Content uploaded by mohammad Sadegh Sharifirad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by mohammad Sadegh Sharifirad on Mar 28, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
EMPIRICAL ARTICLES
Transformational leadership, innovative work
behavior, and employee well-being
Mohammad Sadegh Sharifirad
Published online: 25 July 2013
International Network of Business and Management 2013
Abstract Different studies have shown that transformational leadership, which is
categorized as a positive leadership, can increase employee’s well-being and
innovation. However, the research about the social interactional mechanism used to
improve the aforementioned outcomes is scant. This research investigates the
mediating roles of leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety
through a survey data collected from 583 postgraduate management students in
three top universities in Iran working either full-time or part-time. After doing a
series of confirmatory factor analyses, this study employed structural equation
modeling to test the hypotheses of the proposed model. Results of the analyses
revealed that leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety fully
mediated the influence of TL on innovative work behavior, and partially mediated
the influence of TL on employee well-being. This paper contributes in three ways.
First, it investigates the mediating roles of leader’s active empathetic listening and
psychological safety as two interpersonal factors on innovative work behavior and
employee well-being. Second, findings of the study make contributions to the body
of research in a number of related disciplines, such as transformational leadership,
employee well-being, and innovative work behavior. Third, this paper highlights the
significant impact of listening as a taken-for-granted aspect of interactions in lea-
der–follower relationship. Implications of the findings for research and practice are
discussed.
Keywords Transformational leadership Active empathetic listening
Innovative work behavior Psychological safety Employee well-being
M. S. Sharifirad (&)
Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
e-mail: ili_teacher@yahoo.com
123
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
DOI 10.1007/s40196-013-0019-2
Introduction
Employee wellbeing has recently attracted much attention of researchers, not only
for the sake of happier and productive employees (Wright and Staw 1999), but also
to mitigate the negative effects of stress in the workplace such as frustration,
depression, anxiety, and many physical problems, including cardiovascular diseases
and high blood pressure among individuals (e.g., Siu et al. 2007). Some employers
in Western societies have taken increasing interest in enhancing and maintaining
employee well-being, and some employees are even willing to take pay-cuts in
order to be healthier and happier (Warr 1999).
Previously-published research has proved that employee well-being is affected
both by the physical work environment and the psychological work environment (e.g.,
Gilbreath and Benson 2004). As summarized by Sparks et al. (2001), management
style is one of the four main psychosocial work environment issues that is one of
current concerns for employee well-being and occupational health in the 21st-century
workplace (Liu et al. 2010). The focus has been on supervisors because they can be a
major influence, positive or negative, on employees’ work lives because supervisors
have a large impact on work demands, control, and social support (e.g., Gilbreath and
Benson 2004; Harris and Kacmar 2006). It is argued that positive leadership, which
comprises positive attitudes of passion, skills, and confidence to inspire followers, has
the potential to elevate followers in the long term in areas such as trust, commitment,
and well-being (Liu et al. 2010). The closest leadership style to positive leadership is
transformational leadership (TL), since Bass (1985) considered leader’s motivational
and elevating effect on followers as the core of his definition.
The close link between innovation and performance has caused enthusiasm to
understand factors shaping innovation. A review by Mumford et al. (2002) mentions
a broad range of factors including strategy, structure, climate practices, group
interactions and individual performance capabilities. More recently, various authors
have specifically highlighted the impact of leadership on creative efforts and
innovation (Mumford et al. 2002; Jung et al. 2003; Mumford and Licuanan 2004).
Within the strand of research concerned with the relationship between leadership
and the innovation process, transformational leadership is especially interesting, as
theory suggests that transformational leaders can enhance innovative work behavior
(Bass and Avolio 1990; Sosik et al. 1998). Bass (1985) defined a transformational
leader as one who motivates followers to do more than they are originally expected
to do. Despite theoretical reasoning, little empirical evidence exists to confirm the
relationship between leadership, innovative work behavior, and the socio-psycho-
logical mechanism in between, inspiring the need for further investigation (Reuvers
et al. 2008).
Confirming positive leadership thesis, researchers have established associations
between TL, innovative work behavior and employee well-being based on research
done in Western societies (e.g., Gong et al. 2009; Arnold et al. 2007; Densten 2005;
Sivanathan et al. 2004; Seltzer et al. 1989). However, there is very little research
exploring the relationship between TL and employee well-being in Eastern contexts,
especially Iran, and even there is less research examining the socio-psychological
mechanism of this relationship.
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 199
123
Cultural dimensions can impact relationships and the outcomes such as stress.
The two most impactful dimensions of national culture, in this respect, are power
distance and individualism/collectivism. As an Eastern context, Iranian managers
are characterized as being individualistic and high in power distance (Javidan and
Dastmalchian 2003). Iranians can be quite external in their locus of control,
attributing control of events to forces outside of themselves (Boyacigiller and Adler
1991; House et al. 1999). Control itself has been linked to perceptions of both job
stressors and job strains (Ganster and Fusilier 1989).
Countries in which people are external tend to score high in job strains.
According to Iran’s economic and political position in the world, employee well-
being is very susceptible. With the imposition of sanctions on Iran and, as a result,
its struggling economy and devalued currency, organizations, employees and people
have experienced much economic pressure. As a notorious example, job stress has
increased among the Iranian since every crisis brings lack of stability and
unpredictability which are the sources of stress (Miller 1981).
This study aims to bridge the above-mentioned gap in this knowledge by
exploring the relationship between transformational leadership, employee well-
being and innovative work behavior in three Iranian societies. Specifically, we
intend to examine the roles of leaders active empathetic listening and perceived
psychological safety by the follower as two links between transformational
leadership and two constructs of employees’ innovative work behavior and well-
being. Several researchers have underlined the importance of pro-subordinate
behaviors and positive relationships between supervisors and subordinates (Einarsen
et al. 2007; Gerstner and Day 1997; Humphrey et al. 2007; Ilies et al. 2007).
Nevertheless, there is little research exploring the potential of social interactions to
increase or decrease employees’ innovative work behavior and well-being. Aligned
with this point, we use active empathetic listening and psychological safety to
reflect the quality of relationships and organizational climate, respectively, and posit
them as mediators between transformational leadership and two outcomes for the
followers: innovative work behavior and well-being.
Theory and hypotheses
Transformational leadership and employee well-being
Wellbeing is such a broad concept that has resulted in the complexity of employee
well-being construct. The definitions of well-being range from a simple one such as
feeling good or feeling bad (Warr 2006) to a multi-construct one such as containing
objective list, preference satisfaction and mental states (Parfit 1984). In a narrower
sense, employee well-being is simply defined as ‘‘a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences’’ (Locke
1976). Some research has proposed that it comprises some psychological indicators
such as affect, anxiety and frustration and physiological ones such as blood pressure
and heart condition and general physical health (Danna and Griffin 1999).
200 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
Leadership is an influential aspect of the work environment for employees (e.g.,
Oldham and Cummings 1996; Scott and Bruce 1994). Transformational leadership
describes a class of behaviors enacted by a leader composed of four dimensions:
intellectual stimulation (i.e., challenging the status quo and taking novel approaches
to problems), charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation (i.e.,
energizing followers by articulating a compelling vision), and individualized
consideration (i.e., supporting, mentoring, and developing followers) (Bass 1985).
Several studies have found that leaders’ behavior affects employees’ well-being.
Gilbreath and Benson (2004) investigated the effect of supervisory behavior on
employee well-being (conceptualized as psychiatric disturbance) using a structure
versus consideration conceptualization of supervisory behavior. A recent experi-
mental study (Bono and Ilies 2006, p. 331) focused on the effect of charismatic
leaders on the mood of followers and showed that ‘‘charismatic leaders enable their
followers to experience positive emotions’’.
To elaborate, some features of the transformational pattern have been proposed
relating to employee well-being. For example, individual consideration from a
transformational leader is reflected in the leader’s behaviors showing concern for
followers’ needs and feelings (Liu et al. 2010). This kind of transformational leader
behavior could be associated with favorable affective responses, such as job
satisfaction (Butler et al. 1999). Inspirational motivation could increase followers’
task clarity and eliminate uncertainty and ambiguity by providing a frame of
reference for describing expected performance, which in turn are related to lower
levels of perceived work stress and less stress symptoms (Turner et al. 2002). As
early as 1990, Podsakoff et al. demonstrated that transformational leader behaviors
influenced employees’ job satisfaction, and this has been confirmed by Fuller et al.
(1996) meta-analysis. Seltzer et al. (1989) carried out research among 277 MBA
students who held full-time jobs, and found that symptoms of stress and burnout
could be attributed to the lack of TL. In other words, TL can reduce subordinates’
stress symptoms and job burnout. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1a Transformational leadership is positively related to employee well-
being.
Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior
Farr and Ford (1990) define innovative work behavior (IWB) as an individual’s
behavior that aims to achieve the initiation and intentional introduction (within a
work role, group or organization) of new and useful ideas, processes, products or
procedures. IWB differs from employee creativity—the production of new and
useful ideas procedures (Amabile 1988)—because it also includes the implemen-
tation of ideas. Unlike creativity, IWB is explicitly intended to be somehow
beneficial. It has a clearer applied component and is expected to result in innovative
output. Creativity can be seen as a crucial component of IWB, most evident in the
beginning of the innovation process when problems or performance gaps are
recognized and ideas are generated in response to a perceived need for innovation
(West 2002).
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 201
123
Some studies, albeit few, have revealed the direct and indirect positive
correlations between transformational leadership and innovation. A study by Sosik
et al. (1998) used the number of creative ideas generated as a component of
effectiveness. Results indicated a positive relationship between transformational
leadership and creativity in a computer-mediated brainstorming exercise. In a series
of studies by Wilson-Evered et al. (2001,2004), transformational leadership was
linked with innovative work climate and behaviors in health care teams. Reuvers
et al. (2008) asserted that only two studies have successfully and specifically linked
transformational leadership to innovative work behavior: Janssen (2002) and
Wilson-Evered et al. (2001,2004). More indirect evidence for the posited
relationship is provided in a study by Jung et al. (2003). Their study examined
the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation
in 32 Taiwanese companies in the electronics industry. Analysis yielded a direct and
positive link between transformational leadership and organizational innovation.
Wilson-Evered et al. (2001,2004) work on health care teams found a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and climate for innovation as well
as a link between transformational leadership and morale and morale and
implemented innovations. In 2008, Reuvers and his colleagues after doing research
in four Australian hospitals revealed a positive and significant relationship between
transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. As evidenced through
the previously reviewed studies, this study conforms to the theorized relationship
that transformational leadership positively influences followers’ innovative work
behavior (Hater and Bass 1988; Bass and Avolio 1990).
Hypothesis 1b Transformational leadership is positively related to innovative
work behavior.
The mediating role of active empathetic listening
Multiple attempts have been made to define listening within the workplace
environment for the purposes of enabling research on listening. Glenn (1989) found
over 50 definitions and models in her review of the listening literature to that date.
Along with these definitions and models, different words have attached listening to
give it a more restrictive and practical nature. As two examples, active listening is
much more than hearing; it requires use of the ears and the mind (Newstrom 2011);
effective listening comprises of learning about the feelings and emotions of that
person and sending signals to show care about employees. In 1999, Comer and
Drollinger proposed a new approach toward listening by adding empathy to active
listening. Although it is used in buyer–seller relations to enhance selling performance
(Drollinger and Comer 2012; Comer and Drollinger 1999), the introduction of this
topic in the relations between leaders and followers does not seem absurd and strange
since one may consider leaders as those who are working with some people having
ideas, thoughts, feelings, emotions and even complaints about their job, workplace,
colleagues and so on and may try to show them to leaders to ask for the enhancement,
change or preservation of the status quo. In return, it is incumbent upon leaders to
202 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
increase enthusiasm, cooperation commitment and creativity, to say a few, through
paying attention to what they own in their hearts and minds.
Active empathetic listening is the process whereby listeners receive verbal and
nonverbal messages, process them cognitively, respond to them verbally and
nonverbally, and attempt to assess their underlying meaning intuitively by putting
themselves in the other person’s place throughout. The work of Comer and
Drollinger (1999) and Drollinger et al. (2006) continues to foster this stream of
listening research by synthesizing listening, or particularly what they call active
empathetic listening, into three dimensions of sensing—the physical receipt of the
message; processing—operations in the mind of the listener that assign meaning to
incoming messages; and responding—the information that the listener sends back to
speakers indicating that their messages have been received correctly (Comer and
Drollinger 1999). In this paper, we adopted the construct proposed by Comer and
Drollinger (1999) to examine our conceptual model.
Transformational leaders show empathy in their relations with subordinates.
Skinner and Spurgeon (2005) conducted a study with 96 middle and senior level
health managers working for the Western Australian Health Department. They
examined the relationship between health managers’ self-assessed empathy, their
leadership behaviors as rated by their subordinates and subordinates’ personal ratings
on a number of work satisfaction and related outcome measures. Empathy showed a
significant positive relationship to transformational leadership. This construct
encompasses behaviors such as acting in a friendly manner and supportively,
listening to subordinates’ problems, showing concern for their needs and feelings,
consulting subordinates on important issues, and treating subordinates as equal. In
terms of transformational leadership, Individualized consideration encompasses a
leader’s ability to give personal attention to followers, to treat each employee
individually, to coach, mentor, and advice followers (Bass 1990). These are the
traces of empathy permeating into the building blocks of transformational leadership.
Yukl (1998) defines consideration as leader behavior that involves concern for
people and interpersonal relationships. Transformational leaders create an atmo-
sphere in which followers are allowed to express their opinions, discuss their
problems, and share ideas. Needless to say, it entails listening to subordinates to
show the path. Learning culture can grow in this cultivated ambience because this
type of culture is supported through the process of encouraging team members to
question their assumptions, approach old problems in new ways, or reframe problems
in the light of the newly integrated organization’s challenges (Jung et al. 2003).
Through individualized consideration, transformational leaders deal with others
as individuals; consider their individual needs, abilities; listen attentively (Bass
1997; Bass and Avolio 1994). Also, individualized consideration provides the
respect necessary to support psychological safety (Shin and Zhou 2003). On the
whole, using intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, transforma-
tional leadership behaviors create a team culture that is open to diverse ideas by
listening to and valuing team members’ divergent views, creating open exchanges
of information, and resolving conflicts effectively (Bass 1998). Finally, these
leaders establish mechanisms, such as ad hoc committees, to enable subordinates to
participate in strategy (Vera and Crossan 2004).
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 203
123
Hypothesis 2 Transformational leadership is positively related to active empa-
thetic listening.
There is growing evidence that an effective listening (e.g., active empathetic
listening) plays a vital role in successful communication and ultimately the
development of healthy working relationships (Aggarwal et al. 2005; Comer and
Drollinger 1999; Ramsey and Sohi 1997). Pro-subordinate behaviors, on the other
hand, are behaviors that foster the motivation, well-being, and job satisfaction of
subordinates, including taking care of and supporting subordinates (e.g., listening to
subordinates, attending to social relations among subordinates, giving praise when
due, and showing appreciation and respect) (Einarsen et al. 2007).
Mineyama et al. (2007) empirically demonstrated that subordinates who reported
that supervisors demonstrated higher levels of listening skills, as well as higher
levels of a person-centered attitude—that is, an attitude—based on empathy,
congruence and unconditional positive regards—demonstrated more favorable
psychological stress reactions.
If we pay attention to the empathetic aspect of active listening, empathic
individuals possess a pro-social orientation toward others, frequently displaying
consideration (Eisenberg and Miller 1987). As a result, those high in empathy tend to
develop more positive interpersonal relationships with others than those low in
empathy (Batson 1987). From employees’ perspectives, working for an empathic
manager is more enjoyable than working for a manager who lacks empathy, eliciting
higher average levels of positive affect and lower average levels of negative effect.
Lobdell et al. (1993) found that poor listening diminished subordinates’ individual
sense of control and empowerment. Ellinger et al. (2003) found that how a supervisor
listens in his or her dyadic relationships with subordinates directly equated to
employee satisfaction. Hence:
Hypothesis 3a Leaders’ active empathetic listening is positively related to
employee well-being.
According to Dutton and Heaphy (2003), a work climate that is characterized by
high-quality connections is likely to be life-enhancing and energizing and fosters
human development and growth. We contend that a work context characterized by a
high level of connections and psychological safety will induce a sense of vitality
and energy and this state will enable individuals to lower their defenses and unleash
their motivation to explore and become involved in creativity. Furthermore, a recent
theoretical work (Heaphy and Dutton 2008) suggested that the physiological
resourcefulness generated in positive social interactions contributes to higher levels
of physiological resources for engagement in a work role. This suggests that an
environment characterized by psychological safety can contribute to a sense of
physical and mental strength, and this in turn will affect individuals’ ability to
become engaged in work behavior, and more specifically be involved in creative
work.
Hypothesis 3b Leader’s active empathetic listening is positively related to
innovative work behavior.
204 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
Taking Hypothesis 2 and Hypotheses 3a and 3b together, and based on the
evidence suggesting manager’s support can enhance employee well-being (Sparks
et al. 2001) and approachability of the manager as an important mediating factor
between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior (Janssen 2002),
we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4a Active empathetic listening is a mediator between TL and well-
being.
Hypothesis 4b Active empathetic listening is a mediator between TL and
innovative work behavior.
The mediating role of perceived psychological safety
Psychological safety refers to individuals’ perceptions of the consequences of
taking interpersonal risks in their work environment (Edmondson 1999,2004). A
belief that an individual is psychologically safe means that he or she feels able to
show and employ his or herself without fear of negative consequences to self-
image, status, or career (Kahn 1990). In the workplace, it consists of basic beliefs
about how others will respond when an individual employee chooses to act in a
way that may be risky (e.g., asking a question, seeking feedback, reporting a
mistake, or proposing a new idea) (Cannon and Edmondson 2001; Edmondson
2004). Edmondson (2003) argues that individuals engage in a cognitive process in
which they weigh their decision whether to take a potential action or proceed in a
given direction by assessing the interpersonal risk associated with that given
action or behavior in the particular interpersonal work climate characterizing their
organization or work group.
The relationship between supervisors and their reports has a significant positive
impact on subordinates’ feeling of psychological safety, and strong feelings of
psychological safety have been demonstrated to have numerous positive effects in
the workplace, including increasing the level of employee engagement (Kahn 1990;
May et al. 2004), affecting the employee’s level of vitality and creativity (Kark and
Carmeli 2009), increasing the employee’s ability to seek help and admit errors
(Tynan 2005), enabling the ability to learn from failures (Carmeli 2007; Carmeli
and Gittell 2009), strengthening the level of employee voice (Detert and Burris
2007), and further increasing productivity through greater job involvement and
effort (Brown and Leigh 1996).
With the support and encouragement of transformational leaders, employees are
more likely to focus on tasks rather than worries and fears (Shamir et al. 1993),
thus they become willing to take risks to voice their thoughts. In 2009, Nemanich
and Vera showed that there is a significantly positive relationship between
transformational leadership and learning culture consisting of psychological safety
(Edmondson 1999; Lipshitz et al. 2007), openness to diversity of opinions (Baker
and Sinkula 1999; Hurley and Hult 1998; Tagger 2002; Woodman et al. 1993;
Yang 2003), and participation in decision making (Hedberg 1981; Hurley and Hult
1998; Thompson and Kahnweiler 2002). Hence:
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 205
123
Hypothesis 5 Transformational leadership is positively related to perceived
psychological safety.
A psychologically safe environment gives the employees the opportunity to learn
without having the anxiety of being castigated for their mistakes and risks. In a
classic study on organizational change, Schein and Bennis (1965) argued that a
work environment characterized by psychological safety is necessary for individuals
to feel safe and be able to change their behavior. This is because psychological
safety is likely to help employees overcome defensiveness and learning anxiety. For
example, when individuals encounter new ideas and information that disconfirm
their prior knowledge, expectations, or hopes, they may experience a sense of
anxiety that will hinder their ability to learn. A sense of psychological safety is
likely to enable them to overcome their anxiety and make good use of new input
(Schein 1985).
Several studies suggest that psychological safety in the work environment
contributes to creativity-related performance outcomes. Edmondson (1999) dem-
onstrated that psychological safety helps teams to engage in learning behavior and
argued that individuals weigh their decisions before engaging in risky actions,
avoiding errors that could help the team to develop new solutions rather than
maintaining the status quo. In a non-threatening climate, team members are more
likely to innovate due to their lack of anxiety about negative judgments (West 1990;
West and Anderson 1996; Edmondson 1999). There is evidence supporting a link
between process innovation, firm performance and psychological safety at the
organizational level (Baer and Frese 2003), showing that in groups larger than
teams, in which collaboration is required, a feeling of safety is needed to drive the
adoption and implementation of innovation. Kark and Carmeli (2009) demonstrated
the existence of a relationship between psychological safety and creativity at the
individual level in a study of half-time graduate students working in various
industrial settings. In the most recent research Kessel et al. (2012) showed that the
feeling of psychological safety in teams contributes to the teams creative
performance. We therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 6a Perceived psychological safety is positively related to employee
well-being.
Hypothesis 6b Perceived psychological safety is positively related to innovative
work behavior.
Taking Hypothesis 5 and Hypotheses 6a and 6b together, and based on the earlier
studies showing that a work environment that emphasizes positive work relation-
ships is a central source of positive states and experiences such as satisfaction,
enrichment, development, and growth (Dutton 2003; Dutton and Heaphy 2003;
Quinn and Dutton 2005) we therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7a Perceived psychological safety is a mediator between TL and
employee well-being.
Hypothesis 7b Perceived psychological safety is a mediator between TL and
innovative work behavior.
206 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
The conceptual model of the study is shown in Fig. 1.
Method
A self-administered survey method using structured questions was adopted to gather
data from students of management in Tehran, Mashhad and Kerman. All the
questionnaires in which the option ‘‘I am working now’’ was checked were
considered and others were excluded from the research. Therefore, all statistics are
related to those working and studying simultaneously.
Sampling and procedures
The data collection was conducted from August to December 2012. The author
organized a plan to collect data from the universities. Three days of Saturday,
Tuesday, and Thursday were selected since the weekdays start from Saturday to
Thursday. Most classes are held at the beginning or end of weeks to facilitate the
transportation and accommodation of students living far from their hometowns. Then
on each day two periods of 9–12 and 5–8 were selected to randomly select classes.
Before each class, the professors of the classes were thoroughly informed about the
research and the objectives. After receiving the permission, 5 min before the classes,
the author gave brief but detailed explanations of the study to the postgraduate
students of management and the confidentiality of their responses was insured. The
completed questionnaires were returned immediately on site after 15 min.
For the sample recruited in Tehran, a total of 500 questionnaires were distributed,
and 380 valid questionnaires were returned, making a response rate of 76 %.
Among the participants, 236 (62 %) had either a full-time or a part-time job.
Participants ranged in age from 22 to 45 years with an average age of 25.45
(SD =3.87). They had worked, on average for 3.77 years (SD =2.59) within their
organizations and 1.87 years (SD =2.67) with their current supervisors. For the
sample recruited in Mashhad, a total of 460 questionnaires were distributed, and 352
valid questionnaires were returned, making a response rate of 76.5 %. Among the
participants, 180 (51 %) had either a full-time or a part-time job.
Fig. 1 The research model along with the status of the proposed hypotheses
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 207
123
Participants ranged in age from 21 to 36 years, with an average age of 28.25
(SD =4.47). They had worked, on average for 3.21 years (SD =4.50) within their
organizations and 2.14 years (SD =2.91) with their current supervisors. For the
sample recruited in Kerman, a total of 500 questionnaires were distributed, and 388
valid questionnaires were returned, making a response rate of 94 %. Among the
participants, 167 (43 %) had either a full-time or a part-time job. Participants ranged
in age from 21 to 42 years, with an average age of 25.61 (SD =3.47). They had
worked, on average for 2.96 years (SD =2.50) within their organizations and
4.35 years (SD =2.77) with their current supervisors. Table 1summarizes the
demographic profiles of the three samples.
Measures
All the measures were translated into Persian by forward–backward translation
procedure (Brislin 1980). In order to insure that the questionnaire was not lengthy,
selected items from job satisfaction, perceived work stress, and stress symptoms
were used.
Transformational leadership
Since this research was done within an Iranian context, we used a questionnaire
designed in an eastern context (China) with similar cultural features (Both are high in
collectivism and power distance). We used Li and Shi’s (2005) 26-item scale,
developed for Chinese societies based on Bass’s conceptualization of TL. Employees
indicated the extent to which they agreed with the statements about their immediate
supervisor’s behaviors. Four dimensions were measured, including charisma, morale
building, inspirational motivation, and individual consideration. Importantly, this
scale has been widely used in Chinese societies, and its reliability and validity have
been empirically demonstrated (e.g., Li et al. 2007;Wuetal.2007).
Table 1 Demographic profiles of subjects
Variable Category Tehran Mashhad Kerman
N%N%N%
Gender Male 151 64 101 56 104 62
Female 85 36 79 44 63 38
Marital status Single 168 71 122 68 117 70
Married 68 29 58 32 50 30
Education Master 198 84 146 81 145 87
PhD 38 16 34 19 22 13
Industry Manufacturing 125 53 86 48 68 41
Service 111 47 94 52 99 59
Organizational type Governmental sector 76 32 68 38 73 44
Private-sector 160 68 112 62 94 56
208 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
To evaluate the construct validity of the transformational leadership measure in
the current study, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Three fit
indices, namely the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and
the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), were inspected. The results
of the CFA showed an acceptable fit to a four-factor model (For the Tehran sample,
v
2
[155] =461.87, CFI =0.94, TLI =0.93, RMSEA =0.06; for the Mashhad
sample v
2
[155] =513.67, CFI =0.91, TLI =0.90, RMSEA =0.08; for the
Kerman sample, v
2
[155] =487.77, CFI =0.92, TLI =0.91, RMSEA =0.07).
Despite the fact that there are some suggestions to administer TL as a group-level
variable (e.g., Purvanova et al. 2006), since the hypotheses were tested at the
individual level, TL was also measured at the individual level in this study.
Supporting prior studies, the four dimensions of TL were highly correlated in our
data, ranging from 0.81 to 0.89 with an average correlation of 0.84. Moreover,
previously-conducted research has shown that a single higher order TL construct
adequately captured the variance in the sub-dimensions of TL (e.g., Judge and Bono
2000), and that the sub-dimensions did not demonstrate discriminant validity in
predicting outcomes (e.g., Bycio et al. 1995), so we combined the items to form a
single TL factor. The scale had the following four subscales (26 items total) and
sample items: morale building (e.g., ‘‘My immediate supervisor shares happiness
and woe with his/her subordinates’’); inspirational motivation (e.g., ‘‘My immediate
supervisor explains to his/her subordinates the long-term meaning of their work’’);
individualized consideration (e.g., ‘‘My immediate supervisor would like to help
his/her subordinates with their problems in life and family’’); charisma (e.g., ‘‘My
immediate supervisor is good at and never hesitates to take actions when dealing
with tough problems’’). Response options for items used a 5-point scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale
was 0.94 for the Tehran Sample, 0.86 for the Mashhad sample, and 0.92 for Kerman
Sample and 0.91 for the combined sample.
Active empathetic listening
The active empathetic listening scale (Drollinger et al. 2006) was chosen for this
study because it embraces a listening model that has a theoretical background similar
to that for psychological safety. It based its empathetic element on the therapeutic
work of Rogers (1961) and his idea of unconditional positive regard. Paying attention
to the nature of listening, the elements can be used for listening to everyone, although
it was coined to show effective relationships between customers and salespeople. The
survey encompasses three standard elements of the listening process—sensing,
processing, and responding (Brownell, 1985). The scale’s authors encouraged further
research using the instrument outside of the sales profession to include supervisors of
salespeople and other business professionals. This study continued the application of
the scale in leader–follower relationship. The active empathetic listening (AEL) scale
developed by Drollinger et al. (2006) was used in order to measure leaders’ ability to
demonstrate AEL in supervisor–subordinate interactions. The scale consisted of 21
items and internal consistency was at an acceptable level (a=0.785). Confirmatory
factor analysis indicated a satisfactory fit (For the Tehran sample, v
2
[19] =64.94,
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 209
123
CFI =0.94, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.05; for the Mashhad sample v
2
[19] =53.18,
CFI =0.92, TLI =0.91, RMSEA =0.06; for the Kerman sample, v
2
[19] =45.11,
CFI =0.95, TLI =0.93, RMSEA =0.07). Response options for items used a
5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items
included, ‘‘My immediate supervisor keeps track of points I make’’ and ‘‘My
immediate supervisor assures me that he or she is receptive to my ideas’’.
Perceived psychological safety
Five items from Edmondson’s (1999) psychological safety scale adapted to this
context were used to assess the extent to which respondents felt safe to speak up
about issues or ideas. Examples of these items are: ‘‘Members of this organization
are able to bring up problems and tough issues’’ and ‘‘Members of my organization
are able to bring up problems and tough issues.’’ Respondents’ agreement
(1 =strongly disagree, 5 =strongly agree) with these items formed a single scale
(Cronbach alpha =0.83).
Innovative work behavior
It was measured using ten items from innovative work behavior (IWB) designed by
De Jong and den Hartog (2010). This scale has four dimensions. The dimensions
with sample questions are: idea exploration (e.g., ‘‘I wonder how things can be
improved’’), idea generation (e.g., ‘‘I search out new working methods, techniques
or instruments’’), idea championing (e.g., ‘‘make important organizational members
enthusiastic for innovative ideas’’), and idea implementation (e.g., ‘‘contribute to the
implementation of new ideas’’). The results of CFA showed an acceptable fit to a
one-factor model (For the Tehran sample, For the Kerman sample). A 5-point Likert
scale ranging from ‘‘1 =never’’ to ‘‘5 =always’’ was used to gather data. For the
four-item scale, a reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.86 was obtained.
Employee well-being
To measure employee well-being, three dimensions of job satisfaction, perceived
work stress, and stress symptoms were considered. For job satisfaction we used two
items developed by Cammann et al. (1979) to measure job satisfaction. A sample
item was, ‘‘All in all, I am satisfied with my job’’. The Cronbach’s alpha of this
scale was 0.85, 0.91, 0.81, and 0.88 for the Tehran sample, Mashhad sample,
Kerman sample and combined sample, respectively. To measure perceived work
stress, we selected two items from prior studies (Siu et al. 2006,2007) to measure
perceived work stress. A sample item was ‘‘I usually feel that I am under a lot of
pressure’’. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was 0.87, 0.90, 0.90 and 0.88 for the
Tehran sample, Mashhad sample, Kerman sample and combined sample, respec-
tively. We included six items from ASSET, an organizational stress screening tool
(Cartwright and Cooper 2002) to measure stress symptoms. The items were
symptoms of stress- induced ill-health such as headache and constant tiredness.
Each item was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (frequently).
210 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
Since well-being has three dimensions which have positive and negative natures, in
this paper, work stress and stress symptoms are reversely coded to maintain the
positive nature of well-being. The results of CFA showed an acceptable fit to a one-
factor model (for the Tehran sample, v
2
[132] =504.45, CFI =0.92, TLI =0.90,
RMSEA =0.06; for the Mashhad sample v
2
[132] =630.46, CFI =0.92,
TLI =0.91, RMSEA =0.07; for the Kerman sample, v
2
[132] =445.64,
CFI =0.93, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.07). The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale
was 0.87, 0.87, 0.90 and 0.92 for the Tehran sample, Mashhad sample, Kerman
sample and combined sample, respectively.
Results
We first conducted the data analysis on the Tehran, Mashhad and Kerman samples
separately. These analyses yield similar results; therefore, we report only the results
in the combined sample.
Preliminary analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis
In order to examine the distinctiveness of the study variables, we conducted CFA to
compare the fit of our hypothesized measurement model to a number of nested
plausible alternative models. Due to the length of transformational leadership scale,
the four dimensions were used as manifest indicators (‘‘Parceling’’; Kishton and
Widaman 1994) of the latent TL factor. The same strategy was also applied to the
active empathetic listening scale, which was parceled as seven indicators, and each
indicator included three items which were randomly selected. Table 2presents the
results of the CFA that examined the distinctiveness of the study variables. As
shown in Table 2, the fit indices revealed that the hypothesized five-factor
measurement model was a better fit than any alternative nested models, indicating
support for the distinctiveness of the constructs in the study.
According to Joreskog (1971), the five-factor measurement model was evaluated for
metric invariance across the three samples of Tehran, Mashhad and Kerman. In the
unconstrained model, each indicator was allowed to load only on its factor as shown in
the five-factor measurement model, but the factor loadings and covariances were
allowed to vary between the three samples. With an equality constraint imposed on the
factor loadings between the three samples, the constrained model was estimated and
compared with the unconstrained model. An insignificant change in the Chi square
statistics (Dv
2
) was considered as evidence for metric invariance given that the CFI,
TLI, and RMSEA displayed an acceptable overall model fit. The fit indices revealed
measurement equivalence given that both the constrained model (v
2
[251] =635.33,
CFI =0.93, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.07) and the unconstrained model (v
2
[239] =609.57, CFI =0.92, TLI =0.91, RMSEA =0.07) were acceptable, with
an insignificant change in Chi square (Dv(12) =25.76, P[0.05).
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 211
123
Convergent validity and internal consistency were examined by the loading paths
of all dimensions, which are statistically significant if they exceed 0.50. Table 6 (in
Appendix) provides internal consistency and convergent validity of all variables
analyzed in this study, including composite reliability index (CRI) and average
variance extracted (AVE), calculated in order to test the composite (construct)
reliability, as suggested by S
ˇkerlavaj et al. (2007). The values of CRI as well as
AVE are presented for all constructs of the research model. The values exceed the
thresholds (0.50 for AVE and 0.70 for CRI), meaning the measuring instruments
proposed are both valid and reliable.
Finally, discriminant validity is assessed with a variance-extracted test, where we
compared the variance-extracted estimates for the two factors of interest with the
square of the correlation between the two factors. Discriminant validity is
demonstrated if the variance-extracted estimates are greater than the corresponding
squared correlation (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Netermeyer et al. 1990). Table 3
shows all the variance-extracted estimates are greater than the corresponding
squared correlations. Therefore, the above three tests fully support the discriminant
and convergent validity of the five constructs tested in this study. Table 3shows
discriminant validity of the theoretical construct measures.
The common method variance problem should not be a concern for the
interaction effect in this study because we obtained data from students/employees at
different time periods. The use of similar methods to collect measures on criterion
and predictor variables is not a source of spurious interactions (Aiken and West
1991; Evans 1985). In order to address possible concerns, we examined this CMV
issue below (Podsakoff et al. 2003; Spector 2006). We used Harman’s one-factor
test to address the potential common method/source bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003).
The basic assumption of this technique is that if a substantial amount of common
method/source bias exists, either (a) a single-factor will emerge from the factor
analysis, or (b) a general factor will account for the majority of the covariance
Table 2 Results of contemporary factor analysis for the measures of variables studied
Model v
2
df TLI CFI RMSEA
Five-factor model 480.01 131 0.91 0.94 0.08
Four-factor model 1: Innovative work behavior
and employee well-being combined
806.39 135 0.86 0.92 0.11
Four-factor model 2: Leaders’ active empathetic
listening and psychological safety are
combined
1082.96 135 0.77 0.81 0.15
Four-factor model 3: Leaders’ active empathetic
listening and employee well-being are
combined
1228.34 135 0.65 0.72 0.23
Three factor model 3: Innovative work behavior,
employee well-being and also leader’s active
empathetic listening and psychological safety
combined
1264.73 139 0.53 0.66 0.31
One-factor model 4452.32 142 0.32 0.48 0.47
TLI Tucker–Lewis index, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation
212 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
among the measures. Specifically, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis
using a principal components extraction and a varimax rotation on the scales used in
this study. Results indicated the presence of five factors with the first factor
explaining only 25.35 % of the variance while the five factors in the total explained
82.34 % of the variance. Although this procedure did not completely rule out the
possibility of same source bias, it is postulated that common method/source bias
was not a serious problem in the current study. The fact that none of the fit indices
for the single-factor measurement model approached acceptable levels (see Table 2)
was also a strong support. Table 4presents the means, standard deviations, and
correlations among variables.
Test of hypotheses
The correlations between TL and employee well-being (r=0.252, P\0.01),
innovative work behavior (r=0.365, P\0.01) provided preliminary evidence to
support Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Supporting Hypotheses 2 and 5, TL had positive
correlations with both leader’s active empathetic listening (r=0.564, P\0.01)
and psychological safety (r=0.481, P\0.01). Also, as it is evident from Table 4,
both leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety were significantly
related to the innovative work behavior and employee well-being. Thus, Hypotheses
3a and 3b as well as 6a and 6b were preliminarily supported.
Table 3 Discriminant validity of the theoretical construct measures
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Transformational leadership 0.65** 0.31 0.23 0.17 0.06
2. Leader’s active empathetic listening 0.56 0.56** 0.17 0.13 0.06
3. Perceived psychological safety 0.48 0.41 0.63** 0.25 0.07
4. Innovative work behavior 0.36 0.36 0.50 0.62** 0.08
5. Employee well-being 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.60**
Diagonal represents the average variance extracted; while above the diagonal the shared variance
(squared correlations) are represented. Below the diagonal the 95 % confidence interval for the estimated
factor correlations is provided, n=583
** P\0.01
Table 4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables
Mean SD 1234
1. Transformational leadership 3.10 0.73
2. Leader’s active empathetic listening 3.17 0.59 0.564**
3. Perceived psychological safety 3.08 0.54 0.481** 0.414**
4. Innovative work behavior 3.13 0.69 0.365** 0.357** 0.497**
5. Employee well-being 2.05 0.54 0.252** 0.245** 0.265** 0.289**
n=583, ** P\0.01
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 213
123
Hypotheses 4a and 4b as well as 7a and 7b were tested through a series of nested
models comparison. Model 1 represents a fully mediated model. We specified paths
from TL to leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety and from
both leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety to innovative
work behavior and employee well-being. All fit indices showed a good fit v
2
[133] =485.48, CFI =0.93, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.07).
Based on Model 1, we drew model 2 by adding paths from TL to innovative work
behavior and employee well-being. After evaluating the fit indices of the model (v
2
[131] =480.01, CFI =0.93, TLI =0.92, RMSEA =0.07), which showed a good
fit, we figured out that the path from TL to innovative work behavior was not
significant. So we tested model 3 based on Model 2 by deleting the direct path from TL
to innovative work behavior (v
2
[132] =479.46, CFI =0.93, TLI =0.92,
RMSEA =0.07). The difference between Chi squares was significant for model 1
compared with model 3 (Dv(1) =6.02, P\0.05). In summary, the results of model
comparisons showed that Model 3 best fit our data. Table 7 in Appendix shows the
comparison of the final model with alternative models. According to Fig. 2,itwas
obvious that Hypotheses 4b and 7b were fully supported. However, Hypotheses 4a and
7a were only partially supported, since active empathetic listening and psychological
safety partially mediated the relationship between TL and employee well-being.
Besides, Hypotheses 2, 3a, 3b, 5, 6a, and 6b were all fully supported. Figure two
illustrates the final model and Table 5shows the results of hypothesis testing.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between transformational
leadership and two constructs of innovative work behavior and employee well-being
in Iranian societies through the mediating roles of active empathetic listening and
psychological safety. The results showed that transformational leadership has
positive impact on employee well-being and innovative work behavior. Importantly,
Fig. 2 The path estimates of the final model
214 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
leader’s active empathetic listening and perceived psychological safety fully
mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior. Also, these two mediating factors partially mediated the relationship
between transformational leadership and employee well-being.
Thus, our results have confirmed the significant relationship between TL and
outcomes in Iranian societies and extended the literature by illustrating the
importance of leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety in the
processes from TL to employee well-being and innovative work behavior.
Based on the hypothesis regarding the effect of TL on employee well-being, our
results showed that TL had both direct and indirect effects on employee well-being.
In this study, the structure of employee well-being comprises job satisfaction,
perceived work stress and stress symptoms. The global and broad meaning of job
satisfaction which includes satisfaction with different aspects of job such as the task
itself, supervisor, co-workers, pay and promotion has caused the direct and indirect
relationships between transformational leadership and employee well-being. This
finding supports the same result of the study done by Liu et al. (2010).
In the final model, there is no direct relationship between transformational
leadership and innovative work behavior. There are mixed findings on transforma-
tional leadership and follower’s creativity (Eisenbeiß and Boerner 2013). Some
researchers have found positive (e.g., Shin and Zhou 2003; Gong et al. 2009), non-
significant (e.g., Wang and Rode 2010) or even negative (Basu and Green 1997)
relationships between transformational leadership and follower’s innovation and
creativity. In two studies done in Iran, vision and intellectual stimulation had no
significant impact on innovativeness in production (Pouya et al. 2010) and the
indirect effects of adaptability culture as a mediating factor was more than the direct
effect of TL on innovation (Sanjaghi et al. 2011).
There are some reasons for the indirect rather than direct effect of TL on
innovation. First, transformational leaders may censor follower’s critical and non-
Table 5 Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Structural relation (path) Standardized path
coefficient
Sig. tValue
H1a TL ?Employee well-being 0.29 0.00 18.91
H1b TL ?Innovative work behavior 0.03 0.23 0.12
H2 TL ?Leader’s active empathetic listening 0.56 0.00 14.97
H3a Leader’s active empathetic
listening ?Employee well-being
0.10 0.02 8.42
H3B Leader’s active empathetic
listening ?Innovative work behavior
0.25 0.00 9.89
H5 TL ?Perceived psychological safety 0.36 0.00 23.33
H6a Perceived psychological safety ?Employee
well-being
0.17 0.04 3.04
H6b Perceived psychological safety ?Innovative
work behavior
0.35 0.00 8.72
Fit indexes: v
2
(df) = 479.46 (132); TLI =0.92; CFI =0.93; RMSEA =0.07, n=583
TL transformational leadership
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 215
123
conformal viewpoints and ideas that differ from their own, thereby triggering
follower dependency and limiting innovativeness (Basu and Green 1997). Also, a
change in the image of followers about leaders from those who assume
responsibility and turn chaos into order to those who are idols and role models
for values, beliefs, and behavioral norms (Gardner and Avolio 1998; Kark et al.
2003) can lead to a kind leadership exploiting followers by producing exceedingly
high levels of emotional engagement and attachment. To support the findings of
research done by Pouya et al. (2010), followers in this situation become dependent
on their leader and his/her ideas, desires and visions.
High levels of power distance and individualism among Iranian managers
(Javidan and Dastmalchian 2003), can lead to the centrality of self in psychosocial
processes (Ghorbani et al. 2010). Self-centeredness fuels narcissistic tendencies of
leaders which aggravate innovation process (Hogan et al. 1990; Kets de Vries
1988). Narcissistic leaders tend to deny their negative personal characteristics, to
overestimate their abilities and to reject critical comments on their ideas or their
visions (Conger and Kanungo 1998; Shamir 1991). This paper may suggest that
leaders high in active empathetic listening can keep the dependency of followers in
balance and cause their expressing of innovative behavior through giving
opportunity to the followers to risk without any fear of the consequences. Such
leaders—who are not narcissistic—in their interactions supersede ‘‘It is ok, but…’’
with ‘‘It is ok and…’’.
Implications of findings limitations and future research
First, the results add to the knowledge of transformational leadership consequences.
In most previous studies, the centrality of transformational leadership’s impact on
performance has been highlighted. Some researchers have labeled transformational
leaders as those unjustly treat some stakeholders (top management, owners and
customers) and employees because of much emphasis on task motivation and
performance (Stevens et al. 1995). With the epiphany and development of positive
psychology, some scholars turned their attention from performance as the only
consequence of transformational leadership to other outcomes (Roberts 2006).
Having the intention to fill this gap, we tried to support and add employee well-
being and innovative work behavior as two outcomes to the range of positive
outcomes associated with transformational leadership.
Second, most studies exploring the relationship between transformational
leadership and employee well-being have been conducted in Western societies
and the paucity of research on this relationship in Eastern countries, especially Iran,
has been apparent. As a stark contrast, Iranian societies score high on individualism
and power distance (Javidan and Dastmalchian 2003) in comparison with Western
societies. Therefore, it seems questionable to use the constructs built in Western
countries in Eastern contexts without considering cultural differences.
In two studies in Canada, Arnold et al. (2007) showed the positive effect of
transformational leadership on psychological well-being. In this paper, in an Eastern
context, we reached the same conclusion. Based on self-determination theory (SDT
theory), psychological health and well-being are the products of motivation (Deci
216 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
and Ryan 2008) which is the foundation of transformational leadership. Transfor-
mational leaders—consciously or unconsciously—focus on the three basic needs of
human: competence, relatedness and autonomy. Based on this theory, leader’s
active empathetic listening, through the help of psychological safety, increases
autonomous causality orientation which is positively related to psychological health
and affective behavioral outcomes (Deci and Ryan 2008).
This paper also showed that apart from extrinsic factors such as incentives and
money, the factors relating to the psychology of interactions between leaders and
followers can positively and directly impact employees’ well-being. In other words,
transformational leaders, through spending time on listening to the followers
empathetically, can increase emotional resources of employees and increase job
satisfaction and decrease stress. This may trigger research on active empathetic
listening showing its effect on decreasing follower’s emotional depletion and
burnout.
Third, Scholars have been studying listening from a variety of theoretical
perspectives for decades (Bodie et al. 2008). Some researchers have tried to
persuade sellers to listen actively and empathetically to the customers to maximize
their profit (Comer and Drollinger 1999). Some have administered active listening
to show the therapeutic effects of listening on patients (e.g., Ivey et al. 1968).
However, there are very few, if not any, empirical studies considering listening in
the relationship between leaders and subordinates. This paper has shown that active
empathetic listening can be used in leader–follower communications. Also, it
extends the literature of listening by addressing it as the mediating role between
transformational leadership and two constructs of employee well-being and
innovative work behavior.
Fourth, psychological safety has attracted increased attention primarily because it
facilitates an interpersonal work context that is essential for effective learning
(Edmondson 1999,2004). In forming a psychologically safe atmosphere, the role of
leaders is essential. As a proof, researchers have noted that a supportive
management and context is a key antecedent of psychological safety (Carmeli
and Zisu 2009; Edmondson 1999). Specific leader behaviors such as being available
and accessible, inviting input, and modeling openness and fallibility, are seen to
directly shape followers’ perceptions of psychological safety (Edmondson 2004).
This research can add active empathetic listening as a partial mediator between
transformational leadership and psychological safety and highlights the impact of
leader’s active empathetic listening as an antecedent of psychological safety.
Last but not least, after a backward glance at results, those who are responsible
for leadership development programs can figure out that transformational leadership
has both direct and indirect effects on employee well-being and indirect effects on
innovative work behavior. Organizations can reap benefits by providing TL training
to their supervisors and managers to enhanced employees’ psychological safety and
increase the feeling that they are ‘‘heard’’, which in return enhances employee well-
being and innovative work behavior. Actually, paying attention to Yukl’s (1999)
criticism that ‘‘the theory of transformational leadership would be stronger if the
essential influence processes were identified more clearly,’’ many studies have
begun to focus on the processes of transformational leadership. Leadership literature
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 217
123
has been filled with mediating factors relating to the follower’s attitudes toward
their leaders and follower’s attitudes toward themselves (Piccolo and Colquitt
2006). The results of this paper corroborate these findings and disclose further
underlying mechanisms.
Despite the contribution of this study, it is not without limitations. First, our
data are collected from cross-sectional survey of three samples of Iranian
employees who are students, too, making it difficult to draw confident causal
conclusions. Also, there may be other explanations that are necessary to be
explored in future research. First, in the proposed model, can transformational
leadership be substituted with other kinds of leadership such as authentic
leadership because of its high level of empathy and adherence to moral values and
principles in decision making which may maximize benefits and minimize the
psychological and physical harm to most people. Also, is there any prospect of
long-lasting empathy in the listening to the followers during time? If not, what
factors can challenge it and trivialize active empathetic listening in leaders’
minds.
Empathic listening and active listening are relatively forgotten in leadership,
because listening is not yet a clear and well-constructed interactional factor (Bodie
et al. 2008). Hopefully, in the future, more outcomes of effective and constructive
listening are explored, since, practically not theoretically, we have almost all
witnessed the influence of mothers’ active empathetic listening on reducing stress
after facing a problem, getting inspired and feeling respect and identity.
Second, to conduct this research, questionnaires were distributed among
management students working part-time or full-time and this may limit the
generalizability of the results. First, they are management students, so their
answers are influenced by their educational background; second, the question-
naires were distributed at universities and the questions were about their
workplace. Their different context of answering the questions may impact their
answers and make them biased. Third, the students at university may have a lot
more limited feeling of being an employee whose obsession is only his job. In
such a context, they may feel a higher level of satisfaction because of getting
involved in learning, and educational progress. Their current educational situation
may impact not only their interpretations of the constructs but also their responses
to the questions.
Third, our data were collected from the same source such that the common
method/source may be an issue. However, we have demonstrated that it is not a
serious problem in the current study. Potential rating biases could be reduced in
future studies by collecting data from different resources with different methods. In
future studies, more confounding variables such as employee’s performance, salary
amount and having extra revenue streams need to be controlled and hence stronger
findings are acquired.
Furthermore, since the current study was conducted in Iranian societies, we tried
to select a questionnaire which is designed in the east and the cultural traits of the
country in which it is validated are closer to those of Iran. However, future research
should test the proposed model with other scales for transformational leadership
such as MLQ (Bass and Avolio 1990) or Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) to test the
218 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
similarity of results. Thinking of other types of well-being (e.g., social well-being or
eudemonic) can be the outcome focus of future research in organizational contexts.
Conclusion
In spite of these limitations, the study here helps to understand two mechanisms
(i.e., leader’s active empathetic listening and psychological safety) through which
transformational leaders may enhance employee well-being and promote creative
work behavior. These findings highlight the fact that researchers and managers need
to consider how transformational leaders and the interpersonal work context can
foster employee well-being and innovative work behavior. Thinking about listening
as a simple but effective tool can cause the unearthing of employees’ internal
feelings and needs; therefore, a transformational leader can capitalize upon
employees’ ideas and show himself as a coach and supporter at workplace.
Appendix
See Tables 6and 7.
Table 6 Results of contemporary factor analysis for the measures of variables studied
Variable Indicator Factor
loading
Robust
tvalue
Loading
average
CA CRI AVE
Transformational
leadership
Charisma 0.86* 8.2 0.87 0.91 0.91 0.65
Morale building 0.78* 14.4 0.85
Inspirational motivation 0.84* 12.9 0.88
Individual consideration 0.81* 12.7 0.85
Leader’s active
empathetic listening
Sensing 0.88* 9.5 0.85 0.86 0.78 0.56
Processing 0.78* 10.5 0.78
Responding 0.89* 8.2 0.80
Perceived
psychological safety
Psychological safety 0.84* 4.8 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.63
Innovative work
behavior
Idea exploration 0.86* 5.4 0.88 0.84 0.62
Idea generation 0.79* 9.2 0.77
Idea championing 0.89* 11.7 0.59
Idea implementation 0.83* 8.2 0.86
Employee well-being Job satisfaction 0.89* 10.6 0.85 0.87 0.89 0.60
Perceived work stress 0.81* 11.5 0.89
Stress symptoms 0.86* 6.8 0.90
Fit indexes: v
2
(df) =479.46 (132); TLI =0.92; CFI =0.93; RMSEA =0.07
AVE average variance extracted, CA Cronbach’s alpha, CRI composite reliability index
n=583, *P\0.01
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 219
123
References
Aggarwal, P., Castleberry, S. B., Ridnour, R., & Shepherd, C. D. (2005). Salesperson empathy and
listening: Impact on relationship outcomes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(3),
16–31.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L.
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety,
process innovations and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45–46.
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning
orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4),
411–427.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Srogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organiza-
tional and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52, 130–139.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military and educational impacts. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and transformational leadership: An
empirical examination of innovative behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 27, 477–499.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Pro-social motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New York: Academic Press.
Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., Imhof, M., & Cooper, L. (2008). What would a unified field of listening
look like? A proposal linking past perspectives and future endeavors. International Journal of
Listening, 22, 103–122. doi:10.1080/10904010802174867.
Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions, and mood contagion. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 317–334.
Boyacigiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global
context. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262–291.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J.
W. Berry (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp.389–444). Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.
Brownell, J. (1985). A model for listening instruction: Management applications. ABCA Bulletin, 48,
39–55.
Table 7 The comparison of the final model and alternative models
Structured model v
2
df Dv
2
Sig. v
2
/df CFI TLI RMSEA
Measurement model (model 3) 479.46 132 – – 3.63 0.93 0.92 0.07
Model 2 480.01 131 0.55 0.18 3.67 0.93 0.92 0.07
Model 1 485.48 133 6.02 0.02 3.65 0.93 0.92 0.07
TLI Tucker-Lewis index, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation
220 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
Butler, J., Cantrell, R., & Flick, R. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust and
satisfaction in self-managed work teams. Organization Development Journal, 17(1), 13–28.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization of
transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 468–478.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational assessment
questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of
shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22,
161–177.
Carmeli, A. (2007). Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviors from failure in
organizations. Long Range Planning, 40, 30–44.
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High quality relationships, psychological safety and learning from
failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3, 542–567.
Carmeli, A., & Zisu, M. (2009). The relational underpinnings of quality internal auditing in medical
clinics in Israel. Social Science and Medicine, 68, 894–902.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). ASSET: An organizational stress screening tool. London:
Robertson Cooper Limited and Cubiks.
Comer, L. B., & Drollinger, T. (1999). Active empathetic listening and selling success: A conceptual
framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19, 15–29.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of
the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
De Jong, J. P. J., & den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behavior. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 19(1), 23–36.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-Determination Theory: A macrotherapy of human motivation,
development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185.
Densten, I. L. (2005). The relationship between visioning behaviors of leaders and follower burnout.
British Journal of Management, 16(2), 105–118.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open?
Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884.
Drollinger, T., & Comer, L. B. (2012). Active empathetic listening as an antecedent to relationship
quality and trust in a sales performance model. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 28(1),
1287–1305.
Drollinger, T., Comer, L., & Warrington, P. (2006). Development and validation of the active empathetic
listening scale. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 161–180.
Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to build and sustain high-quality connections at
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality relationships at work. In K. S. Cameron,
J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in
interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419–1452.
Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens.
In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and
approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, M. (2007). Destructive leadership behavior: A definition and
conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207–216.
Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A double-edged sword: Transformational leadership and
individual creativity. British Journal of Management, 24, 54–68.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to pro-social and related behaviors.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119.
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee
satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution
industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 435–458.
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 221
123
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated
multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.
Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and
creativity at work. New York: Wiley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fuller, J. B., Patterson, C. E. P., Hester, K., & Stringer, D. Y. (1996). A quantitative review of research on
charismatic leadership. Psychological Reports, 78(1), 271–287.
Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In C. L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1989 (pp. 235–280). Chichester:
Wiley.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgic perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 32–58.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844.
Ghorbani, N., Cunningham, C. J. L., & Watson, P. J. (2010). Comparative analysis of integrative self-
knowledge, mindfulness, and private self-consciousness in predicting responses to stress in Iran.
International Journal of Psychology, 45, 147–154.
Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behavior to employee psychological
well-being. Work and Stress, 18, 255–266.
Glenn, E. (1989). A content analysis of fifty definitions of listening. Journal of the International Listening
Association, 3, 21–31.
Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and
employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.
Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of leader–
member exchange on stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 65–84.
Hater, J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–702.
Heaphy, E. D., & Dutton, J. E. (2008). Positive social interactions and the human body at work: Linking
organizations and physiology. Academy of Management Review, 33, 137–162.
Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 1, pp. 3–27). New York: Oxford University Press.
Hogan, R., Raskin, R., & Fazzini, D. (1990). The dark side of charisma. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark
(Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 343–354). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., et al.
(1999). Culture influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global
Leadership, 1, 171–233.
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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An
integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42–54.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.
Ivey, A., Normington, C. J., Miller, C. D., Morril, W. H., & Haase, R. F. (1968). Micro-counseling and
attending behavior: An approach to prepracticum counselor training. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 15, 1–12.
Janssen, O. (2002). Transformationeel leiderschap en innovatief werkgedrag van medewerkers: een
kwestie van benaderbaarheid van de leider. Gedrag and Organisatie, 15, 275–293.
Javidan, M., & Dastmalchian, A. (2003). Culture and leadership in Iran: The land of individual achievers,
strong family ties, and powerful elite. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 127–142.
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly,
14, 525–544.
222 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the
relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 30, 785–804.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment
and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.
Kessel, M., Kratzer, J., & Schultz, C. (2012). Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative
performance in healthcare teams. Journal of Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(2),
147–157.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1988). Prisoners of leadership. Human Relations, 41, 261–280.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of
questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3),
757–765.
Li, C., & Shi, K. (2005). The structure and measurement of transformational leadership in China. Acta
Psychologica Sinica, 37(6), 803–811. (in Chinese).
Li, C., Meng, H., & Shi, K. (2007). A comparative study on the relationship of transformational
leadership, paternalistic leadership, and the PM theory with leadership effectiveness. Psychological
Science, 30(6), 1477–1481. (in Chinese).
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V. J., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying organizational learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The
mediating roles of trust in leaders and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
59(3), 454–479.
Lobdell, C. L., Sonoda, K. T., & Arnold, W. E. (1993). The influence of perceived supervisor listening
behavior on employee commitment. Journal of the International Listening Association, 7, 92–110.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1350). Chicago: Rand McNally.
May, D., Gilson, R., & Harter, L. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and
availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.
Miller, S. M. (1981). Predictability and human stress: Towards a clarification of evidence and theory. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 204–254). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Mineyama, S., Tsutsumi, A., Takoa, S., Nishiuchi, K., & Kawakami, N. (2007). Supervisors’ attitudes and
skills for active listening with regard to working conditions and psychological stress reactions
among subordinate workers. Journal of Occupational Health, 49, 81–87.
Mumford, M. D., & Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: Conclusions, issues, and directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 163–171.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.
Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an
acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 19–33.
Netermeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in
a structural equation framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148–157.
Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Human Behavior at Work (13th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating
role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327–340.
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. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 223
123
Pouya, A. R., Azar, A., Moshbaki, A., & Jafarnejad, A. (2010). The relationship between production
decision of leadership style and innovation in production in production strategies. Daneshvar
(Raftar) Management and Achievement, 44, 443–460.
Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, job
characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19(1), 1–22.
Quinn, R. W., & Dutton, J. E. (2005). Coordination as energy-in-conversation. Academy of Management
Review, 30, 36–57.
Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers: The impact of perceived salesperson
listening behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 25(2),
127–137.
Reuvers, M., van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational
leadership and innovative work behavior: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 17, 227–244.
Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive scholarship.
Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 292–305.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. New York: Houghton
Mifflin.
Sanjaghi, M. E., Farehi Buzanjani, B., Hosseini Sarkhosh, M., & Haji Shafiee, J. (2011). The mediating
role of adaptability culture in the relationship between transformational leadership and organiza-
tional innovation. Management Improvement, 3, 122–139. (In Persian).
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods. New
York: Wiley.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
Seltzer, J., Numerof, R. E., & Bass, B. M. (1989). Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more or
less burnout or stress? Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration, 12, 174–185.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81–104.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577–594.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from
Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.
Siu, O. L., Spector, P. E., & Cooper, C. L. (2006). A three-phase study to develop and validate a Chinese
coping strategies scale in Greater China. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 537–548.
Siu, O. L., Lu, C. Q., & Spector, P. E. (2007). Employees’ well-being in Greater China: The direct and
moderating effects of general self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(2),
288–301.
Sivanathan, N., Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2004). Leading well: Transformational
leadership and well-being. In A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp.
241–255). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
S
ˇkerlavaj, M., S
ˇtemberger, M. I., S
ˇkrinjar, R., & Dimovski, V. (2007). Organizational learning culture—
the missing link between business process change and organizational performance. International
Journal of Production Economics, 106(2), 346–367.
Skinner, C., & Spurgeon, P. (2005). Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in health leadership: A
study of empathy, leadership behavior and outcome effectiveness. Health Services Management
Research, 18(1), 1–12.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and dimensions of
creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal,
11(2), 11–121.
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century
workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 489–509.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational
Research Methods, 9, 221–232.
Stevens, C. U., D’Intino, R. S., & Victor, B. (1995). The moral quandary of transformational leadership:
Change for whom? Research in Organizational Change and Development, 8, 123–143.
Tagger, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A
multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.
224 Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225
123
Thompson, M., & Kahnweiler, W. (2002). An exploratory investigation of learning culture theory and
employee participation in decision making. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 271288.
Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zacharatos, A. (2002). Positive psychology at work. In C. R. Snyder & S.
J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 715–728). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Tynan, R. (2005). The effects of threat sensitivity and face giving on dyadic psychological safety and
upward communication. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 223–247.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 222–240.
Wang, P., & Rode, J. C. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The moderating
effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human Relations, 63, 1105–1128.
Warr, P. (1999). Well-being and the workplace. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-
being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 392–412). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Warr, P. (2006). Differential activation of judgments in employee well-being. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 225–244.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.),
Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies. Chichester: Wiley.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51,
355–424.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 680–693.
Wilson-Evered, E., Ha
¨rtel, C. E. J., & Neale, M. (2001). A longitudinal study of workgroup innovation:
The importance of transformational leadership. In M. D. Fottler, G. T. Savage, & J. D. Blair (Eds.),
Advances in health care management (Vol. 2, pp. 315–340). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Wilson-Evered, E., Ha
¨rtel, C. E. H., & Neale, M. (2004). Leadership and innovation surfacing synergies
among theories and constructs. In A. Ghobadian, N. O’Regan, D. Gallear, & H. Viney (Eds.),
Strategy and performance: Achieving competitive advantage in the global market place.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.
Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes two longitudinal tests of the
happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 1–23.
Wu, M., Huang, X., Xu, J., Yan, H., & Shi, K. (2007). Comparative study of transactional,
transformational, and paternalistic leadership behaviors and leadership mechanism. Science
Research Management, 28(3), 168–176. (in Chinese).
Yang, B. (2003). Identifying valid and reliable measures for dimensions of a learning culture. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 5, 152–161.
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic leadership
theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 285–305.
Glob Bus Perspect (2013) 1:198–225 225
123
