The importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being
of employees working with older people
Karina Nielsen, Joanna Yarker, Sten-Olof Brenner, Raymond Randall & Vilhelm Borg
Accepted for publication 25 March 2008
Correspondence to K. Nielsen:
e-mail: kmn@nrcwe.dk
Karina Nielsen MSc PhD
Senior Researcher
National Research Centre for the Working
Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark
Joanna Yarker MSc PhD CPsychol
Lecturer in Occupational Psychology
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths,
University of London, UK
Sten-Olof Brenner MSc PhD
Professor (Work Psychology)
National Research Centre for the Working
Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark
Raymond Randall MSc PhD CPsychol
Lecturer in Occupational Psychology
School of Psychology, University of Leicester,
Leicester, UK
Vilhelm Borg MSc
Senior Researcher
National Research Centre for the Working
Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark
NIELSEN K., YARKER J., BRENNER S.-O . , RANDALL R. & BORG V. (2008) The
importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees
working with older people. Journal of Advanced Nursing 63(5), 465–475
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04701.x
Abstract
Title. The importance of transformational leadership style for the well-being of
employees working with older people.
Aim. This paper is a report of a study to explore the relationships between trans-
formational leadership, followers’ perceived working conditions and employee well-
being and job satisfaction.
Background. There is some evidence that transformational leadership style is linked
to employee job satisfaction and well-being. However, it is not clear whether this is
due to (i) a direct relationship between leadership and job satisfaction and well-
being outcomes or (ii) whether followers’ perceived working conditions mediate this
relationship.
Methods. A cross-sectional design was applied to data from a questionnaire study
of 447 staff caring for older people in Denmark. Data were collected in 2005. A
theory-driven model of the relationships between leadership, working conditions,
job satisfaction and well-being was tested using structural equation modelling.
Results. The transformational leadership style was closely associated with follow-
ers’ working conditions, namely involvement, influence and meaningfulness.
Involvement was associated with job satisfaction and meaningfulness was associated
with well-being. However, working conditions were closely correlated with each
other, and thus the mediating mechanisms may operate through several different
working conditions. A direct path between leadership behaviour and employee well-
being was also found.
Conclusion. Considering working conditions in the absence of studying leadership
behaviour (or vice versa) may reveal an incomplete picture of the impact of work
and work relationships on well-being. Work re-design interventions focused on
influence may benefit from the consideration of training managers to exert trans-
formational leadership behaviours.
Keywords: mediation, nursing, older people, questionnaires, transformational
leadership, well-being, working conditions
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
JAN
! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 465
Introduction
Research has consistently demonstrated statistically signifi-
cant and important associations between psychosocial work-
ing conditions and a range of health and well-being factors at
the individual and organizational level. For example, Karasek
and Theorell (1990) reviewed the association between job
demand and control on the one hand and health outcomes
including job satisfaction and general health on the other. In
the Whitehall II study, it was shown that low job control was
a risk for coronary heart disease (Bosma et al. 1997). More
recently, in a meta-analytic review, de Lange et al. (2003)
found strong evidence for a causal relationship between
working conditions and health and well-being over time.
There is also a growing body of research which demon-
strates that employees’ perceptions of their working condi-
tions are statistically significantly associated with leadership
behaviour (Cherniss 1995, Van Dierendonck et al. 2004).
Moreover, Gilbreath and Benson (2004) found that supervi-
sory behaviour explained the variance in employees’ percep-
tions of their work setting over and above other workplace
factors when predicting general health. Some researchers
have explored the link between leadership style and subor-
dinate health (Seltzer et al. 1989, Sosik & Godshalk 2000).
However, there has been little research investigating whether
this is due to (i) a direct association between leadership styles
and subordinate job satisfaction and well-being or (ii)
because the relationship is mediated by followers’ perceived
working conditions.
Background
Transformational leaders can be described as ‘leaders [who]
broaden and elevate the interests of their followers, generate
awareness and commitment of individuals to the purpose and
mission of the group, and…they enable subordinates to
transcend their own self-interests for the betterment of the
group’ (Seltzer et al. 1989, p. 174). Direct positive relation-
ships between transformational leadership and organiza-
tional health have been found in many studies (e.g. Bass &
Avolio 1994, Lowe et al. 1996, Bass 1999, Dondrum et al.
2002, Judge & Piccolo 2004, Pillai & Williams 2004,
Walumbwa et al. 2004, Nyberg et al. 2005). There appear
to be particularly reliable associations between transforma-
tional leadership style and both job satisfaction (Podsakoff
et al. 1990, Morrison et al. 1997, Dunham-Taylor 2000,
Shieh et al. 2001, Bono & Judge 2003, Berson & Linton
2005), job-related stress (Sosik & Godshalk 2000) and
burnout (Seltzer et al. 1989, Corrigan et al. 2002, Hetland
et al. 2007).
Recently a number of workers have investigated possible
mediators between transformational leadership style and
employee outcomes. These have examined the mediating
effects of: (i) psychological empowerment on commitment
(Avolio et al. 2004), (ii) trust and value congruence on
performance (Jung & Avolio 2000), (iii) empowerment,
cohesiveness and collective efficacy on performance (Jung &
Sosik 2002) and (iv) goal clarity and support for creative
thinking on performance, job satisfaction and acceptance of
acquisition after a merger (Nemanich & Keller 2007).
However, only one group has examined the mediating
mechanisms of working conditions (meaningful work) in
the link between leadership behaviour and follower job
satisfaction and well-being (Arnold et al. 2007). Therefore,
there is a need to develop an understanding of the mecha-
nisms underpinning the relationship between leadership and
health in the wider work context.
In the study reported here, we tried to build on previous
research by exploring whether the relationship between
leadership and followers’ health and well-being is mediated
by followers’ perceived work characteristics. Transforma-
tional leadership has been found to be a valid construct in
most occupations, and in the private and public sectors (Bass
1999), but has been argued to have particular importance
within the healthcare sector (Morrison et al. 1997, Corrigan
& Garman 1999, Dunham-Taylor 2000). Healthcare work-
ers are in close contact with patients and thus they are the first
to notice changes in their health and can most easily assess
their needs. They often follow patients over long periods of
time and have in-depth knowledge of how to address the
problems and concerns raised by patients. As a result,
employees who are encouraged to solve problems and take
responsibility are needed in health care (Morrison et al. 1997,
Corrigan & Garman 1999, Dunham-Taylor 2000). It has
been argued that raising employees’ exposure to transforma-
tional leaders is the key to improving healthcare provision in
the future (Sofarelli & Brown 1998, Thyer 2003).
Theoretical framework
We propose that transformational leadership style may be
related to well-being through a mediating mechanism involv-
ing working conditions. We were not able to observe the
actual impact of leadership on objective working conditions:
therefore, we tested perceptions of the working conditions of
followers. This is in line with previous research by Van
Dierendonck et al. (2004) and Cherniss (1995). We proposed
that transformational leadership would be associated
with the way in which employees perceived their work
environment. This perception would, in turn, be associated
K. Nielsen et al.
466 ! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
with employees’ self-reports of job satisfaction and well-
being.
Mathieu and Taylor (2006) argued that it is important to
clarify which type of mediational inference is tested. They
distinguish between three types: (i) indirect effects, where no
direct relationship exists between the independent and the
dependent variable, (ii) partial mediation, where a direct
relationship is present together with the mediated effect and
(iii) a fully mediated model, where the previously direct
relationship no longer exists after the mediator is introduced
into the model. As the relationships between transforma-
tional leadership and job satisfaction and well-being have
been confirmed previously, we proposed either the second or
the third mechanism to be present in our model: Work
characteristics will either fully or partially mediate the
relationship between transformational leadership and out-
comes (Mathieu & Taylor 2006).
The conceptualization of transformational leadership sug-
gests a number of ways in which it can influence employees’
working conditions. Based on a shared vision, transforma-
tional leaders provide a meaningful and creative basis from
which change is brought about in people and contexts (Bass
1985). The concept is comprised of idealized influence/
charisma (the leader acts as a role model and promotes
desirable behaviour), inspirational motivation (the leader
formulates a clear and attractive vision), intellectual stimu-
lation (the leader encourages followers to make their own
decisions and be creative and innovative) and individualized
consideration (the leader acts as a coach and mentor) (Bass
1985). Such leaders are likely to provoke emotional responses
in subordinates (Druskat 1994). Transformational leaders are
those who provide personal attention to promote develop-
ment through individualized consideration, enable new ways
of working, encourage novel problem-solving, and provide
coaching and encouragement of specific behaviours in
subordinates through intellectual stimulation (Sashkin &
Rosenbach 1993, Bass 1999). Therefore, we propose three
mechanisms through which transformational leaders may
affect working conditions associated with job satisfaction and
well-being in followers. These are influence, involvement and
meaningful work.
Influence
First, transformational leaders construct organizational con-
texts that permit followers to exercise and expand their own
cognitive abilities and to become more capable of defining
and enacting their own visions independently of the leader’s
immediate control and supervision (Sashkin & Rosenbach
1993, Jung & Sosik 2002). Through intellectual stimulation,
the transformational leader challenges followers’ assump-
tions, thoughts and imagination (Bass et al. 2003, Avolio
et al. 2004). Followers are encouraged to take calculated
risks, proactively to seek out opportunities and to solve
complex organizational problems (Tichy & Ulrich 1984).
Through idealized influence the transformational leader
displays a set of clear values, and through role modelling,
followers can observe how they may themselves take
responsibility for their own actions and development. Fol-
lowers who work with leaders exhibiting high standards and
expectations feel more comfortable and able to engage in
decisions concerning the task at hand (Bass & Avolio 1994).
Through coaching and mentoring, followers are encouraged
to make their own decisions in a supportive environment
(Avolio et al. 2004). A transformational leader who promotes
a clear framework or vision for followers and actively
encourages them to make decisions and solve problems
themselves is likely to foster an environment where followers
experience high degrees of influence at work. Previous studies
have shown a link between transformational leadership and
empowerment, that is, the degree to which followers are able
to make independent decisions (Jung & Sosik 2002, Kark
et al. 2003, Avolio et al. 2004).
Involvement
At the core of transformational leadership is the notion that
employees are willing to make an extra effort to achieve their
goals and move beyond immediate self-interest and to work
towards the improvement of the product/service and develop
the organization. Through idealized influence leaders act as
role models, and their motivation and enthusiasm for the job
inspire followers to be involved in the tasks and challenges at
hand. Individualized consideration promotes a feeling of
being special in followers and thus they are likely to put in an
extra effort if they feel noticed and that their efforts are
appreciated. Through inspirational motivation, transforma-
tional leaders engage their followers ‘above and beyond the
call of duty’ and encourage them to take charge of their own
development at work. Thus, followers are more likely to
report that they are highly involved in their jobs (Bass 1990,
p. 188).
Meaningfulness
Finally, by establishing a shared vision transformational
leaders provide a meaningful and creative basis from where
change is brought about in people and contexts (Bass 1985).
The skills of a transformational leader rest on the ability to
elucidate a vision and construct a framework that creates
a shared sense of purpose (Nemanich & Keller 2007).
Through inspirational motivation, transformational leaders
communicate optimism about future goals and provide
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH The importance of transformational leadership style
! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 467
meaning for the task at hand. Followers develop a strong
sense of purpose if they are motivated to take action.
Through inspirational motivation, the transformational lea-
der formulates a clear vision that allows employees to see the
bigger picture and enhance their understanding of where they
fit in (Burke et al. 2006), and thus they are more likely to
perceive their jobs as meaningful.
The conceptual/theoretical framework of the mediating
relationships between leadership, work characteristics and
well-being and job satisfaction is summarized in Figure 1.
The study
Aim
The aim of the study was to explore the relationships between
transformational leadership, followers’ perceived working
conditions and employee well-being and job satisfaction.
The following hypotheses were tested:
1. Employees’ perceptions of influence at work mediate the
relationship between transformational leaders and job satis-
faction and well-being.
2. The mechanism by which transformational leadership
and job satisfaction and well-being are associated is through
the involvement of followers in their job.
3. The relationship between transformational leadership
and job satisfaction and well-being is mediated by the
experience of meaningful work.
Design
A cross-sectional questionnaire survey design was adopted.
Participants
The sample consisted of 447 staff working in care of older
peopleinalargeDanishlocalgovernmentservice.InDenmark,
thesector isorganized intounitswheresomestaff providecare
to elders who are still in their own homes and others provide
care in specialized care homes. Two units are involved in this
study, each including both types of staff. Although only one
service organization was included, we tried to ensure a variety
ofsettingsandjobcontent.First,twoindependentcentreswith
different management and different cultures were included in
the study. Second, all staff from the centres participated. This
presented different groups of staff from cleaning personnel,
canteen personnel, healthcare assistants, nurses, physiothera-
pists and maintenance staff. Staff were organized in groups,
e.g. home care staff covering a geographical area or staff
covering a nursing home would constitute a group, and each
group had a formal leader with managerial responsibilities;
this was the manager they were asked to rate.
Questionnaires in Danish were distributed to 551 staff and
447 questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of
81%. Independent sample t-tests were conducted to examine
any differences between the two units on demographics,
work characteristics and outcome measures. No statistically
significant differences were found and the two samples were
treated as one in the subsequent analyses.
Measures
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was measured using the Global
Transformational Leadership Scale developed by Carless
et al. (2000). It consists of seven items and has been found to
have a high degree of convergent validity with more estab-
lished and lengthier questionnaires such as the MLQ and the
LPI (Carless et al. 2000). An example of an item is: ‘My
leader communicates a clear and positive vision of the future’.
Response categories were: 1 = To a very large extent, 2 = To
a large extent, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = To a small extent, 5 = To
a very small extent.
Scales measuring influence, meaningful work, involvement,
job satisfaction and well-being were all taken from the
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ;
Kristensen et al. 2002, 2006). These scales have been used
in a number of studies and have been found to have good
reliability and validity (Aust et al. 2007, Borritz et al. 2006,
Lund et al. 2006, Nielsen et al. 2006).
Influence
This scale measuring influence consisted of four items mea-
suringtheextenttowhichemployeeshadinfluenceoverwhom
they worked with, the amount of work they had to do or their
decision making authority. An example of an item is: ‘Do you
have a large degree of influence on decisions concerning your
work?’ Response categories were: 1 = Always, 2 = Often,
3 = Sometimes, 4 = Rarely, 5 = Never/hardly ever.
Leadership style
Transformational
leadership
Work characteristic
Involvement
Influence
Meaningfulness
Health outcome
Job satisfaction
Well-being
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for transformational leadership,
work characteristics and well-being.
K. Nielsen et al.
468 ! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Meaningful work
Employees were asked to rate the degree to which they
experienced their jobs to be meaningful and their work to be
part of a greater whole; three items were used. An example of
an item is: ‘Do you feel that the work you do is important?’
Response categories were: 1 = To a very large extent, 2 = To
a large extent, 3 = Somewhat, 4 = To a small extent, 5 = To
a very small extent.
Involvement
Involvement was measured by a four-item scale. An example
of an item is: ‘Do you feel that your place of work is of great
personal importance to you?’ Response categories were:
1 = To a very large extent, 2 = To a large extent, 3 = Some-
what, 4 = To a small extent, 5 = To a very small extent.
Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured using a five-item scale. An
example of an item is: ‘How satisfied are you with your job as
a whole, everything taken into consideration?’ The response
categories were 1 = Very satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Dissatis-
fied, 4 = Highly dissatisfied.
Well-being
Well-being was measured by a five-item scale. An example of
an item is: ‘Have you over the past two weeks felt active and
energetic?’ Response categories were: 1 = All the time,
2 = Most of the time, 3 = A bit more than half of the time,
4 = A bit less than half of the time, 5 = Only a little of the
time, 6 = Not at all.
As outcomes were measured on different scales, these were
transformed so that scores ranged from 0 to 100, with 100
representing a high score on the construct. For scales with five
response categories, responses were transformed such that
1 = 0, 2 = 25, 3 = 50, 4 = 75, 5 = 100. For job satisfaction,
which only had four response categories, responses were
transformed such that 1 = 0, 2 = 33Æ33, 3 = 66Æ67, 4 = 100.
This was carried out to enhance clarity in the interpretation
and meaning of the results.
Ethical considerations
Questionnaire research in Denmark does not require
approval by ethic committees and thus approval was not
sought. However, the study was approved by the Danish
Data Protection Agency and followed the regulations for data
storage and protection. Also, before completing the ques-
tionnaire, participants received information about the study
and it was made clear that participation was voluntary.
Confidentiality was maintained by using numbers to identify
participants. The ethical conduct of the study was ensured by
using the guidance provided British Psychological Society’s
Code of Conduct.
Data analysis
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) enables the researcher
to develop a thorough understanding of the interactions
between aspects of work and well-being, a so-called systemic
approach. SEM makes it possible to test interactions between
predictors and between predictors and outcomes. This makes
it ideal for testing mediating mechanisms (Mathieu & Taylor
2006).
The goodness of fit between the various models and the
observed data was tested using a number of goodness-of-fit
indices. There is broad consensus that no single measure of
model overall fit should be relied on exclusively (Marsh et al.
1988). In this study, the v2, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI),
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) and Adjusted Goodness of
Fit Index (AGFI) are reported. It is generally agreed that
RMSEA values of <0Æ08 indicate an acceptable fit and
values <0Æ05 represent a close fit (Anderson & Gerbing
1988, Browne & Cudek 1993) and that CFI, AGFI and NNF
values higher than 0Æ90 signify a good fit. The measurement
model testing our proposed six-factor model proposed a
good fit to the data: v 2 (309) = 727Æ36, P < 0Æ001,
RMSEA = 0Æ055.
The maximum likelihood method of parameter estimation
was used with the covariance matrix as input. Scale scores
were used as indicators for each construct in the models. We
accounted for the effects of measurement error by fixing the
value of the unique variance indicator as one minus the
reliability multiplied by the scale variance (Niehoff &
Moorman 1993, Sinclair et al. 2002, Lim 2003). We used
the coefficient alpha as the indicator of reliability for all
scales. Three models were tested using SEM with LISREL 8Æ7
(Jo¨reskog & So¨rbom 1999). First, a full mediation model
(M1) was tested that examined the mediating effect of
working conditions on the relationship between transforma-
tional leadership style and job satisfaction and well-being. In
this model, we assumed that the direct relationships previ-
ously found in research would not be present as they would
be fully mediated by working conditions. Our initial analyses
indicated that working conditions correlated with each other,
as did job satisfaction and well-being, and these were
therefore set to correlate in our structural model (see Table 1).
M1 served as a baseline model against which the other, more
complex models were examined. To test for partial media-
tion, we included two additional models. The second model
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH The importance of transformational leadership style
! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 469
(M2) was identical to M1, except that the direct path
between transformational leadership and job satisfaction was
included. A statistically significantly better fit of M2 when
compared with M1 indicated that the relationship between
transformational leadership and job satisfaction was not fully
mediated by working conditions as a direct effect existed. The
third model (M3) was identical to M1 but tested a possible
direct effect between transformational leadership and well-
being. Again, a better fit of M3 would suggest that working
conditions partially mediated the relationship between trans-
formational leadership and well-being. Comparison of M1–
M3 would reveal which model accounted best for the data. A
model is considered to fit the data better than a rival model if
the v 2 value is statistically and significantly lower (P < 0Æ05)
than that of its competitor. To test for mediated effects we
conducted two analyses: (1) We calculated the mediated
effect by multiplying the path from predictor to mediator
with the path from the mediator to the outcome variable. (2)
We also conducted Sobel’s test (MacKinnon & Dwyer 1993,
MacKinnon et al. 1995) to explore whether the mediator
carried the influence of the predictor to the outcome variable.
According to Shrout and Bolger (2002), an effect is partially
mediated when the indirect effect is smaller and of the same
sign as the total effect.
Results
The study participants were predominantly female (93%),
their average age was 44 ( SD = 11Æ13), and they had been
working in their current workplace for 12 years on average.
The majority were healthcare assistants (62%), 12% were
nurses, 18% had other healthcare-related education and the
remaining 8% had no healthcare-related education.
Table 1 displays the scales, means, standard deviations,
scale reliabilities and intercorrelations of all variables in this
study. All measures were statistically significantly correlated.
Testing the hypotheses
The first, fully mediated model (M1), presented an acceptable
fit to the data (see Table 2). AGFI, CFI and NNFI were all
above the recommended level of 0Æ90, and the RMSEA was
0Æ07, indicating an acceptable, but not excellent fit to the
data. Also, the v 2 indicated a good fit. M2 tested whether a
direct relationship existed between transformational leader-
ship and job satisfaction. All goodness-of-fit measures were
within acceptable levels except the RMSEA, which indicated
a poor fit (0Æ09). Also NNFI and AGFI indicated a poorer fit,
but levels were still within the cut-off points for good fit. The
Table 1 Intercorrelations between subscales
Subscale M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Transformational leadership 59Æ10 20Æ64 (0Æ90)
2. Influence 48Æ34 19Æ30 0Æ25** (0Æ73)
3. Meaningful work 76Æ60 13Æ74 0Æ25** 0Æ26** (0Æ66)
4. Involvement 57Æ03 16Æ83 0Æ41** 0Æ27** 0Æ51** (0Æ71)
5. Well-being 66Æ47 17Æ21 0Æ27** 0Æ23** 0Æ36** 0Æ34** (0Æ87)
6. Job satisfaction 66Æ76 16Æ17 0Æ30** 0Æ20** 0Æ35** 0Æ36** 0Æ35** (0Æ83)
The numbers in parentheses on the diagonal are coefficient alphas.
*P < 0Æ05.
**P < 0Æ01.
Table 2 Fit indices for nested sequence of cross-sectional models
Model v 2 d.f. NNFI v 2 diff CFI AGFI RMSEA
M1:Full mediation model 5Æ78 2 0Æ96 0Æ99 0Æ96 0Æ07
M2: M1 + transformational leadership ->job satisfaction 4Æ38 1 0Æ92 0Æ99 0Æ93 0Æ09
Difference between M2 and M1 1Æ50
M3: M1 + transformational leadership ->well-being 2Æ40 1 0Æ97 1Æ00 0Æ96 0Æ06
Difference between M3 and M1 3Æ38
M1a: M1 after deleting non-significant effects 8Æ17 4 0Æ98 0Æ99 0Æ97 0Æ05
Difference between M1a and M1 2Æ39
M3a: M3 after deleting non-significant effects 7Æ21 5 0Æ99 1Æ00 0Æ98 0Æ03
Difference between M1a and M3a 0Æ96
NNFI, Non-Normed Fit Index; AGFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA, root mean square error of
approximation.
K. Nielsen et al.
470 ! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
D v 2 (1) = 1Æ40, P > 0Æ05 did not reveal a statistically and a
significantly better fit. Testing M3 revealed a similar pattern:
D v 2 was not statistically significant: D v 2 (1) = 3Æ38,
P > 0Æ05. With regards to RMSEA an acceptable, but not
excellent fit, was revealed (RMSEA = 0Æ06); this was slightly
better than M1. Also NNFI was slightly better. Thus it was
not clear which provided a better fit of the data, M1 or M3.
On inspection of the parameter estimates, it became clear that
both models had several effects that did not differ statistically
significantly from zero. These were omitted and model fit
then re-examined (M1a and M3a). As shown in Table 2, the
fit of M1a revealed a better fit of RMSEA = 0Æ05, which is
just on the border to a good fit, while M3a had a RMSEA of
0Æ03. This means that M3a presented a slightly better fit when
comparing the RMSEA. When comparing the NNFI, CFI and
AGFI, marginal improvements were found in relation to
M3a. Even if D v 2 (1) = 1Æ40, P > 0Æ05 did not reveal M3a
to be statistically significantly better than M1a, we decided to
focus our further analysis on M3a as the RMSEA indicated
an excellent fit, whereas M1a only had an acceptable fit.
M3a (Figure 2) indicated a direct path between transfor-
mational leadership and well-being. No direct path was
found between transformational leadership and job satisfac-
tion. Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Although a strong
relationship was found between influence and transforma-
tional leadership, influence was not found to be associated
with job satisfaction and well-being. Thus neither full nor
partial mediation was supported.
Only partial support was found for hypothesis 2, the
experience of work as meaningful mediated the relationship
between transformational leadership and well-being. We then
conducted a more thorough analysis of the mediated effects.
We calculated the mediated effect by multiplying the path
from transformational leadership to meaningful work (0Æ32),
with the path from meaningful work to well-being (0Æ45).
Thus, the mediated effect was 0Æ14. We subsequently con-
ducted Sobel’s test (MacKinnon & Dwyer 1993, MacKinnon
et al. 1995), which showed a statistically significant mediated
effect of meaningful work on the relationship between
transformational leadership and well-being (z-value of 4Æ59,
P < 0Æ001). However, also statistically significant was a
direct effect between transformational leadership and well-
being. The total effect was 0Æ45 (not reported in Figure 2), and
the mediated effect 0Æ14 was smaller. This confirmed that
meaningful work only partially mediated the relationship
between transformational leadership and well-being (Shrout
& Bolger 2002). The path from meaningful work to job
satisfaction was not statistically significant.
Finally, only partial support was found for hypothesis 3.
While involvement was found to fully mediate the relation-
ship between transformational leadership and job satisfac-
tion, no relationship was found between involvement and
well-being. Again, we tested the mediation effect by multi-
plying the path from transformational leadership to involve-
ment (0Æ52) and from involvement to job satisfaction (0Æ48).
This yielded a mediation effect of 0Æ25. Again, Sobel’s test
Transformational
leadership
Meaningfulness
R 2 = 0·10
Influence
R 2 = 0·10
Involvement
R 2 = 0·27
Well-being
R 2 = 0·27
R 2 = 0·23
Job satisfaction
0·16**
0·52***
0·30***
0·26***
0·45***
0·48***
0·15**
0·32***
0·31***
0·63***
P** < 0·01 , *** < 0·001
Figure 2 Standardized maximum likelihood
estimates for M3a.
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH The importance of transformational leadership style
! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 471
revealed the mediated effect to be statistically significantly
different from zero (z-value = 6Æ83, P < 0Æ001). Thus, we
found a full mediation effect of involvement in that no direct
path was found between transformational leadership and job
satisfaction.
Discussion
Our results are based on cross-sectional data, and this is a
limitation as we cannot determine temporal causality from
this study. However, the proposed model sits well with past
empirical research and current theory and is therefore likely
to offer the most plausible explanation of causality. Valida-
tion of these complex relationships using longitudinal designs
would further our understanding. A related threat to the
validity of these results is that of common method variance.
We tried to minimize this threat through data analysis
(Podsakoff & Organ 1986).The transformational leadership
paradigm provides a useful but not exhaustive account of
leadership style, and facet-level transformational leadership
was not explored here [e.g. separate analysis of idealized
influence, intellectual stimulation (Bass 1990)]. There has
been a debate as to whether single scales of transformational
leadership should be used in research. It has been recom-
mended that single scale for transformational leadership
should be used for research purposes as the subcomponents
are highly inter-correlated. For training purposes, it may be
preferable to focus on the specific elements (Bass 1999, Judge
& Piccolo 2004). Another limitation is the relatively short
measure of transformational leadership styles included in the
study. This was carried out in agreement with the study
organization, as the majority of the participants had little or
no education beyond high school and it was feared that a
lengthy questionnaire would influence response rates.
The aim of the study was to enhance understanding of the
link between transformational leadership and job satisfaction
and well-being. We proposed that this link can, at least
partially, be explained by how transformational leadership
behaviours are related to a working environment where
followers perceive their work as meaningful, are involved in
their job and experience high degrees of influence. We found
partial support for our hypotheses. The mechanism through
which transformational leadership was found to be associ-
ated with followers’ well-being appeared to be through the
experience of a meaningful work environment. The effect of
transformational leadership on follower job satisfaction
appeared to be through the involvement of followers in their
job (partial support was found for hypotheses 2 and 3).
Transformational leadership was found to be associated with
a number of working conditions, and therefore its influence
on work outcomes is likely to operate through working
conditions rather than directly.
Although our hypotheses were only partly confirmed, the
results revealed that transformational leadership is highly
related to followers’ perceptions of their working environ-
ment. The final model indicated a direct association between
transformational leadership and well-being. This supports
previous research. However, the results should be read with
caution. All models except M2 were within acceptable levels
of model fit, and no statistically significant differences were
found between the models when comparing the v 2 . All
models had in common strong associations between trans-
formational leadership and working conditions, thus con-
firming our notion that transformational leadership
behaviours are closely related to how followers perceive
their working environment. Our focus on M3a rather than
any of the other models rests solely on the fact that the
RMSEA presented a slightly better fit; thus, more research is
needed to explore the direct and mediatiorial paths between
transformational leadership and outcomes.
What is already known about this topic
• Transformational leadership may be of particular
importance to healthcare assistants working with older
people because they are in close contact with patients
and may detect health problems at an early stage.
• These staff need to be able to make independent deci-
sions and take responsibility.
• There is a well-established link between transforma-
tional leadership behaviours and employee job perfor-
mance, but the link between transformational
leadership behaviours and (i) working conditions and
(ii) well-being is not yet well-understood.
What this paper adds
• Transformational leadership was positively associated
with job satisfaction and well-being in staff caring for
older people.
• The mechanism by which transformational leadership
may be associated with job satisfaction and well-being
appears, at least partially, to be through the creation of
a working environment characterized by employees
experiencing their work as meaningful, having influence
and being involved in their work.
• Work re-design interventions focused on influence may
benefit from the consideration of training managers to
exert transformational leadership behaviours.
K. Nielsen et al.
472 ! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
No relationships were found between meaningful work
and job satisfaction, involvement and well-being, and finally
between influence and job satisfaction and well-being. The
lack of associations between working conditions and out-
comes may be due to the intercorrelations between work
characteristics, such that working conditions may exert their
influence through other working conditions; for example, the
link between influence and job satisfaction and well-being
may be through its association with the other working
conditions; meaningful work and involvement. However, our
initial hypotheses did not take into account such relation-
ships, and therefore hypothesis 1 is rejected and hypotheses
2 and 3 only partially supported.
Our findings are in contrast to those of previous research-
ers, who have found a direct relationship between transfor-
mational leadership and job satisfaction and well-being
(Seltzer et al. 1989, Dunham-Taylor 2000, Sosik & Godshalk
2000, Shieh et al. 2001). However, previous researchers have
not examined the intermediate effects of working conditions.
Our results strongly indicate that transformational leadership
is closely related to followers’ perceived working conditions.
Conclusion
The results have important implications for those aiming to
implement organizational-level interventions to improve
employee well-being. Although cross-sectional, our study
raises the possibility that training leaders to exhibit certain
behaviours might also change working conditions of
subordinates. Rather than implementing wide-ranging
organizational changes for a large number of employees,
these results suggest that training their superiors might have a
similar impact (e.g. training managers in transformational
leadership behaviours might bring about involved followers
who perceive their jobs as meaningful and experience high
levels of influence). Training staff at managerial levels might
prove to be both more cost-effective and easy to control than
implementing wide-ranging organizational changes.
Future research would benefit from developing the frame-
work by further combining research on leadership and well-
being and on working conditions and well-being. Considering
working conditions in the absence of studying leadership
behaviour or vice versa is likely to reveal an incomplete
picture of the impact of work and work relationships on well-
being. Second, the findings have important implications for
intervention research. For example, work design interven-
tions focused on influence might benefit from training
managers to exert transformational leadership behaviours.
Employing a systemic view on training interventions
for managers might improve followers’ job satisfaction and
well-being through the creation of meaningful jobs that allow
followers to exert influence and be involved.
Author contributions
KN was responsible for the study conception and design, data
collection, funding and administrative, technical or material
support. KN and SOB performed the data analysis and
provided statistical expertise. KN and JY were responsible for
the drafting of the manuscript. KN, RR and VBO made
critical revisions to the paper for important intellectual
content.
References
Anderson J.C. & Gerbing D.W. (1988) Structural equation modelling
in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin 103, 411–423.
Arnold K., Turner N., Barling J., Kelloway E.K. & McKee M.C.
(2007) Transformational leadership and psychological well-being:
the mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 12, 193–203.
Aust B., Rugulies R., Skakon J., Scherzer T. & Jensen C. (2007)
Psychosocial work environment of hospital workers: validation of
a comprehensive assessment scale. International Journal of Nurs-
ing Studies 44, 814–825.
Avolio B., Zhu W., Koh W. & Bhatia P. (2004) Transformational
leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of
psychological empowerment role and moderating role of structural
distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25, 951–968.
Bass B.M. (1985) Leadership beyond Expectations. Free Press,
New York.
Bass B.M. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership. Free
Press, New York.
Bass B.M. (1999) Two decades of research and development in
transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 8, 9–32.
Bass B.M. & Avolio B.J. (1994) Improving Organizational Effec-
tiveness through Transformational Leadership. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Bass B.M., Avolio B.J., Jung D.I. & Berson Y. (2003) Predicting unit
performance by assessing transformational and transactional
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 207–218.
Berson Y. & Linton J. (2005) An examination of the relationships
between leadership style, and employee satisfaction in R & D
versus administrative environments. R&D Management 35, 51–
60.
Bono J.E. & Judge T.A. (2003) Self-concordance at work: toward
understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders.
Academy of Management Journal 46, 554–571.
Borritz M., Rugulies R., Bjorner J.B., Villadsen E., Mikkelsen O.A. &
Kristensen T.S. (2006) Burnout among employees in human service
work: design and baseline findings of the PUMA Study. Scandi-
navian Journal of Public Health 34, 49–58.
Bosma H., Marmot M., Hemingway H., Nicholson A., Brunner E. &
Stansfeld S. (1997) Low job control and risk of coronary heart
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH The importance of transformational leadership style
! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 473
disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort study). British Medical
Journal 314, 558–565.
Browne M.W. & Cudek R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing
model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models (Bollen K. &
Long J.S., eds), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136–162.
Burke C.S., Stagl K., Klein C., Goodwin G.F., Salas E. & Halpin S.M.
(2006) What type of leadership behaviours are functional in teams?
The Leadership Quarterly 17, 288–307.
Carless S., Wearing A. & Mann L. (2000) A short measure of
transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology
14, 389–405.
Cherniss C. (1995) Beyond Burnout: Helping Teachers, Nurses,
Therapists & Lawyers Recover from Stress & Disillusionment.
Routledge, New York.
Corrigan P. & Garman A. (1999) Transformational and transac-
tional leadership skills for mental health teams. Community
Mental Health Journal 35, 301–312.
Corrigan P.W., Diwan S., Campion J. & Rashid F. (2002) Trans-
formational leadership and the mental health team. Administration
and Policy in Mental Health 30, 97–108.
Dondrum U.R., Lowe K.B. & Avolio B.J. (2002). A meta-analysis of
transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effec-
tiveness and satisfaction: an update and extension. In Transfor-
mational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead, Vol. 2
(Avolio B.J. & Yammarino F.J., eds), Elsevier Science, Oxford,
England, pp. 36–66.
Druskat V.U. (1994) Gender and leadership style: transformational
and transactional leadership in the roman catholic church. Lead-
ership Quarterly 5, 99–119.
Dunham-Taylor J. (2000) Nurse executive transformational leader-
ship found in participative organizations. Journal of Nursing
Administration 30, 241–250.
Gilbreath B. & Benson P.G. (2004) The contribution of supervisor
behavior to employee psychological well-being. Work and Stress
18, 255–266.
Hetland H., Sandal G.M. & Johnsen T.B. (2007) Burnout in
the information technology sector: does leadership matter?
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 16,
58–75.
Jo¨reskog K.G. & So¨rbom D. (1999) LISREL 8.3: Users Reference
Guide. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL.
Judge T. & Piccolo R.F. (2004) Transformational and transactional
leadership: a meta-analytic review of their relative validity. Journal
of Applied Psychology 89, 755–768.
Jung D.I. & Avolio B.J. (2000) Opening the black box: an experi-
mental investigation of the mediating effects oftrust and value
congruence on transformational and transactional leadership.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 21, 949–964.
Jung D.I. & Sosik J.J. (2002) Transformational leadership in groups:
the role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective effective-
ness. Small Group Research 33, 313–336.
Karasek R. & Theorell T. (1990) Healthy Work. Basic Books,
New York.
Kark R., Shamir B. & Chen G. (2003) The two faces of transfor-
mational leadership: empowerment and dependency. Journal of
Applied Psychology 88, 246–255.
Kristensen T., Borg V. & Hannerz H. (2002) Socioeconomic status
and psychosocial work environment: results from a Danish
national study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 30,
41–48.
Kristensen T., Hannerz H., Hogh A. & Borg V. (2006) The Copenha-
gen psychosocial questionnaire (COPSOQ). A tool for the assess-
ment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment.
ScandinavianJournalofWork,Environment&Health31,438–449.
de Lange A.H., Taris T.W., Kompier M.A.J., Houtman I.L.D. &
Bongers P.M. (2003) The very best of the millennium: longitudinal
research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 8, 282–305.
Lim V.K.G. (2003) Managing HIV at the workplace: an empirical
study of HIV and HR managers in Singapore. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology 8, 235–246.
Lowe K.B., Kroeck K.G. & Sivasuramaniam N. (1996) Effectiveness
correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a
meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly
7, 385–425.
Lund T., Labriola M., Christensen K.B., Bu¨ltmann U., Villadsen E. &
Burr H. (2006) Psychosocial work environment exposures as risk
factors for long-term sickness absence among Danish employees:
results from DWECS/DREAM. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 47, 1141–1147.
MacKinnon D.P. & Dwyer J.H. (1993) Estimating mediated effects
in prevention studies. Evaluation Review 17, 144–158.
MacKinnon D.P., Warsi G. & Dwyer J.H. (1995) A simulation study
of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research 30,
41–62.
Marsh H., Balla J. & McDonald R. (1988) Goodness-of-fit indexes in
confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin 103, 391–410.
Mathieu J.E. & Taylor S.R. (2006) Clarifying conditions and deci-
sion points for mediational type inferences in organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27, 1031–1056.
Morrison R., Jones L. & Fuller B. (1997) The relation between
leadership style and empowerment on satisfaction of nurses.
Journal of Nursing Administration 27, 27–34.
Nemanich L.A. & Keller R.T. (2007) Transformational leadership in
an acquisition: a field study of employees. Leadership Quarterly
18, 49–68.
Niehoff B.P. & Moorman R.H. (1993) Justice as a mediator of the
relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational
citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal 36, 527–
556.
Nielsen M.L., Rugulies R., Christensen K.B., Smith-Hansen L. &
Kristensen T.S. (2006) Psychosocial work environment predictors
of short and long spells of sickness absence during a two-year
follow-up. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
48, 591–595.
Nyberg A., Bernin P. & Theorell T. (2005) The Impact of Leadership
on the Health of Subordinates. Report No 1. Saltsa – Joint Pro-
gramme for Working Life Research in Europe. National Institute
of Working Life, Sweden.
Pillai R. & Williams E. (2004) Transformational leadership, self-
efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance.
Journal of Organizational Change Management 17, 144–159.
Podsakoff P.M. & Organ D.W. (1986) Self reports in organizational
research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12,
531–544.
K. Nielsen et al.
474 ! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Podsakoff P.M., MacKenzie S., Moorman R. & Fetter R. (1990)
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’
trust in their leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizen
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1, 107–142.
Sashkin M. & Rosenbach W. (1993) A new leadership paradigm.
In Contemporary Issues in Leadership (Rosenbach W., ed.).
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 87–108.
Seltzer J., Numerof R. & Bass B. (1989) Transformational leadership:
is it a source of more burnout and stress? Journal of Health and
Human Resources Administration 12, 174–185.
Shieh H.-L., Mills M.E. & Waltz C.E. (2001) Academic leadership
style predictors for nursing faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan.
Journal of Nursing Education 40, 203–209.
Shrout P.E. & Bolger N. (2002) Mediation in experimental and
nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations.
Psychological Methods 7, 422–445.
Sinclair R.R., Martin J.E. & Croll L.W. (2002) A threat-appraisal
perspective on employees’ fears about antisocial workplace
behaviour. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7, 37–56.
Sofarelli D. & Brown D. (1998) The need for nursing leadership in
uncertain times. Journal of Nursing Management 6, 201–207.
Sosik J. & Godshalk V. (2000) Leadership styles, mentoring func-
tions received, and job-related stress: a conceptual model and
preliminary study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21, 365–
390.
Thyer G. (2003) Dare to be different: transformational leadership
may hold the key to reducing nursing shortage. Journal of Nursing
Management 11, 73–79.
Tichy N.M. & Ulrich D.O. (1984) SMR forum: the leadership
challenge – a call for the transformational leader. Sloan Manage-
ment Review 26, 59–67.
Van Dierendonck D., Haynes C., Borril C. & Stride C. (2004)
Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 9, 165–175.
Walumbwa F., Wang P., Lawler J.J. & Shi K. (2004) The role of
collective efficacy in the relations between transformational lead-
ership and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
zational Psychology 77, 515–530.
JAN: ORIGINAL RESEARCH The importance of transformational leadership style
! 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ! 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 475
