Asian Social Science; Vol. 13, No.

3; 2017
ISSN 1911-2017 E-ISSN 1911-2025
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Influence of Transformational Leadership Behaviours on Oman

Public Employees’ Work Performance
Salim Musabah Bakhit Al Zefeiti1,2
1
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
2
Royal Court Affaris, Oman
Correspondence: Salim Musabah Bakhit Al Zefeiti, E-mail: albatinah@hotmail.com

Received: January 1, 2017 Accepted: January 13, 2017 Online Published: February 15, 2017
doi:10.5539/ass.v13n3p102 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n3p102

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of transformational leadership behaviors work
performance in the context of Omani governmental organizations. The research emphasizes that transformational
leadership is a crucial element to enhance employees' performance. Transformational leadership Inventory was
used to measure transformational leadership behaviors. Contextual and task performance were used to measure
work performance. Quantitative survey method was applied and a sample of 335 middle-level managers of
Omani public civil service organizations was selected to answer the instrument. Analysis of Moment Structures
(AMOS) was utilized to analyse the collected data and test the research questions, and hypotheses. The
techniques of data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and a
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis. The empirical results indicate that transformational leadership
behaviours (core transformational leadership, providing individualized supports, intellectual stimulation, and
setting high performance expectation) have a significant impact on contextual performance. Whereas, core
transformational leadership and providing individualized supports have a significant impact on task performance.
Keywords: Contextual performance, Oman, Public organization, Task performance, Transformational
Leadership behaviors, Work performance
1. Introduction
In recent years, organizations have been living in an era where change becomes inevitable, and they are
operating dynamically, which, in turn, require a very quick response to the fast movement in business domain.
The challenge of performance improvement in organizations has intensified along with the struggle to supervise
the quality of the workplace and globalization, international trade, the rising expectation of citizens, and
accelerated competition among organizations all have led to organizations’ focusing, particularly, on the quality
within the contexts of the past few decades (Akdere, 2006). Organizations have different sources distinguish
them from their competitors; some of these sources are the leader’s ability to fuse organization production skills
and new technologies into practice that empowers specific entities to familiarize the rapidly changed chances
(Hamel & Prahalad, 1990).
Transformational leaders influence followers and drive organizational changes by promoting process values such
as honesty, loyalty, and fairness, while emphasizing the end values of justice, equality, and human rights
(Mendonca, 2001). Transformational leaders raise their subordinates' emotions instead of depending on rational
process to motivate them (Moss & Ritossa, 2007). Leaders have positive effects on their subordinates by creating
a sense of attachment to the job, being fair, and recognizing good performance (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Indeed, all over the world public organizations face numerous challenges and obstacles to be more responsive to
the needs of citizens (Nusair et al., 2012). Oman is no exception; after raising expectation of Omani citizens, the
Omani government has encouraged Omani public organizations to develop and enhance their performance
(Ministry of Civil Service, 2012).
Earlier researcher (Ali et al., 2014; Dvir et al., 2002; Givens, 2011; Joo & Lim, 2013; Jose & Mampilly, 2014;
Lee et al., 2007; Manaf & Latif, 2014; Miao et al., 2012; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009; Yıldız et al., 2014) revealed
that, there are numerous factors may impact employees’ work performance, for instance, Job satisfaction,
adoptability culture trait, social structure and psychological empowerment, employee work engagement,

102
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

organization commitment, and leadership.

No doubt, leaders are committed to handle the demand of changes that arise from both the inside and outside
organizations (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). Multiple researchers and practitioners have stressed that leaders have to
foster the acceptance of group goals and support group goals by encouraging subordinates to work together
toward the achievement of their organizations’ objectives (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Podsakoff et al., 1990).
Al Zefeiti and Mohamad (2015) suggest that effective leaders who have appropriate proficiency is needed in
Omani organizations to deal with unpredictable events that may occasionally arise to increase their employees’
performance. However, researchers argue that there remains a gap in leadership literature specifically in Middle
East and North Africa (Mendenhall et al., 2008; Pless et al., 2011; Rao & Abdul, 2015).
2. Problem Statement
Public organizations take a leading role in providing the best services to the community such as, health services,
educational services, transportation and communications, and housing services. However if they want to be more
successful, they need to response very quick to the fast movement in business domain by clearly encourage and
foster subordinates’ performance. Leadership is a crucial factor that may have considerable influence on work
performance (Yukl, 1998). Therefore, public sector needs professional leaders to achieve organizational goals
and objectives.
Previous research has devoted a great deal of attention to the relationship between leadership and work
performance. The findings in this area, however, are not entirely consistent Therefore, the relationship between
transformational leadership and work performance has attracted considerable interest from both practitioners and
academics. Much of the interest on these variables is based on the outcomes of the previous researches which
have revealed that these concepts may have an influence on the organizational goals (Khan et al., 2013; Yousef,
2000).
Yet, there is limited research investigating leadership within public sector organizations (AlKindy et al., 2016;
Andersen, 2010; Fernandez et al., 2010; Teelken et al., 2012). Although incredible achievements were recorded
by previous research, emphasizing the overall significance of transformational leadership in enhancing
employees’ work performances; there is also considerable reported research that calls for the needs to examine
individual transformational leadership dimensions (Deinert et al., 2015). More specifically, there is a lack of
studies that investigated the influence of transformational leadership behaviours demonstrated by Omani top
managers level and how that impact employees’ work performance. This study, therefore, is unique as it will help
to address this issue in an effort to improve the understanding of the influence of transformational leadership on
employees’ work performance in Arabian Gulf Countries in general and in Omani setting in particular.
3. Research Objective
The aim of this paper is to investigate the influence of transformational leadership behaviours (dimensions) on
Omani employees’ contextual and task work performance. Based on the research objective stated, the following
research question was addressed:
Q1. Do transformational leadership behaviours (dimensions) influence Omani public employees’ contextual and
task work performance?
4. Literature Review
4.1 Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is a familiar topic and it is the most outstanding issue in recent research and theories
of leadership (Davidson, 2014; Palrecha et al., 2012; Taylor, 2014). Transformational leadership is the most
frequently leadership research since the1970s (Bass, 1985; Bass et al., 1990) for increasing motivation
(Charbonneau et al., 2001), performance (Barling et al., 2002), identification and high innovation (Bass et al.,
2003; Scott, 2003) and managing organizations change (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Avolio et al. (1991) asserted
that change and development are the two key elements necessary for any supervisor to become a
transformational leader. Cacioppe (1997) argues that one of transformational leadership tasks is encouraging
followers to adopt the vision of organisation as their own. Moreover, Burns (1978) reveals that transformational
leadership inspires followers to enhance the level of their ethics, beliefs and coalition with the objectives of the
organisation. Bass (1985); Shamir et al. (1993); and Sashkin (2004) perceive transformational leaders have the
capability of inspiring and motivating followers to accomplish organizations’ goals as their own.
Transformational leaders make subordinates aware of the need for personal development and achievement and
motivate them to work for the good of the organization (loyalty) rather than for their personal gain (George and

103
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

Jones, 2008). Schepers et al. (2005) claimed that transformational leaders allow employees to think creatively,
analyzed the problem from numerous angles and explored new and better solutions of the problem by using
technology. Sarros et al. (2002) suggest that transformational leadership is an approach to leadership that based
on encouraging others to perform more than what they originally thought possible. Leadership in Omani
governmental organisations stresses on transformational leadership to enhance its performance. Podsakoff et al.
(1990) have conceptualized transformational leadership behavior inventory (TLI) that consisting four key
behaviours associated with transformational leaders such as, (1) core transformational leadership that consists
articulating a vision, providing a role model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals, (2) providing
individualized support, (3) high performance expectations, (4) intellectual stimulation. Nutt and Backoff (1993)
argue that transformative leader who articulate a vision of change, encourages subordinates to participate in
change process and support them to perform the predetermine change to achieve the desired objectives.
Walumbwa et al. (2004) Leaders who provide an appropriate model can foster subordinates’ loyalty and respect
through desired behaviors. Pillai and Williams (2004) transformational leaders can encourage subordinates
becoming more committed to their organization by promoting cooperation between subordinates, assisting them
to work together, and getting them transcend their personal self-interest for the good of the group. Providing
individualized support behaviours encourage subordinates to take on increasingly more responsibilities in order
to develop to their full potential (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Leaders who successfully behave intellectual stimulation,
support change, persuade subordinates to be risk takers, and encourage them to think creatively and innovatively
(Bass and Riggio, 2006). Transformational Leadership researches focus primarily on profit organisations such as
private sector’s organisations, but recently, many researchers have called for conducting transformational
leadership research in public organisations (AlKindy et al., 2016; Andersen, 2010; Currie et al., 2009; Fernandez
et al., 2010; Teelken et al., 2012; Vogel & Masal, 2012).
4.2 Work Performance
Employees work performance is essential for any organization as it produces organizational overall performance
(Berberoglu & Secim, 2015). Work performance contains employees’ behaviour relevant to production of goods
and services (Hughes et al., 2008). Work performance is the whole goals and objectives that accomplished by a
certain employee (Griffin, 2004). This performance results jointly from employee’s effort and ability toward
achieving organization’s targets. Kocak (2006) defines performance as all activities that employees involve to
fulfil their obligations toward achieving organizational goals and objectives. Indeed, all organizations whether
they are, public, private, profitable or non-profitable have objectives and goals. Therefore, work performance is
defined as behaviour that is related to accomplish organizations’ goals and objectives (Campbell, 1990).
Performance is classified into two categories; that is task performance and contextual performance (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993). Task performance comprises in-role responsibilities that differ from one job to the other. It
refers to employees’ direct involvement in practical duties in the process of achieving practical outcomes
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Task performance refers to job-specific behaviours including core job
responsibilities (Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999). Task performance, also, represents labour activities that are
specified by an official job description (Harrison et al., 2006).
Contextual performance represents extra-role activities that support the social and organizational environment
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Contextual performance refers to employees’ contribution in activities that shape
working contexts (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Contextual performance also refers to non-job specific
behaviours such as, volunteering for extra work, following rules and regulations (Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999).
Contextual performance, also, represents voluntarily motivated work behaviours that go beyond an official job
description but contribute to the psychological and social contexts around the job (Harrison et al., 2006).
Tan and Lau (2012) argued that the choice of performance measures used to assess employee work performance
is critical due to its effect on employees' attitudes such as their perceptions of fairness, job satisfaction and
organisational commitment.
Indeed, employees are required to do their ordinary duties in accordance to their formal job descriptions.
Employees are also expected to expand their efforts to go beyond their formal job requirement and to exert extra
effort to suggest creative and innovative ideas to enhance their organizational effectiveness (Law et al., 2010).
Employees are required to coordinate with other and discuss organizational issues, exchange ideas, suggest and
recommend ways to accomplish extraordinary work (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
4.3 The Influence of Transformational Leadership on Work Performance
Enhancing employees' work performance to achieve organisational goals and objectives is an enduring challenge
for most organizations. Researchers have conducted many studies to identify the factors responsible for

104
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

increasing employees' work performance (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007; Wang et al., 2005). Certainly, leadership
is a crucial factor that may have considerable influence on work performance (Yukl, 1998). Practically,
Sarmiento et al. (2007) state that all existing theories of leadership asserted that leaders can have a substantial
influence on subordinates performance.
Indeed, supervisors play a bridge role between the organization and the employees, as they play an effective role
in new employees' adaption to the organization. Transformational leaders have a considerable influence on
employees’ work performance by stimulate them to accept organizational goals and objectives as their own goals.
Employees under supervision of transformational leaders, are able to have control and authority over their work,
which in turn, enhance their work performance. Also, employees are encouraged to use their abilities and bring
their own ideas to solve problems (Şahin et al., 2014). Researchers asserted that transformational leadership is
one of the most influential factors motivating public employee performance (Paarlberg & Lavigna, 2010; Park &
Rainey, 2008; Trottier et al., 2008; Wright et al., 2012).
Numerous of researchers postulate that the most influence of transformational leadership is the ability of leaders
to lift ordinary people to extraordinary heights and cause subordinates to achieve more than they are expected to
do, because they are expected to perform beyond the level of expectations (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 1989). However,
Podsakoff et al. (1990) posit that the majority of researches that have been conducted to investigate the influence
of transformational leadership on performance, in fact, focused on the impact of transformational leadership on
in role performance instead of extra role performance. Therefore, transformational leaders are urged to focus on
subordinate’s extra-role performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006) rather than in-role performance (Graham, 1988).
Certainly, previous research has devoted a great deal of attention to the relationship between leadership and work
performance. The findings in this area, however, are not entirely consistent. In the last few years, other
researchers, also, revealed that there is no linkage between transformational leadership and work performance
(Chi et al., 2007; García-Morales et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, researchers point out that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
work performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Choi, 2006; Mullen & Kelloway, 2010; Senthamil & Palanichamy,
2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wang & Howell, 2012). Moreover, Podsakoff et al. (1996) suggest that
individualized support, and fostering the acceptance of group goals have a significant effect on employee in-role
performance.
Indeed, numerous of researchers have suggested that there is a positive association between leaders'
consideration and subordinates’ work performance (Farris & Lim Jr, 1969; Greene, 1975; Lowin & Craig, 1968).
Furthermore, MacKenzie et al. (2001) state that there is a direct relationship between transformational leadership
dimensions (e.g. individualized support and intellectual stimulation) and performance. They further state that
some aspects of transformational leadership are related both directly and indirectly to performance while high
performance expectations were not related either directly or indirectly to performance.
Deconinck and Beth (2013) have examined the relationship between transformational leadership and
performance. Transformational leadership behaviour were measured using the transformational leadership
behaviour Inventory developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990). The results show that two measures of
transformational leadership, individualized support and core transformational behaviour that consists articulating
a clear vision, providing an appropriate model, and fostering the acceptance of group goals were related
positively to increased performance by the sales force. Also, they suggest that a sales manager who articulates a
vision and serves as a role model for salespeople can influence their performance. However, the result exhibited
that setting high performance expectation and stimulating salespeople intellectually do not lead to increased
performance.
Therefore, the contradictory research findings in previous researches guided this study to investigate the
transformational leadership behaviours influence on Omani employees' work performance, as shown in Figure 1,
which led to the design research hypotheses.
H1: Core transformational leadership has a direct impact on task performance
H2: Providing individualized support has a direct impact on task performance
H3: Intellectual stimulation has a direct impact on task performance
H4: Setting high performance expectations has a direct impact on task performance
H5: Core transformational leadership has a direct impact on contextual performance
H6: Providing individualized support has a direct impact on contextual performance

105
ass.ccsenet..org Asiann Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

H7: Intelleectual stimulattion has a direcct impact on coontextual perfoormance

H8: Setting high perform
mance expectattions has a direect impact on ccontextual perrformance

5. Researcch Methodoloogy
5.1 Samplee and Data Coollection
This reseaarch attemptedd to describe thhe impact of ttransformationnal leadership bbehaviors on w work performance.
The quantiitative data waas collected thhrough survey instrument ouut of (500) queestionnaires weere distributed with
(360) returrning. Of the (360) that retuurned, (25) quuestionnaires wwere rejected, due to incompplete and defe ective
response ggiven by the respondents,
r rresulting in (335) usable quuestionnaires yyielding a respponse rate of 93%.
Details aree demonstratedd in Table 1.
The stratiffied sample saampling was uused in this sttudy and the ssample size haas been choseen according to o the
populationn of Omani pubblic civil serviices organizatioons that applying Civil Servvice law and thhe percentage of
o the
middle maanagers in eachh organizationss then the sampple was selecteed randomly.
The data w
were then analyyzed using Staatistical Packagge for Social S
Sciences (SPSS
S) and AMOS. The questionnaire
applying ffive-point Likeert scale.
Table 1. R
Response Rate of
o the Questionnnaire
Survey m
method Questionnnaire Frequency Percentage (%)
Papeer Return
R Returned 360 72
Surveey Rate Unreturned 140 28
Usaable Rate Useable and N
Non Defective R
Responses 335 93
Defective R
Response and R
Rejected 25 7
5.2 Transfo
formational Leeadership Dimeensions
Transformmational leadership behaviouurs (TLB) was measured usinng scale develloped by Podsakoff et al. (1990).
The scale uused four dimeensions to meaasure the TLB. The dimensioons are core trransformationaal leadership (C Core),
providing individualizedd support (PIS S), intellectual stimulation (IIS), and settingg high perform
mance expecta
ations
(SHPE) (D Deconinck & Beth, 2013; M MacKenzie et al., 2001; Schhwepker Jr & Good, 2013). To describe their
direct supeervisor’s leadeership behavior, participants responded to 29 items, twennty three quesstions adapted from
Podsakofff et al. (1990),, and six quesstions were deeveloped for thhis study, an example of m measurement iss, my
leader getss the group to work togetherr for the samee goal, makingg use of 5-poinnt rating scaless with 1 = Stro
ongly
disagree annd 5 = Stronglly agree.
5.3 Work P
Performance Subscales
S
Work perrformance insttrument is coomposed of ttwo subscaless correspondinng to different types of work
WPR) (O'Reillly & Chatmann, 1986; Williaams & Andersson, 1991), and (b)
performannce; (a) task peerformance (W
contextuall performance (WPE) (Brockkner et al., 19992; May et all., 2002). To ddescribe their w
work performaance,
participantts responded to
t 12 items, mmaking use off 5-point ratinng scales with 1 = Stronglyy disagree and d 5 =
Strongly aagree.

106
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

6. Result
As factor analysis and structural equation modeling both necessitate variables to be normality distributed, it was
crucial to test normality in this research to confirm whether that a sample of observation comes from a normal
distribution (Hair et al., 1995; Kline, 2011; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Utilizing AMOS, an examination of
both skewness and kurtosis showed that the absolute values were within the recommended levels suggesting
univariate normality. However, there was one items (WP.Role6r) in the work performance construct which does
not have normal distribution. The work performance construct consists of twelve items. Since only one item of
all the twelve items does not meet the normality assumption, it appears that this situation should not be a major
concern.
In the measurement model, as shown in Figure 3, all the items were tested to check, whether all the confirmed
items of constructs, significantly contribute as a whole in the proposed model of the current study. Table 2
indicated that, the default model required some adjustments, in order to achieve the required model fitness. First
step was to remove those items, showing factor loading less than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). Initial results signalled
a weak model fit and item loadings of the constructs. Table 2 shows the results of the initial factor loadings of
items IAV6, WP.Role5, WP.Role6, WP.Extra2 and WP.Extra6 were removed from the further analysis due to low
value of factor loading, rest of the items were retained.
Table 2. Factor loadings
Construct Items Item Loadings Result
IAV6 0.487 Removed
IAV5 0.770 Retained
IAV4 0.798 Retained
IAV
IAV3 0.789 Retained
IAV2 0.791 Retained
IAV1 0.830 Retained
PAM4 0.782 Retained
PAM3 0.889 Retained
PAM
CORE PAM2 0.910 Retained
PAM1 0.843 Retained
FAGG7 0.568 Retained
FAGG6 0.803 Retained
FAGG5 0.788 Retained
FAGG FAGG4 0.860 Retained
FAGG3 0.847 Retained
FAGG2 0.874 Retained
FAGG1 0.857 Retained
PIS4.r 0.911 Retained
PIS3 0.876 Retained
PIS
PIS2 0.854 Retained
PIS1.r 0.859 Retained
IS4 0.827 Retained
IS3 0.848 Retained
IS
IS2 0.845 Retained
IS1 0.830 Retained
SHPE4 0.814 Retained
SHPE3 0.816 Retained
SHPE
SHPE2 0.930 Retained
SHPE1 0.932 Retained
WP.Role1 0.755 Retained
WP.Role2 0.745 Retained
WP.Role3 0.675 Retained
WPR
WP.Role4 0.655 Retained
WP.Role5 0.315 Removed
WP.Role6r 0.271 Removed
WP.Extra1 0.884 Retained
WP.Extra2 0.295 Removed
WP.Extra3 0.821 Retained
WPE
WP.Extra4 0.684 Retained
WP.Extra5 0.832 Retained
WP.Extra6 0.304 Removed

107
ass.ccsenet..org Asiann Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

Figure 2. M
Measurement m
model
The valuess for goodnesss of fit was Chhi-Square= 9.993; (DF=2), Reelative Chi-Sqq (<5.0) = 4.988, CFI=0.996, TLI=
T
0.931, NFI= 0.995, GFII=0.994. RMSE EA= 0.041. Thhese values shhowed that meeasurement moodel achieved good
model fitnness. The lastt step for achhieving model fitness was to correlate eerror terms off the items ha aving
modification indices aboove than 40.
Convergennt validity deteermines the am mount of correelation, amongg the measuress of the same cconcept (Arbu uckle,
2011; Hairr et al., 2010; Rasli,
R 2006). T
The convergent validity is acchieved when aall items in a m
measurement model
m
are statistiically significant. Awang (22014) recomm mends that thee value of avverage variancce extracted (A AVE)
should be equal to or grreater than 0.550 to validate uusing a construuct. Thus, as sshown in Tablle 3 the convergent
validity foor this scale waas established bbecause each ffactor loading constructs wass more than .500 (Awang, 201
14).
Table 3. Convergent Valiidity
C
Construct Items Item
m Loadings CR AVE
E
IAV5 0.778
IAV4 0.8
IAV IAV3 0.79
IAV2 0.794
IAV1 0.83
PAM4 0.784
PAM3 0.889
PAM
PAM2 0.909
COR 0.9588 0.88
84
PAM1 0.844
F
FAGG7 0.564
F
FAGG6 0.791
F
FAGG5 0.776
FAGG F
FAGG4 0.861
F
FAGG3 0.849
F
FAGG2 0.878
F
FAGG1 0.86
PIS4.r 0.91
PIS3 0.876
PIS 0.9299 0.76
66
PIS2 0.854
PIS1.r 0.859
IS4 0.825
IS3 0.85
IS 0.9044 0.70
02
IS2 0.848
IS1 0.827
S
SHPE4 0.798
S
SHPE3 0.799
SHPE 0.9255 0.75
56
S
SHPE2 0.933
S
SHPE1 0.937

108
ass.ccsenet..org Asiann Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

W
WP.Role1 0.805
W
WP.Role2 0.758
WPR 0.8011 0.50
03
W
WP.Role3 0.752
W
WP.Role4 0.758
W
WP.Extra1 0.754
W
WP.Extra2 0.753
WPE W
WP.Extra3 0.674 0.8844 0.65
58
W
WP.Extra4 0.65
W
WP.Extra5 0.832
The measuurement modeel should be frree from redunndant items too achieve discrriminant validiity (Awang, 2014).
The inter-cconstruct correlation of eachh variable andd square root oof average varriance extraction indicate that all
the construucts have adequate discrimiinant validity, as the squaree root of averaage variance eextracted is grreater
than inter--construct corrrelation of each variable andd also the valuues of inter connstruct are less than .85 (Aw wang,
2014). Thuus, these resultts provide suffficient evidence of discriminaant validity off the constructss (see table 4).
Table 4. D
Discriminant Vaalidity
Construucts IIS PIS SHPE WPR WPE
E CO
OR
IS 0.838
PISS 0.633 0.875
SHPE 0.582 0.635 0.869
WPR R 0.060 0.134 0.181 0.709
WPE E 0.289 0.461 0.251 0.266 0.811
COR R 0.741 0.682 0.703 0.099 0.414 0.9
940
This studyy hypothesizedd that, four behhaviours of traansformationall leadership (C
Core transform mational leaderrship,
Providing Individual Suupport, Intellecctual Stimulation, setting higgh performancce expectation)) have a signifficant
effect on w
work performaance (Contextuual and Task) (H Figure 2 illustraates results of the path model.
H1 and H8). F

Figure 3. Trransformational Leadership-- Work Perform

mance
The researrcher proposeed the hypotheesis H1: Coree transformatiional leadershhip has a direect impact on task
performannce. Results ass shown in table 4 indicated that the path coefficient vallue is 0.134; ccritical ratio is 2.63
and p vallue 0.009. Thiis indicates thhe significance of the direcct relationshipp between Core and WPR. The
researcherr proposed thhe hypothesis H2: providiing individuallized support has a direcct impact on task
performannce. Results ass shown in table 4 indicated that the path coefficient vallue is 0.113; ccritical ratio is 2.33
and p vallue 0.020. Thhis indicates thhe significancce of the direect relationshiip between PIIS and WPR. The
researcherr proposed the hypothesis H33: intellectual stimulation haas a direct imppact on task peerformance. Re esults
as shown iin table 4 indiccated that the ppath coefficiennt value is 0.0886; critical ratiio is 1.72 and p value 0.086. This
indicates tthere is insigniificant direct rrelationship beetween IS and WPR. The ressearcher propoosed the hypotthesis
H4: settingg high perform mance expectations has a dirrect impact onn task performaance. Results aas shown in ta able 4
indicated tthat the path coefficient
c valuue is 0.091; crritical ratio is 1.84 and p vallue 0.066. Thiis indicates theere is
insignificaant direct relatiionship betweeen SHPE and W WPR.
The researrcher proposedd the hypothesis H5: Core trransformationaal leadership hhas a direct im mpact on contextual
performannce. Results ass shown in tabble 4 indicatedd that the path coefficient vaalue is 0.27; ccritical ratio is 4.57
and p vallue 0.000. Thiis indicates thhe significance of the direcct relationshipp between Coore and WPE. The
researcherr proposed thee hypothesis HH6: providingg individualizeed support hass a direct imppact on contextual

109
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

performance. Results as shown in Table 5 indicated that the path coefficient value is 0.24; critical ratio is 4.17
and p value 0.000. This indicates the significance of the direct relationship between PIS and WPE. The
researcher proposed the hypothesis H7: intellectual stimulation has a direct impact on contextual performance.
Results as shown in table 4 indicated that the path coefficient value is 0.269; critical ratio is 4.68 and p value
0.000. This indicates the significance of the direct relationship between IS and WPE. The researcher proposed
the hypothesis H8: setting high performance expectations has a direct impact on contextual performance.
Results as shown in table 4 indicated that the path coefficient value is 0.14; critical ratio is 2.48 and p value
0.013. This indicates the significance of the direct relationship between SHPE and WPE.
Table 5. Testing Hypothesis Using Standardized Estimates (Hypothesized Model)
Hypothesized path B S.E. C.R. P Supported
H1 Core  WPR .134 .051 2.631 .009 Yes
H2 PIS  WPR .113 .049 2.326 .020 Yes
H3 IS  WPR .086 .050 1.717 .086 No
H4 SHPE  WPR .091 .049 1.836 .066 No
H5 Core  WPE .270 .059 4.574 .000 Yes
H6 PIS  WPE .236 .057 4.166 .000 Yes
H7 IS  WPE .269 .058 4.676 .000 Yes
H8 SHPE  WPE .144 .058 2.475 .013 Yes
7. Research Contributions and Recommendation for Future Study
This study is expected to provide additional insight into the influence of transformational leadership behaviours,
on work performance, which should contribute to the future development of this line of research, specifically, in
a non-western country. It expands the generalizability of transformational leadership behaviours beyond the
limits of US-EU contexts, as this research has been conducted in a developing country e.g. Omani governmental
organizations and thus samples from several governmental sectors, such as, finance, manpower, education,
tourism, and health were examined, thereby answering the call for research on leadership in different cultures
(Gardner et al., 2010; Hartog and Dickson, 2012; Kuchinke, 1999; Pieterse et al., 2010). Accordingly, the results
of this study will strengthen the existing knowledge on the effectiveness of US-based transformational leadership
behaviours in developing countries.
Moreover, from a practical viewpoint, Omani public organizations are advised to invest more in transformational
leadership training and in the selection of top level managers with these leadership behaviors to increase their
employees’ work performance. Thus, the current research should attract public sector leaders' attention to the
importance of adopting the appropriate transformational leadership behaviours. These could result in enhancing
employees' employees' work performance, consequently providing quick and good services to citizens.
The findings of the present research are limited to the middle-level managers in the Omani public civil service
organizations and thus cannot be generalized to the Omani context as a whole. Future longitudinal and
experimental research that covers both Omani public and private organizations would help confirm the causal
paths investigated in the current research.
8. Limitation
It is imperative to note that since this research examined the transformational leadership behaviours of top-level
managers and their impact on middle-managers’ work performance within public service organizations. It limits
the nature of this kind of highly sensitive information. The extraction of this kind of highly sensitive information
may be less accurate due to the reluctance divulge. Additional research, preferably qualitative research, should
now be conducted to compensate for any lack of data in this current study
9. Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to examined the influence of each transformational leadership components on
employee work performance. Transformational leadership dimensions are positively related to employee work
performance. This indicates that transformational leadership components emerged as the contributing factor and
play important roles in enhancing employees’ work performance. Moreover, the need to extend the research on
the influence of separate dimensions of transformational leadership to gain a deeper understanding of the nature
and the antecedents of these leadership behaviours, rather than the usual practice of combining them into one
overall scale as reported in the literature (Deinert et al., 2015; Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013) is met in this

110
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

research, by examining the influence of individual transformational leadership dimensions on contextual and
task performance. There are limited studies that have examined the relationships between transformational
leadership dimensions and contextual and task performance generally and with respect to Omani public service
organizations. One of the objectives of this research is to examine these relationships, by investigating the direct
effects between them. It is therefore demonstrated through the findings from this research, that a significant
relationship exists between some of transformational leadership dimensions and some of work performance
dimensions. Indeed, this research has empirically investigated the conceptual model and demonstrated that all
transformational leadership behaviours such as core transformational leadership and providing individualized
support, intellectual stimulation and setting high performance have a positive direct influence on employees’
contextual work performance and two of transformational leadership behaviours such as core transformational
leadership and providing individualized support, have a direct influence on employees’ task performance. Thus,
the results of this research emphasize that transformational leadership dimensions have different impacts on
employees’ work performance.
References
Akdere, M. (2006). Quality Management through Human Resources: An Integrated Approach to Performance
Improvement. The Business Review, Cambridge, 5(2), 233-238.
Al Zefeiti, S. M. B., & Mohamad, N. A. (2015). Methodological considerations in studying transformational
leadership and its outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 7(1), 1-11.
Ali, N., Jan, S., Ali, A., & Tariq, M. (2014). Transformational and Transactional Leadership as Predictors of Job
Satisfaction, Commitment, Perceived Performance and Turnover Intention (Empirical Evidence from
Malakand Division, Pakistan). Life Science Journal, 11(5), 48-53.
AlKindy, A. M., Shah, I. M., & Jusoh, A. (2016). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Behaviors on Work
Performance of Omani Civil Service Agencies. Asian Social Science, 12(3), 152.
Andersen, J. A. (2010). Public versus Private Managers: How Public and Private Managers Differ in Leadership
Behavior. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 131-141.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM SPSS Amos 20 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation, : SPSS Inc.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level
framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2),
199-218.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I's of transformational
leadership. Journal of European industrial training, 15(4).
Awang, Z. (2014). A handbook on structural equation modelling for academicians and practitioners. Bandar Baru
Bangi, Selangor: MPWS Rich Resources.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific
transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488.
Bass, B. M. (1985). leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press, 256.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Pointon, J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational
leadership for individual, team, and organizational development.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leadership: The strategies for taking charge. New York.
Berberoglu, A., & Secim, H. (2015). Organizational Commitment and Perceived Organizational Performance
Among Health Care Professionals: Empirical Evidence From A Private Hospital in Northern Cyprus.
Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 7(1), 64-71.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of
transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. Personnel selection in organizations; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for

111
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.

Brockner, J., Tyler, T. R., & Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on
reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly,
37(2), 241-261.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Cacioppe, R. (1997). Leadership moment by moment! Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(7),
335-345.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the army selection and classification project (Project A). Personnel
Psychology, 43(2), 231-239.
Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational Leadership and Sports Performance:
The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1521-1534.
Chi, H.-K., Tsai, H.-P., & Chang, P.-F. (2007). Investigating the relationship among leadership styles, emotional
intelligence and organization commitment on job performance: A study of salespeople in Thailand. The
Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 199-212.
Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 24-43.
Currie, G., Lockett, A., & Suhomlinova, O. (2009). Leadership and institutional change in the public sector: The
case of secondary schools in England. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 664-679.
Davidson, B. A. (2014). Examining the relationship between non-cognitive skills and leadership: The influence
of hope and grit on transformational leadership behavior. Unpublished Ed.D., University of Kansas, Ann
Arbor.
Deconinck, J., & Beth, M. (2013). The Relationship Among Transformational Leadership, Supervisory Trust,
Performance and Turnover Intentions. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 2(3), 205-211.
Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., Boer, D., Voelpel, S. C., & Gutermann, D. (2015). Transformational leadership
sub-dimensions and their link to leaders' personality and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6),
1095-1120.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of management journal, 45(4), 735-744.
Farris, G. F., & Lim Jr, F. G. (1969). Effects of performance on leadership, cohesiveness, influence, satisfaction,
and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(6), 490.
Fernandez, S., Cho, Y. J., & Perry, J. L. (2010). Exploring the link between integrated leadership and public
sector performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 308-323.
García-Morales, V. J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012). Transformational
leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal
of Business Research, 65(7), 1040-1050.
Gardner, W. L., Lowe, K. B., Moss, T. W., Mahoney, K. T., & Cogliser, C. C. (2010). Scholarly leadership of the
study of leadership: a review of the leadership quarterly's second decade, 2000–2009. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(6), 922-958.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2008). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (5th ed.): Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Givens, R. J. (2011). The role of psychological empowerment and value congruence in mediating the impact of
transformational leadership on follower commitment in American churches. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 6(2), 188-214.
Graham, J. W. (1988). Chapter 3 commentary: Transformational leadership: Fostering follower autonomy, not
automatic followership. In J.G. Hunt, B.R. Baliga, H.P. Dachler, SC C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.),. Emerging
leadership vistas, 73-79, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Greene, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 187-193.
Griffin, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover,

112
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333-356.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global
perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1990). The core competencies of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,
79-91.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic
comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal,
49(2), 305-325.
Hartog, D. D. N., & Dickson, M. (2012). Leadership and culture. In D. Day & J. Antonakis (Ed.), The nature of
leadership (pp. 393-436): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary
theories, Chemers MM, Ayman R., Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions, (Vol. 81, pp.
107): Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnet, R. C., & Curphy, G. L. (2008). Charisma and transformational leadership. leadership:
enhancing lessons from experiences: Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.
Joo, B.-K. B., & Lim, T. (2013). Transformational leadership and career satisfaction: the mediating role of
psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1548051813484359.
Jose, G., & Mampilly, S. R. (2014). Psychological Empowerment as a Predictor of Employee Engagement: An
Empirical Attestation. Global Business Review, 15(1), 93-104.
Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships
in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1286–
1298.
Khan, Z., Khan, S., & Shahzad, S. (2013). Moderating Role of Procedural Justice and Empowerment in
Transformational Leadership with its impact on Organizational Commitment. International Review of
Management and Business Research, 2(3), 847-852.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York London:
Guilford press.
Kocak, R. (2006). The validity and reliability of the teachers’ performance evaluation scale. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 6(3), 799-808.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge: San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work‐related values and leadership styles among one company's
US and German telecommunication employees. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.
Law, K. S., Hui, W., & Chun, H. (2010). Currencies of exchange and global LMX: How they affect employee
task performance and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(4), 625-646.
Lee, C.-S., Lee, W., & Kim, J. (2007). Effects of Transformational Leadership and Self-leadership on Innovative
Behaviors: Mediating Roles of Empowerment*. International Area Studies Review, 10(2), 163-176.
Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968). The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An experimental
object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
3(4), 440-458.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational
Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and
salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 115-134.
Manaf, A. H. A., & Latif, L. A. (2014). Transformational Leadership and Job Performance of SMEs Technical
Personnel: The Adaptability Cultural Approach as Mediator. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
5(20), 648.
May, T. Y.-M., Korczynski, M., & Frenkel, S. J. (2002). Oranizational and occupatinal commitment: Knowledge

113
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

workers in large corporations. Journal of management Studies, 39(6), 775-801.

Mendenhall, M. E., Osland, J. S., Bird, A., Oddou, G., & Maznevski, M. (2008). Global Leadership: Research,
Practice, and Development. London/New York, NY: Routledge.
Mendonca, M. (2001). Preparing for ethical leadership in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 18(4), 266-276.
Miao, Q., Newman, A., & Lamb, P. (2012). Transformational leadership and the work outcomes of Chinese
migrant workers: The mediating effects of identification with leader. Leadership, 8(4), 377-395.
Ministry of Civil Service. (2012). Retrieved. from http://www.mocs.gov.om/tabid/533/Default.aspx , 13.9.2012.
Moss, S. A., & Ritossa, D. A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style
and follower performance, creativity and work attitudes. Leadership, 3(4), 433-456.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. (1999). Performance assessment in unique jobs, In D. R. Ilgen & E. D.
Pulakos (Eds.) (pp. 56-86). The changing nature of job performance: Implications for staffing, motivation,
and development: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mullen, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2010). Occupational health and safety leadership, in Quick, J.C. & Tetrick, L.E.
(Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 357-372): American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Nusair, N., Ababneh, R., & Bae, Y. K. (2012). The impact of transformational leadership style on innovation as
perceived by public employees in Jordan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 22(3),
182-201.
Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1993). Transforming public organizations with strategic management and strategic
leadership. Journal of Management, 19(2), 299-347.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of
compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 71(3),
492-499.
Paarlberg, L. E., & Lavigna, B. (2010). Transformational leadership and public service motivation: Driving
individual and organizational performance. Public administration review, 70(5), 710-718.
Palrecha, R., Spangler, W. D., & Yammarino, F. J. (2012). A comparative study of three leadership approaches in
India. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 146-162.
Park, S. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2008). Leadership and public service motivation in US federal agencies.
International public management journal, 11(1), 109-142.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional
leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment,
and performance. Journal of organizational change management, 17(2), 144-159.
Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing responsible global leaders through international
service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2),
237-260.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr
and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 380-399.
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.
Rao, A. S., & Abdul, W. K. (2015). Impact of transformational leadership on team performance: an empirical
study in UAE. Measuring Business Excellence, 19(4), 30-56.
Rasli, A. (2006). Data Analysis and Interpretation-A Handbook for Postgraduate Social Scientists (+ CD):
Penerbit UTM.
Şahin, D. R., Çubuk, D., & Uslu, T. (2014). The Effect of Organizational Support, Transformational Leadership,

114
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

Personnel Empowerment, Work Engagement, Performance and Demographical Variables on the Factors of
Psychological Capital. EMAJ: Emerging Markets Journal, 3(3), 1-17.
Sarmiento, R., Beale, J., & Knowles, G. (2007). Determinants of performance amongst shop-floor employees: A
preliminary investigation. Management Research News, 30(12), 915-927.
Sarros, J. C., Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Leadership and its impact on organizational culture. Journal of
International Business Studies, 10(2), 1-26.
Sashkin, M. (2004). Transformational leadership approaches: A review and synthesis, In J. Antonakis, A. T.
Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The nature of leadership, (pp. 171–196). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., & de Ruyter, K. (2005). Leadership styles in technology acceptance: do followers
practice what leaders preach? Managing Service Quality, 15(6), 496-508.
Schwepker Jr, C. H., & Good, D. J. (2013). Improving salespeople's trust in the organization, moral judgment
and performance through transformational leadership. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28(7),
535-546.
Scott, W. R. (2003). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems (5th ed.): Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Senthamil, R., & Palanichamy, P. (2011). Transformational Leadership Styles and Employee Performance.
Journal for Bloomers of Research, 3(2).
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
self-concept based theory. Organization science, 4(4), 577-594.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tan, S. L., & Lau, C. M. (2012). The Impact of Performance Measures on Employee Fairness Perceptions, Job
Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(2),
57-72.
Taylor, C. M. (2014). Transformational leadership in a nonprofit organizatin: a case study of a Filipino nonprofit
in diverse communities. Temple University.
Teelken, C., Ferlie, E., & Dent, M. (2012). Leadership in the Public Sector: Promises and Pitfalls: Routledge.
Trottier, T., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of leadership in
government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 319-333.
Tuuli, M. M., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Performance consequences of psychological empowerment. Journal of
construction engineering and management.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership
research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1-60.
Vogel, R., & Masal, D. (2012). Publicness, Motivation, and Leadership: The Dark Side of Private Management
Concepts in the Public Sector. Administratie si Management Public(19), 6-16.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on
individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4),
793-825.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J., & Shi, K. (2004). The role of collective efficacy in the relations
between transformational leadership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 77(4), 515-530.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator
of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' performance and organizational
citizenship behavior. Academy of management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
Wang, X.-H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and
follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 775-790.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.
Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public

115
ass.ccsenet.org Asian Social Science Vol. 13, No. 3; 2017

service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), 206-215.
Yıldız, S., Baştürk, F., & Boz, İ. T. (2014). The Effect of Leadership and Innovativeness on Business
Performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 785-793.
Yousef, D. A. (2000). Organizational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behavior with
job satisfaction and performance in a non-western country. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1), 6-24.
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.): Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.): Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

116