baum S (2023) Inspiring and enabling innovation leadership: key findings and future directions. In: K. R. Jensen, S. Kaudela-Baum, R. Sheffield (eds) Innovation leadership in practice: how leaders turn ideas into value in a changing world. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-396-120231019

Silva-Martinez J (2023) Conceptualization of agile leadership characteristics and outcomes from NASA agile teams as a path to the development of an agile leadership theory. J Creat Value, 23949643231202894. https://doi.org/10.1177/23949643231202894

Spiegler SV, Heinecke C, Wagner S (2021) An empirical study on changing leadership in agile teams. Abstr Empirical Softw Eng 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09949-5

Teece D, Peteraf M, Leih S (2016) Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation economy. Calif Manage Rev 58(4):13–35. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13

The Center for Creative Leadership (2015) What you need, and don’t have, when it comes to leadership talent. Center for Creative Leadership

The World Bank (2022) As global growth slows, developing economies face risk of ‘Hard Landing’. The World Bank . The World Bank

Theobald S, Prenner N, Krieg A, Schneider K (2020) Agile leadership and agile management on organizational level—a systematic literature review. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), 12562 LNCS, pp 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64148-1_2

Turan HY, Cinnioğlu H (2022) Agile leadership and employee performance in VUCA world. In: Akkaya B, Guah MW, Jermsittiparsert K, Bulinska-Stangrecka H, Kaya Y (eds) Agile management and VUCA-RR: opportunities and threats in industry 4.0 towards society 5.0. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 27–38

Ulrich D, Yeung A (2019) Agility: the new response to dynamic change. Strateg HR Rev 18(4):161–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-04-2019-0032

Vaszkun B, Sziráki É (2023) Unlocking the key dimensions of organizational agility: a systematic literature review on leadership, structural and cultural antecedents. Soc Econ 45(4):393–410. https://doi.org/10.1556/204.2023.00023

Walter A-T (2021) Organizational agility: ill-defined and somewhat confusing? A systematic literature review and conceptualization. Manage Rev Q 71(2):343–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00186-6

Warner KSR, Wäger M (2019) Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: an ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plan 52(3):326–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.001

Weiss L, Vergin L, Kanbach DK (2023) How agile leaders promote continuous innovation: an explorative framework. In: K. R. Jensen, S. Kaudela-Baum, R. Sheffield (eds) Innovation leadership in practice: How leaders turn ideas into value in a changing world. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83753-396-120231012

Zitkiene R, Deksnys M (2018) Organizational agility conceptual model. Monten J Econ 14(2):115–129. https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-2.7

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Research Ethics and Review Board (RERB) at O.P. Jindal Global University for their review and approval on our research study.

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jindal Institute of Behavioural Sciences, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India

Latika Tandon & Tithi Bhatnagar

National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore, India

Tithi Bhatnagar

Jindal Global Business School, and Executive Director-Centre for Learning and Innovative Pedagogy (CLIP), O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India

Tanushree Sharma

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by first author. The first draft of the manuscript was written by first author and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Latika Tandon .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

See the Table  6 , 7 and 8 .

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tandon, L., Bhatnagar, T. & Sharma, T. Leadership agility in the context of organisational agility: a systematic literature review. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00422-3

Download citation

Received : 15 June 2022

Accepted : 12 March 2024

Published : 17 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-024-00422-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Leadership agility
• Agile leaders
• Agile leadership
• Organisational agility
• Leadership agility mindset
• Leadership agility competencies
• Leadership agility functions

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

6 Common Leadership Styles — and How to Decide Which to Use When

• Rebecca Knight

Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances call for different approaches.

Research suggests that the most effective leaders adapt their style to different circumstances — be it a change in setting, a shift in organizational dynamics, or a turn in the business cycle. But what if you feel like you’re not equipped to take on a new and different leadership style — let alone more than one? In this article, the author outlines the six leadership styles Daniel Goleman first introduced in his 2000 HBR article, “Leadership That Gets Results,” and explains when to use each one. The good news is that personality is not destiny. Even if you’re naturally introverted or you tend to be driven by data and analysis rather than emotion, you can still learn how to adapt different leadership styles to organize, motivate, and direct your team.

Much has been written about common leadership styles and how to identify the right style for you, whether it’s transactional or transformational, bureaucratic or laissez-faire. But according to Daniel Goleman, a psychologist best known for his work on emotional intelligence, “Being a great leader means recognizing that different circumstances may call for different approaches.”

• RK Rebecca Knight is a journalist who writes about all things related to the changing nature of careers and the workplace. Her essays and reported stories have been featured in The Boston Globe, Business Insider, The New York Times, BBC, and The Christian Science Monitor. She was shortlisted as a Reuters Institute Fellow at Oxford University in 2023. Earlier in her career, she spent a decade as an editor and reporter at the Financial Times in New York, London, and Boston.

Partner Center

Leadership Research Paper

This sample leadership research paper features: 7900 words (approx. 26 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 38 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

I. Introduction

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

II. Leadership Defined

III. The Trait Approach to Leadership

IV. What Do Leaders Do? The Behavioral Approach

V. Situational Approaches to Leadership

VI. Contingency Theories of Leadership

VII. Leader-Member Exchange Theory

VIII. Charismatic and Transformational Leadership

IX. Leader Emergence and Transition

X. Leadership Development

XI. Summary

XII. Bibliography

More Leadership Research Papers:

• Implicit Leadership Theories Research Paper
• Judicial Leadership Research Paper
• Leadership Styles Research Paper
• Police Leadership Research Paper
• Political Leadership Research Paper
• Remote Leadership Research Paper

Introduction

There are few things more important to human activity than leadership. Most people, regardless of their occupation, education, political or religious beliefs, or cultural orientation, recognize that leadership is a real and vastly consequential phenomenon. Political candidates proclaim it, pundits discuss it, companies value it, and military organizations depend on it. The French diplomat Talleyrand once said, “I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep.” Effective leadership guides nations in times of peril, promotes effective team and group performance, makes organizations successful, and, in the form of parenting, nurtures the next generation. Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain during World War II, was able to galvanize the resolve of his embattled people with these words: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” When leadership is missing, the effects can be equally dramatic; organizations move too slowly, stagnate, and often lose their way. The League of Nations, created after the World War I, failed to meet the challenges of the times in large part because of a failure to secure effective leadership. With regard to bad leaders, Kellerman (2004) makes an important distinction between incompetent leaders and corrupt leaders. To this we might also add leaders who are “toxic.” Bad leadership can perpetuate misery on those who are subject to its domain. Consider the case of Jim Jones, the leader of the Peoples Temple, who in 1978 ordered the mass suicide of his 900 followers in what has been called the Jonestown Massacre, or the corrupt leadership of Enron and Arthur Anderson that impoverished thousands of workers and led to the dissolution of a major organization. These examples remind us that there are many ways in which leadership can fail.

Leadership Defined

When you think of leadership, the ideas of power, authority, and influence may come to mind. You may think of the actions of effective leaders in accomplishing important goals. You may think of actual people who have been recognized for their leadership capabilities. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th president of the United States, defined leadership as “the ability to decide what is to be done, and then to get others to want to do it.” Leadership can be defined as the ability of an individual to influence the thoughts, attitudes, and behavior of others. It is the process by which others are motivated to contribute to the success of the groups of which they are members. Leaders set a direction for their followers and help them to focus their energies on achieving their goals. Theorists have developed many different theories about leadership, and although none of the theories completely explains everything about leadership, each has received some scientific support. Some of the theories are based on the idea that there are “born leaders” with particular traits that contribute to their ability to lead. Other theories suggest that leadership consists of specific skills and behaviors. Some theories take a contingency approach that suggests that a leader’s effectiveness depends on the situation requiring leadership. Still other theories examine the relationship between the leader and his or her followers as the key to understanding leadership. In this research paper, we examine these various theories and describe the process of leadership development.

The Trait Approach to Leadership

Aristotle suggested that “men are marked out from the moment of birth to rule or be ruled,” an idea that evolved into the Great Person Theory. Great leaders of the past do seem different from ordinary human beings. When we consider the lives of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., it is easy to think of their influence as a function of unique personal attributes. This trait approach was one of the first perspectives applied to the study of leadership and for many years dominated leadership research. The list of traits associated with effective leadership is extensive and includes personality characteristics such as being outgoing, assertive, and conscientious. Other traits that have been identified are confidence, integrity, discipline, courage, self-sufficiency, humor, and mystery. Charles de Gaulle described this last trait best when he noted that “A true leader always keeps an element of surprise up his sleeve, which others cannot grasp but which keeps his public excited and breathless.”

Another trait often attributed to effective leaders is intelligence. However, intelligence is a two-edged sword. Although highly intelligent people may be effective leaders, their followers may feel that large differences in intellectual abilities mean large differences in attitudes, values, and interests. Thus, Gibb (1969) has pointed out that many groups prefer to be “ill-governed by people [they] can understand” (p. 218). One important aspect of intelligence that does predict leader effectiveness is emotional intelligence, which includes not only social skills but strong self-monitoring skills, which provide the leader with feedback as to how followers feel about the leader’s actions.

Finally, personal characteristics such as attractiveness, height, and poise are associated with effective leadership. After decades of research, in which the list of traits grew dramatically, researchers realized that the same person could be effective in one context (Winston Churchill as war leader) but ineffective in another context (Winston Churchill, who was removed from office immediately after the war was over). The failure of this approach to recognize the importance of the situation in providing clear distinctions between leaders and followers with regard to their traits caused many scientists to turn their attention elsewhere. However, theorists using more sophisticated methodological and conceptual approaches have revived this approach. Zaccaro (2007) suggests that the revival of the trait approach reflects a shift away from the idea that traits are inherited, as suggested in Galton’s 1869 book Hereditary Genius, and focuses on personal characteristics that reflect a range of acquired individual differences. This approach has three components. First, researchers do not consider traits as separate and distinct contributors to leadership effectiveness but rather as a constellation of characteristics that, taken together, make a good leader.

The second component broadens the concept of trait to refer not only to personality characteristics but also to motives, values, social and problem-solving skills, cognitive abilities, and expertise. For example, in a series of classic studies, McClelland and his colleagues (see McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982) identified three motives that contribute to leadership. They are the need for achievement, the need for power, and the need for affiliation. In their work, leader traits are not attributes of the person but the basis for the leader’s behavior. The need for achievement is manifested in the desire to solve problems and accomplish tasks. In the words of Donald McGannon, “Leadership is action, not position.” The need for power is evident in the desire to influence others without using coercion. As Hubert H. Humphrey once said, “Leadership in today’s world requires far more than a large stock of gunboats and a hard fist at the conference table.” The final motive, need for affiliation, can be a detriment to effective leadership if the leader becomes too concerned with being liked. However, it can provide positive results from the satisfaction a leader derives in helping others succeed. Lao Tse once wrote, “A good leader is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren’t there, when they succeed he takes no credit. And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him.”

The third component of this new approach focuses on attributes that both are enduring and occur across a variety of situations. For example, there is strong empirical support for the trait approach when traits are organized according to the five-factor model of personality. Both extraversion and conscientiousness are highly correlated with leader success and, to a lesser extent, so are openness to experience and the lack of neuroticism.

What Do Leaders Do? The Behavioral Approach

Three major schools of thought—the Ohio State Studies, Theory X/Y (McGregor, 1960), and the Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1984)—have all suggested that differences in leader effectiveness are directly related to the degree to which the leader is task oriented versus person oriented. Task-oriented leaders focus on the group’s work and its goals. They define and structure the roles of their subordinates in order to best obtain organizational goals. Task-oriented leaders set standards and objectives, define responsibilities, evaluate employees, and monitor compliance with their directives. In the Ohio State studies this was referred to as initiating structure, whereas McGregor (1960) refers to it as Theory X, and the Managerial Grid calls it task-centered. Harry S. Truman, 33rd president of the United States, once wrote, “A leader is a man who can persuade people to do what they don’t want to do, or do what they’re too lazy to do, and like it.” Task-oriented leaders often see their followers as undisciplined, lazy, extrinsically motivated, and irresponsible. For these leaders, leadership consists of giving direction, setting goals, and making unilateral decisions. When under pressure, task-oriented leaders become anxious, defensive, and domineering.

In contrast, person-oriented leaders tend to act in a warm and supportive manner, showing concern for the well-being of their followers. Person-oriented leaders boost morale, take steps to reduce conflict, establish rapport with group members, and provide encouragement for obtaining the group’s goals. The Ohio State studies referred to this as consideration, the Managerial Grid calls this country club leadership, and McGregor uses the term Theory Y. Person-oriented leaders see their followers as responsible, self-controlled, and intrinsically motivated. As a result, they are more likely to consult with others before making decisions, praise the accomplishment of their followers, and be less directive in their supervision. Under pressure, person-oriented leaders tend to withdraw socially.

Leadership effectiveness can be gauged in several ways: employee performance, turnover, and dissatisfaction. As you can see in Table 68.1, the most effective leaders are those who are both task and person oriented, whereas the least effective leaders are those who are neither task nor person oriented. A recent meta-analysis found that person-oriented leadership consistently improves group morale, motivation, and job satisfaction, whereas task-oriented leadership only sometimes improves group performance, depending on the types of groups and situations.

In thinking about what leaders do, it is important to distinguish between leadership and management. Warren Bennis (1989) stated, “To survive in the twenty-first century, we are going to need a new generation of leaders— leaders, not managers.” He points out that managers focus on “doing things right” whereas leaders focus on “doing the right things.” Table 68.2 provides a comparison of the characteristics that distinguish a leader from a manager. As you look at the list, it is clear that a person can be a leader without being a manager and be a manager without being a leader.

Situational Approaches to Leadership

The Great Person theory of leadership, represented by such theorists as Sigmund Freud, Thomas Carlyle, and Max Weber, suggests that from time to time, highly capable, talented, charismatic figures emerge, captivate a host of followers, and change history. In contrast to this, Hegel, Marx, and Durkheim suggest that there is a tide running in human affairs, defined by history or the economy, and that leaders are those who ride the tide. The idea of the tide leads us to the role of situational factors in leadership. For example, Perrow (1970) suggests that leadership effectiveness is dependent upon structural aspects of the organization. Longitudinal studies of organizational effectiveness provide support for this idea. For example, Pfeffer (1997) indicated that “If one cannot observe differences when leaders change, then what does it matter who occupies the positions or how they behave?” (p. 108). Vroom and Jago (2007) have identified three distinct roles that situational factors play in leadership effectiveness. First, organizational effectiveness is not strictly a result of good leadership practices. Situational factors beyond the control of the leader often affect the outcomes of any group effort. Whereas leaders, be they navy admirals or football coaches, receive credit or blame for the activities of their followers, success or failure is often the result of external forces: the actions of others, changing technologies, or environmental conditions. Second, situations shape how leaders act. Although much of the literature on leadership has focused on individual differences, social psychologists such as Phil Zimbardo, in his classic Stanford Prison Experiment, and Stanley Milgram, in his studies of obedience, have demonstrated how important the situation is in determining behavior. Third, situations influence the consequences of leader behavior. Although many popular books on leadership provide a checklist of activities in which the leader should engage, most of these lists disregard the impact of the situation. Vroom and Jago (2007) suggest that the importance of the situation is based on three factors: the limited power of many leaders, the fact that applicants for leadership positions go through a uniform screening process that reduces the extent to which they differ from one another, and whatever differences between them still exist will be overwhelmed by situational demands. If all of these factors are present, it is probably true that the individual differences between leaders will not significantly contribute to their effectiveness. Nevertheless, in most of the situations in which leaders find themselves, they are not that powerless and their effectiveness is mostly a result of matching their skills with the demands of the situation, which brings us to a discussion of contingency theories.

Contingency Theories of Leadership

One of the first psychologists to develop a contingency approach to leadership effectiveness was Fred Fiedler (1964, 1967), who believed that a leader’s style is a result of lifelong experiences that are not easy to change. With this in mind, he suggested that leaders need to understand what their style is and to manipulate the situation so that the two match. Like previous researchers, Fiedler’s idea of leadership style included task orientation and person orientation, although his approach for determining a leader’s orientation was unique. Fiedler developed the least-preferred coworker (LPC) scale. On this scale, individuals rate the person with whom they would least want to work on a variety of characteristics. Individuals who rate their LPC as uniformly negative are considered task oriented, whereas those who differentiate among the characteristics are person oriented. The second part of his contingency theory is the favorableness of the situation. Situational favorability is determined by three factors: the extent to which the task facing the group is structured, the legitimate power of the leader, and the relations between the leader and his subordinates. The relation between LPC scores and group performance is complex, as can be seen in Table 68.3. A meta-analysis conducted by Strube and Garcia (1981) found that task-oriented leaders function best in situations that are either favorable (clear task structure, solid position power, and good leader/member relations) or unfavorable (unclear task structure, weak position power, and poor leader/member relations). In contrast, person-oriented leaders function best in situations that are only moderately favorable, which is often based on the quality of leader-member relations.

Another theory that addresses the relation between leadership style and the situation is path-goal theory (House, 1971). In this theory, path refers to the leader’s behaviors that are most likely to help the group attain a desired outcome or goal. Thus, leaders must exhibit different behaviors to reach different goals, depending on the situation. Four different styles of behavior are described:

• Directive leadership. The leader sets standards of performance and provides guidelines and expectations to subordinates on how to achieve those standards.
• Supportive leadership. The leader expresses concern for the subordinates’ well-being and is supportive of them as individuals, not just as workers.
• Participative leadership. The leader solicits ideas and suggestions from subordinates and invites them to participate in decisions that directly affect them.
• Achievement-oriented leadership. The leader sets challenging goals and encourages subordinates to attain those goals.

According to path-goal theory, effective leaders need all four of these styles because each one produces different results. Which style to use depends on two types of situational factors: subordinate characteristics, including ability, locus of control, and authoritarianism; and environmental characteristics, including the nature of the task, work group, and authority system. According to House and Mitchell (1974), when style and situation are properly matched, there is greater job satisfaction and acceptance of the leader, as well as more effort toward obtaining desired goals. A meta-analysis by Indvik (1986) is generally supportive of the theory. Studies of seven organizations found that task-oriented approaches are effective in situations with low task structure, because they help subordinates cope with an ambiguous situation, and ineffective in situations with high task structure, because they appear to be micromanagement. Additional studies have found that supportive leadership is most effective when subordinates are working on stressful, frustrating, or dissatisfying tasks. Researchers found participative leadership to be most effective when subordinates were engaged in nonrepetitive, ego-involving tasks. Finally, achievement-oriented leadership was most effective when subordinates were engaged in ambiguous, nonrepetitive tasks. A clear implication of the theory is that leaders must diagnose the situation before adopting a particular leadership style.

A third contingency approach is the normative and descriptive model of leadership and decision making developed by Vroom and his colleagues (see Vroom & Jago, 2007). This approach examines the extent to which leaders should involve their subordinates in decision-making processes. To answer this question, the researchers developed a matrix that outlines the five decision processes that range from highly autocratic through consultative to highly participative (see Table 68.4). Which of these approaches is the best? The answer is none of them is uniformly preferred, and each process has different costs and benefits. For example, participative approaches are more likely to gain support and acceptance among subordinates for the leader’s ideas, whereas autocratic approaches are quick and efficient, but may cause resentment. The theory suggests that the best approach may be selected by answering several basic questions about the situation that relate to the quality and acceptance of a decision. Some examples of the type of questions that should be asked are “Do I have enough information to make a decision? How structured is the task? Must subordinates accept the decision to make it work?” By answering such questions and applying the specific rules shown in Table 68.5, a leader is able to eliminate approaches that are likely to fail and to choose the approach that seems most feasible from those remaining.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

A growing number of researchers have found that subordinates may affect leaders as much as leaders affect subordinates. Yukl (1998) pointed out that when subordinates perform poorly, leaders tend to be more task oriented, but when subordinates perform well, leaders are more person oriented. Similarly, Miller, Butler, and Cosentino (2004) found that the effectiveness of followers conformed to the same rules as those Fiedler applied to leaders. It may be that the productivity of a group can have a greater impact on leadership style than leadership style does on the productivity of the group. This reciprocal relation has been formally recognized in the vertical dyad linkage approach (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975), now commonly referred to as leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This theory describes how leaders maintain their influence by treating individual followers differently. Over time, leaders develop a special relationship with an inner circle of trusted lieutenants, assistants and advisors—the in-group. The members of the in-group are given high levels of responsibility, influence over decision making, and access to resources. Members of the in-group typically are those who are highly committed to the organization, work harder, show loyalty to the leader, and share more administrative duties. Their reward is greater access to the leader’s resources, including information, concern, and confidence. To maintain the exchange, leaders must be careful to nurture the relationship with the in-group, giving them sufficient power to satisfy their needs but not so much power that they become independent. The leader-member relationship generally follows three stages. The first stage is role taking. During this stage the leader assesses the members’ abilities and talents and offers them opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities and commitment. In this stage, both the leader and member discover how the other wants to be respected. The second stage is role making. In this stage, the leader and member take part in unstructured and informal negotiations in order to create a role for the member with a tacit promise of benefits and power in return for dedication and loyalty. In this stage, trust building is very important, and betrayal in any form can result in the member’s being relegated to the out-group. In this stage the leader and member explore relationship factors as well as work-related factors. At this stage, it is clear that perceived similarities between the leader and follower become important. For this reason, a leader may favor a member who is similar in sex, race, or outlook with assignment to the in-group, although research by Murphy and Ensher (1999) indicated that the perception of similarity is more important than actual demographic similarities. The final stage is routinization. In this phase the pattern established by the leader and member becomes established.

The quality of the leader-member relationship is dependent on several factors. It tends to be better when the challenge of the job is either extremely high or extremely low. Other factors that affect the quality of the relationship are the size of the group, availability of resources, and overall workload.

Charismatic and Transformational Leadership

In a speech given at the University of Maryland, Warren Bennis said, “[A] leader has to be able to change an organization that is dreamless, soulless and visionless…someone’s got to make a wake-up call. The first job of a leader is to define a vision for the organization.…Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.” Effective leaders are able to project a vision, explaining to their subordinates the purpose, meaning, and significance of their efforts. As Napoleon once said, “Leaders are dealers in hope.” Although the idea of charismatic leadership goes back as far as biblical times (“Where there is no vision, the people perish”—Proverbs 29:18), its modern development can be attributed to the work of Robert House. House (1977) analyzed political and religious leaders and noted that charismatic leaders are those high in self-confidence and confidence in their subordinates, with high expectations, a clear vision of what can be accomplished, and a willingness to use personal examples. Their followers often identify with the leader and his or her mission, show unswerving loyalty toward and confidence in the leader, and derive a sense of self-esteem from their association with the leader. Charismatic leaders are usually quite articulate, with superior debating and persuasive skills. They also possess the technical expertise to understand what their followers must do. Charismatic leaders usually have high self-confidence, impression-management skills, social sensitivity, and empathy. Finally, they have the skills to promote attitudinal, behavioral, and emotional change in their followers. Those who follow charismatic leaders are often surprised at how much they are able to accomplish that extends beyond their own expectations. Research on charismatic leadership indicates that the impact of such leaders is greatest when the followers engage in high self-monitoring (observing their effect on others) and exhibit high levels of self-awareness. Charismatic leadership enhances followers’ cooperation and motivation.

It is important to recognize that charismatic leadership can have a dark side. We began this research paper with the example of Jim Jones, the charismatic religious leader who led his people to commit mass suicide. Howell and Avolio (1992) describe the difference between ethical and unethical charismatic leaders. According to their analysis, ethical leaders use their power to serve others, not for personal gain. They also promote a vision that aligns with their follower’s needs and aspirations rather than with their own personal vision. Ethical leaders stimulate followers to think independently and to question the leader’s views. They engage in open, two-way communication and are sensitive to their followers’ needs. Finally, ethical leaders rely on internal moral standards to satisfy organizational and societal interests, not their own self-interests.

In helping followers achieve their aspirations, Bernard Bass (1997) has noted that charismatic leadership is a component of a broader-based concept, that of transformational leadership. Bass believed that most leaders are transactional rather than transformational in that they approach their relationships with followers as a transaction, one in which they define expectations and offer rewards that will be forthcoming when those expectations are met. Transactional leaders use a contingent reward system, manage by exception, watch followers to catch them doing something wrong, and intervene only when standards are not met. Finally, transactional leaders tend to adopt a laissez-faire approach by avoiding the need to make hard decisions.

In contrast, transformational leadership goes beyond mutually satisfactory agreements about rewards and punishments to heighten followers’ motivation, confidence, and satisfaction by uniting them in the pursuit of shared, challenging goals. In the process of doing that, they change their followers’ beliefs, values, and needs. Bass and Avolio (1994) identified four components of transformational leadership. The first component is idealized influence (charisma). Leaders provide vision, a sense of mission, and their trust in their followers. Leaders take stands on difficult issues and urge their followers to follow suit. They emphasize the importance of purpose, commitment, and ethical decision making. The second component is inspirational motivation. Leaders communicate high expectations, express important purposes in easy-to-understand ways, talk optimistically and enthusiastically about the tasks facing the organization, and provide encouragement and meaning for what has to be done. They often use symbols to focus the efforts of their followers. The third component is intellectual stimulation. Leaders promote thoughtful, rational, and careful decision making. They stimulate others to discard outmoded assumptions and beliefs and to explore new perspectives and ways of doing things. The fourth component is individualized consideration. Leaders give their followers personal attention and treat each person individually. They listen attentively and consider the individual needs, abilities, and goals of their followers in their decisions. In order to enhance the development of their followers they advise, teach, and coach, as needed. Yukl (2002) offers the following guidelines for transformational leadership:

• Develop a clear and appealing vision.
• Create a strategy for attaining the vision.
• Articulate and promote the vision.
• Act confident and optimistic.
• Express confidence in followers.
• Use early success in achievable tasks to build confidence.
• Celebrate your followers’ successes.
• Use dramatic, symbolic actions to emphasize key values.
• Model the behaviors you want followers to adopt.
• Create or modify cultural forms as symbols, slogans, or ceremonies.

Perhaps Walter Lippman provided the best summary of transformational leadership. He wrote, “The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on…” The genius of good leaders is to leave behind them a situation that common sense, without the grace of genius, can deal with successfully.

Leader Emergence and Transition

Who becomes the leader? The process by which someone becomes formally or informally, perceptually or behaviorally, and implicitly or explicitly recognized as a leader is leadership emergence. Scholars have debated this question for centuries and in this research paper, so far, we have offered several possible answers. The Great Person Theory suggests that some people are marked for greatness and dominate the times in which they live. Tolstoy’s zeitgeist theory suggests that leaders come to prominence because of the spirit of the times. Trait theories suggest leaders are selected based on their personal characteristics, whereas interactional approaches examine the joint effects of the situation and the leader’s behavior. Research suggests that leadership emergence is an orderly process that reflects a rational group process whereby the individual with the most skill or experience or intelligence or capabilities takes charge. Implicit leadership theories (Lord & Maher, 1991) provide a cognitive explanation for leadership emergence. According to these theories, each member of a group comes to the group with a set of expectations and beliefs about leaders and leadership. These cognitive structures are called implicit leadership theories or leader prototypes. Typically these prototypes include both task and relationship skills as well as an expectation that the leader will epitomize the core values of the group. Members use their implicit theories to sort people into either leaders or followers based on the extent to which others conform to their implicit theory of what a leader should be. These implicit theories also guide members in their evaluations of the leader’s effectiveness. Because these theories are implicit, they are rarely subjected to critical scrutiny. As a result, it is not uncommon for followers to demonstrate a bias toward those who fit the mold of a traditional leader: White, male, tall, and vocal, regardless of the qualifications of that individual to be the leader.

Transition, rotation, succession, change of command; all are words used to describe a central facet of organizational leadership—that leaders follow one another. Despite the frequent occurrence of leader successions in nearly all groups, especially in large stable organizations, relatively little research has addressed this phenomenon. An early review by Gibb (1969) reported on studies of leader emergence and succession mode. In particular, Gibb noted the importance of establishing leadership/followership through early, shared, significant experiences; he also stressed that an important aspect of the organizational climate for the new leader derives from the policies of the former leader, the consequence of which shape followers’ expectations, morale, and interpersonal relations. In general, studies have demonstrated that leadership succession causes turbulence and instability resulting in performance decrements in most organizations and thus constitutes a major challenge to organizations. Thus, the process of becoming the new leader is often an arduous, albeit rewarding, journey of learning and self-development. The trials involved in this rite of passage have serious consequences for both the individual and the organization. As organizations have become leaner and more dynamic, new leaders have described a transition that gets more difficult all the time. To make the transition less difficult, leaders might attend to the following suggestions adapted from the works of Betty Price, a management consultant. Some of these suggestions are particularly important for newly appointed leaders in establishing an effective leadership style early in their tenure as leader.

• New leaders should show passion for their group, its purpose, and its people in order to reassure followers that the new leader is there to make the group better, not to further his or her personal ambitions.
• New leaders should think more strategically than tactically. Look for the big picture and don’t become bogged down in implementation processes.
• New leaders should first learn to listen, and then provide leadership. Leaders should be compelling in their ability to help others embrace the values that drive the group’s success. To do this the new leader must listen intently and provide feedback that demonstrates that he or she has truly heard what others have said.
• New leaders should operate in a learning mode. As the new person on the block, the new leader may be unsure about the reputation of the preceding leader. He or she should honor the insights and knowledge of others, believing that one can learn from everyone. The new leader should engage people purposefully at all levels, knowing that the distance between the front line and senior leadership is often so great that one small piece of information may have tremendous impact.
• New leaders should take particular care in doing what’s right and telling the truth, even if it is painful. One of the first tasks of a new leader is building trust. In the face of uncertainties, being honest, direct, and truthful enables people to move forward with faith. It gives them hope.
• New leaders should encourage their people to take risks in order to achieve their goals, and be prepared to pick up the pieces if they fail. The leader’s role is to cushion the risk by providing support and encouragement, and knowing and drawing from his or her people’s best capabilities.

Leadership Development

Not everyone is born with “the right stuff” or finds himself or herself in just the right situation to demonstrate his or her capacity as a leader. However, anyone can improve his or her leadership skills. The process of training people to function effectively in a leadership role is known as leadership development and it is a multimillion-dollar business. Leadership development programs tend to be of two types: internal programs within an organization, designed to strengthen the organization, and external programs that take the form of seminars, workshops, conferences, and retreats.

Typical of external leadership development programs are the seminars offered by the American Management Association. Their training seminars are held annually in cities across the country and address both general leadership skills as well as strategic leadership. Among the seminars offered in the area of general leadership are critical thinking, storytelling, and team development in a variety of areas such as instructional technology or government. Seminars on strategic leadership address such topics as communication strategies, situational leadership, innovation, emotional intelligence, and coaching.

A second approach to leadership development is a technique known as grid training. The first step in grid training is a grid seminar during which members of an organization’s management team help others in their organization identify their management style as one of four management styles: impoverished management, task management, country-club management, and team management. The second step is training, which varies depending on the leader’s management style. The goal of the training is greater productivity, better decision making, increased morale, and focused culture change in the leader’s unique organizational environment. Grid training is directed toward six key areas: leadership development, team building, conflict resolution, customer service, mergers, and selling solutions.

Internal leadership development programs tend to focus on three major areas: the development of social interaction networks both between people within a given organization and between organizations that work with one another, the development of trusting relationships between leaders and followers, and the development of common values and a shared vision among leaders and followers. There are several techniques that promote these goals. One such technique is 360-degree feedback. This is a process whereby leaders may learn what peers, subordinates, and superiors think of their performance. This kind of feedback can be useful in identifying areas in need of improvement. The strength of the technique is that it provides differing perspectives across a variety of situations that help the leader to understand the perceptions of his or her actions. This practice has become very popular and is currently used by virtually all Fortune 500 companies. Like all forms of assessment, 360-degree feedback is only useful if the leader is willing and able to change his or her behavior as a result of the feedback. To ensure that leaders don’t summarily dismiss feedback that doesn’t suit them, many companies have arranged for face-to-face meetings between the leaders and those who have provided the feedback.

Another form of internal leadership development is networking. As a leadership development tool, networking is designed to reduce the isolation of leaders and help them better understand the organization in which they work. Networking is specifically designed to connect leaders with key personnel who can help them accomplish their everyday tasks. Networking promotes peer relationships and allows individuals with similar concerns and responsibilities to learn from one another ways to better do their job. Research indicates that these peer relationships tend to be long-lasting.

Executive coaching is a method for developing leaders that involves custom-tailored, one-on-one interactions. This method generally follows four steps. It begins with an agreement between the coach and the leader as to the nature of the coaching relationship, to include what is to be done and how it will be done. The second step is an expert’s assessment of the leader’s strengths and weaknesses. The third step provides a comprehensive plan for improvement that is usually shared with the leader’s immediate supervisor. The fourth and final step is the implementation of the plan. Coaching is sometimes a onetime event aimed at addressing a particular concern or it can be an ongoing, continuous process.

Another form of internal leadership development is mentoring. The term mentor can mean many things: a trusted counselor or guide, tutor, coach, master, experienced colleague, or role model. A mentor is usually someone older and more experienced who provides advice and support to a younger, less experienced person (protégé). In general, mentors guide, watch over, and encourage the progress of their protégés. Mentors often pave the way for their protégé’s success by providing opportunities for achievement, nominating them for promotion, and arranging for their recognition. As a form of leadership development, there are several advantages to mentoring. A meta-analysis by Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lima, and Lentz (2004) indicated that individuals who were mentored showed greater organizational commitment, lower turnover, higher career satisfaction, enhanced leadership skills, and a better understanding of their organization.

In the future, leadership is likely to become more group centered as organizations become more decentralized. Other changes will come about as a result of new and emerging technologies. Avolio and his colleagues (2003) refer to this as “e-leadership.” Leadership effectiveness will depend on the leader’s ability to integrate the new technologies into the norms and culture of their organization.

Another change is that the future will most likely see more women break through the “glass ceiling” and take leadership positions. Men are considerably more likely to enact leadership behaviors than are women in studies of leaderless groups, and as a result are more likely to emerge as leaders (Eagly, 1987). Even though women do sometimes emerge as leaders, historically they have been excluded from the highest levels of leadership in both politics and business. This exclusion has been called the glass ceiling. Studies of leadership in organizational settings have found that men and women do not differ significantly in their basic approach to leadership, with equal numbers of task- versus person-oriented leaders. However, women are much more likely to adopt a participative or transformational leadership style whereas men are more likely to be autocratic, laissez-faire, or transactional (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Women’s leadership styles are more closely associated with group performance as well as subordinate satisfaction, and in time our implicit theories about leadership may very well favor those who adopt such approaches.

Diversity and working in a global economy will provide additional challenges to tomorrow’s leaders. Project GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) is an extensive international project involving 170 researchers who have gathered data from 18,000 managers in 62 countries (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorman, & Gupta, 2004). A major goal of the project was to develop societal and organizational measures of culture and leader attributes that were appropriate to use across all cultures. There have been several important findings. In some cultures, leadership is denigrated and regarded with suspicion. People in these cultures often fear that leaders will acquire and abuse power and as a result substantial restraints are placed on the exercise of leadership. Twenty-two leadership traits (e.g., foresight and decisiveness) were identified as being desirable across all cultures. Eight leadership traits (e.g., ruthlessness and irritability) were identified as being universally undesirable. Some leadership traits were dependent upon the culture, including ambition and elitism. Six leadership styles common to many cultures were identified. They are charismatic, self-protective, humane, team oriented, participative, and autonomous. Although the charismatic style is familiar to us, some of the others are not. The self-protective style involves following agreed-upon procedures, being cognizant of the status hierarchy, and saving face. The humane style includes modesty and helping others. The team-oriented style includes collaboration, team building, and diplomacy. The participative style encourages getting the opinions and help of others. The autonomous style involves being independent and making one’s own decisions. Cultures differ in their preferences for these styles. For example, leaders from northern European countries are more participative and less self-protective whereas leaders from southern Asia are more humane and less participative.

Although most of us would agree that leadership is extraordinarily important, research in this field has yet to arrive at a generally accepted definition of what leadership is, create a widely accepted paradigm for studying leadership, or find the best strategies for developing and practicing leadership. Hackman and Wageman (2007) attempted to address this problem by reframing the questions we have been asking about leadership effectiveness, with the hope that these questions will be more informative than many of those asked previously.

• Question 1. Ask NOT “Do leaders make a difference?” but “Under what conditions does leadership matter?” The task here is to examine conceptually and empirically the circumstances under which leadership makes a difference and to distinguish those from the circumstances for which leadership is inconsequential.
• Question 2. Ask NOT “What are the traits that define an effective leader?” but “How do leaders’ personal attributes interact with situational properties to shape outcomes?” This approach will require that we reduce our reliance on both fixed traits and complex contingencies. To do this, we should embrace the idea that there are many different ways to achieve the same outcome.
• Question 3. Ask NOT “Are there common dimensions on which all leaders can be arrayed?” but “Are good and poor leadership qualitatively different phenomena?” Recent research has found that ineffective leaders were not ones who scored low on those dimensions for which good leaders scored high, but rather they exhibited entirely different patterns of behavior than those exhibited by good leaders.
• Question 4. Ask NOT “How do leaders and followers differ from one another?” but “How can leadership models be reframed so they treat all members of a group as leaders and followers?” Although it is clear that to be a leader requires that you have followers, it is equally true that most leaders are at times followers and most followers are at times leaders.
• Question 5. Ask NOT “What should be taught in leadership courses?” but “How can leaders be helped to learn?” Research is needed to understand how leaders learn from their experiences, especially when they are coping with crises (see Avolio, 2007).

In the 21st century, the study of leadership will be increasingly collaborative as researchers from multiple disciplines tackle the questions outlined above. Some of the disciplines that must contribute to the study of leadership include media and communications. In today’s world more and more of the relationships between leaders and followers are not face-to-face but mediated through electronic means.

John Kenneth Galbraith, in his book The Age of Uncertainty, wrote that “All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.” In the special issue of the American Psychologist devoted to leadership, Warren Bennis (2007) suggests that the four most important threats facing our world today are these: (a) a nuclear or biological catastrophe; (b) a worldwide pandemic; (c) tribalism and its cruel offspring, assimilation; and (d) leadership of our human institutions. He points out that solving the first three problems will not be possible without exemplary leadership and that an understanding of how to develop such leadership will have serious consequences for the quality of our health and our lives.

Bibliography:

• Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M., Lima, L., & Lentz, E. (2004). Outcomes associated with mentoring protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136.
• Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory building. American Psychologist, 62, 25–33.
• Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Jung, D. I., & Bierson, Y. (2003). Leadership models, methods, and applications. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 277–307). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free Press.
• Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. New York: Perseus.
• Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62, 2–5.
• Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1984). Solving costly organizational conflicts: Achieving intergroup trust, cooperation, and teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Dansereau, F., Graen, G. G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
• Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Gibb, C. A. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 205–282). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
• Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 43–47.
• House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–328.
• House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.
• Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation? Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43–54.
• Indvik, J. (1986). Path-goal theory of leadership: A meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Meeting, 189–192.
• Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.
• Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. (1989). Perceptions in leadership and their implications in organizations. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (Vol. 4, pp. 129–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
• McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737–743.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Miller, R. L., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. J. (2004). Followership effectiveness: An extension of Fiedler’s contingency model. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 24, 362–368.
• Murphy, S. E., & Ensher, E. A. (1999). The effects of leader and subordinate characteristics in the development of leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1371–1394.
• Perrow, C. (1970). Organization analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
• Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104–112.
• Strube, M. J., & Garcia, J. E. (1981). A meta-analytic investigation of Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 307–321.
• Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 17–24.
• Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 6–16.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Path Is the Goal: How Transformational Leaders Enhance Followers’ Job Attitudes and Proactive Behavior

While leading through goals is usually associated with a task-oriented leadership style, the present work links goal setting to transformational leadership. An online survey with two time points was conducted with employees to investigate the influence of transformational leadership on followers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior via goal attributes. Findings indicate that transformational leaders influence the extent to which followers evaluate organizational goals as important and perceive them as attainable. Multiple mediation analysis revealed that these goal attributes transmit the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ job attitudes and proactive behavior. However, goal importance and goal attainability seem to be of differential importance for the different outcomes.

Introduction

Although the setting of goals has been emphasized to be one of the most important tasks of leaders (e.g., Tett et al., 2000 ), goals and leadership have commonly been considered from two relatively independent research perspectives (cf. Berson et al., 2015 ). In the field of goal research many efforts centered on the setting of goals in organizational contexts. As a core finding, a multitude of studies (for an overview: Locke and Latham, 2002 ) revealed that setting specific and moderately difficult goals results in increases of an individual’s performance as such goals direct one’s attention, induce greater effort, enhance one’s persistence, and elicit the use of task-related knowledge and strategies ( Locke and Latham, 2002 ). Studies further showed that the strength of this association depends on certain goal attributes, an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, as well as feedback on and the complexity of the task. Apart from its impact on an individual’s job performance and work motivation, goal setting is also an important determinant of one’s self-regulation ( Latham and Locke, 1991 ). Their self-regulative function results as specific and difficult goals point out a discrepancy between a current and a future state and clarify the acceptable level of performance ( Latham and Locke, 1991 ). Goals, however, may not only be set by another person but also by an individual him-/herself. Personal goals and their pursuit have been another line of interest for goal researchers (e.g., Emmons, 1986 ; Brunstein, 1993 ). In the field of leadership research, goals have initially been assigned a dominant role in those conceptions, which highlight a leader’s task orientation. Task-oriented leaders focus on getting their work done and completing assignments ( Bass, 1990 ). Such leaders therefore emphasize goals, foster their achievement, and monitor followers’ goal pursuit. In this regard, goals may be seen as a means to exert control in leader-follower interactions.

Instead of viewing the assignment of goals as a way to monitor followers, in the present study, we embed the goal setting of leaders into the context of motivating and enabling subordinates. In so doing, we concentrate on the construct of transformational leadership, as transformational leaders (TLs) not only have high performance expectations ( Bass, 1985 ), but rather inspire and empower their subordinates ( Bass and Riggio, 2006 ). In motivating and enabling followers, goals have variously been assigned a central role in the theory of transformational leadership (e.g., Shamir et al., 1993 ; Conger and Kanungo, 1998 ). Therefore, a goal-perspective to transformational leadership is straightforward.

Given that setting goals is a common leadership task ( Tett et al., 2000 ), it is indispensable to incorporate well-founded knowledge accumulated in the field of goal research into study efforts on effective leadership. Only if we consider both research domains jointly, we can get the best picture possible of how leaders influence followers and the way they pursue the goals these leaders set. Intertwining findings and theoretical assumptions on goal setting, self-regulative goal pursuit, and personal goals with empirical evidence and theorizing on transformational leadership, we assume TLs to foster followers’ perception of organizational goals to be important and attainable, and by these means, to increase their job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior. That way, the present study helps in bringing together the different streams of research and to generalize extant evidence on assigned and personal goals to the goal setting within leader-follower-interactions. In so doing, our study investigates fundamental assumptions on the inner workings of transformational leadership for which empirical evidence is yet scarce. As such, the present work also contributes to further substantiating theoretically derived mechanisms of transformational leadership and thus to our understanding of how these leaders exert their extraordinary influence on followers.

Motivating and Enabling Employees: The Transformational Leadership Approach

TLs motivate followers to commit themselves to organizational objectives and to realize performance outcomes, which exceed beyond expectations. According to Bass (1985) , leaders accomplish this process of motivating and transforming followers by (1) heightening their awareness of the importance and value of designated goals, (2) encouraging them to transcend self-interests for the good of the organization or team, and (3) activating their higher order needs as TLs articulate an inspiring vision and act as role models in attaining the vision. More specifically, TLs are able to ideally influence subordinates due to their exceptional charisma and prompt followers to personally identify with them ( Bass, 1985 ). Based on this emotional attachment, TLs instill within followers the desire to emulate their leaders and thus become followers’ role models. TLs envision an appealing future goal state for their team or the entire organization and express confidence in followers’ abilities to attain this higher-order goal ( Bass, 1985 ). By this means, they inspirationally motivate followers to achieve more than expected. As they tie the ideological vision to the collective’s future, TLs foster the acceptance of group goals and enhance the cooperation within teams ( Podsakoff et al., 1990 ). Besides, they intellectually stimulate followers to question their way of working and to take on new perspectives increasing subordinates’ awareness of problems that way ( Podsakoff et al., 1990 ). TLs clearly express the high performance demands they have and expect excellence and high quality work from followers ( Podsakoff et al., 1990 ). Concurrently, they also attend to followers’ needs, listen to their particular concerns, and are individually considerate toward them ( Bass, 1985 ).

After the key behaviors used to transform and motivate followers had been identified, Conger and Kanungo (1998) claimed that more insights into the process of motivating and transforming followers were needed and called for a more processual perspective on transformational leadership. They developed a three-stage model, which aimed at illustrating how TLs transform subordinates and move them from an existing present state toward some future state. According to this model, TLs first examine the current situation at work and its surrounding environment. In this initial stage, they actively search the status quo for existing or potential shortcomings. Based on the deficiencies they identify, goals are then derived, formulated, and conveyed in the second stage. By articulating a very discrepant and idealized goal, TLs provide a sense of challenge and a motivating force for change to their followers ( Conger, 1999 ). In the final stage, they build trust in the goals they disseminate and demonstrate how these goals can be attained. The model thus highlights the communication and implementation of a vision or goal as a key mechanism of transformational leadership.

Goal Setting, Self-Regulation, and Personal Goals

In the work context, goals may help to predict, explicate, and affect an employee’s job performance ( Locke and Latham, 2002 ). By setting followers’ goals, leaders create a discrepancy between a current situation and a future state and, with regard to work-related tasks, emphasize what constitutes an adequate level of performance. That way, they provide a sense of purpose, which coordinates and guides their followers’ action ( Latham and Locke, 1991 ).

After a goal is communicated or set, leaders often do not have direct control over their subordinates’ goal pursuit anymore and followers have to plan and organize the goal striving process autonomously. In order to attain organizational goals, employees therefore have to be able to self-regulate at work. Traditionally, self-regulation is defined as processes that “enable an individual to guide his/her goal-directed activities over time and across changing circumstances (contexts), [… including the] modulation of thought, affect, behavior, or attention” ( Karoly, 1993 , p. 25). This definition points out that in the process of self-regulation, goals are an essential component ( Vancouver, 2000 ). Moreover, it describes self-regulation as a volitional process of translating the goals, which have been set into action. In a series of experiments, Oettingen et al. (2001) identified three self-regulatory thought processes, which are of relevance within an autonomous goal setting process: mentally contrasting the desired future with reality, dwelling on negative aspects of the current reality, and indulging in the desired future. The authors observed that as a function of these three self-regulatory thoughts, feelings of identification with the goal, expectations of success, and effortful goal striving result.

Self-regulated goal striving is also addressed in the field of personal goal research. Personal goals are set by an individual him-/herself and are therefore person-specific. Models of personal goal pursuit emphasize the personal significance and uniqueness of these goals and acknowledge the autonomy and self-determination during the goal striving process (e.g., Emmons, 1986 ; Brunstein, 1993 ). Knowledge gathered in the domain of personal goals may give valuable insights into the way TLs facilitate their followers’ goal pursuit. As TLs intertwine the goals they set with followers’ self-concepts ( Shamir et al., 1993 ) and lead them to internalize these goals ( Bono and Judge, 2003 ), subordinates perceive these goals to be highly self-consistent ( Shamir et al., 1993 ) and feel goal-directed actions to be driven by personally held values ( Bono and Judge, 2003 ). TLs hence seem to be able to turn organizational goals into followers’ personal goals. According to the personal goal model of well-being (for an overview: Brunstein et al., 1999 ), which is well-established in the field of personal goal research, there are two decisive factors that determine one’s success in pursuing personal goals as well as the subjective well-being of the goal striver: the valence followers attach to the goals and the degree to which they perceive the goals to be attainable. Whereas a goal’s importance increases one’s determination in pursuing the goals ( Maier and Brunstein, 2001 ), the evaluation of a goal to be attainable first leads individuals to decide to pursue that goal ( Heckhausen and Kuhl, 1985 ). Maier and Brunstein (2001) adapted this model to the work domain and report evidence, which suggests that the two goal attributes account for changes in job satisfaction and organizational commitment. They conclude that “to achieve well-being and avoid distress, it is important for individuals to have both a strong sense of commitment to valued goals and a life situation that provides favorable conditions to materialize these goals” ( Maier and Brunstein, 2001 , p. 1035).

Combining self-regulation theory and the personal goal model, one can assume that the goal attributes highlighted in the personal goal model result from the self-regulatory processes Oettingen et al. (2001) found to be related to an autonomous goal striving. Goal importance and goal attainability may thus be considered indicators of an autonomous goal pursuit regardless of whether the goal had been set by a leader or by the follower him-/herself. If we transfer these considerations to the organizational goal setting process, we assume that in order to facilitate followers’ goal pursuit, leaders have to enhance their followers’ evaluation of the goal’s importance and attainability.

Transformational Leaders as Facilitators of the Goal Pursuit of Employees

Although theoretically the effectiveness of transformational leadership has widely been ascribed to its impact on followers’ perception of organizational goals, empirically this relation experienced far less attention. Those studies which indeed focused on goal attributes found transformational leadership to positively relate to followers’ evaluation of the goal’s specificity and difficulty ( Whittington et al., 2004 ; Bronkhorst et al., 2015 ), as well as its clarity ( Wright et al., 2012 ). Followers of TLs further rated organizational goals to be more consistent with their own values and interests ( Bono and Judge, 2003 ) and showed a higher agreement with their leaders on strategic goals ( Berson and Avolio, 2004 ). On the team level, transformational leadership was associated with higher levels of team goal commitment ( Chi et al., 2011 ) and a higher congruence with regard to the importance team members attach to the goals ( Colbert et al., 2008 ).

In line with our reasoning on the value of a goal’s importance and attainability in an autonomous goal accomplishment, Latham and Locke (1991) stated that leaders can play a significant role in facilitating their followers’ goal pursuit by convincing them that the goals are both important and attainable. In the present study, we therefore concentrate on these goal attributes and their relation to transformational leadership.

Empirically, transformational leadership has already been related to a goal’s importance ( Colbert et al., 2008 ). This study, though, focused on the degree of goal importance congruence among team members. Finer-grained analyses, however, suggested that rather than the degree of congruence it is an individual’s goal importance perception as such which positively relates to transformational leadership and followers’ job-related attitudes. To substantiate these initial findings and hence theoretical assumptions on the mechanisms of transformational leadership, followers’ individual evaluations of a goal’s importance have to be further examined in the context of these leadership behaviors. Goal clarity, specificity, or difficulty have also been studied with regard to transformational leadership ( Wright et al., 2012 ; Bronkhorst et al., 2015 ). Besides, this leadership style has been shown to be closely associated with followers’ broader feeling of having the ability to perform successfully ( Kark et al., 2003 ). However, irrespective of the central role it has been assigned theoretically, evidence on the impact of transformational leadership on followers’ perception of a specific goal’s attainability is yet missing. Studies linking transformational leadership and followers’ perception of a goal’s importance and attainability may thus give further evidence-based insides into the process of how TLs transform followers and motivate them to achieve more than expected beyond existing research.

Transformational Leadership and Goal Importance

Goal importance refers to the significance an individual assigns to a certain goal and its achievement relative to other work- or non-work-related goals ( Hollenbeck and Williams, 1987 ). It indicates how closely one regulates this goal compared to other goals ( Powers, 1978 ). Goal importance is a significant driver of an individual’s goal commitment ( Locke and Latham, 2002 ), and, as such, aligns one’s feelings and actions to the accomplishment of the specific goal ( Hollenbeck and Klein, 1987 ). As a result, people extend their effort and invest more time even if they face difficulties or obstacles during the goal pursuit. In sum, goal importance is a significant determinant of one’s motivation to achieve certain goals ( Bandura, 1997 ). For this reason, it is of major interest to figure out leadership techniques, which help to increase followers’ perception of an organizational goal’s importance.

In the very beginning, researchers argued that supervisors’ legitimate authority to assign goals or their physical presence was sufficient to create commitment to and raise a goal’s importance ( Ronan et al., 1973 ). Later, Latham and Saari (1979) showed that a supportive leadership style increased the importance attached to goals and that providing a rationale for the goal also functioned as a facilitator (“tell and sell” style; Locke et al., 1988 ). Moreover, if leaders communicate an inspiring vision they may enhance the attractiveness of attaining a certain goal and accentuate its importance ( Berson and Avolio, 2004 ). Vision articulation, rationales, and a supportive leadership style seem to foster followers’ goal acceptance by making them more likely to see the consequences of goal attainment as rewarding or favorable ( Locke and Latham, 2002 ). In addition, goals gain in importance if followers are involved in the goal setting process. Under this condition, they own the goals agreed upon ( Locke and Latham, 2002 ). Sheldon et al. (2002) developed a goal intervention program, which aimed at increasing one’s sense of ownership. They asked participants to reflect upon the meaningfulness of goals and to consider the core values these goals express (“Own the goal” strategy). Besides, participants were motivated to reflect upon the longer-term goals their current goals serve (“Remember the big picture” strategy). These strategies as well as the leadership attributes, which have been found to strengthen followers’ perception of a goal’s importance, closely match the behaviors TLs use in leading. TLs articulate an ideological vision of an attractive future goal state and frame the work in terms of collectively approved values ( Shamir et al., 1993 ). That way, they provide a meaningful and stimulating rationale for the work to be done but also transform followers’ beliefs and values ( Conger and Kanungo, 1998 ). By aligning followers’ values to the higher-order mission they articulate, TLs create a purpose in work that exceeds beyond extrinsic outcomes ( Arnold et al., 2007 ) and increase the meaningfulness of goal accomplishment ( Shamir et al., 1993 ). Besides strengthening the importance of organizational goals via their alignment to an ideological vision, TLs also foster followers’ sense of ownership by involving them in important organizational decisions. In so doing, TLs delegate responsibilities, are open to followers’ ideas and reasoning, and consider their needs in leading ( Avolio et al., 1991 ).

As TLs present work and especially organizational goals in terms of a higher-order vision and link them to subordinates’ values but also grant subordinates responsibility during the goal pursuit, we assume followers to perceive the goals their TLs set to be more important.

Hypothesis 1: We suggest that the more transformational followers perceive their supervisors to lead, the higher the importance they attach to the organizational goals set by or agreed upon with these leaders.

Transformational Leadership and Goal Attainability

Goal setting theory states that for goals to be motivational, they have to be specific and challenging but yet attainable ( Locke and Latham, 1990 , 2002 ). Goal attainability indicates how favorable or unfavorable goal strivers perceive external conditions with respect to their goal progress. If an individual perceives a goal to be attainable, he/she has various opportunities to strive toward the goal, has control over the goal striving process, and receives goal-related support from his/her social network ( Brunstein, 1993 ). Accordingly, leaders have three levers to adjust in order to make goals more attainable: opportunities, control, and support.

Social support is an important resource in facilitating employees’ work and enhancing their work attitudes (e.g., Hochwarter et al., 1999 ; Viswesvaran et al., 1999 ). In a meta-analysis, Ng and Sorensen (2008) showed that compared to colleagues or the organization as a whole, supervisors are the most valuable source of social support. This value of supervisory support is also acknowledged by the theory of transformational leadership. One of its key components, individualized consideration, includes behaviors such as encouraging followers, acting as their coaches or mentors, and being caring and nurturing ( Bass and Avolio, 1994 ; Conger and Kanungo, 1998 ). Besides, TLs demonstrate how goals may be attained ( Conger, 1999 ). By providing this kind of social and instrumental support, TLs are likely to positively affect followers’ perception of being able to attain the goals set by their leaders. TLs foster each follower’s personal and professional development ( Bass and Avolio, 1994 ) and promote their growth, independence, and empowerment ( Bass, 1985 ; Kark et al., 2003 ). To achieve these ends, they use empowering leadership behaviors such as delegating responsibilities and enabling employees to make important decisions, providing resources, and background information about organizational processes, as well as enhancing followers’ capacity to think and question familiar ways of working ultimately raising followers’ self-efficacy beliefs that way ( Avolio et al., 1991 ; Menon, 2001 ; Dvir et al., 2002 ; Kark et al., 2003 ). Self-effective and empowered persons believe in their capability to perform successfully, have a sense of having choice in initiating and regulating actions, and are able to influence outcomes at work ( Spreitzer, 1995 ). As such, these followers ought to feel a higher degree of control with regard to their goal striving. Along with the autonomy they grant, the resources they provide, and the error culture they propagate, the intellectual stimulation TLs practice leads followers to also see and explore new ways of approaching their jobs and completing their tasks ( Peng et al., 2016 ). This motivation to rethink the way they pursue organizational goals likely makes followers aware of new and different opportunities they have in striving toward these goals.

Transformational leaders are hence able to positively impact all three levers leaders may adjust in order to increase followers’ perception of being able to attain their organization’s goals. Therefore, we assume a positive association between transformational leadership and followers’ attainability evaluation of the goals, which had been set by or agreed upon with these leaders.

Hypothesis 2: We suggest that the more transformational followers perceive their supervisors to lead, the higher the attainability they ascribe to the organizational goals set by or agreed upon with these leaders.

Transformational Leadership, Goal Attributes, and Followers’ Job Attitudes and Performance

We were not only interested in the question whether TLs are able to facilitate their followers’ goal pursuit but also in showing that this process of motivating and enabling makes a particular contribution to an organization’s functioning. An extant body of meta-analytic evidence shows that TLs substantially influence their subordinates’ job attitudes, motivation, performance, and proactive behavior at work ( Fuller et al., 1996 ; Lowe et al., 1996 ; Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Wang et al., 2011 ). Out of the multitude of possible outcomes, we drew on indicators of successful organizational adaptation, as today’s changing work environments and competitive market situation require organizations to easily and quickly adapt to new challenges ( Gordon and Yukl, 2004 ). Specifically, we examined followers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior for indicating an employee’s willingness to accept new challenges in the future ( Bateman and Crant, 1993 ; Cordery et al., 1993 ; Yousef, 2000 ).

Previous research also confirmed a clear link between the two goal attributes importance and attainability and followers’ affective job attitudes as well as their performance (e.g., Lee et al., 1991 ; Maier and Brunstein, 2001 ; Locke and Latham, 2002 ). In line with these findings, we assume that TLs facilitate their followers’ goal pursuit process and exert their positive influence on work attitudes and proactive behavior by increasing followers’ perception of the importance and attainability of organizational goals.

Hypothesis 3: We suggest that followers’ evaluations of the organizational goal attributes importance and attainability jointly mediate the relationship between their perception of their leaders’ transformational leadership behavior and (a) their job satisfaction, (b) organizational commitment, and (c) proactive behavior.

Materials and Methods

Procedures and participants.

In order to test our hypotheses, we collected data via an online questionnaire at two measurement occasions. At T1, participants were asked to evaluate their leader’s leadership behavior and to list three organizational goals. For each of these goals, participants then indicated its importance and attainability. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior were assessed at the second measurement occasion, which was scheduled 4 weeks after the first measures had been taken. We chose this time lag since influences of leadership behavior on employees’ well-being are more likely to be detected within a short than within a long period of time ( van Dierendonck et al., 2004 ). Data sets were matched based on a pre-structured ten-digit code, which participants generated at T1 and T2.

At the beginning and at the end of the first part of the survey, we informed participants that the study consisted of two parts. After completing T1, participants indicated whether they agreed to also respond to the second questionnaire. Those who were inclined to do so were further requested to provide an email address to which the link to the second part was sent by the survey software. In order to ensure anonymity, the survey software had been programmed in a way so that it automatically sent without our assistance a prewritten invitation mail to the second part of the survey to the address participants stated at T1. In the instruction, this procedure was explained in detail. Before we matched the data across measurement occasions and started to analyze them, email addresses were removed from the data set.

Prior to collecting the data, we presented the study to our university’s ethics committee. As it did not deviate from legal regulations or the ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychology, the ethics committee authorized the study in its final form. Due to the online assessment, we did not personally interact with participants and therefore did not obtain their signed declarations of consent. Yet, we informed them about the study’s content, duration, and aims, and we highlighted that, at any time, participants could abandon the online questionnaire by closing the browser or tab. Participants were assured that incomplete data sets would be deleted and would not be incorporated into our analyses. Moreover, quoting their individual ten-digit code they had developed during the survey, participants were granted the opportunity to still withdraw their data after completing the entire questionnaire.

Participants were recruited in (virtual) business networks and on social media platforms. In sum, 292 employees finished the first part of the questionnaire, but only 144 of them completed its second part. Given the high drop-out rate (50.68%), we compared the responses of those finishing the entire survey with those of participants who did not answer its second part. Analyses did not reveal any systematic drop-out (all p > 0.05). Due to missing data across both measurement occasions, we had to exclude 16 participants from the analyses, so that the final sample consisted of 128 followers. Among them, 60.90% were females. The average age was 36.17 years ( SD = 11.50 years). Participants were employed in a variety of industries (i.e., service companies, retail stores, public services, industrial companies) and had been working for their current organization an average of 8–9 years ( M = 8.57, SD = 8.99). At the time they completed the survey, followers had been collaborating with their current leader for about three and a half years ( M = 3.52, SD = 3.36).

Listing and Assessment of Organizational Goals

In accordance with prior research (e.g., Maier and Brunstein, 2001 ), we ideographically assessed organizational goals by asking participants to freely generate and notice up to three work-related goals. Goals were defined as objectives, projects, and plans related to one’s job that were set by or agreed upon with one’s leader. Given the future-orientation of the higher-order vision transformational leaders articulate ( Bass, 1985 ), participants were instructed to focus on those goals they were encouraged to pursue during the following 12 months. After listing these goals, participants indicated the extent to which they perceived each of them to be important and attainable on a five-point response scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much . We computed an overall measure of goal importance and goal attainability by averaging responses across the three goals. A major precondition for aggregating within-person data to the between-person level is sufficient reliability of the aggregate. In order to determine the homogeneity [ICC(1)] and reliability [ICC(2)] of the goal ratings, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients as suggested by Lüdtke and Trautwein (2007) . ICC(1) coefficients were 0.38 for importance and 0.37 for attainability. The corresponding ICC(2) coefficients were 0.65 and 0.64, respectively. ICC(2) is a function of ICC(1) and the number of goals assessed and reliability increases the more goals that are being evaluated. As in the present study only three goals were assessed, intraclass correlation coefficients are within an acceptable range ( Lüdtke and Trautwein, 2007 ).

Transformational Leadership

To determine followers’ perceptions of their leaders’ transformational leadership behavior, we used the Transformational Leadership Inventory by Podsakoff et al. (1990) ; German form: Heinitz and Rowold (2007) . With its 22 items, the scale covers the transformational leadership behaviors articulating a vision (“My supervisor paints an interesting picture of the future for our group”), providing an appropriate model (“My supervisor provides a good model for me to follow”), fostering the acceptance of group goals (“My supervisor gets the group to work together for the same goal”), articulating high performance expectations (“My supervisor shows us that he/she expects a lot from us”), providing individualized support (“My supervisor behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs”), and offering intellectual stimulation (“My supervisor challenges me to think about old problems in new ways”). On a response scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = almost always followers stated how often their leaders use the behaviors illustrated. The internal consistency of the measure was α = 0.93.

Job Satisfaction

Participants’ job satisfaction was measured using the short version of Neuberger and Allerbeck’s (1978) Job Description Form. The unidimensional scale covers one’s satisfaction with seven facets of work (working conditions, tasks, relationship with colleagues, relationship with the supervisor, promotion opportunities, organization and management, and salary). Items were rated on a seven-point Kunin-scale ranging from 1 = completely dissatisfied to 7 = completely satisfied . Reliability of the scale was 0.82.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment was measured with the short version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire ( Mowday et al., 1979 ; German form: Maier and Woschée, 2002 ). Participants were asked to indicate their agreement (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ) to nine statements about their identification with and involvement in their organizations (“For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work”). Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.91.

Proactive Behavior

To assess participants’ proactive behavior, we used the respective subscale of an organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire ( Staufenbiel and Hartz, 2000 ). The scale comprises five items (“I bring in innovative ideas to improve the quality of my department”) which assess an employee’s voluntary behaviors directed at keeping oneself informed about one’s organization, advancing its quality and performance, as well as improving one’s own qualifications. Items were to be answered on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree and showed an internal consistency of 0.82.

Table ​ Table1 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables. Hypotheses 1 and 2 assumed a positive association between transformational leadership and followers’ evaluation of the organizational goals that were set by or agreed upon with their leaders. As Table ​ Table1 1 shows, followers’ perception of their leaders’ transformational leadership behavior was indeed positively related to the importance they attach to these goals ( r = 0.30, p < 0.01) and to the attainability they ascribe to them ( r = 0.23, p < 0.01). Hypotheses 1 and 2 are thus supported.

Descriptive statistics and correlations of the study variables.

Hypothesis 3 supposed the goal attributes to jointly transmit the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ (a) job satisfaction, (b) organizational commitment, and (c) proactive behavior. To explore this assumption, we tested a multiple mediation model according to Preacher and Hayes (2008) using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro for SPSS. Their approach allows the testing of multiple mediators and multiple outcomes also in smaller samples and accounts for the fact that the sampling distribution of total and indirect effects is commonly not normally distributed ( MacKinnon et al., 2004 ). In order to yield more precise estimates, total and specific indirect effects are bootstrapped and confidence limits for these effects are estimated. In our study, we drew on 95% bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa CI) based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. To test our hypothesis we modeled all variables (transformational leadership as predictor, goal importance and goal attainability as mediators operating in parallel, as well as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior as outcomes) within a single multiple mediation model. In line with previous meta-analyses ( Fuller et al., 1996 ; Lowe et al., 1996 ; Judge and Piccolo, 2004 ; Wang et al., 2011 ), we found significant total effects of follower-rated transformational leadership on their job satisfaction ( b = 1.065, BCa CI [0.855, 1.275]), organizational commitment ( b = 0.671, BCa CI [0.488, 0.853]), and proactive behavior ( b = 0.282, BCa CI [0.084, 0.480]). For each outcome this effect decreased in size when the goal attributes were considered simultaneously (see the values of the direct effects of transformational leadership on the outcome variables displayed in Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). Whereas the direct effect of transformational leadership on job satisfaction and organizational commitment remained significant when controlling for goal attributes suggesting partial mediation, the one on proactive behavior turned out to be only marginally significant under this condition ( Figure ​ Figure1 1 ). Estimates of the total indirect effect show that, together, both goal attributes mediate the effect of perceived transformational leadership on followers’ job satisfaction ( b = 0.111, BCa CI [0.028, 0.241]), organizational commitment ( b = 0.071, BCa CI [0.014, 0.169]), and proactive behavior ( b = 0.086, BCa CI [0.020, 0.188]). Hypothesis 3 is thus supported. Given that we considered multiple mediators, we could not draw on Preacher and Kelley’s (2011) κ 2 in determining the size of the indirect effect, but had to rely on the ratio of the indirect effect to the total effect ( MacKinnon et al., 1995 ). One of the disadvantages of this effect size measure is that it may exceed 1 if the indirect effect is bigger than the total effect and may exhibit values below 0 if one of these effects is negative ( Hayes, 2013 ). For job satisfaction, 10.4% of the total effect of transformational leadership was transmitted by the goal attributes, for organizational commitment 10.5% of the total effect resulted from mediation, and in proactive behavior this proportion amounted to 30.4%.

Direct effects of transformational leadership on goal attributes and outcomes as well as of goal attributes on outcomes within the multiple mediation model.

Besides the total indirect effect, PROCESS also estimates the extent to which each mediator transmits the effect of the predictor on the outcome conditional on the presence of the other intervening variables operating in parallel ( Preacher and Hayes, 2008 ). These specific indirect effects give evidence on the relative magnitude of each mediator included in the model. As indicated by the confidence intervals displayed in Table ​ Table2, 2 , the effect of perceived transformational leadership on job satisfaction and proactive behavior was solely transmitted by followers’ evaluation of the goals’ attainability. With regard to their organizational commitment, we found the effect to be solely mediated by followers’ ratings of the goals’ importance. For this indirect effect, the confidence interval did not include zero. Goal attributes thus seem to be differentially important for the different outcomes.

Specific indirect effects of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior transmitted through the goal attributes goal importance and goal attainability.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the linkage between transformational leadership and followers’ job attitudes as well as their proactive behavior focusing on the goal setting process. We aimed at illustrating that TLs enable followers to autonomously organize their goal pursuit, which we assumed to find expression in higher follower perceptions of the importance and attainability of the goals these leaders set. In line with our assumptions, we indeed found positive relations between follower-rated transformational leadership and their assessment of both goal attributes. TLs articulate an ideological vision and lay emphasis on the meaning of tasks, but also grant followers responsibility and support. Together, these behaviors result in higher levels of identification with and commitment to the organizational goals these leaders set. By demonstrating confidence in their followers’ capability, increasing opportunities for them to significantly affect their work, and providing instrumental and emotional support, TLs lead employees to further perceive these goals to be attainable. Enhancing the importance and attainability of the goals they disseminate, TLs are thus able to facilitate their followers’ organizational goal striving.

In support of our third hypothesis, ratings of the goal attributes mediated the relation between followers’ perceptions of transformational leadership and their job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior. This result supplements earlier findings by Maier and Brunstein (2001) in the domain of personal goals based on which the authors concluded that a sense of commitment to valued goals and the perception of favorable conditions for goal attainment are important requirements for one’s well-being. Our findings suggest that this conclusion also holds when goals are set by a leader instead of followers themselves. Also during the pursuit of assigned goals at work, a goal’s importance and attainability are crucial for success and ultimately for one’s job-related well-being and performance.

Analyses of the specific indirect effects corroborate that goal importance and goal attainability differentially mediated the effect of transformational leadership on the outcomes considered. Whereas transformational leadership and job satisfaction as well as proactive behavior were solely associated via the perception of a goal’s attainability, these leadership behaviors unfolded their impact on followers’ organizational commitment via followers’ perceptions of the goal’s importance only. Concerning followers’ organizational commitment, we think that this mediation can be explained by a spread-out effect in which the appreciation of and identification with a certain vision or goal serves as a proxy for the whole organization. As Mowday et al. (1982) stated, organizational commitment is characterized by “a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values” (p. 27). Therefore, perceiving organizational goals as important is a relevant mechanism in transmitting the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ organizational commitment. Our finding that goal attainability does not significantly mediate this relation might be explained by the fact that employees expect their leaders to facilitate their work in any case ( Ng and Sorensen, 2008 ). Meta-analytic evidence, though, shows followers’ affective commitment to be most affected by perceptions of organizational support ( Meyer et al., 2002 ). As favorable conditions for goal attainment seem to be taken for granted ( Ng and Sorensen, 2008 ) and are thus not perceived as particular support, they probably do not specifically increase followers’ attachment to the organization. With regard to followers’ job satisfaction and proactive behavior, by contrast, goal attainability appeared to be a significant mediator conditional on the presence of goal importance as a second mediator. With regard to one’s satisfaction, this finding is in line with research on personal goals: In this domain, goal attainability has been meta-analytically shown to be associated with an individual’s subjective well-being (e.g., life satisfaction or positive affect); and personal work-related goals were found to more specifically relate to one’s job satisfaction ( Klug and Maier, 2015 ). Unfortunately, the association with a goal’s importance has not been considered within this integrative work. Our findings suggest that in order to be satisfied with one’s job, followers have to be convinced to be able to attain the organizational goals they have been assigned rather than considering these goals to be important. This finding deviates from evidence on the significance of one’s goal commitment within the goal setting theory (for an overview: Locke and Latham, 2002 ), as well as from evidence on the personal goal model of well-being corroborating that goals need to be both important and attainable in order to increase employees’ job satisfaction ( Maier and Brunstein, 2001 ). In addition, meta-analytic evidence in the field of work design highlights a task’s significance, which is closely associated with an organizational goal’s importance, to be a major correlate of one’s satisfaction with work ( Humphrey et al., 2007 ). As, based on this former research, we would have expected goal importance perceptions to equally mediate the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ job satisfaction, we recommend to reinvestigate the value of followers’ goal importance evaluations in relation to transformational leadership and subordinates satisfaction with work. Also with regard to followers’ proactive behavior, only attainability perceptions mediated the effect of transformational leadership. If employees believe they may affect work outcomes, their willingness to take responsibilities and action is stimulated ( Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998 ). Accordingly, followers who perceive favorable conditions for goal realization are likely to proactively develop these goals and ways to achieve the vision TLs articulate. In previous research, feelings of being able to successfully perform a task have rather been found to moderate the relation between transformational leadership and proactive behavior instead of mediating it ( Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012 ). This earlier work, though, assessed followers’ self-efficacy beliefs, whereas our study focused on the attributes of the goal. Whether TLs exert an identifiable independent influence on both followers’ self-evaluation of their abilities as well as on their perception of the goals’ attributes and – if so – whether these influences operate differently is an important question to answer in future research. Contradicting our assumption, goal importance did not mediate the impact of TLs on followers’ proactive behavior. Maybe, a strong sense of goal importance or commitment may thwart followers’ proactive behavior such that they solely focus on the goal on duty and behaviors directed at attaining this specific goal. In this case, positive effects on followers’ in-role performance are more likely to evolve than effects on their proactive behavior.

Theoretical Implications and Future Research

Integrating theorizing and research on self-regulated goal pursuit and personal goals with the goal setting of TLs, the present study broadens previous findings on the mechanisms of transformational leadership. Theoretically, it has widely been reasoned that TLs exert their influence on followers’ performance by increasing the importance of organizational goals and boosting followers’ feelings of being able to attain these goals, that way supporting followers’ goal pursuit. Empirical evidence on these deliberations, though, is still scarce. Our results show that TLs facilitate their followers’ goal striving by enhancing their perceptions of the importance and attainability of organizational goals.

The role of TLs within the goal setting process has first been analyzed by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) . In a laboratory simulation, they found that leaders’ visions affect followers’ performance to the extent that they inspire the setting of specific goals. These researchers, however, investigated quality goals only and the way they assessed goals induced specific (number of errors) rather than vague as well as self-set instead of assigned goals. In the following, Bono and Judge (2003) studied the influence of transformational leadership on followers’ goals among dyads of leaders and followers. They demonstrated that the more transformational supervisors lead, the more self-concordant (i.e., representative for personally held values) are the work goals followers set themselves. Like Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) , also Bono and Judge (2003) focused on followers’ self-generated goals rather than examining the impact of TLs on the organizational goals they set. Other work considered strategic goals disseminated by top management which were assessed and evaluated in qualitative research ( Berson and Avolio, 2004 ), related to an organization’s overall goal ( Wright et al., 2012 ), or did not specifically focus on goals but rather on the way a job is to be done in general ( Bronkhorst et al., 2015 ). The study by Colbert et al. (2008) , which also examined a goal’s importance, did not neither refer to goals, which decidedly have been assigned by leaders. They analyzed broader goals, which in a pre-survey have been identified by CEOs to be relevant to the specific industry the research was conducted in (e.g., “Improving customer service” or “Improving the efficiency of internal operations”). Those studies, which indeed investigated organizational goals set by a leader, either viewed goal attributes to moderate the relation between transformational leadership and outcomes ( Whittington et al., 2004 ) or concentrated on the team level evaluation of these attributes ( Chi et al., 2011 ). In our research, we overcome some of these shortcomings: (1) We focused on two decisive goal attributes which have widely been neglected in the study of transformational leadership so far; (2) we concentrated on goals that have been set by leaders – the traditional basis of goal setting theory and one of the main tasks leaders have to complete; and (3) we ideographically assessed organizational goals and followers’ individual evaluations of these goals. Implementing these characteristics, we empirically emphasized goal attributes to be an important mechanism of transformational leadership.

Nevertheless, our findings are just the beginning of systematically bringing together evidence and theorizing on transformational leadership and goals. Future study efforts need to continue this integration. A first step to further intertwine these streams of research is to consider other goal attributes, which have been highlighted to affect the setting of goals (e.g., goal distance, goal orientation, feedback; Locke and Latham, 2002 ). With regard to followers’ self-efficacy, an important moderator within the goal setting theory, an extensive body of evidence has already been accumulated showing TLs to boost followers’ beliefs in their own (work-related) capabilities (e.g., Pillai and Williams, 2004 ; Liu et al., 2010 ; Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012 ). In addition to considering further mediators and moderators of goal setting, the goal attributes importance and attainability need to be assessed in more detail (e.g., Brunstein, 1993 ) than we did here.

Moreover, considering the statement by Howell and Shamir (2005) that “leaders and followers both play an active role in shaping their mutual relationships, and therefore shaping organizational outcomes” (p. 108) we argue for a leader-follower-fit perspective in future research. The underlying notion of such a perspective is that leaders should tailor their behavior to suit their followers’ needs. Regarding the regulation of one’s goal striving, individuals have certain preferences how to pursue goals (assessment or locomotion regulatory mode) as well as preferences for a desired or undesired end state (promotion or prevention regulatory focus; Higgins, 2000 , 2002 ). The link between transformational leadership and employees’ regulatory mode has already been examined empirically ( Benjamin and Flynn, 2006 ). Results demonstrate that followers with more of a locomotion regulatory mode (i.e., desire to move from one state to another) were more affected by TLs than followers with more of an assessment mode (i.e., desire to make comparisons and judgments before acting and appraising performance against standards). This seems to be the case as TLs tend to emphasize movement from state to state. Furthermore, there is evidence that the positive effects of articulating a vision are contingent on follower regulatory focus . In two experiments Stam et al. (2010) showed that visions focusing on preventing an undesirable situation lead to better performance than visions focusing on promoting a desirable situation for more prevention-focused followers (who want to avoid failures and fears), while the reverse was true for more promotion-focused followers (who want to reach success and ideals). The fit between followers’ regulatory mode and focus should therefore be further investigated as possible moderator in the interplay of transformational leadership behaviors and followers’ goal striving.

The congruence of leaders’ and followers’ goal appraisals should also be examined. If leaders set their followers goals, an individual redefinition process starts by which followers convert external tasks into internal ones ( Hackman, 1970 ; Hacker, 1982 ). Employees might be successful in striving for reinterpreted goals, which, in turn, may foster proactive behavior. The question, however, arises whether followers work on the task intended by the leader or whether the redefinition process leads them to work toward goals their leaders never wanted them to pursue. Therefore, research to come should not only assess followers’ evaluation of the goals they have been assigned, but should also consider whether leaders and followers agree upon the content of the goals, which are to be attained.

Just like in everyday life (cf. Austin and Vancouver, 1996 ), also at work individuals have to simultaneously pursue multiple goals. While acting on the attainment of one goal, employees scan the environment for opportunities to act on the other goals. This may lead to deferrals and reprioritizations of goals of which leaders are unaware. In the field of close relationships, Brunstein et al. (1996) showed that being aware of one’s partners’ goals, significantly influences the association among goal-related support and judgments of marital satisfaction. Only if participants were aware of their partners’ goals, the provision of goal-related support was significantly associated with their partners’ satisfaction. Transferring these findings to the field of leader-follower-interactions, it seems fruitful to explore whether leaders have to know which particular goal their followers actually strive for and how they progress in order to provide the most effective support. As, however, followers and leaders commonly share a more task-oriented relationship than couples, followers might feel controlled instead of empowered under this condition.

Managerial Implications

Due to its well-established positive impact, transformational leadership has become a prevalent topic in leadership education within business schools throughout the world ( Tourish et al., 2010 ). In small and medium-sized enterprises, however, leaders are rarely recruited from business schools, but rather are promoted into leadership positions based on their technical and professional expertise or the seniority principle. Such leaders often lack knowledge in managing and leading others as well as various skills necessary in successfully facilitating their followers’ goal pursuit. Therefore, they have to be equipped with leadership skills, which are relevant in effectively managing the goal setting process. Previous research has shown that transformational leadership behaviors can be developed in courses or training programs (e.g., Kelloway et al., 2000 ; Dvir et al., 2002 ). Such interventions may be tailored to specifically target the dissemination and pursuit of organizational goals. Trainings may start with an examination of the implicit theories of effective leadership and goal setting these leaders have in mind. Via 270- or 360-degree appraisal, they may be given insights into their own leadership behaviors and the way they are perceived by supervisors, colleagues, followers, and – should the occasion arise – customers. These analyses may be used as a starting point to improve the leaders’ behaviors as leaders may deduce a need for development by comparing their ideals and the way they are perceived.

As an important learning goal, leadership trainings need to convey that the manner in which goals are communicated impacts the degree of importance followers attach to these goals. Frese et al. (2003) developed and evaluated an action theory based training to teach participants the inspirational communication of a vision. The training consisted of two components. On the one hand, participants had to develop a vision for their own department and to deliver an enthusiastic and inspiring speech propagating it. Based on feedback, the vision and the speech were constantly improved in further role-plays. On the other hand, participants were taught about the characteristics and the importance of visions. Relevant paralinguistic and content issues of charismatic visions were exemplified and situations in which the speech may be applied were discussed. As evaluation studies of this 1.5 days training module revealed good to excellent effect sizes ( Frese et al., 2003 ), it should be incorporated into broader leadership training programs. Empirical evidence revealed that visions tight to charismatic or transformational leadership among others present an optimistic picture of the future, express confidence that the vision is attainable, or state the importance of followers’ participation ( Berson et al., 2001 ). Contingent reward leaders, by contrast, draw an instrumental vision tight to a specific time frame or linked to extrinsic benefits ( Sosik and Dinger, 2007 ). Thus, in order to be most effective, the particular themes a vision addresses deserve careful consideration within these trainings. Visions contain far-reaching, timeless, and relatively abstract ideas ( Berson et al., 2015 ), whereas goal setting theory found goals to work best if they are specific, challenging and timed ( Locke and Latham, 1990 ). In leading, however, both kinds are important ( Latham and Locke, 1991 ). Berson et al. (2015) reason that the motivational effect of visions vs. goals depends on the characteristics of the specific situation in which they are articulated or assigned: If leaders are socially and spatially proximate to their followers, greater effects result if more specific, time-constrained, and challenging goals are set. If, by contrast, leaders are socially and spatially distant, abstract, far-reaching, and timeless visions are a better means to stimulate followers’ performance. Attributes of the situation and properties of the message a leader delivers, thus need to fit in order to best motivate followers ( Berson et al., 2015 ). Accordingly, apart from learning to develop and articulate inspiring visions to increase the importance of organizational goals, training participants also need to learn about the goal setting theory and how goals need to be formulated and conveyed like it is already done in various transformational leadership trainings (e.g., Barling et al., 1996 ; Kelloway et al., 2000 ). In this context, leaders need to learn in which situations best to use either kind of communication strategy.

The communication of more concrete, challenging, and timed goals also helps to increase followers’ trust in being able to achieve the super-ordinate vision ( Berson et al., 2015 ). As such, modules on goal setting also serve in teaching leaders how to increase followers’ perception of an organizational goal’s attainability. Further behaviors, which lead followers to evaluate a goal to be attainable, also need to be developed and practiced in leadership trainings. Accordingly, leaders need to support followers and foster their impression of having control over the goal striving process as well as having several opportunities in achieving a certain goal. In order to increase followers’ perceptions of their control and opportunities, intellectual stimulation is an important leadership behavior. While training leaders, Barling et al. (1996) found this component of transformational leadership to be lowest among those participating in their intervention. To increase intellectually stimulating behaviors, participants were taught about the concept of transformational leadership, role-played these behaviors, and attained four monthly individual booster sessions with the researchers. In addition, leaders were encouraged to discuss new ideas with other training participants themselves in order to practice the behaviors they were meant to increase within their followers. Apart from intellectual stimulation, the information given, the role-plays, as well as the one-to-one coaching sessions also targeted the leaders’ individualized consideration. This behavior is important in fostering followers’ perception of supervisory support. As evidence on the effectiveness of this intervention, followers of those attending the training in sum rated their leaders higher on transformational leadership behaviors than those of a non-participating control group ( Barling et al., 1996 ). Training participants may further be encouraged to see things from their followers’ perspective and to anticipate potential obstacles followers might be confronted with during the goal pursuit. Based on that, leaders may be better able to provide support instrumental in achieving the goals they assign. As, compared to eclectic leadership trainings, transformational leadership trainings resulted in higher ratings of followers’ self-efficacy ( Dvir et al., 2002 ), such trainings should be helpful in increasing followers’ perception of being able to attain the goal their leaders set.

Several months after the initial training, a follow-up session could help to review the implementation of the behavior leaders learned during the training program, to exchange experiences with fellow trainees, and to revise leadership strategies aimed at increasing the importance and attainability of organizational goals. Fellow training participants could provide assistance and feedback on how to transfer the training content into daily work routines and how to deal with obstacles. Such booster sessions aim at maintaining the transfer of training for a longer period of time ( Saks and Belcourt, 2006 ). In sum, transformational leadership trainings have led to modest improvements across the following 2 years (see Bass, 1999 ).

Limitations

Despite these contributions, the present study has several limitations. First, our research was solely based on self-report data increasing the possibility of common method and social desirability bias ( Podsakoff and Organ, 1986 ). However, we consciously adopted this approach (see Conway and Lance, 2010 ) since all of our variables dealt with respondents’ personal cognition and affect. Obviously, respondents themselves are the most reliable and appropriate source of information in this particular case (cf. Chan, 2009 ). To avoid common method bias, leadership behaviors could have been analyzed as a self-report measure on the part of the leaders. In this study, though, we were interested in the perceptions of followers. Consistent with Walumbwa et al. (2007) we assert that leaders behave differently across situations and individuals or at least are perceived as behaving differently by those affected by these behaviors. Consequently, we actually examined whether differences in the perception of leadership account for variations in followers’ cognition and affect. Although it has been reasoned that the effects of common method variance are overstated ( Spector, 2006 ) and empirical evidence suggests they are leveled out by measurement errors ( Lance et al., 2010 ), we nevertheless collected data at two points in time and ensured participants’ anonymity to reduce possible response biases. Temporal separation of the assessment of predictors and outcomes is one of the procedural remedies suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2012) in order to control for common method biases. By introducing a time lag between these measurements, biases resulting from followers’ desire to appear consistent across responses as well as from demand characteristics related to the specific items may be attenuated ( Podsakoff et al., 2012 ).

The study design with its two temporally separated measurement occasions, however, is associated with a second limitation of the present work: the poor participation of respondents at the second time point and hence the high drop-out rate (cf. Podsakoff et al., 2012 ). High attrition rates and the associated risk of biased sample selection are particularly common when participants are recruited online and data is collected through the internet at more than one measurement occasion ( Kraut et al., 2004 ). The higher anonymity resulting from the web-based survey method might have caused a decrease in the response rate in our study. Participants did not feel as obliged to fill in the second part of the questionnaire, as they probably would have felt if the data had been collected in cooperation with a specific company. Moreover, we did not offer any kind of incentive, which might have increased the motivation to take part at T2. Nevertheless, we tested for systematic attrition and did not find any differences between respondents and non-respondents.

Although the two-wave study design helps in reducing potential biases resulting from common method variance, it is limited with regard to the examination of mediation effects ( Cohen et al., 2003 ): Based on such a design we may not readily draw rigorous causal inferences ( Cole and Maxwell, 2003 ). Even if we had adopted a sequential design and had added a third time point to measure transformational leadership, the goal attributes, and outcome variables at a distinct time point each, longitudinal mediation would not have been assessed more accurately ( Mitchell and Maxwell, 2013 ). Both designs fail to account for prior levels of the variables and thus for autoregressive effects, which indicate stable individual differences in a certain variable ( Preacher, 2015 ). In order to clarify the causal order of effects, longitudinal designs are needed which assess predictor, mediator, and outcome variables simultaneously at each of various measurement occasions ( Cole and Maxwell, 2003 ). Using such a design, we may rigorously examine the proposed mediating effects, contrast them with alternative causal models, and relate them to concurrent causal influences ( Cole and Maxwell, 2003 ). Given this deficiency in our study design, we have to be careful when interpreting our findings as evidence on the mediation model we assumed, because we may not rule out alternative causal effects. Experimental and training research, however, demonstrated an impact of transformational leadership on followers’ perception of related goal attributes (e.g., Bono and Judge, 2003 ) just as on the outcomes we considered (e.g., Barling et al., 1996 ). In the field of personal goals, Maier and Brunstein (2001) provided evidence based on longitudinal data that differences in the interplay between work-related goal commitment and goal attainability reliably predict changes in newcomers’ job satisfaction and job commitment during the first 8 months after organizational entry. In addition, goal effectiveness trainings designed to enhance students’ commitment to goals as well as their goal attainability perceptions improved the effectiveness of the students’ goal striving process and ultimately led to increases in their satisfaction with their studies ( Brunstein et al., 2008 ). Due to their respective designs, these studies allow for strong inferences on causality. The causal effects are in line with the mediation chain we proposed, and therefore reinforce our assumption that transformational leadership affects followers’ perceptions of goal attributes, which in turn exert an influence on their job-related attitudes and proactive behavior. Nonetheless, we recommend future research to further substantiate the impact of transformational leadership on followers’ job satisfaction, commitment, and proactive behavior via goal attributes longitudinally by drawing on cross-lagged panel or latent growth curve models or other currently emerging strategies to model longitudinal mediation (cf. Preacher, 2015 ).

An additional limitation of our study is that the data was collected in one specific (Western) culture. It is therefore uncertain whether our findings are generalizable across cultures. Given that a cultural influence may especially be assumed with regard to the visionary content transformational leaders convey ( House et al., 2004 ), particularly the impact of TLs on a goal’s importance may vary dependent on the vision theme that is being communicated within a certain culture. In order to yet strengthen the generalizability of our findings, we included a diverse sample representing a broad range of organizations and a variety of industries.

Finally, we cannot rule out that general perceptions of control or support at work might have influenced followers’ ratings of the goal attributes. Future research should consider constructs such as locus of control or decision latitude as well as a supportive organizational culture as influences on followers’ goal attribute perceptions.

Our study integrates research and theorizing on self-regulatory processes, goal setting, and personal goals in the context of transformational leadership. Although these constructs share certain overlap, they have traditionally been considered from different perspectives. The study empirically supports theoretical assumptions related to the effect of transformational leadership on followers’ goal pursuit showing that TLs influence the extent to which individuals perceive organizational goals as important and attainable. This is remarkable as leading through goals has originally been associated with a task-oriented leadership style according to which leaders set a specific goal, monitor its progress, and allocate rewards. We have learned that TLs exert their impact on followers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and proactive behavior through the goal attributes importance and attainability. Findings suggest that these attributes are decisive in one’s goal striving no matter if a goal is self-set or assigned. However, both goal attributes differentially mediate the effect of transformational leadership. In sum, the present work thus contributes to the fields of leadership as well as goal research and their integration.

Author Contributions

BS and HK conceptualized the study with careful advice by GM. BS designed the study materials and collected the data. BS and HK processed the data. All authors were concerned with their analysis and interpretation. BS and HK drafted the earlier versions of the manuscript. GM thoroughly commented on these versions inducing further intellectual content. Before submitting the present work, BS substantially revised the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Melanie Hoff in collecting the data.

Funding. We acknowledge support for the Article Processing Charge by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Open Access Publication Fund of Bielefeld University.

• 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. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12 193–203. 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Austin J. T., Vancouver J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: structure, process, and content. Psychol. Bull. 120 338–375. 10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Avolio B. J., Waldman D. A., Yammarino F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I′s of transformational leadership. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 15 9–16. 10.1108/03090599110143366 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1997). Self-Efficacy. New York, NY: Freeman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barling J., Weber J., Kelloway E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 827–832. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.827 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 8 9–32. 10.1080/135943299398410 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M., Avolio B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bass B. M., Riggio R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership , 2nd Edn Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bateman T. S., Crant J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates. J. Organ. Behav. 14 103–118. 10.1002/job.4030140202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benjamin L., Flynn F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: value from fit? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 100 216–230. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berson Y., Avolio B. J. (2004). Transformational leadership and the dissemination of organizational goals: a case study of a telecommunication firm. Leadersh. Quart. 15 625–646. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berson Y., Halevy N., Shamir B., Erez M. (2015). Leading from different psychological distances: a construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation. Leadersh. Quart. 26 143–155. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berson Y., Shamir B., Avolio B. J., Popper M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style, and context. Leadersh. Quart. 12 53–73. 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00064-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bono J. E., Judge T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Acad. Manage. J. 46 554–571. 10.2307/30040649 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronkhorst B., Steijn B., Vermeeren B. (2015). Transformational leadership, goal setting, and work motivation: the case of a Dutch municipality. Rev. Public Pers. Administrat. 35 124–145. 10.1177/0734371X13515486 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunstein J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: a longitudinal study. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65 1061–1070. 10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunstein J. C., Dangelmayer G., Schultheiss O. C. (1996). Personal goals and social support in close relationships: effects on relationship mood and marital satisfaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71 1006–1019. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.1006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunstein J. C., Dargel A., Glaser C., Schmitt C. H., Spörer N. (2008). Persnliche Ziele im Studium: Erprobung einer Intervention zur Steigerung der Zieleffektivität und Zufriedenheit im Studium [Personal goals in college education: testing an intervention to increase students’ goal effectiveness and satisfaction in college]. Z. Pädagog. Psychol. 22 177–191. 10.1024/1010-0652.22.34.177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunstein J. C., Schultheiss O. C., Maier G. W. (1999). “The pursuit of personal goals: a motivational approach to well-being and life-adjustment,” in Action and Development: Theory and Research Through the Life Span , eds Brandstädter J., Lerner R. M. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; ), 169–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan D. (2009). “So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad?,” in Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Received Doctrine, Verity, and Fable in the Organizational and Social Science , eds Lance C. E., Vandenberg R. J. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 311–338. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chi N. W., Chung Y. Y., Tsai W. C. (2011). How do happy leaders enhance team success? The mediating roles of transformational leadership, group affective tone and team processes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41 1421–1454. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00767.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., Aiken L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 3rd Edn Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colbert A. E., Kristof-Brown A. L., Bradley B. H., Barrick M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: the role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. Acad. Manage. J. 51 81–96. 10.5465/AMJ.2008.30717744 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole D. A., Maxwell S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 112 558–577. 10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.558 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadersh. Quart. 10 145–179. 10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00012-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Conger J. A., Kanungo R. N. (1998). Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Conway J. M., Lance C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psychol. 25 325–334. 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cordery J., Sevastos P., Mueller W., Parker S. (1993). Correlates of employee attitudes toward functional flexibility. Hum. Relat. 46 705–723. 10.1177/001872679304600602 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Den Hartog D. N., Belschak F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 97 194–202. 10.1037/a0024903 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dvir T., Eden D., Avolio B. J., Shamir B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Acad. Manage. J. 45 735–744. 10.2307/3069307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emmons R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 1058–1068. 10.1037//0022-3514.51.5.1058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frese M., Beimel S., Schoenborn S. (2003). Action training for charismatic leadership: two evaluations of studies of a commercial training module on inspirational communication of a vision. Pers. Psychol. 56 671–697. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00754.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuller J. B., Patterson C. E. P., Hester K. I. M., Stringer D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on charismatic leadership: psychological reports. Psychol. Rep. 78 271–287. 10.2466/pr0.1996.78.1.271 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon A., Yukl G. (2004). The future of leadership research: challenges and opportunities. Ger. J. Hum. Resour. Res. 18 359–365. 10.1177/239700220401800307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hacker W. (1982). “Action control. On the task dependent structure of action-controlling mental representations,” in Cognitive and Motivational Aspects of Action , eds Hacker W., Volpert W., Cranach M. (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaft; ), 137–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman J. R. (1970). “Tasks and task performance in research on stress,” in Social and Psychological Factors in Stress , ed. J. E. McGrath. (New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart & Winston; ), 202–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heckhausen H., Kuhl J. (1985). “From wishes to action: the dead ends and short cuts on the long way to action,” in Goal-Directed Behavior: Psychological Theory and Research on Action , eds Frese M., Sabini J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; ), 134–160. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heinitz K., Rowold J. (2007). Gütekriterien einer deutschen Adaptation des Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) von Podsakoff [Psychometric properties of a German adaptation of the Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) by Podsakoff]. Z. Arbeits- Organisationspsychol. 51 1–15. 10.1026/0932-4089.51.1.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. Am. Psychol. 55 1217–1230. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and prevention decision making. J. Consum. Psychol. 12 : 177 10.1207/S15327663JCP1203_01 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hochwarter W. A., Perrewé P. L., Ferris G. R., Brymer R. A. (1999). Job satisfaction and performance: the moderating effects of value attainment and affective disposition. J. Vocat. Behav. 54 296–313. 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1659 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollenbeck J. R., Klein H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. J. Appl. Psychol. 72 212–220. 10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.212 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollenbeck J. R., Williams C. R. (1987). Goal importance, self-focus and the goal-setting process. J. Appl. Psychol. 72 204–211. 10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.204 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• House R. J., Hanges P. J., Javidan M., Dorfman P. W., Gupta V. (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell J. M., Shamir B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30 96–112. 10.2307/20159097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Humphrey S. E., Nahrgang J. D., Morgeson F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 1332–1356. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Judge T. A., Piccolo R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 755–768. 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kark R., Shamir B., Chen G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 246–255. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karoly P. (1993). Mechanisms of self regulation: a systems view. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 44 23–52. 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000323 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelloway E. K., Barling J., Helleur J. (2000). Enhancing transformational leadership: the roles of training and feedback. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 21 145–149. 10.1108/01437730010325022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirkpatrick S. A., Locke E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 36–51. 10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klug H. J. P., Maier G. W. (2015). Linking goal progress and subjective well-being: a meta-analysis. J. Happin. Stud. 16 37–65. 10.1007/s10902-013-9493-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kraut R., Olson J., Banaji M., Bruckman A., Cohen J., Couper M. (2004). Psychological research online: report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group on the conduct of research on the internet. Am. Psychol. 59 105–117. 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.105 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lance C. E., Dawson B., Birkelbach D., Hoffman B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organ. Res. Methods 13 435–455. 10.1177/1094428109352528 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Latham G. P., Locke E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 212–247. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Latham G. P., Saari L. M. (1979). Importance of supportive relationships in goal settings. J. Appl. Psychol. 64 151–156. 10.1037//0021-9010.64.2.151 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C., Bobko P., Earley P. C., Locke E. A. (1991). An empirical analysis of a goal setting questionnaire. J. Organ. Behav. 12 467–482. 10.1002/job.4030120602 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 59 454–479. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00407.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E. A., Latham G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E. A., Latham G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57 705–717. 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke E. A., Latham G. P., Erez M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Acad. Manage. Rev. 13 23–39. 10.5465/AMR.1988.4306771 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowe K. B., Kroeck K. G., Sivasubramaniam N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadersh. Quart. 7 385–425. 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lüdtke O., Trautwein U. (2007). Aggregating to the between-person level in idiographic research designs: personal goal research as an example of the need to distinguish between reliability and homogeneity. J. Res. Pers. 41 230–238. 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Williams J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar. Behav. Res. 39 99–128. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MacKinnon D. P., Warsi G., Dwyer J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivar. Behav. Res. 30 41–62. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maier G. W., Brunstein J. C. (2001). The role of personal work goals in newcomers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 1034–1042. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.1034 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maier G. W., Woschée R. M. (2002). Die affektive Bindung an das Unternehmen: Psychometrische Überprüfung einer deutschsprachigen Fassung des Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) von Porter und Smith (1970) [Affective commitment to an organization: psychometric examination of a German version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) of Porter and Smith (1970)]. Z. Arbeits- Organisationspsychol . 46 126–136. 10.1026//0932-4089.46.3.126 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Menon S. T. (2001). Employee empowerment: an integrative psychological approach. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 50 153–180. 10.1111/1464-0597.00052 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer J. P., Stanley D. J., Herscovitch L., Topolnytsky L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav. 61 20–52. 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell M. A., Maxwell S. E. (2013). A comparison of the cross-sectional and sequential designs when assessing longitudinal mediation. Multivar. Behav. Res. 48 301–339. 10.1080/00273171.2013.784696 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mowday R. T., Steers R. M., Porter L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. J. Vocat. Behav. 14 224–247. 10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mowday R. T., Steers R. M., Porter L. W. (1982). Employee-Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Turnover and Absenteeism. New York, NY: Academic Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neuberger O., Allerbeck M. (1978). Messung und Analyse von Arbeitszufriedenheit [Measurement and Analysis of Job Satisfaction]. Bern: Huber. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng T. W. H., Sorensen K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis. Group Organ. Manage. 33 243–268. 10.1177/1059601107313307 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oettingen G., Pak H., Schnetter K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal setting: turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80 736–753. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.736 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng A. C., Lin H.-E., Schaubroeck J., Mcdonough E. F., Hu B., Zhang A. (2016). CEO intellectual stimulation and employee work meaningfulness: the moderating role of organizational context. Group Organ. Manage. 41 203–231. 10.1177/1059601115592982 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pillai R., Williams E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment and performance. J. Organ. Change Manage. 17 144–159. 10.1108/09534810410530584 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Moorman R. H., Fetter R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Quart. 1 107–142. 10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Podsakoff N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63 539–569. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff P. M., Organ D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J. Manage. 12 531–544. 10.1177/014920638601200408 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Powers W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: some spadework at the foundations of scientific psychology. Psychol. Rev. 85 417–435. 10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.417 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher K. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: a survey and synthesis of new developments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66 825–852. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015258 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40 879–891. 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher K. J., Kelley K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol. Methods 16 93–115. 10.1037/a0022658 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ronan W. W., Latham G. P., Kinne S. B. (1973). Effects of goal setting and supervision on worker behavior in an industrial situation. J. Appl. Psychol. 58 302–307. 10.1037/h0036303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saks A. M., Belcourt M. (2006). An investigation of training activities and transfer of training in organizations. Hum. Resour. Manage. 45 629–648. 10.1002/hrm.20135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shamir B., House R. J., Arthur M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organ. Sci. 4 577–594. 10.1287/orsc.4.4.577 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon K. M., Kasser T., Smith K., Share T. (2002). Personal goals and psychological growth: testing an intervention to enhance goal attainment and personality integration. J. Pers. 70 5–31. 10.1111/1467-6494.00176 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sosik J. J., Dinger S. L. (2007). Relationships between leadership style and vision content: the moderating role of need for approval, self-monitoring, and need for social power. Leadersh. Quart. 18 134–153. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spector P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organ. Res. Methods 9 221–232. 10.1177/1094428105284955 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spreitzer G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manage. J. 38 1442–1465. 10.2307/256865 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stajkovic A. D., Luthans F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 124 240–261. 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stam D. A., van Knippenberg D., Wisse B. (2010). The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership. J. Organ. Behav. 31 499–518. 10.1002/job.624 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staufenbiel T., Hartz C. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Meßinstruments [Organizational citizenship behavior: development and validation of a measurement instrument]. Diagnostica 46 73–83. 10.1026//0012-1924.46.2.73 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tett R. P., Guterman H. A., Bleier A., Murphy P. J. (2000). Development and content validation of a “hyperdimensional” taxonomy of managerial competence. Hum. Perform. 13 205–251. 10.1207/S15327043HUP1303_1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tourish D., Craig R., Amernic J. (2010). Transformational leadership education and agency perspectives in business school pedagogy: a marriage of inconvenience? Br. J. Manage. 21 : s40 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00682.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Dierendonck D., Haynes C., Borrill C., Stride C. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 9 165–175. 10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.165 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vancouver J. B. (2000). “Self-regulation in organizational settings: a tale of two paradigms,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation , eds Boekaerts M., Pintrich P., Zeidner M. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 303–341. 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50039-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Viswesvaran C., Sanchez J. I., Fisher J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: a meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 54 314–334. 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walumbwa F. O., Lawler J. J., Avolio B. J. (2007). Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: a cross-culture investigation. Appl. Psychol. 56 212–230. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00241.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang G., Oh I., Courtright S. H., Colbert A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group Organ. Manage. 36 223–270. 10.1177/1059601111401017 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whittington J. L., Goodwin V. L., Murray B. (2004). Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job design: independent and interactive effects on employee outcomes. Leadersh. Quart. 15 593–606. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright B. E., Moynihan D. P., Pandey S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administrat. Rev. 72 206–215. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yousef D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of attitudes toward organizational change in a non-western setting. Pers. Rev. 29 567–592. 10.1108/00483480010296401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

--> AGU