The major objective of the current study was to investigate the dynamic relationship between Banking Sector Transactional leadership and employees task performance through mediating role of employee’s self-efficacy based on Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. For this purpose, data was collected from selected banks in KP Pakistan and data was collected through construct. Results were analysed through CFA via AMOS and Preacher and Hayes mediational modelling. Results indicate that Transactional leadership has significant relationship with employer’s task performance as well as their self-efficacy. Further it was evident that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between employee’s task performance and leader’s transactional behaviour. The current study obtained data from limited employees of banking sector and only selected districts of KP province. The results have practical implication for banking sector to enhance employs task performance capabilities via infusing the feeling of self-efficacy through reward and punishment based leadership.
Article
Unraveling the Impact of Transactional Leadership on Task Performance: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy among Bank Employees
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4153576/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
You are reading this latest preprint version
Transactional Leadership
Employees Task Performance
Self-Efficacy
Banking sector
Leadership impacts on teams are vital for making teams effective. Managers/leaders search for applicable cues, and incorporate it into their cognitive processes which are then used to solve work group problems [1]. Leaders mostly use supportive organizational context and provide expert coaching for improving teams’ performance. Human behavior is driven by various internal and external motivations and by various regulatory processes, which can be approved, on a self-determination scale ranging from self-directed motivation to controlled motivation[2].
Leaders are anticipated to exert influence on their subordinates, inspiring and motivating them to achieve objectives within a specified timeframe, rather than relying on control or command [3]. Leadership is widely regarded as a broad concept associated with the informal influence process and power a leader wields over followers, supplemented by formal authority, which contributes to shaping the organizational political climate. Subordinates anticipate a distinct leadership role from their superiors/managers and are not merely passive role recipients.
Leaders’ behaviors do have effects on employees’ job perceptions, which then affect employees’ attitudes towards their work and efficiency [3], [4]. In their study,[5] noted that both transactional had positive effects on employees’ job performance .
Leadership pushes employees to perform beyond the basic requirements out of intrinsic motivation, challenge. Transactional leadership is effective enough to reinforce the effectiveness of performance, particularly quantitative performance [6], which is exactly measured and rewarded [7]. According to [8] transactional leadership and employees’ task performance are positively related. Moreover, [9]found in their study that, leadership and employees’ OCBs are positively related.
On the other side employees self-efficacy is the belief, as People who perceive themselves as highly efficacious in a particular work domain are inclined to establish ambitious goals and acquire additional competencies [9]. Research studies noticed that employees with higher level of self-efficacy also tend to behave and promote citizenship behavior [10] [11] in organization [12]. Leadership also promote the OCB among employees through inspiration[9] as well as reward [13] based system[8]. Self-efficacy is also promoted among workers through leadership [14] and it is evident by number of research studies [15][16]. However, there is scant research available in linking transactional leadership to employee’s self-efficacy via employees OCB. Previous literature evident the dynamic relationship between transactional leadership and self-efficacy among working sector of schools [17], sales officers [18] and clinical staff [19].
The current study tries to link the relationship between Transactional leadership and employees task performance through intervening role of employee’s self-efficacy in the banking sector of southern zone of KP Pakistan. The study will provide novel approach to link the leaders member’s relationship through enhancing employee efficacy believes via promoting citizenship behavior.
Transactional leadership is characterized by a mutual exchange mechanism where leaders inspire employees by providing them with rewards (or punishments) in return for follower effort [6], [20], [21], [22]. Transactional leaders adhere to principles of cost-benefit analysis and economic exchange with their subordinates concerning their professional performance [7]. They focus on fulfilling the psychological and material needs of their subordinates to enhance workplace performance. In return for these provisions, transactional leaders anticipate elevated levels of performance from their subordinates [22]. Transactional leaders primarily focus on addressing the physical and security needs of their followers. Effective communication is essential for transactional leaders to clearly convey the expected roles of their followers in performing specific tasks and the corresponding reward mechanisms [6]. According to [23], transactional leadership comprises three key components: (a) Contingent Reward, (b) Active Management by Exception, and (c) Passive Management by Exception, and (c) Passive Management by Exception[24] .
Contingent Reward (CR):
Contingent reward exhibits the degree to which leaders explains what to do (or not to do) in order to be rewarded (or punished), emphasize what leaders expect from them, and recognize their accomplishments (or failures). In contingent reward, employees’ are awarded on the bases of predetermined criteria. Contingent reward behavior of leaders achieves results for them. Followers expect and value physical and material rewards for their efforts at work place. Such leaders ensure the conformity through satisfying the needs and wants of their subordinates at work place.
Followers do expect transactional leaders to guide them so that the job gets done. Cited in Sarros and Santora (2001), Darrell Butcher (Managing Director, Torque Group of Companies) mentioned the significance of leading from the front as a figure of contingent reward leader
Management by Exception:
Leaders practicing management by exception behavior demonstrate implicit trust in their followers' ability to complete ongoing tasks adequately [24]. However, this leadership approach fails to inspire followers to surpass their anticipated performance levels. As long as targets are met and satisfaction prevails, the system operates seamlessly. This leadership style does not promote adventurous or innovative thinking, nor does it encourage breaking away from conventional approaches.
Acording to [25] management by exception can be express as “the leader avoids giving directions if the old ways are working and allows followers to continue doing their jobs as always if performance goals are met” (p. 696). Leaders who practice management by exception behavior demonstrate implicit trust in their followers' ability to adequately complete ongoing tasks. However, this leadership approach fails to inspire followers to exceed their anticipated performance levels. As long as targets are met and satisfaction prevails, the system operates seamlessly. This leadership style does not promote adventurous or innovative thinking, nor does it encourage breaking away from conventional approaches (Management by Exception-passive and Active)[26]
2.2. Transactional Leadership and Employees’ Job Performance
This type of leadership negotiates most appropriate skills for a constructive and supporting work environment by managing reward system with their subordinates [7], [8], [13], [23], and leader-follower exchange relationships, which enhance employees’ motivation level. The transactional leadership helps emerge of interest-based working environment among workers and between managers and workers, being the core function of any political process [19], [27].
This mechanism facilitates compromise regarding interests and emphasizes the value of nearly everything and everyone. In such an environment, employees are motivated to take a keen interest in situations where everyone competes for limited resources [7], [8], [13], [23]. also corroborated this idea, finding a positive correlation between different leadership styles (transformational and transactional leadership) and employees' perceptions of task performance and impartiality within the organization [28][29].
Many research studies have supported that leaders’ behaviors do influence individuals independently[19], [27] as well as a work team member [28], [29]. A specific type of follower behaviors emerges, when a transactional leader constantly displays contingent reward behavior over a long period of time. Leaders with strong contingent reward behavior, lead to a collective norm that supports efficient, methodical, and organized behavioral regularities [13], [19], [25], [27], [28], [29], as a result enhance employees performance [7], [23]. The study of [30] depict that contingent reward enhance employees performance. Similarly the results of [29] meta study also shed light on the positive connection between transactional leadership and employees performance through task achievement.
H1; Transactional Leadership has significant relationship with employees Task Performance
2.3. Self-Efficacy in relationship between Transactional Leadership and Task Performance
Individuals carrying self-efficacy tend to set higher goals and persist to achieve these goals. [31] theorized that “humans, who engage in considerable self-reflective thought, boost or undermine their efforts by beliefs about their capabilities” (p. 412). Reserachers like [31], [32], [33] further added that performance hurdles and disincentives can negatively affect the performance of highly skilled and highly self-motivated individuals. They believes that such individuals can choose to underperform at the level of which they are capable due to a lack ofincentive to do, because they lack the necessary resources, or because they perceive social constraints in their envisioned path or outcome.
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory presents a unified work structure for understanding motivational, social, and effective assistance to cognitive functioning[30]. Individuals with high perceived self-efficacy for a specific work domain will tend to set high goals for themselves and acquire new competencies. Individuals, carrying higher levels of efficacy beliefs are inclined towards choose and follow joint approaches to learning activities. Perceived self-efficacy [14] and self-esteem are two different concepts, as efficacy is the judgment of the personal capabilities and the self-esteem is the judgment of self-worth [10].
Self-efficacy is amongst the most extensively researched topics in the context of teachers’ learning and academic improvements [19]. Researchers [28] mentioned that teachers’/employees’ higher self-efficacy leads to make them more open to new ideas and for organizational changes. The more teachers are willing to be innovative and creative, the more they are likely to engage in their professional learning activities [9].
Various research studies have noted that a team member’s perceptions of self-efficacy can be effected by the team leader’s behavior [9][17], [18]. They mentioned various supportive and encouraging behaviors of leader had positively affected the subordinates’ creativity level on a complex marketing assignment. Researchers[16] mentioned that leaders who clarify the task and the approaches to attain the task (transactional leadership traits) had a positively and significantly affected the efficacy beliefs of team members. Leaders’ verbal directions and clear communication among team members can encourage individual team members that they can handle with all what may otherwise devastate them [29].
A transactional team leader is tasked with controlling and guiding followers by managing rewards and punishments [27]. Leadership arises from one's intrinsic ability to demonstrate leadership skills and the extent to which a leader can leverage the values, skills, knowledge, and attitudes (KSAs) of subordinates to enable them to earn rewards [7]. The discussion above leads us to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2
Transactional leadership will positively affect subordinates’ self-efficacy.
We have argued that transactional leadership is potentially important aspects of leadership at the strategic and operational levels [27]. Another issue involves the linkage between leadership and how they may operate in tandem with regard to individual/group/organizational performance (task performance [28], [29]..
Leadership style (transactional) is linked with employees’ task performance [29]and also have positive effects on employees’ efficacy beliefs [19], While sufficient research studies supported us to document and check that employees’ self- efficacy positive effects on employees’ task performance. For instance the study of [19] confirm the self-efficacy partially mediate the relationship between transactional leaders attributes and medical officers performance among Chinese health working sector. On the other side the results of [18] confirm the notion that transactional leadership buffer the relationship between worker self-efficacy and their satisfaction from job. In contrast findings from [34] depict that team efficacy mediate the interconnection between transactional approach and innovativeness. Based on the available research [19] [18] [34] we can hypothesize that
Hypothesis (3)
Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between transactional leadership and employees’ task performance.
3.1. Population and Sampling
The data collection process for this study involved employees from eight distinct private commercial banks situated in five diverse cities within the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, namely Dera Ismail Khan, Bannu, Lakki Marwat, Kohat, and Peshawar. To ensure a comprehensive understanding, questionnaires were systematically distributed to both bank managers (supervisors) and their respective subordinates.
This dual approach aimed to capture perspectives from various hierarchical levels within the organizational structure. Managers were assigned the task of providing ratings for up to four of their subordinates, facilitating a nuanced understanding of the working dynamics within these private commercial banks. By gathering feedback from both supervisors and subordinates, the research aimed to encompass diverse viewpoints, offering a holistic representation of the organizational climate and employee experiences. As data was obtained through two different time interval from leaders and employees, hence the problem of common method variance CMV [35] is also resolved through data collection through dyads.
This method acknowledges the significance of considering perspectives from both managerial and non-managerial roles to gain a more complete understanding of the work environment. By collecting assessments from supervisors and subordinates across different cities and banks, the study sought to identify variations and commonalities in organizational practices, leadership styles, and employee perceptions. This comprehensive approach contributes to a more robust and contextually rich analysis of the banking sector in the specified region. The researcher revisited respondents after a few days to collect filled questionnaires, and, despite some respondents sending their completed forms through postal mail, the study achieved a commendable 91% response rate, with 310 out of 340 distributed questionnaires returned.
3.2. Data Collection tools.
Adopted questionnaire was used to get the data. For this purpose, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (5X-short version) developed by [36] was used in this study. Two dimensions of transactional leadership style, including contingent reward, and exception management (both passive and active), were measured by 12 recently validated by [37][38]. A five point response scale was used (from 1 = not at all to 5 = frequently if not at all) to measure the degree of transactional leadership behaviors.
While we used the General Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale of [39]for measuring employees’ self-efficacy for our study. Seven items questionnaire of [40] was used to measure employees’ task performance. Bank managers rated their employees’ task performance on the seven item scale. A five point response scale was used (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly) to measure the degree of employees’ task performance.
3.3. Data Analysis.
In the second phase of our study, we implemented a survey to validate the proposed model illustrated in Fig. 1. The participants included employees and managers from various private commercial banks in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. This quantitative study involved a two-time data collection approach. Data processing utilized SPSS 16, while factor structuring was conducted using AMOS 16. To test our hypotheses, we employed the Macro for SPSS developed by [41]specifically designed for mediation analyses. However, given our study's context with mediator, we opted for the approach introduced by [41], which involves bootstrapping—a method increasingly recognized and widely applied.
The data analysis encompassed both descriptive analysis and hypothesis testing. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) framework was employed [42]. For multi-mediation analysis, we utilized the Macro for SPSS by [41] designed explicitly for research models with multiple mediators/ moderation. Hypothesis testing involved bootstrapping, considering the presence mediator in our proposed research model.
4.1.1 Missing Values Analysis
Knowing that the presence of missing values in the data set can lead to incorrect results and certain analysis cannot be performed, we did missing values analysis at first.
Missing Values Per Case
Table 1 shows the detail of missing values per case for all constructs. 271 cases are complete and free of any missing values. There are 13 cases with 1 missing value, 8 cases with 2 missing values, 11 cases with 3 missing values, 2 cases with 12 missing values, 3 cases with 17 missing values, and two with twenty missing values. All 39 cases with missing values were excluded from the data and we left with the final data size of 271.
Missing Values Analysis Result
Table 1: Missing Values Analysis Result
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Valid |
Cumulative |
|
0 |
271 |
87.41 |
87.41 |
87.41 |
|
1 |
13 |
4.19 |
4.19 |
91.60 |
|
2 |
8 |
2.58 |
2.58 |
94.18 |
|
3 |
11 |
3.55 |
3.55 |
97.73 |
|
12 |
2 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
98.38 |
|
17 |
3 |
0.97 |
0.97 |
99.35 |
|
20 |
2 |
0.65 |
0.65 |
100 |
|
Total |
310 |
100 |
100 |
|
The Table 2 Frequency Percentage of Demographic Characteristics" presents a comprehensive overview of the distribution of demographic characteristics among the study participants. The data is organized in a tabular format, typically with columns representing different demographic categories and corresponding rows displaying the frequency, percentage, and potentially other relevant information for each category.
Each demographic characteristic, such as age groups, gender, educational qualifications, job positions, or any other relevant variables, is likely presented as a separate column. The "Frequency" column indicates the number of participants falling into each category, providing a count for each demographic group. The "Percentage" column represents the proportion of participants within each category relative to the total sample, expressed as a percentage.
For instance, if the table includes demographic variables like age groups, it might have rows for different age brackets (e.g., 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, etc.), with corresponding frequencies and percentages for each group. This presentation allows readers to quickly grasp the distribution of participants across various demographic characteristics.
Overall, the table serves as a concise and structured way to convey essential information about the composition of the study sample, aiding researchers and readers in understanding the demographic profile of the participants.
Table 2: Frequency Percentage of Demographic Characteristics
CFA: Transactional Leadership
We conducted CFA to test the three factor of transactional leadership [42]. The measurement model showed a good fit with all the values of fit indexes in acceptable range RMSEA=.08, GFI=.91, TLI=.86, and CFI=.98 [43] ( see Table 3).
Table 3: Fit Indices for Three Factor Model of Transactional Leadership
All the items were loaded well on their respective five factors of transformational leadership (see table 4). In addition, the value of item loading are in accordance to the threshold level (see Fig 2).
Table 4: Factor Loadings of 3 Factor Model of Transactional Leadership
Figure 2: Three Factor CFA Model of Transactional Leadership
4.2.4 Convergent and Discriminant Validities
The procedure proposed by [44] was used to establish the convergent and discriminant validities of the three factor model of transactional leadership. For convergent validity, the values of ρvc index for management by exception active (ρvc = 47%), management by exception passive (MBEP) (ρvc = 45%) and contingent reward (CR) (ρvc = 44%).
The shared variance between any of the two transactional dimensions was less than the variance extracted by respective dimensions. Discriminant validity was, therefore, established among three transactional leadership dimensions. Construct reliability was assessed by calculating Jöreskog’s rho [45], [46]. The values for Jöreskog’s rho for, MBEA, MBEP and CR were .78, .75, and .72 respectively (table 5).
Table 5: Average Variance Extracted and Shared Variance among Three factors of Transactional Leadership
|
|
MBEA |
MBEP |
CR |
Construct Reliability |
|
MBEA |
0.47 |
|
|
0.78 |
|
MBEP |
0.40 |
0.45 |
|
0.75 |
|
CR |
0.26 |
0.01 |
0.44 |
0.72 |
Mediation Model Analysis
In model 1, transactional leadership is the independent variable (IV), task performance is the dependent variable (DV) and self-efficacy (MV), used as mediator. Path c is the direct link between IV and DV (see figure 3), a1 is the link between IV and MV while b1 is the link between MV and DV (see figure 3).
Fig 3. Mediation Model paths
Results mentioned in table 6 indicate that transactional leadership (IV) have positive and significant effects on employees’ task performance (DV) (path c) (Coeff= .25; p=00). Hence, H1 is supported. This is in line with the results reported [29] [30]. The results of [30] used only contingent reward factor of transactional leadership while we used both the factors (i.e. contingent rewards, and management by exception) mentioned by [22] in Multifactor factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ 5X-short). According to [30], research indicates that contingent rewards contribute to enhancing employees' performance. Additionally, the findings of a meta-analysis by [29] also reveal a positive correlation between transactional leadership and employees' performance, particularly in terms of task achievement. In summary, both studies emphasize the beneficial impact of contingent rewards and transactional leadership on enhancing employee performance, particularly in achieving tasks. Result of path a1 in table 6 shows that transactional leadership (IV) is positively and significantly related to employees’ self-efficacy (M1) (Coeff= .36; p= 00). This supports H1. We might get some interesting results of transactional effects on employees’ self -efficacy in our next models.
Self-efficacy (M1) and employees’ task performance (DV) are positively and significantly related (Coeff=.27; p= .00) (path b1). Hence, H2b is accepted. Transactional leadership style has been found to be associated with employees' task performance [29], as well as having positive effects on employees' efficacy beliefs [19]. Sufficient research supports the notion that employees' self-efficacy positively influences their task performance. We can observe from table 6 that, employees’ task performance is comparatively more responsive to employee’s self- efficacy (27%) or we can say that self-efficacy is the stronger predictor of employees’ task performance. This opens a window for an interesting discussion of comparative responsiveness of employees’ task performance to employees’ self- efficacy.
Table 6: Results of Model 1 For Direct Hypothesis
|
Path relationship |
Mediation path |
Coefficient |
P |
Results |
|
Path c (IV---DV) |
|
.250 |
.000 |
Accepted |
|
Path a (IV---MV) |
a1 (SE) |
.360 |
.000 |
Accepted |
|
Path b (MV---DV) |
b1 (SE) |
.270 |
.000 |
Accepted |
Table 6 shows the results of Model 1 for mediating hypothesis. Results indicate that at 95% CIs, zero (0) does not exist for both self-efficacy (mediator). Hence, this proved that self-efficacy mediated the relationship between transactional leadership and employees’ task performance. Hence, our hypothesis H3 is accepted.
Results of model 1 showed that transactional leadership had a positive relationship with employees’ task performance causing 25% direct variance. As per [30], studies have shown that contingent rewards play a significant role in improving employee performance. Furthermore, a meta-analysis conducted by [29] supports the idea that transactional leadership is positively associated with employee performance, specifically regarding task accomplishment. In conclusion, both research studies highlight the positive influence of contingent rewards and transactional leadership on enhancing employee performance, particularly in the context of task achievement. Our results were contrast to the results reported by [47]who found negative relationship between transactional leadership and in-role (task performance) in his study conducted in public sector security organization.
Most of the previous studies have documented that transformational leadership style is stronger predictor for employees’ task performance as compared to transactional leadership [7], [8], [28], [29], [47]. In our case, the results are opposite, may be due to the job nature of the sample, which suits more to transactional style of leadership. In commercial banks, priority is to follow strictly the accounts keeping procedures, and all the rules and regulations approved by State Bank of Pakistan.Any violation of the standard procedures can cause financial punishments and goodwill issues for the employee him/herself, the immediate boss and the organization. The second possible reason could be the difference of culture in which our study (Asian culture) and other studies [47] and [14]were conducted (European and US culture).
Transactional leadership brought 36% variance employees’ self-efficacy and showed a significant direct relationship. Previous research also reported similar results [17], [18]. The possible reason for transactional leadership being a stronger predictor of employees’ self-efficacy could be the difference in culture, and different job nature in which we conducted the study as compared to the earlier studies. As our sample was at the middle and lower management level where more attention is paid to the status quo and following the due procedure strictly established to them by the upper management.
In our case, self-efficacy predicted significant variance in employees’ task performance. Our results were consistent with the previous research [48]. Self-efficacy was responsible for 27% variance in employees’ task performance in our case, which is very significant to mention. This shows that self-efficacy is more helpful for employees to perform their task performance.
This study, inspired by social exchange theory as outlined in [31], [32], and [33], underscores the pivotal role of efficacy beliefs in predicting work engagement. By fostering work engagement, it is anticipated that employees' task performance will be enhanced, aligning with established research findings in this domain.
Recommendations for future researchers.
In light of the findings from this study in the field of management sciences, several recommendations for future research emerge. Firstly, researchers may explore the contextual variations influencing the relationship between transactional leadership and task performance, considering factors such as organizational culture and job nature. The contrasting results with prior studies, particularly the emphasis on transactional leadership in commercial banks, suggest the need for an in-depth examination of how leadership styles align with specific job requirements.
Secondly, further investigations could delve into the cultural influences on leadership outcomes. Given the significant impact of cultural nuances on leadership effectiveness, comparative studies across diverse cultural settings would provide valuable insights into the generalizability of leadership theories and styles.
Additionally, the study highlights the substantial predictive power of self-efficacy on task performance. Future research in management sciences may explore interventions or strategies to enhance self-efficacy in the workplace, considering its role as a crucial factor in influencing employee performance. Understanding the mechanisms through which self-efficacy contributes to task performance could inform practical interventions and leadership development programs.
Moreover, researchers may explore the interplay between transactional and transformational leadership styles in different organizational contexts, unraveling the dynamics that shape leadership effectiveness in specific industries or sectors. By extending the investigation to diverse organizational settings, scholars can contribute to the refinement and contextualization of leadership theories in the realm of management sciences.
Ethics approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in
accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee
and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards. Ethical approval was taken from the higher education institution with official ULM/2020/MBA approval during the data collection of the study.
Participant consent: Participation in the survey was voluntary, and study participants were
first given details of the project and assured that their responses would be strictly anonymous
and reported as aggregate results. Hence informed consent was obtained during the study as conduted.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interest
Funding
This research was supported by the Multimedia University Malaysia for Dr Gerald Goh Ga Gaun
Author Contribution
Dr Aziz Javed; Conceptualization Dr. Naveed Saif; Data AnalysisDr Gerald; Structure and Dr Sajid Ullah Khan; cleaning of data Dr Sadaqat Ali; literature review Dr. Imrab shaheen; Methodology and Data Collection.
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request
Use of Generative AI;
The author has used generative AI for correction of grammatical errors in the text.
- F. Y. Lai, H. C. Tang, S. C. Lu, Y. C. Lee, and C. C. Lin, “Transformational Leadership and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement,” SAGE Open, vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1177/2158244019899085.
- K. W. Brown and R. M. Ryan, “Fostering healthy self-regulation from within and without: A self‐determination theory perspective,” Posit. Psychol. Pract., pp. 105–124, 2004.
- Y. Yuan et al., “Transformational leadership and trust in leadership impacts on employee commitment,” Tour. Rev., vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 1385–1399, 2022.
- J. Peng, M. Li, Z. Wang, and Y. Lin, “Transformational Leadership and Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis,” J. Appl. Behav. Sci., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 369–397, 2021, doi: 10.1177/0021886320920366.
- N. Saif, “Preferred Leadership Style of Civil Services Officers of Pakistan,” J. Poverty, Invest. Dev., vol. 5, no. c, pp. 17–28, 2014, Accessed: Jan. 26, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JPID/article/view/12031
- B. M. Bass, B. J. Avolio, D. I. Jung, and Y. Berson, “Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 207–218, 2003, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207.
- N. A. A. Abdelwahed, B. A. Soomro, and N. Shah, “Predicting employee performance through transactional leadership and entrepreneur’s passion among the employees of Pakistan,” Asia Pacific Manag. Rev., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 60–68, 2023.
- Z. Kalsoom, M. A. Khan, and D. S. S. Zubair, “Impact of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on employee performance: A case of FMCG industry of Pakistan,” Ind. Eng. Lett., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 23–30, 2018.
- N. Saif, B. K. Khattak, and I. U. Khan, “Relationship between transformational leadership and organization citizenship behaviour (OCB) in Sme’s sector of Pakistan,” Gomal Univ. J. Res., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 65–77, 2016.
- Y. Prasetyo, D. Sofiah, and H. H. Farhanindya, “Self efficacy dan organizational citizenship behavior,” Inn. J. Psychol. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 108–115, 2022.
- K. Na-Nan, S. Kanthong, and J. Joungtrakul, “An empirical study on the model of self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior transmitted through employee engagement, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in the thai automobile parts manufacturing industry,” J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex., vol. 7, no. 3, p. 170, 2021.
- S. Ullah, B. Raza, W. Ali, S. A. Amjad, and A. K. Jadoon, “Linking self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model,” Int. J. Organ. Leadersh., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 233–247, 2021.
- A. Daouk, P. Farmanesh, and P. Zargar, “The Relationship Between Transactional Leadership and OCB: A Conditional Analysis of Organizational Justice Perception and Psychological Contract Fulfillment,” SAGE Open, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 21582440211061564, 2021.
- S. Bayraktar and A. Jiménez, “Self-efficacy as a resource: a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership, extent of change and reactions to change,” J. Organ. Chang. Manag., 2020.
- P. Khatri et al., “Modeling intellectual capital-based intrapreneurial ability of working professionals through servant leadership and self-efficacy,” J. Intellect. Cap., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1485–1505, 2023.
- J. Bin Musa, M. N. Bin Nazarudin, Z. B. Noordin, and N. A. Juati, “Investigating instructional leadership, transformational leadership, self-efficacy and trust among primary school teacher,” Int. J. Educ. Psychol. Couns., vol. 5, no. 35, pp. 237–248, 2020.
- L. Hoxha and Z. Hyseni-Duraku, “The relationship between educational leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy,” Eur. J. Soc. Behav. Sci., 2017.
- V. A. Vieira, M. G. Perin, and C. H. Sampaio, “The moderating effect of managers’ leadership behavior on salespeople’s self-efficacy,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 40, pp. 150–162, 2018.
- G. Deng et al., “Strategic elements of residency training in China: transactional leadership, self-efficacy, and employee-orientation culture,” BMC Med. Educ., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2019.
- B. M. Bass and M. Bass Bernard, “Leadership and performance beyond expectations,” 1985.
- B. J. Avolio and B. M. Bass, “Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire (Form 5X),” Redw. City, CA Mindgarden, 2002.
- B. M. Bass and B. J. Avolio, “Multifactor leadership questionnaire,” West. J. Nurs. Res., 1996.
- T. A. Judge and R. F. Piccolo, “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity.,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 89, no. 5, p. 755, 2004.
- K. G. Hasija, A. M. Hyde, and V. S. Kushwaha, “A Study of Management by Exception: Active, Passive & Laissez-faire Leadership Style of Leaders in B School.,” Int. Bull. Manag. Econ., vol. 9, pp. 150–161, 2019.
- J. J. Hater and B. M. Bass, “Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership.,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 73, no. 4, p. 695, 1988.
- N. Jabnoun and H. A. Al-Ghasyah, “Leadership styles supporting ISO 9000: 2000,” Qual. Manag. J., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 21–29, 2005.
- M. Tavanti, “Transactional leadership,” Leadersh. key concepts, pp. 166–170, 2008.
- M. Mahdinezhad, T. Bin Suandi, A. D. bin Silong, and Z. B. Omar, “Transformational, transactional leadership styles and job performance of academic leaders.,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 29–34, 2013.
- H. R. Young, D. R. Glerum, D. L. Joseph, and M. A. McCord, “A meta-analysis of transactional leadership and follower performance: Double-edged effects of LMX and empowerment,” J. Manage., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1255–1280, 2021.
- L. Hardy et al., “The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, psychological, and training outcomes in elite military recruits,” Leadersh. Q., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 20–32, 2010.
- A. Bandura, “Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 117–148, 1993.
- A. Bandura, “Model of causality in social learning theory,” in Cognition and psychotherapy, Springer, 1985, pp. 81–99.
- A. Bandura and D. Cervone, “Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 92–113, 1986.
- J. Liu, X. Liu, and X. Zeng, “Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness? The moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy,” J. Organ. Chang. Manag., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 282–298, 2011.
- B. Cooper, N. Eva, F. Z. Fazlelahi, A. Newman, A. Lee, and M. Obschonka, “Addressing common method variance and endogeneity in vocational behavior research: A review of the literature and suggestions for future research,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 121, p. 103472, 2020.
- B. J. Avolio and B. M. Bass, “Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership,” Leadersh. Q., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 199–218, 1995.
- I. M. Martinez-Leon, I. Olmedo-Cifuentes, Mc. Martínez-Victoria, and N. Arcas-Lario, “Leadership style and gender: A study of Spanish cooperatives,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 12, p. 5107, 2020.
- F. Cui, H. Lim, and J. Song, “The influence of leadership style in China SMEs on enterprise innovation performance: the mediating roles of organizational learning,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 3249, 2022.
- A. Luszczynska, U. Scholz, and R. Schwarzer, “The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies,” J. Psychol., vol. 139, no. 5, pp. 439–457, 2005.
- L. J. Williams and S. E. Anderson, “Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors,” J. Manage., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 601–617, 1991, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305.
- K. J. Preacher and A. F. Hayes, “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models,” Behav. Res. Methods, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 879–891, 2008.
- D. T. L. Shek and L. Yu, “Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: A demonstration,” Int. J. Disabil. Hum. Dev., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 191–204, 2014.
- P. Prudon, “Confirmatory factor analysis as a tool in research using questionnaires: a critique,” Compr. Psychol., vol. 4, pp. 03-CP, 2015.
- C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981.
- N. Cliff and J. C. Caruso, “Reliable component analysis through maximizing composite reliability.,” Psychol. Methods, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 291, 1998.
- R. J. Gagnon, G. A. Stone, and B. A. Garst, “Beyond composite scores and Cronbach’s alpha: Advancing methodological rigor in recreation research,” J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh., vol. 9, no. 4, 2017.
- E. Vigoda-Gadot, “Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance: An empirical examination of two competing models,” Pers. Rev., 2007.
- E. Wray, U. Sharma, and P. Subban, “Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A systematic literature review,” Teach. Teach. Educ., vol. 117, p. 103800, 2022.
No competing interests reported.