Leadership Styles Engagement and Turnover

Human Resource Development International
ISSN: 1367-8868 (Print) 1469-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20
Supervisory coaching and performance feedback

as mediators of the relationships between
leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover
intention
Michelle Chin Chin Lee, Mohd. Awang Idris & Michelle Tuckey
To cite this article: Michelle Chin Chin Lee, Mohd. Awang Idris & Michelle Tuckey (2018):
Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as mediators of the relationships between
leadership styles, work engagement, and turnover intention, Human Resource Development
International, DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2018.1530170
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1530170
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 15 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 22
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhrd20
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1530170
ARTICLE
Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as

mediators of the relationships between leadership styles,
work engagement, and turnover intention
a b c
Michelle Chin Chin Lee , Mohd. Awang Idris and Michelle Tuckey
a
Department of Psychology, Sunway University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia; bDepartment of Anthropology and
Sociology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; cAsia Pacific Centre for Work Health and Safety,
School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy, University of South Australia, Magill, Adelaide,
Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Human resource development (HRD) is key to organizational suc- Received 15 June 2018
cess. With some HRD roles devolving to leaders in recent years, a Accepted 26 September 2018
gap in understanding is now evident in how leaders’ leadership KEYWORDS
styles shape development-oriented behaviours that may effec- Supervisory coaching;
tively assist them in fulfilling their HRD roles, and the correspond- performance feedback;
ing effects that this has on employee work engagement and transformational leadership;
turnover intention. This study compared the effects of transforma- transactional leadership;
tional and transactional leadership styles on employee attitudes work engagement
(i.e. work engagement and turnover intention) through leaders’
behaviours (i.e. supervisory coaching and performance feedback).
This study used a multilevel approach (i.e. matching leaders to
multiple subordinates) with 500 employees, nested in 65 work-
groups from private organizations in Malaysia. As hypothesized,
we found a link between transformational (but not transactional)
leadership and higher levels of supervisory coaching and perfor-
mance feedback, and that these job resources mediate the rela-
tionship between transformational leadership and work
engagement. Furthermore, we found that work engagement med-
iates the relationships of both supervisory coaching and perfor-
mance feedback to turnover intention. Overall, the study results
reveal one way in which Asian leaders can effectively facilitate
some aspects of HRD through development-focused behaviours
which serve as job resources to boost work engagement and
reduce turnover intention.
Introduction
Human resource development (HRD) is defined as ‘the field of study and practice respon-
sible for the fostering of a long-term, work-related learning capacity at the individual, group
and organizational level of organizations’ (Watkin 1989, 427), particularly in relation to
employee learning and development (Werner and DeSimone 2011). Leadership has been
shown to play a more influential role in employees’ behaviour compared to other sources
within the organization (Lapointe and Vandenberghe 2017). As a result, some aspects of the
CONTACT Michelle Chin Chin Lee michellel@sunway.edu.my

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 M. C. C. LEE ET AL.
HRD role have devolved to leaders in recent years (Alfes et al. 2013). Leadership styles, in
particular, transformational leadership, have been considered in relation to HRD functions
(Gong, Huang, and Farh 2009; Scandura and Williams 2004), highlighting the importance
of leaders in employee learning and development.
Supervisory coaching and performance feedback are pivotal leader behaviours that
help organizations to create a competitive advantage (Albrecht et al. 2015). It has been
suggested that supervisory coaching is at ‘the heart of managerial and leadership
effectiveness’ (Hamlin, Ellinger, and Beattie. 2006, 328), mainly through daily routine
interactions between leaders and their followers (Ellinger and Kim 2014). In the
employee development aspect, performance feedback contributes to individual and
organizational effectiveness (McCarthy and Garavan 2006). For employees, perfor-
mance feedback allows them to reach a higher level of understanding of their job
requirements and enhances their knowledge and abilities in effectively carrying out
tasks (Sommer and Kulkarni 2012). While both behaviours relate closely to leader–
member interaction, and while both may be performed by leaders, the literature has
distinguished them as different aspects of employee development (Kochanowski, Seifert,
and Yukl 2010) and revealed that leaders may provide supervisory coaching but not
performance feedback (Gregory, Levy, and Jeffers 2008).
Both leaders’ supervisory coaching and performance feedback are important in
activating employees’ external and internal motivation and shaping employee work
attitudes (Alfes et al. 2013; Lonsdale 2016). There are of course a range of factors that
shape motivation and attitudes, including external factors (e.g. organizational cultures
and policies) (Parker, Van Den Broeck, and Holman 2017) and internal factors (e.g.
work passion and personal empowerment) (Mcallister et al. 2017). We focus on super-
visory coaching and performance feedback in particular because, in the context of
employee development, they represent vital leadership behaviours that may explain
the link between leadership styles and important employee outcomes – an under
theorized and researched pathway.
We utilize the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker and Demerouti 2017) to
form hypotheses about how these two leadership behaviours function as resources that
stimulate a motivational process, evidenced in greater work engagement and reduced
turnover intention. These relationships are of interest as work engagement is considered
to be a focal point of talent management in retaining employees (Christensen Hughes and
Rog 2008) while, more importantly, ensuring organizational sustainability and success
(Shuck and Herd 2012), and reducing turnover (Timms et al. 2015). While leadership
style has been linked to work engagement (e.g. Kim and Barak 2015) and turnover
intention (e.g. Tse, Huang, and Lam 2013), little is known about the way that different
leadership styles are experienced by employees in shaping their everyday working life
outcomes (Behrendt, Matz, and Göritz 2017). In other words, in the language of the JD-R
theory, what resources do leaders create through application of their different leadership
styles to boost work engagement?
Our research contributes one answer to this question. Specifically, we offer
insight into why some leadership styles are more effective than other styles in
affecting employee attitudes, by explaining how leaders influence employee out-
comes (cf. Lee, Idris, and Delfabbro 2016) through the provision of important job
resources. Different types of job resources have different functions, roles, and effects
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL 3
(Bakker et al. 2011). In our study, we extend the motivational pathway of the JD-R
theory by incorporating leadership style as an antecedent of job resources. In other
words, leaders can influence work engagement by optimizing job resources (cf.
Breevaart, Bakker, and Demerouti 2014; Tuckey, Bakker, and Dollard 2012). We
propose that job resources are an important antecedent of employee development
provided by the leader. Based on the principle that the influence of leadership styles
occurs through concrete behaviours (Behrendt, Matz, and Göritz 2017), we focus on
understanding two forms of leader behaviour (i.e. supervisory coaching and perfor-
mance feedback) as mediators of the relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership styles and employee attitudes (i.e. work engagement and
turnover intention).
We examine these pathways in a multilevel survey study, undertaken in Malaysia. In
Malaysia, transformational and transactional styles are utilized by organizational leaders
(Kamisan and King 2013; Lo et al. 2010), which is important for examining variations
in these leadership styles as initiators of the motivational process that we are studying.
By employing a multilevel study, with employees nested within workgroups that have a
common leader, we examine leadership styles as an organizational agent (Coyle-Shapiro
and Shore 2007) associated with leader behaviours relevant to their HRD role and, in
doing so, enhancing work engagement. Overall, this study sheds light on how these two
leadership styles relate to leadership behaviours and how they may, or may not,
effectively carry out part of the HRD role (Zhu, Chew, and Spangler 2005). Further,
as a collectivist society wherein human relationships (guan-xi) are more close-knitted
(Brewer and Chen 2007) and people are more group-oriented (Wasti 2003), Malaysia
offers an Asian context that emphasizes relationship quality (e.g. Song et al. 2012).
However, in Malaysia, there is also high power distance between the leader and the
employees (Lee and Idris 2017) and a tendency towards conformism and subordination
of the individual (Leung, Koch, and Lu 2002). Together, these features of the cultural
context present how leaders, from a top-down perspective, may manage their employ-
ees successfully. In sum, Malaysia offers a good opportunity to explore the transmission
of leadership styles through leadership behaviours to employee outcomes, from work
engagement and turnover intention aspects.
Review of the literature and hypotheses development

Leadership behaviours as job resources and the link to work engagement
The JD-R theory presents an overview of job characteristics through two aspects: the
health impairment pathway (i.e. job demands to burnout) and the motivational path-
way (i.e. job resources to work engagement) (Bakker and Demerouti 2017). The health
impairment pathway proposes that job demands will lead to higher strain in employees,
thwarting organizational outcomes, whereas the motivational pathway proposes that job
resources will lead to higher work engagement in employees, resulting in better
organizational outcomes. Of the two pathways, the motivational pathway has gained
wider attention in recent years due to its capacity to increase employees’ intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, in this case, in the form of work engagement (Fernet, Austin, and
Vallerand 2012) that is able to increase job performance. Therefore, the current study
focuses on job resources as they concurrently denote positive leadership behaviours.
Job resources are defined as the ‘physical, psychological, social, or organisational
aspects of the job that are either/or: (1) functional in achieving goals, (2) reduce job
demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, and (3) stimulate
personal growth, learning, and development’ (Bakker and Demerouti 2007, 312). While
there are many types of job resources, two that are closely related to the supervisor–
employee relationship are supervisory coaching and performance feedback (Dahling
et al. 2016; Saks and Gruman 2014); both are vital for employees to be competent at
their job (Schaufeli and Taris 2014).
Supervisory coaching is defined as
an ongoing, face-to-face process of influencing behavior by which the manager (superior,
supervisor) and employee (subordinate) collaborate to achieve increased job knowledge,
improved skills in carrying out job responsibilities, a stronger and more positive working
relationship, and opportunities for personal and professional growth of the employee.
(Yoder 1995, 271)
When supervisory coaching is provided, employees are able to be more engaged with
their work as they receive more guidance from their leader in achieving work goals
(Kim 2014). Hence, under the motivational pathway of the JD-R theory, coaching
stimulates extrinsic motivation. Coaching may also more directly foster learning and
development by guiding employees to try new opportunities and by aiding them to
reflect on their experiences. Employees can thus use coaching to develop their skills and
self-regulate their motivation and behaviour (Strauss and Parker 2013), meeting the
basic psychological need for autonomy and boosting intrinsic motivation. Even when
facing high job demands, with the provision of supervisory coaching, employees
perceive the demands as less daunting and remain engaged with their work (Schaufeli
and Taris 2014). In comparison to organizational coaching, supervisory coaching has a
greater influence on employee attitudes given the proximal distance and the daily
interaction between the leader and the employees (Theeboom, Beersma, and van
Vianen 2014).
Since performance feedback is defined as ‘information provided by an agent regard-
ing aspects of one’s performance and understanding’ (Hattie and Timperley 2007, 81),
performance feedback should also stimulate both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. It
allows leaders to communicate performance standards and expectations, thus reducing
job ambiguity for employees (Bakker and Demerouti 2007) and increasing the under-
standing and clarity of work goals (Beenen, Pichler, and Levy 2017). In response,
employees can adjust their performance to meet work goals or even alter the goals
themselves which should increase extrinsic motivation. With regard to intrinsic moti-
vation, performance feedback provides recognition of a job well done which can satisfy
the basic psychological need for competence.
Together, these two leadership behaviours represent forms of performance manage-
ment by leaders which characterize a high-quality leader–employee relationship that
can be used to increase employee work engagement (Mone et al. 2011). As these two job
resources require interactions and communications between the leader and the
employee, they should meet the basic psychological need for relatedness which is a
core component of intrinsic motivation. According to the motivational pathway of the

JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti 2014), when job resources such as these are
provided, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are fostered, work engagement should
result.
Hypothesis 1: (a) Supervisory coaching and (b) performance feedback will be posi-
tively related to work engagement.
Job resources reduce turnover intention through work engagement

Turnover intention is a cognitive–affective state regarding the ‘conscious and deliberate
wilfulness to leave the organization’ (Tett and Meyer 1993, 262). It has been argued that
turnover intention is a powerful organizational outcome and reflects voluntary turnover
(Lee and Bruvold 2003). Ample evidence in the past decade has demonstrated a positive
correlation between work engagement and the intention to leave employment
(Halbesleben and Wheeler 2008; Jones and Harter 2005; Schaufeli and Bakker 2004),
with this topic remaining a contemporary interest (Gabel-Shemueli et al. 2015; Tims,
Bakker, and Derks 2013). Since work engagement is ‘a positive fulfilling, work-related
state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption’ (Schaufeli et al.
2002, 74), employees who are engaged with their work tend to have more positive
emotions and think about their work more positively (Bakker and Schaufeli 2008).
Fredrickson (2001) and Kirk-Brown and Van Dijk (2016) argued that these positive
emotions bring employees psychologically closer to other employees within the orga-
nization and to the organization itself, resulting in their increased identification with
the organization and their greater willingness to allocate extra time and resources to
their co-workers and their organization. On the flip side, according to Bakker et al.
(2003a), employee withdrawal – such as absenteeism and intention to leave the orga-
nization – may therefore be a form of coping strategy used to deal with low work
engagement.
Hypothesis 2: Work engagement will be negatively related to turnover intention.
The human resource management and development literature has discussed the
importance of human resource management in retaining employees (Alfes et al. 2013;
Buck and Watson 2002). The reviewed literature to date has indicated that a lack of job
resources and the presence of stressors may predict turnover intention. Job resources,
such as supervisory coaching and performance feedback, are used to ‘signal’ to employees
that they are valued and the organization cares for them (Wanberg, Welsh, and Hezlett
2003). We propose that leaders play an important role in helping employees to feel
psychologically safe and to experience a sense of belonging, signs that the organization
places its attention on their needs. When leaders provide good performance feedback,
employees feel that they will have a stable long-term career in the organization (Suazo,
Martinez, and Sandoval 2009). Likewise, the presence of job resources, such as super-
visory coaching, reduces turnover intention (Spell, Eby, and Vandenberg 2014).
Hypothesis 3: (a) Supervisory coaching and (b) performance feedback will be nega-
tively related to turnover intention via their positive relationship with work
engagement.
Influence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on supervisory

coaching, performance feedback, and work engagement
Thus far, the literature has shown that transformational leadership is linked to job
resources (Fernet et al. 2015; Gillet and Vandenberghe 2014). For example, Gillet and
Vandenberghe (2014) found that transformational leadership increased employees’
performance feedback and decision-making autonomy. Consistent with this idea, we
also propose that transformational leadership, in contrast to transactional leadership,
would provide employees with valuable job resources in the form of supervisory
coaching and performance feedback and, through these resources, would stimulate
work engagement.
Transformational and transactional leadership styles exude different qualities (Judge
and Piccolo 2004). Transformational leadership is characterized by four components:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and personal
consideration. All of these components refer to leadership characteristics that focus
attention on the needs of individuals in achieving organizational goals and objectives.
Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is characterized by three components:
contingent reward, active management by exception, and passive management by
exception. All of these components refer to leadership characteristics that focus on
punishment and rewards in achieving organizational goals and objectives.
These characteristics can be used to link leadership styles to specific leader beha-
viours (i.e. the provision of specific job resources). Arguably, transformational leaders
will exhibit behaviours that attend to employees’ needs, such as supervisory coaching
and performance feedback. This idea resonates with Lapointe and Vandenberghe’s
(2017) suggestion that transformational leadership exhibits behaviours that provide
job resources to employees, in contrast to transactional leadership.
Personal consideration, one of the four components of transformational leader-
ship, is defined as ‘the degree to which the leader attends to each follower’s needs,
acts as a mentor or coach to the follower, and listens to the follower’s concerns and
needs’ (Judge and Piccolo 2004, 755). Personal consideration, in particular, contains
elements of development and support provided by a leader (Rafferty and Griffin
2006). Given the holistic focus on employees that comes with personal consideration,
leaders who adopt a transformational leadership style would have high awareness of
individual employee strengths and capabilities. This in-depth understanding can
underpin the provision of supervisory coaching and high-quality performance feed-
back to maximize employees’ strengths and improve weaknesses. Engaging in super-
visory coaching is also a way in which concern for employees’ need for competency
(Kovjanic et al. 2012), a hallmark of personal consideration, can be understood and
directly expressed. Hence, transformational leadership should boost intrinsic motiva-
tion through the provision of employee-oriented resources such as supervisory
coaching and performance feedback.
In addition, even though both transformational and transactional leaders influence

employees to achieve expected goals, they use different methods to motivate employees.
As transformational leaders use intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation,
this leadership style should be more likely to foster work engagement, as compared to
transactional leadership. Intellectual stimulation is defined as ‘the degree to which the
leader challenges assumptions, takes risks, and solicits followers’ ideas’, while inspira-
tional motivation is defined as ‘the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is
appealing and inspiring to followers’ (Judge and Piccolo 2004, 755). Transformational
leaders, in particular, place emphasis on ‘a new vision’ and have a ‘shared’ orientation
with their employees (Wang, Waldman, and Zhang 2014) rather than influencing them
in traditional ways. In order to align employees’ competencies to organizational objec-
tives, transformational leaders focus on employees’ competency development and
motivate employees to go beyond what they are expected to accomplish (Breevaart,
Bakker, and Demerouti 2014). When employees contribute to organizational objectives,
they become more motivated when working on tasks entrusted to them (Kim and Barak
2015). Past studies have demonstrated that the transformational leadership style, due to
the behaviours exhibited by the leader, leads to a higher level of work engagement
among employees. Using a diary study, Tims, Bakker, and Xanthopoulou (2011) found
that transformational leaders increased work engagement on a daily basis as they
provided motivational power and inspiration to their employees.
Transactional leadership, on the other hand, is characterized by the component
‘contingent reward’ with which a leader ‘clarifies expectations and establishes the
rewards’ (Judge and Piccolo 2004, 755) through leader–follower transactions. Both
active and passive management by exception – the other two aspects of transactional
leadership – focus on the presence and correction of problems, with this mostly being
to reach organizational objectives, rather than on employees’ development needs.
Hence, while extrinsic motivation may be stimulated to some degree, intrinsic motiva-
tion is likely to suffer because the resources are not provided to meet basic psycholo-
gical needs nor directly to simulate learning, growth, and development. Transactional
leadership also imposes more control on employees and lacks motivational elements
(Van Vugt et al. 2004). The focus of transactional leaders is primarily on employee
performance with employees only rewarded when agreed-upon goals are met (Bass
et al. 2003). While transformational leaders provide praise, support, and encourage-
ment, transactional leaders utilize incentives and punishment (Breevaart, Bakker, and
Demerouti 2014). Such leadership behaviours reduce employees’ motivational level
(Thomas 2009), thus impeding their enjoyment of their work and their effective
performance.
Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership (but not transactional leadership) will be

positively associated with (a) supervisory coaching and (b) performance feedback
and, in turn, with work engagement.
Hypothesis 5: Transformational leadership (but not transactional leadership) will be

positively associated with work engagement.
Figure 1. Hypotheses and research model.
Especially in Asian countries, such as Malaysia, wherein work relationships – usually

close-knitted – are regarded as an important part of the workplace (Brewer and Chen
2007), transformational leadership has been suggested as a facilitator in employee
development through the provision of supervisory coaching and feedback that helps
employees to improve their motivation through engagement at work (Schaufeli and
Bakker 2004). Given the developmental focus of transformational – but not transac-
tional – leadership, we predict that transformational leadership would be associated
with greater provision of supervisory coaching and performance feedback. Taking all
these arguments together, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: (a) Supervisory coaching and (b) performance feedback mediate the
relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement (but not
between transactional leadership and work engagement).
Overall, the proposed research framework is illustrated in Figure 1.
Method
Participants
The current study employed a cross-sectional multilevel design with 500 employees
(average age = 31.11 years; standard deviation [SD] = 8.47) in 65 workgroups from
various private organizations in the capital city of Malaysia. All organizations that
participated were from the services industry and all participants were administrative
assistants whose main tasks involved ensuring that the administrative aspects of the
organization ran smoothly. The mean length of working experience was 4.65 years
(SD = 5.05). There were more females (N = 283, 56.6%) than males and most were
Chinese (70%), followed by Malay (18.4%) and Indian (1.6%). Most participants were
single (N = 297, 59.4%), followed by those who were married (N = 190, 38%), while the
remainder were divorced, separated, or widowed (N = 13, 2.6%).
One department was selected per organization based on the organization’s recom-
mendation, and the departments were treated as workgroups. The sample size is
adequate according to scholars’ recommendations. For example, in simulation studies,

Mathieu et al. (2012) reported that as few as 25 workgroups at the upper level (UL) are
considered reasonable, while other studies, such as that of Dollard, Tuckey, and
Dormann (2012), used 23 workgroups and 139 individuals. Organizations were
approached via email using the snowballing sampling method, with the help of research
assistants. Interested organizations nominated a workgroup who may be interested in
participating in the study. Participant information sheets and questionnaires were then
distributed to employees within the workgroup. One week following distribution, we
returned to each organization to collect the completed (and incomplete) anonymous
questionnaires which had been placed in sealed envelopes. The number of participants
per workgroup ranged from 5 to 26.
Instruments
The instruments were chosen based on their established validity, reliability, and, most
importantly, their suitability within the Asian context (e.g. Diaz-Saenz 2011; Fong and
Ng 2011; Iyer 2016). The English language of the original scales was retained as most
Malaysians have high-level proficiency in English (Thirusanku and Yunus 2014). The
reliability of the scales is shown in Table 1.
Transformational leadership and transactional leadership were measured using 28
items from the Transformational Leadership Inventory (Podsakoff et al. 1990), with the
term ‘my leader’ rephrased as ‘my group leader’. Of the 28 items, 23 measured
transformational leadership (e.g. ‘My group leader has stimulated the group to rethink
the way we do things’) while 5 items measured transactional leadership (e.g. ‘My group
leader gives the group special recognition when our work is very good’). The scale
ranged from ‘1’ (strongly disagree) to ‘7’ (strongly agree).
Supervisory coaching was measured using five items from Le Blanc’s (1994) scale. The
scale ranged from ‘1’ (never) to ‘5’ (very often). An example of one item is as follows:
‘My supervisor uses his/her influence to help me solve problems at work’. Its validity
has been supported (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Xanthopoulou et al. 2007, 2009).
Performance feedback was measured using three items from Bakker et al. (2003b).
The scale ranged from ‘1’ (never) to ‘5’ (very often). An example of one item is as
follows: ‘I receive sufficient information about the results of my work’.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliability, and Pearson’s bivariate correlations.

No.
Variables Mean SD α Items 1 2 3 4 5 F ICC(I)
1. Transformational 4.82 0.90 0.91 23 1 2.348*** 0.1472
leadership
2. Transactional 4.81 1.05 0.86 5 .81*** 1 2.138*** 0.1295
leadership
3. Supervisory 3.34 0.89 0.89 5 .50*** .49*** 1 2.068*** 0.1291
coaching
4. Performance 3.36 0.88 0.85 3 .39*** .35*** .56*** 1 1.611** 0.0782
feedback
5. Work engagement 3.82 1.09 0.91 9 .44*** .43*** .21*** .23*** 1 1.643** 0.2266
6. Turnover intention 2.80 1.41 0.90 3 −.25*** −.25*** −.13** −.13** −.26*** 1.906*** 0.1163
SD = standard deviation; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; N (individual) = 500; **p < .05; ***p < .001.
Work engagement was measured using nine items from the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale (UWES-9) (Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova 2006) which consists of vigour, dedica-
tion, and absorption. The scale ranged from ‘1’ (never) to ‘5’ (always). An example of one
item is as follows: ‘I am enthusiastic about my work’. The UWES-9 measure was selected
(a) to match the theoretical framing of the study in the JD-R model (b) because it has been
utilized in studies conducted in both individualistic (e.g. Bakker et al. 2011) and collecti-
vistic (e.g. Lee, Idris, and Delfabbro 2016) cultures and (c) in recognition that it has been
applied in many different types of occupations (e.g. Tuckey, Bakker, and Dollard 2012).
We note that questions regarding the theoretical and empirical distinction between the
constructs of burnout and engagement have been raised and substantiated with meta-
analytic data (Cole et al. 2012). Against this backdrop, we adopt a work engagement
conceptual framing and measurement approach in this study given that engagement is
closely related to job resources in JD-R theory (as compared to burnout, which is closely
related to job demands; Bakker and Schaufeli 2008).
Turnover intention was measured using three items from O’Driscoll and Beehr
(1994). The scale ranged from ‘1’ (never) to ‘5’ (all the time). An example of one
item is as follows: ‘Thoughts about quitting this job cross my mind’.
Analysis strategy
Prior to undertaking multilevel analyses using hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) soft-
ware, we ran analyses to see if demographic variables would influence our studied variables.
We found that only marital status had a negative influence on work engagement and a
positive influence on turnover intention. This can be explained as employees who were
married had to place more attention on both family and work (Allen et al. 2014). Thus, we
controlled for marital status in all our HLM analyses.
The UL variables (i.e. transformational leadership and transactional leadership) were
analysed to ascertain if they possessed group-level properties, and whether they could
be aggregated as group-level variables. Group-level properties are present if a shared
perception exists between group members and the UL variables have influence on
individual-level variables (Kozlowski 2012). Overall, the r(WG)(J) (index of agreement)
values for transformational leadership and transactional leadership were .93 and .95,
respectively, indicating a high level of within-group agreement (LeBreton and Senter
2008). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC[I]) value for transformational leader-
ship was .15, while it was .13 for transactional leadership, indicating that 15% and 13%
of the variance, respectively, in both leadership constructs was due to group factors.
Bliese (2000) suggested ICC(I) values should be between .05 and .20. The F(III) values
were found to be significant (transformational leadership = 2.35, p < .001; transactional
leadership = 2.14, p < .001), indicating justification of the aggregation of these variables.
To test our hypotheses, HLM software (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992) was used:
leadership was treated as a group-level construct that has top-down influence on
employees, with this being the lower construct (Snijders and Bosker 2012). Three
types of analyses were conducted comprising lower level (LL) direct effects, cross-
level direct effects, and mediation effects. LL direct effects and cross-level direct effects
were tested using Mathieu and Taylor’s (2007) recommendation. First, we ran the
analysis for LL direct effects (i.e. regressing the LL outcomes’ variable on LL
independent variables), followed by conducting a cross-level direct effects analysis (i.e.

regressing LL variables on transformational leadership and transactional leadership).
An example of a cross-level HLM equation is as follows:
Level 1 Model: Work engagement = β0 + β (supervisory coaching) + β (performance
feedback) + β (marital status) + r
Level 2 Model: β0j = G00 + G01 (transformational leadership) + G01 (transactional
leadership) + u0j
For LL direct effects (Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3), the LL dependent variable was
regressed on the independent variables. For example, in Hypothesis 5, turnover inten-
tion was regressed on the variables: work engagement and marital status (see Model 1).
An example of a LL HLM equation is as follows:
Turnover intention = β0 + β (work engagement) + β (marital status) + r
Finally, to test the mediation hypotheses, Shapiro–Wilk tests were conducted with all
variables found to be normally distributed (p > .05). We then followed the testing steps
as recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, we found a significant relationship
between X → Y (supervisory coaching/performance feedback → turnover intention)
(Model 5). Second, a significant relationship was found between X → M (supervisory
coaching/performance feedback → work engagement) (Model 6). Third, we found a
significant relationship between M → Y, in the presence of X (supervisory coaching/
performance feedback +work engagement → turnover intention) (Model 4). As indi-
cated in the second step, if the relationship from X to Y remains significant with the
inclusion of M, then it is partial mediation. If the addition of M produces an insignif-
icant relationship from X to Y, it is considered to be full mediation. To confirm the
mediation pathway relationship, we used the Monte Carlo test (Selig and Preacher
2008) which has been suggested as being more applicable for multilevel analyses. We
tested the mediation pathway by using estimates of Path a (X → M) and Path b
(M → Y). The mediation effect is confirmed if the values of LL and UL variables do
not contain zero (0) (MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams 2004). The Monte Carlo
test was conducted using a 95% confidence interval (CI) and with 20,000 repetitions.
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive analysis and correlations between all measures at the
individual level. The results from the HLM analysis are shown in Tables 2 and 3. A
summary of the findings is presented in Figure 2.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that supervisory coaching and performance feedback would
show positive relationships with work engagement. As indicated in Table 2, Model 6,
our analysis suggests that supervisory coaching (β = .13, p < .05) and performance
feedback (β = .21, p < .05) have positive significant relationships with work engagement.
Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted that work engagement
would negatively relate to turnover intention, which was also supported by the data
(β = −.24, p < .001) (see Table 2, Model 1).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that work engagement would mediate the negative relation-
ship between both job resources and turnover intention. To evaluate the mediation
testing, we used the parameter estimate value for Table 2, Model 5 as the value for the
direct effects of supervisory coaching/performance feedback → work engagement
Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analysis of lower level outcomes.

Turnover Turnover Turnover Turnover Turnover Work
Effect intention intention intention intention intention engagement
Model 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lower Level Effects
Supervisory coaching −.05(05) −.03(.06) −.12(.05)* .13(.06)*
Performance feedback −.05(.05) −.04(.06) −-.16(.05)** .21(.06)***
Work engagement −-.24(.05)*** −-.22(.05)*** −-.22(.05)*** −-.22(.05)**
Marital status −.12(.05)** −-.12(.05)** −-.12(.05)** −-.11(.05)** −-.05(.05) .05(.05)
The first value is the unstandardized parameter estimate; the value in parentheses is the standard error (SE); N
(individual) = 500; N (workgroup) = 65; *p < .05. **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Table 3. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses of lower level outcomes and cross-level effect
of transformational leadership and transactional leadership on lower level outcomes.
Effect Work engagement Work engagement Supervisory coaching Performance feedback
Model 7 8 9 10
Lower Level Effects
Supervisory coaching .13(.06)*
Performance feedback .21(.06)***
Marital status .05(.05) .08(.05) .06(.05) .11(.05)
Cross-Level Effects
Transformational leadership .22(.10)* .22(10)* .23(.07)** .36(.11)**
Transactional leadership .04(.10) .04(.10) .13(.10) −-.11(.10)
The first value is the unstandardized parameter estimate; the value in parentheses is the standard error (SE); N
(individual) = 500; N (workgroup) = 65; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. We controlled for marital status in the
analysis.
Figure 2. Final model.
(β = .13, standard error [SE] = .06/β = .21, SE = .06), and the parameter estimate from
Table 3, Model 4 for work engagement → turnover intention with supervisory coach-
ing/performance feedback in the model (β = −.22, SE = .05). Consistent with
Hypothesis 3, our analysis confirmed the mediation effect from supervisory coaching
to turnover intention via work engagement (95% CI, LL = −.0610, UL = −.0027), and
the mediation effect from performance feedback to turnover intention via work engage-
ment (95% CI, LL = −.0840, UL = −.0171).
Hypothesis 4, predicting that transformational leadership but not transactional
leadership, would be positively related to supervisory coaching and performance
feedback was also supported. As indicated in Table 3, our results showed that trans-
formational leadership had a significant cross-level effect on supervisory coaching
(γ = .23, p < .05; Model 9) and performance feedback (γ = .36, p < .05; Model 10),
while transactional leadership was not associated with supervisory coaching (γ = .13,
not significant [ns]; Model 9) nor performance feedback (γ = −.11, ns; Model 10).
Likewise, consistent with Hypothesis 5 (see Table 3, Model 8), our result suggests that
transformational leadership had a significant cross-level effect on work engagement
(γ = .22, p < .05), while transactional leadership was not associated with work engage-
ment (γ = .04, ns).
Hypothesis 6 predicted that supervisory coaching and performance feedback would
mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. In
testing the hypothesis, the conditions stated by Baron and Kenny (1986) were fulfilled.
First, we found a direct effect only from X → Y (transformational leadership → work
engagement). We then analysed the mediation effect using the path from transforma-
tional leadership → supervisory coaching/performance feedback → work engagement
by using the Monte Carlo test. Specifically, we used the parameter estimate from
Table 3, Model 9 as the value for the direct effect from transformational leadership to
supervisory coaching (γ = .23, SE = .07), and the parameter estimate for Table 3, Model
7 (supervisory coaching → work engagement; β = .13, SE = .06) with transformational
leadership and transactional leadership in the model. The Monte Carlo bootstrapping
indicated that transformational leadership has a significant effect on work engagement
through supervisory coaching (95% CI, LL = .0023, UL = .0687).
We repeated the same procedure to see the effect of transformational leadership on
work engagement through performance feedback. Thus, we used the parameter esti-
mate from Table 3, Model 10 as the value for the direct effect from transformational
leadership to performance feedback (γ = .36, SE = .11), and the parameter estimate
from Table 3, Model 7 (performance feedback → work engagement) with transforma-
tional leadership and transactional leadership in the model (β = .21, SE = .06). Again,
the Monte Carlo bootstrapping supported the mediation process (95% CI, LL = .0222,
UL = .1480). Thus, Hypothesis 6 is supported.
Discussion
Previous research linking leadership to employee outcomes has focused on how leaders
influence employees’ cognitive and affective states (e.g. Chen et al. 2011; Henker,
Sonnentag, and Unger 2015). Our contribution lies in highlighting what leaders actually
do to strengthen employee work engagement and reduce turnover intention and, in so
doing, to identify which leadership style – transaction or transformational – is more
effective and why. Specifically, our study investigated (1) how supervisory coaching and
performance feedback are important job resources that leaders can provide within the
employee learning and development context, in relation to work engagement and
turnover intention; and (2) the role of leadership styles enacted through leadership
behaviour. Overall, we found that transformational leadership (in contrast to transac-
tional leadership) translates into development-focused leadership behaviours – super-
visory coaching and performance feedback – that act as resources in employee
development and, in return, benefit the organization by retaining human capital and
promoting work engagement.
Theoretical contributions
While it is commonly known that supervisory coaching and performance feedback are
viewed as job resources within the JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti 2017), through
our research, the importance of providing job resources is added to the role of leader-
ship in the context of employee development. To be specific, when compared with
transactional leadership, transformational leadership is more likely to provide
resources, with (at least) two specific behaviours directed to employees: supervisory
coaching and performance feedback. These two behaviours function as job resources:
through the provision of support and feedback, leaders convey information that can
directly help employees to meet goals, thereby increasing extrinsic motivation. In
addition, supervisory coaching particularly, but also performance feedback, directly
encourages ongoing personal development, a form of intrinsic motivation.
Specifically, the study shows that transformational (and not transactional) leaders are
likely to ‘grow’ their employees through supervisory coaching and performance feed-
back, and that these resources, in turn, foster greater work engagement and less turn-
over intention.
Our results support the notion that transformational leaders are more employee-
oriented and thus more concerned about their employees’ careers and development
(Tansky and Cohen 2001). This is achieved by maximizing their role and addressing
employee development needs through positive leadership behaviours which serve as job
resources to employees, with this concern demonstrated via communication in the form
of coaching and feedback. As transformational leadership emphasizes employee pro-
gress and development, this style of leadership tends to involve greater communication
about and sensitivity to employees’ needs (Stone, Russell, and Patterson 2004) and
motivates employees to thrive at work (Paterson, Luthans, and Jeung 2014). When
employees perceive that leaders care about their work performance and personal
development, they in turn will feel more motivated to work and become more com-
mitted to their workplace. This finding is consistent with previous studies which have
shown that transformational (and not transactional) leadership influences positive
employee outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behaviour (Guay and Choi
2015) and work engagement (Breevaart, Bakker, and Demerouti 2014; Tims, Bakker,
and Xanthopoulou 2011), from both Western and Eastern perspectives (Song et al.
2012; Tims, Bakker, and Xanthopoulou 2011).
While transactional leadership provides rewards when agreed-upon goals are met,
this leadership style emphasizes task-oriented goals, resulting in a lack of attention
given to employees’ needs (Tracey and Hinkin 1998). In addition, the punishment
aspect when agreed-upon goals are not met also implies a style that is bureaucratic,
conforming, non-inspiring, and not motivating (Emery and Barker 2007). Although
transactional leadership is not deemed to be a negative leadership style, especially with
the provision of appropriate leadership behaviours through active management by
exception, transformational leadership is related to a more positive work attitude
among employees. In addition, the insignificant finding may only be applied on service
work employees but may work differently in other work types (Pieterse et al. 2010).
In addition, the study has shown that supervisory coaching and performance feed-
back are two important leadership behaviours. Supervisory coaching is a form of
leadership behaviour that allows leaders to develop their employees through active
encouragement and support (Redshaw 2000). Performance feedback, on the other
hand, allows employees to know what needs to be improved and reduces job ambiguity
through the high quality of communication (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Consistent
with our prediction, we found that supervisory coaching and performance feedback
play an important role in employee work engagement and turnover intention. As
expected, we found that, in comparison to transactional leadership, the transforma-
tional leadership style is associated with a higher level of the two leadership behaviours
– supervisory coaching and performance feedback – which, in turn, mediate the
relationship with work engagement. Overall, our findings are consistent with the key
principle of the integrative model of leadership in which leadership styles are exhibited
through specific leadership behaviours (Behrendt, Matz, and Göritz 2017). Thus, the
findings help to answer the question of how leadership styles contribute to employee
work attitudes.
As working conditions are created through management initiatives (Johns 2010),
leaders are viewed as providers of job resources to employees (Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland
2007). The provision of job resources to employees can be explained through the lens of
the norm of reciprocity where employees feel valued and that the leader and the
organization have invested in them. In return, they are more engaged at work and
less likely to have turnover intentions due to the psychological contract they have with
the leader (Bhatnagar 2014; Tuzun and Kalemci 2012).
Strengths, limitations, and future directions

This study is novel in that it investigates the behavioural aspects of two leadership
styles, namely, transformational and transactional leadership. Most previous studies
have not investigated the influence of specific leadership behaviours on employee
attitudes. Moreover, we demonstrate the importance of having specific job resources,
in this case, within the HRD context. This is important as each job resource is different
in nature, purpose, and functionality (Bakker et al. 2011). The finding illustrates that
leadership effectiveness within the HRD context consists of both task-oriented and
relationship-oriented behaviours which are consistent with the concepts of these leader-
ship styles.
In addition, the current study uses a multilevel perspective, taking into consideration
the view that social contexts (including leadership styles) affect employee attitudes. In
this way, our study provides a relational perspective between the leader and the
employees, at both group and individual levels (cf. Xing et al. 2016). Leadership styles
are viewed as an UL construct as leaders command a top-down influence on employees
(Dionne et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2013). Obtaining responses from individuals, rather
than from groups, may result in bias and an incorrect reflection of the leadership style
(e.g. Gordon et al. 2014; Park, Kim, and Song 2015). The multilevel perspective allows
multiple participants within the same group to rate their leader’s leadership style, thus
making the ratings more objective and presenting a more accurate reflection of the
leadership style (Kristof-Brown et al. 2014).
Our study was conducted in Malaysia which, being a collectivist culture, is char-
acterized by emphasis on the quality of relationships but also with high power distance
and subordination of the individual. Findings from the study further support the role of
transformational leadership on employee development not only from the Western
perspective but also from the Eastern perspective. To summarize, transformational
leadership, rather than transactional leadership, is able to develop employees’ mental
complexity through necessary guidance and feedback across cultural contexts (Crane
and Hartwell 2018; Dong et al. 2017).
Despite these strengths, the current findings offer only partial support for the core
processes of the JD-R theory as we did not examine job demands, which are related to job
resources but which play a different role according to JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti
2014). First, although job demands are mostly negative and the opposite of job resources,
certain types of job demands may be conducive to work engagement. Specifically, whereas
relationships between job resources and work engagement tend to be positive, meta-analysis
showed that relationships hindrance demands tend to undermine engagement whereas
challenge demands tend to promote engagement (Crawford, LePine, and Rich 2010). In
addition, job resources may buffer the negative impacts of job demands (Bakker, Demerouti,
and Euwema 2005), especially those job resources that are viewed as important in coping
with job demands (Xanthopoulou et al. 2007), with this being highly related to turnover
intention (van Woerkom, Bakker, and Nishii 2016). Third, leaders are able to reduce
employees’ job demands (Van Yperen and Hagedoorn 2003) as well as provide additional
resources. Hence, it is important to study the role of job demands and job resources together
(cf. Tuckey, Bakker, and Dollard 2012). Comparing leadership styles with an overall model
of job resources and job demands would provide a better perspective on how these job
characteristics work and interact to affect employees’ work outcomes. Noting concerns about
the distinction between burnout and engagement (Cole et al. 2012), in future research of this
kind it may be useful to adopt Kahn’s (1990) conceptualisation, in which engagement reflects
harnessing of the full self – physically, cognitively, and emotionally – into the work role.
Lastly, the causal direction remains unclear due to the study’s cross-sectional design.
Future research should examine longitudinal effects to see whether any changes occur
over time due to the influences of transformational or transactional leadership styles on
employees, via supervisory support and performance feedback behaviours. This step is
important, especially in conditions where several mediators are used in the research
model (Maxwell and Cole 2007). With the current study and its two mediating
processes, collecting at least three times the amount of data would be ideal in order
to see the effect from independent variables (Time 1 [T1]) → mediators (Time 2
[T2]) → dependent variables (Time 3 [T3]).
Practical implications
As more leaders are involved in employee development (Alfes et al. 2013), organizations
should pay more attention to managing employees through leaders, ensuring that
leaders can fulfil both supervisory and leadership roles. Effective leadership, such as
transformational leadership, may be able to attend to these needs through supervisory
coaching and performance feedback. This is particularly useful as leaders often con-
tribute to the organizational design process; thus, they could ensure that employees’
motivational aspects are addressed (Frost, Osterloh, and Weibel 2010). Therefore, the
resultant design would allow employees’ behavioural outcomes to be aligned with
organizational objectives. This approach allows for a better understanding of the
behaviours exhibited when explaining leadership styles that can be more concretely
applied in practice. This is particularly important as employees in Asia’s presenteeism
culture suffer from higher risks of ill health, with job resources an important element in
buffering those risks (Lu, Cooper, and Lin 2013). More importantly, internal resources,
such as knowledge and human capital, could then be preserved and maintained within
the organization (Foss and Knudsen 1996).
As considerable resource investment is required to retain employees (Sonnentag,
Binnewies, and Mojza 2010) and as job resources, such as supervisory coaching and
performance feedback, are useful in increasing work engagement and reducing turnover
intention, leaders may provide sufficient guidance and feedback to ensure that employ-
ees are skilful and knowledgeable. The significant influences of leadership styles on
employee outcomes have been revealed in previous studies (e.g. Mullen, Kelloway, and
Teed 2017). With the application of this knowledge based on the general characteristics
of these leadership styles, practitioners faced difficulty in implementing the findings
(Anderson and Sun 2017). The findings of our study are more practicable, explaining
the behavioural aspects (i.e. supervisory coaching and performance feedback) of leader-
ship with regard to their influence on increasing important employee attitudes (i.e.
work engagement and turnover intention).
In addition to focusing on the specific behaviours studied here, and given the
evidence that leadership styles can be cultivated (Bass and Avolio 1990), organiza-
tions could provide training for leaders to assist them to adopt a transformational
leadership style when dealing with employees, together with improving their capa-
city to provide high-quality supervisory coaching and feedback. This may be parti-
cularly important in cultures and organizations wherein transactional approaches
are routinely used: we saw in this study that, even alongside high levels of transac-
tional leadership (as evidenced by the high correlation), transformational leadership
has benefits.
As Asian countries focus on guan-xi through which the workplace not only
focuses on work aspects but also on human relationships (Xing et al. 2016; Zhai,
Lindorff, and Cooper 2013), organizations may want to invest in enhancing the
relationship between leader and employees in developing human resources and
retaining knowledge as a competitive organizational advantage by making sure that
leaders possess transformational leadership style (rather than transactional leadership
style) that is conducive in influencing employees’ behaviours positively (Nyberg and
Ployhart 2013; Reilly et al. 2014). While Malaysia is viewed as a country with high
power distance, it is also considered to be highly collectivistic. It is suggested that,
despite the formal workplace hierarchy, supervisors can play a supportive role and
provide sufficient feedback as part of assisting employee learning and development,
with employees engaged with their work and finally, having less intention to leave
the organization.
Conclusion
The current study supports the importance of supervisory coaching and performance
feedback in stimulating work engagement and reducing turnover intention. In the
context of the leader’s role in HRD, the study supports the applicability of transfor-
mational leadership (in contrast to transactional leadership) as an antecedent for
supervisory coaching and performance feedback. These findings highlight the beha-
vioural components (i.e. supervisory coaching and performance feedback) which
function as job resources created through transformational leadership that enable
this leadership style to more effectively carry out some HRD functions. Future
studies could integrate job demands and job resources within the JD-R theory to
gain an understanding of the role of effective leadership behaviours in creating
challenging and supportive working conditions that can benefit employees and
organizations alike and expand the conceptualisation and measurement of engage-
ment to include the expression of the full self at work. The use of a longitudinal
approach in investigating the effects of effective leadership on employee attitudes
would also help to unpack the relationships involved.
Declarations
The data has not been published elsewhere. This research did not receive any specific grant from
funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
ORCID
Michelle Chin Chin Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8192-3776
Mohd. Awang Idris http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7995-9617
Michelle Tuckey http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-6045
References
Albrecht, S. L., A. B. Bakker, J. A. Grumen, W. H. Macey, and A. M. Saks. 2015. “Employee
Engagement, Human Resource Management Practices and Competitive Advantage.” Journal
of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 2 (1): 7–35. doi:10.1108/JOEPP-08-
2014-0042.
Alfes, K., A. Shantz, C. Truss, and E. Soane. 2013. “The Link between Perceived Human Resource
Management Practices, Engagement and Employee Behaviour: A Moderated Mediation
Model.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24 (2): 330–351.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.679950.
Allen, T., L. Lapierre, P. Spector, S. Poelmans, M. O’Driscoll, J. Sanchez, C. Cooper, et al. 2014.
“The Link between National Paid Leave Policy and Work-Family Conflict among Married
Working Parents.” Applied Psychology 63 (1): 5–28. doi:10.1111/apps.12004.
Anderson, M., and P. Sun. 2017. “Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for a New
‘Full-Range’ Theory.” International Journal of Management Reviews 19 (1): 76–96.
doi:10.1111/ijmr.12082.
Bakker, A., and E. Demerouti. 2007. “The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art.”
Journal of Managerial Psychology 22 (3): 309–328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115.
Bakker, A., and E. Demerouti. 2014. “Job Demands–Resources Theory.” Wellbeing 3 (2): 1–28.
doi:10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019.
Bakker, A., and E. Demerouti. 2017. “Job Demands–Resources Theory: Taking Stock and
Looking Forward.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22 (3): 273–285. doi:10.1037/
ocp0000056.
Bakker, A., E. Demerouti, E. de Boer, and W. Schaufeli. 2003a. “Job Demands and Job Resources
as Predictors of Absence Duration and Frequency.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2):
341–356. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00030-1.
Bakker, A., E. Demerouti, and M. Euwema. 2005. “Job Resources Buffer the Impact of Job
Demands on Burnout.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10 (2): 170–180.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170.
Bakker, A., E. Demerouti, T. Taris, W. Schaufeli, and P. Schreurs. 2003b. “A Multigroup Analysis
of the Job Demands-Resources Model in Four Home Care Organizations.” International
Journal of Stress Management 10 (1): 16–38. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.16.
Bakker, A., L. Ten Brummelhuis, J. Prins, and F. der Heijden. 2011. “Applying the Job Demands–
Resources Model to the Work–Home Interface: A Study among Medical Residents and Their
Partners.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (1): 170–180. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.004.
Bakker, A., and W. Schaufeli. 2008. “Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged Employees in
Flourishing Organizations.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 29 (2): 147–154. doi:10.1002/
job.515.
Baron, R., and D. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social
Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6): 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Bass, B., and B. Avolio. 1990. Transformational Leadership Development. Mountain View:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B., B. Avolio, D. Jung, and Y. Berson. 2003. “Predicting Unit Performance by Assessing
Transformational and Transactional Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (2): 207–
218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207.
Beenen, G., S. Pichler., and P. Levy. 2017. “Self-Determined Feedback Seeking: The Role of
Perceived Supervisor Autonomy Support.” Human Resource Management 56 (4): 555–569.
doi:10.1002/hrm.21787.
Behrendt, P., S. Matz, and A. Göritz. 2017. “An Integrative Model of Leadership Behavior.” The
Leadership Quarterly 28 (1): 229–244. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.002.
Bhatnagar, J. 2014. “Mediator Analysis in the Management of Innovation in Indian Knowledge
Workers: The Role of Perceived Supervisor Support, Psychological Contract, Reward and
Recognition and Turnover Intention.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 25 (10): 1395–1416. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.870312.
Bliese, P. 2000. “Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implications for
Data Aggregation and Analyses.” In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in
Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, edited by K. Katherine and S.
Kozlowski, 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Breevaart, K., A. Bakker, and E. Demerouti. 2014. “Daily Self-Management and Employee Work
Engagement.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (1): 31–38. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.11.002.
Brewer, M., and Y. Chen. 2007. “Where (Who) are Collectives in Collectivism? Toward
Conceptual Clarification of Individualism and Collectivism.” Psychological Review 114 (1):
133–151. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133.
Bryk, A. S., and S. W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buck, J. M., and J. L. Watson. 2002. “Retaining Staff Employees: The Relationship between
Human Resources Management Strategies and Organizational Commitment.” Innovative
Higher Education 26 (3): 175–193. doi:10.1023/A:1017916922194.
Chen, X., M. Eberly., T. Chiang, J. Farh, and B. Cheng. 2011. “Affective Trust in Chinese Leaders:
Linking Paternalistic Leadership to Employee Performance.” Journal of Management 40 (3):
796–819. doi:10.1177/0149206311410604.
Christensen Hughes, J., and E. Rog. 2008. “Talent Management.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 20 (7): 743–757. doi:10.1108/09596110810899086.
Cole, M. S., F. Walter, A. G. Bedeian, and E. H. O’Boyle. 2012. “Job Burnout and Employee
Engagement: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Construct Proliferation.” Journal of
Management 38 (5): 1550–1581. doi:10.1177/0149206311415252.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., and L. M. Shore. 2007. “The Employee–Organization Relationship: Where
Do We Go from Here?” Human Resource Management Review 17 (2): 166–179. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2007.03.008.
Crane, B., and C. J. Hartwell. 2018. “Developing Employees’ Mental Complexity:
Transformational Leadership as a Catalyst in Employee Development.” Human Resource
Development Review 17 (3): 234–257. doi:10.1177/1534484318781439.
Crawford, E. R., J. A. LePine, and B. L. Rich. 2010. “Linking Job Demands and Resources to
Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (5): 834–848. doi:10.1037/a0019364.
Dahling, J., S. Taylor, S. Chau, and S. Dwight. 2016. “Does Coaching Matter? A Multilevel Model
Linking Managerial Coaching Skill and Frequency to Sales Goal Attainment.” Personnel
Psychology 69 (4): 863–894. doi:10.1111/peps.12123.
Diaz-Saenz, H. R. 2011. “Transformational Leadership.” In The SAGE Handbook of Leadership,
edited by A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, and M. Uhl-Bien, 299–310. Los
Angeles, LA: Sage.
Dionne, S. D., F. J. Yammarino, L. E. Atwater, and W. D. Spangler. 2004. “Transformational
Leadership and Team Performance.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 17 (2):
177–193. doi:10.1108/09534810410530601.
Dollard, M., M. Tuckey, and C. Dormann. 2012. “Psychosocial Safety Climate Moderates the Job
Demand–Resource Interaction in Predicting Workgroup Distress.” Accident Analysis &
Prevention 45: 694–704. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.09.042.
Dong, Y., K. M. Bartol, Z. X. Zhang, and C. Li. 2017. “Enhancing Employee Creativity via
Individual Skill Development and Team Knowledge Sharing: Influences of Dual-Focused
Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 38 (3): 439–458.
doi:10.1002/job.2134.
Ellinger, A., and S. Kim. 2014. “Coaching and Human Resource Development.” Advances in
Developing Human Resources 16 (2): 127–138. doi:10.1177/1523422313520472.
Emery, C. R., and K. J. Barker. 2007. “The Effect of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Styles on the Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction of Customer Contact Personnel.”
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication and Conflict 11 (1): 77–90.
Fernet, C., S. Austin, and R. Vallerand. 2012. “The Effects of Work Motivation on Employee
Exhaustion and Commitment: An Extension of the JD-R Model.” Work & Stress 26 (3): 213–
229. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.713202.
Fernet, C., S. Trépanier, S. Austin, M. Gagné, and J. Forest. 2015. “Transformational Leadership
and Optimal Functioning at Work: On the Mediating Role of Employees’ Perceived Job
Characteristics and Motivation.” Work & Stress 29 (1): 11–31. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2004.06.001.
Fong, T., and S. Ng. 2011. “Measuring Engagement at Work: Validation of the Chinese Version
of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale.” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 19 (3):
391–397. doi:10.1007/s.12529-011-9173-6.
Foss, N. J., and C. Knudsen. 1996. Towards the Theory of Competence of the Firm. London, UK:
Routledge.
Fredrickson, B. 2001. “The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-And-
Build Theory of Positive Emotions.” American Psychologist 56 (3): 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.56.3.218.
Frost, J., M. Osterloh, and A. Weibel. 2010. “Governing Knowledge Work: Transactional and
Transformational Solutions.” Organizational Dynamics 39 (2): 126–136. doi:10.1016/j.
orgdyn.2010.01.002.
Gabel Shemueli, R., S. Dolan, A. Suárez Ceretti, and P. Nuñez Del Prado. 2015. “Burnout and
Engagement as Mediators in the Relationship between Work Characteristics and Turnover
Intentions across Two Ibero-American Nations.” Stress and Health 32 (5): 597–606.
doi:10.1002/smi.2667.
Gillet, N., and C. Vandenberghe. 2014. “Transformational Leadership and Organizational
Commitment: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics.” Human Resource Development
Quarterly 25 (3): 321–347. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21192.
Gong, Y., J. Huang, and J. Farh. 2009. “Employee Learning Orientation, Transformational
Leadership, and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Employee Creative Self-
Efficacy.” Academy of Management Journal 52 (4): 765–778. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890.
Gordon, G., A. Gilley, S. Avery, J. Gilley, and A. Barber. 2014. “Employee Perceptions of the
Manager Behaviors that Create Follower–Leader Trust.” Management and Organizational
Studies 1 (2): 44–58. doi:10.5430/mos.v1n2p44.
Gregory, J. B., P. E. Levy, and M. Jeffers. 2008. “Development of a Model of the Feedback Process
with Executive Coaching.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 60 (1): 42–56.
doi:10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.42.
Guay, R., and D. Choi. 2015. “To Whom Does Transformational Leadership Matter More? An
Examination of Neurotic and Introverted Followers and Their Organizational Citizenship
Behavior.” The Leadership Quarterly 26 (5): 851–862. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.06.005.
Halbesleben, J., and A. Wheeler. 2008. “The Relative Roles of Engagement and Embeddedness in
Predicting Job Performance and Intention to Leave.” Work & Stress 22 (3): 242–256.
doi:10.1080/02678370802383962.
Hamlin, R., A. Ellinger, and R. Beattie. 2006. “Coaching at the Heart of Managerial Effectiveness:
A Cross-Cultural Study of Managerial Behaviours.” Human Resource Development
International 9 (3): 305–331. doi:10.1080/13678860600893524.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77
(1): 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
Henker, N., S. Sonnentag, and D. Unger. 2015. “Transformational Leadership and Employee
Creativity: The Mediating Role of Promotion Focus and Creative Process Engagement.”
Journal of Business and Psychology 30 (2): 235–247. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7.
Iyer, R. 2016. “A Study on Work Engagement among Teachers in India.” Global Business and
Management Research 8 (1): 34–42.
Johns, G. 2010. “Presenteeism in the Workplace: A Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 31 (4): 519–542. doi:10.1002/job.630.
Jones, J. R., and J. K. Harter. 2005. “Race Effects on the Employee Engagement-Turnover
Intention Relationship.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 11 (2): 78–88.
doi:10.1177/107179190501100208.
Judge, T. A., and R. F. Piccolo. 2004. “Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-
Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (5): 755–768.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755.
Kahn, W. A. 1990. “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work.” Academy of Management Journal 33: 692–724. doi:10.2307/256287.
Kamisan, A. P., and B. E. King. 2013. “Transactional and Transformational Leadership: A
Comparative Study of the Difference between Tony Fernandes (Airasia) and Idris Jala
(Malaysia Airlines) Leadership Styles from 2005-2009.” International Journal of Business and
Management 8 (24): 107–116. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n24p107.
Kim, A., and M. E. M. Barak. 2015. “The Mediating Roles of Leader–Member Exchange and
Perceived Organizational Support in the Role Stress–Turnover Intention Relationship among
Child Welfare Workers: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Children and Youth Services Review 52:
135–143. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.11.009.
Kim, S. 2014. “Assessing the Influence of Managerial Coaching on Employee Outcomes.” Human
Resource Development Quarterly 25 (1): 59–85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21175.
Kirk-Brown, A., and P. Van Dijk. 2016. “An Examination of the Role of Psychological Safety in
the Relationship between Job Resources, Affective Commitment and Turnover Intentions of
Australian Employees with Chronic Illness.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 27 (14): 1626–1641. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1053964.
Kochanowski, S., C. Seifert, and G. Yukl. 2010. “Using Coaching to Enhance the Effects of
Behavioral Feedback to Managers.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17 (4):
363–369. doi:10.1117/1548051809352663.
Kovjanic, S., S. Schuh, K. Jonas, N. Quaquebeke, and R. van Dick. 2012. “How Do
Transformational Leaders Foster Positive Employee Outcomes? A Self-Determination-Based
Analysis of Employees’ Needs as Mediating Links.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 33 (8):
1031–1052. doi:10.1002/job.1771.
Kozlowski, S. 2012. “The Nature of Organizational Psychology.” In The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Psychology, edited by S. Kozlowski, 3–21. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Kristof-Brown, A., J. Seong, D. Degeest, W. Park, and D. Hong. 2014. “Collective Fit Perceptions:
A Multilevel Investigation of Person-Group Fit with Individual-Level and Team-Level
Outcomes.”.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (7): 969–989. doi:10.1002/job.1942.
Lapointe, É., and C. Vandenberghe. 2017. “Supervisory Mentoring and Employee Affective
Commitment and Turnover: The Critical Role of Contextual Factors.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 98: 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.10.004.
Le Blanc, P. 1994. “De Steun Van De Leiding: Een Onderzoek Naar Het Leader Member Exchange
Model in De Verpleging” [Supervisory Support: A Study on the Leader Member Exchange
Model among Nurses]. Master’s diss., Amsterdam: Netherlands. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302
(94)77044-2
LeBreton, J. M., and J. L. Senter. 2008. “Answers to 20 Questions about Interrater Reliability and
Interrater Agreement.” Organizational Research Methods 11 (4): 815–852. doi:10.1177/
1094428106296642.
Lee, C. H., and N. T. Bruvold. 2003. “Creating Value for Employees: Investment in Employee
Development.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management 14 (6): 981–1000.
doi:10.1080/0958519032000106173.
Lee, M. C. C., and M. Idris. 2017. “Psychosocial Safety Climate versus Team Climate: The
Distinctiveness between the Two Organizational Climate Constructs.” Personnel Review 46
(5): 988–1003. doi:10.1108/PR-01-2016-0003.
Lee, M. C. C., M. Idris, and P. Delfabbro. 2016. “The Linkages between Hierarchical Culture and
Empowering Leadership and Their Effects on Employees’ Work Engagement: Work
Meaningfulness as a Mediator.” International Journal of Stress Management 24 (4): 392–415.
doi:10.1037/str0000043.
Leung, K., P. T. Koch, and L. Lu. 2002. “A Dualistic Model of Harmony and Its Implications for
Conflict Management in Asia.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19 (2–3): 201–220.
doi:10.1023/A:1016287501806.
Lo, M., T. Ramayah, H. Min, and P. Songan. 2010. “The Relationship between Leadership Styles
and Organizational Commitment in Malaysia: Role of Leader–Member Exchange.” Asia
Pacific Business Review 16 (1–2): 79–103. doi:10.1080/13602380903355676.
Lonsdale, D. J. 2016. “The Effects of Leader–Member Exchange and the Feedback Environment
on Organizational Citizenship and Withdrawal.” The Psychologist–Manager Journal 19 (1):
41–59. doi:10.1037/mgr0000037.
Lu, L., C. L. Cooper, and H. Yen Lin. 2013. “A Cross-Cultural Examination of Presenteeism and
Supervisory Support.” Career Development International 18 (5): 440–456. doi:10.1108/CDI-03-
2013-0031.
MacKinnon, D., C. Lockwood, and J. Williams. 2004. “Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect:
Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 39
(1): 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
Mathieu, J., H. Aguinis, S. Culpepper, and G. Chen. 2012. ““Understanding and Estimating the
Power to Detect Cross-Level Interaction Effects in Multilevel Modeling”: Correction to
Mathieu, Aguinis, Culpepper, and Chen (2012).” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (5): 951–
966. doi:10.1037/a0028380.
Mathieu, J. E., and S. R. Taylor. 2007. “A Framework for Testing Meso-Mediational

Relationships in Organizational Behavior.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28 (2): 141–
172. doi:10.1002/job.436.
Maxwell, S. E., and D. A. Cole. 2007. “Bias in Cross-Sectional Analyses of Longitudinal
Mediation.” Psychological Methods 12 (1): 23–44. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23.
Mcallister, C. P., J. N. Harris, W. A. Hochwarter, P. L. Perrewé, and G. R. Ferris. 2017. “Got
Resources? A Multi-Sample Constructive Replication of Perceived Resource Availability’s Role
in Work Passion–Job Outcomes Relationships.” Journal of Business and Psychology 32 (2):
147–164. doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9441-1.
McCarthy, A., and T. Garavan. 2006. “Post Feedback Development Perceptions: Applying the
Theory of Planned Behavior.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 17 (3): 245–267.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.1173.
Mone, E., C. Eisinger, K. Guggenheim, B. Price, and C. Stine. 2011. “Performance Management
at the Wheel: Driving Employee Engagement in Organizations.” Journal of Business and
Psychology 26 (2): 205–212. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9.
Mullen, J., E. Kelloway, and M. Teed. 2017. “Employer Safety Obligations, Transformational
Leadership and Their Interactive Effects on Employee Safety Performance.” Safety Science 91:
405–412. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.007.
Nyberg, A. J., and R. E. Ployhart. 2013. “Context-Emergent Turnover (CET) Theory: A Theory of
Collective Turnover.” Academy of Management Review 38 (1): 109–131. doi:10.5465/
amr.2011.0201.
O’Driscoll, M. P., and T. A. Beehr. 1994. “Supervisor Behaviors, Role Stressors and Uncertainty
as Predictors of Personal Outcomes for Subordinates.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15
(2): 141–155. doi:10.1002/job.4030150204.
Park, C., W. Kim, and J. Song. 2015. “The Impact of Ethical Leadership on Employees’ In-Role
Performance: The Mediating Effects of Employees’ Psychological Ownership.” Human
Parker, S. K., A. Van Den Broeck, and D. Holman. 2017. “Work Design Influences: A Synthesis
of Multilevel Factors that Affect the Design of Jobs.” Academy of Management Annals 11 (1):
267–308. doi:10.5465/annals.2014.0054.
Paterson, T., F. Luthans, and W. Jeung. 2014. “Thriving at Work: Impact of Psychological Capital
and Supervisor Support.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 35 (3): 434–446. doi:10.1002/
job.1907.
Pieterse, A. N., D. van Knippenberg, M. Schippers, and D. Stam. 2010. “Transformational and
Transactional Leadership and Innovative Behavior: The Moderating Role of Psychological
Empowerment.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 31 (4): 609–623. doi:10.1002/job.650.
Podsakoff, P., S. MacKenzie, R. Moorman, and R. Fetter. 1990. “Transformational Leader
Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors.” The Leadership Quarterly 1 (2): 107–142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)
90009-7.
Rafferty, A. E., and M. A. Griffin. 2006. “Refining Individualized Consideration: Distinguishing
Developmental Leadership and Supportive Leadership.” Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 79 (1): 37–61. doi:10.1348/096317905X36731.
Redshaw, B. 2000. “Do We Really Understand Coaching? How Can We Make It Work Better?”
Industrial and Commercial Training 32 (3): 106–109. doi:10.1108/00197850010371693.
Reilly, G., A. Nyberg, M. Maltarich, and I. Weller. 2014. “Human Capital Flows: Using Context-
Emergent Turnover (CET) Theory to Explore the Process by Which Turnover, Hiring, and Job
Demands Affect Patient Satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal 57 (3): 766–790.
doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0132.
Saks, A. M., and J. A. Gruman. 2014. “What Do We Really Know about Employee Engagement?”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 25 (2): 155–182. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21187.
Scandura, T. A., and E. A. Williams. 2004. “Mentoring and Transformational Leadership: The
Role of Supervisory Career Mentoring.” Journal of Vocational Behaviour 65 (3): 448–468.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.003.
Schaufeli, W., A. Bakker, and M. Salanova. 2006. “The Measurement of Work Engagement with a
Short Questionnaire.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 (4): 701–716.
doi:10.1177/0013164405282471.
Schaufeli, W. B., and T. Taris. 2014. “A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model:
Implications for Improving Work and Health.” In Bridging Occupational, Organizational and
Public Health, edited by G. F. Bauer and O. HäMmig, 43–68. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Schaufeli, W. B., and A. B. Bakker. 2004. “Job Demands, Job Resources, and Their Relationship
with Burnout and Engagement: A Multi-Sample Study.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 25
(3): 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248.
Schaufeli, W. B., M. Salanova, V. González-Romá, and A. B. Bakker. 2002. “The Measurement of
Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach.” Journal of
Happiness Studies 3 (1): 71–92. doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326.
Selig, J. P., and K. J. Preacher. 2008. Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive
tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software].
Shuck, B., and A. M. Herd. 2012. “Employee Engagement and Leadership: Exploring the
Convergence of Two Frameworks and Implications for Leadership Development in HRD.”
Human Resource Development Review 11 (2): 156–181. doi:10.1177/1534484312438211.
Sirmon, D. G., M. A. Hitt, and R. D. Ireland. 2007. “Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic
Environments to Create Value: Looking inside the Black Box.” The Academy of Management
Review 32 (1): 273–292. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.23466005.
Snijders, T. A. B., and R. J. Bosker. 2012. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and
Advanced Multilevel Modelling. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage.
Sommer, K. L., and M. Kulkarni. 2012. “Does Constructive Performance Feedback Improve
Citizenship Intentions and Job Satisfaction? The Roles of Perceived Opportunities for
Advancement, Respect, and Mood.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 23 (2): 177–
201. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21132.
Song, J. H., J. A. Kolb, U. L. Lee, and H. K. Kim. 2012. “Role of Transformational Leadership in
Effective Organizational Knowledge Creation Practices: Mediating Effects of Employees’ Work
Engagement.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 23 (1): 65–101. doi:10.1002/
hrdq.21120.
Sonnentag, S., C. Binnewies, and E. J. Mojza. 2010. “Staying Well and Engaged When Demands
Are High: The Role of Psychological Detachment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (5): 965–
976. doi:10.1037/a0020032.
Spell, H. B., L. T. Eby, and R. J. Vandenberg. 2014. “Developmental Climate: A Cross-Level
Analysis of Voluntary Turnover and Job Performance.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (3):
283–292. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.001.
Stone, A. G., R. F. Russell, and K. Patterson. 2004. “Transformational versus Servant Leadership:
A Difference in Leader Focus.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25 (4): 349–
361. doi:10.1108/01437730410538671.
Strauss, K., and P. Sharon. 2013. “Effective and Sustained Proactivity in the Workplace: A Self-
Determination Theory Perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement,
Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, edited by M. Gagne, 50–71. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Suazo, M. M., P. G. Martínez, and R. Sandoval. 2009. “Creating Psychological and Legal
Contracts through Human Resource Practices: A Signaling Theory Perspective.” Human
Resource Management Review 19 (2): 154–166. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.11.002.
Tansky, J. W., and D. J. Cohen. 2001. “The Relationship between Organizational Support,
Employee Development, and Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Study.” Human
Tett, R. P., and J. P. Meyer. 1993. “Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover
Intention, and Turnover: Path Analyses Based on Meta-Analytic Findings.” Personnel
Psychology 46 (2): 259–293. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x.
Theeboom, T., B. Beersma, and A. E. van Vianen. 2014. “Does Coaching Work? A Meta-Analysis
on the Effects of Coaching on Individual Level Outcomes in an Organizational Context.” The
Journal of Positive Psychology 9 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.837499.
Thirusanku, J., and M. M. Yunus. 2014. “Status of English in Malaysia.” Asian Social Science 10
(14): 254–260. doi:10.5539/ass.v10n14p254.
Thomas, K. W. 2009. Intrinsic Motivation at Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement.
2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Timms, C., P. Brough, M. O’Driscoll, T. Kalliath, O. Siu, C. Sit, and D. Lo. 2015. “Flexible Work
Arrangements, Work Engagement, Turnover Intentions and Psychological Health.” Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources 53 (1): 83–103. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12030.
Tims, M., A. B. Bakker, and D. Derks. 2013. “The Impact of Job Crafting on Job Demands, Job
Resources, and Well-Being.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 18 (2): 230–240.
doi:10.1037/a0032141.
Tims, M., A. B. Bakker, and D. Xanthopoulou. 2011. “Do Transformational Leaders Enhance
Their Followers’ Daily Work Engagement?” The Leadership Quarterly 22 (1): 121–131.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.011.
Tracey, J. B., and T. R. Hinkin. 1998. “Transformational Leadership or Effective Managerial
Practices?” Group & Organization Management 23 (3): 220–236. doi:10.1177/
1059601198233002.
Tse, H., X. Huang, and W. Lam. 2013. “Why Does Transformational Leadership Matter for
Employee Turnover? A Multi-Foci Social Exchange Perspective.” The Leadership Quarterly 24
(5): 763–776. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.005.
Tuckey, M. R., A. B. Bakker, and M. F. Dollard. 2012. “Empowering Leaders Optimize Working
Conditions for Engagement: A Multilevel Study.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
17 (1): 15–27. doi:10.1037/a0025942.
Tuzun, I. K., and R. A. Kalemci. 2012. “Organizational and Supervisory Support in Relation to
Employee Turnover Intentions.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 27 (5): 518–534.
doi:10.1108/02683941211235.
Van Vugt, M., S. F. Jepson, C. M. Hart, and D. de Cremer. 2004. “Autocratic Leadership in Social
Dilemmas: A Threat to Group Stability.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (1): 1–
13. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1.
van Woerkom, M., A. B. Bakker, and L. H. Nishii. 2016. “Accumulative Job Demands and
Support for Strength Use: Fine-Tuning the Job Demands-Resources Model Using
Conservation of Resources Theory.” Journal of Applied Psychology 101 (1): 141–150.
doi:10.1037/apl0000033.
Van Yperen, N. W., and M. Hagedoorn. 2003. “Do High Job Demands Increase Intrinsic
Motivation or Fatigue or Both? The Role of Job Control and Job Social Support.” Academy
of Management Journal 46 (3): 339–348. doi:10.2307/30040627.
Wanberg, C. R., E. T. Welsh, and S. A. Hezlett. 2003. “Mentoring Research: A Review and
Dynamic Process Model.” Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 22: 39–
124. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22002-8.
Wang, D., D. A. Waldman, and Z. Zhang. 2014. “A Meta–Analysis of Shared Leadership and
Team Effectiveness.” Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (2): 181–198. doi:10.1037/a0034531.
Wang, P., J. Rode, K. Shi, Z. Luo, and W. Chen. 2013. “A Workgroup Climate Perspective on the
Relationships among Transformational Leadership, Workgroup Diversity, and Employee
Creativity.” Group & Organization Management 38 (3): 334–360. doi:10.1177/
1059601113488163.
Wasti, S. A. 2003. “Organizational Commitment, Turnover Intentions and the Influence of
Cultural Values.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76 (3): 303–321.
doi:10.1348/096317903769647193.
Watkin, K. E. 1989. “Business and Industry.” In Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education,
edited by S. B. Merriam and P. M. Cunningham, 422–435. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Werner, J. M., and R. L. DeSimone. 2011. Human Resource Development. 6th ed. Cincinnati, OH:
Cengage Learning.
Xanthopoulou, D., A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2007. “The Role of Personal
Resources in the Job Demands–Resources Model.” International Journal of Stress Management
14 (2): 121–141. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.
Xanthopoulou, D., A. B. Bakker, E. Demerouti, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2009. “Reciprocal
Relationships between Job Resources, Personal Resources, and Work Engagement.” Journal
of Vocational Behavior 74 (3): 235–244. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003.
Xing, Y., Y. Liu, S. Tarba, and G. Wood. 2016. “A Cultural Inquiry into Ambidexterity in
Supervisor–Subordinate Relationship.” The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 1–29. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1137619.
Yoder, L. H. 1995. “Staff Nurses’ Career Development Relationships and Self-Reports of
Professionalism, Job Satisfaction, and Intent to Stay.” Nursing Research 44 (5): 290–297.
doi:10.1097/00006199-199509000-00006.
Zhai, Q., M. Lindorff, and B. Cooper. 2013. “Workplace Guanxi: Its Dispositional Antecedents
and Mediating Role in the Affectivity–Job Satisfaction Relationship.” Journal of Business Ethics
117 (3): 541–551. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1544-7.
Zhu, W., I. K. Chew, and W. D. Spangler. 2005. “CEO Transformational Leadership and
Organizational Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Human-Capital-Enhancing Human
Resource Management.” The Leadership Quarterly 16 (1): 39–52. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2004.06.001.

Leadership Styles Engagement and Turnover

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership Styles Engagement and Turnover

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Resource Development International

ISSN: 1367-8868 (Print) 1469-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhrd20

Supervisory coaching and performance feedback

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1530170

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 15 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Supervisory coaching and performance feedback as

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Michelle Chin Chin Lee michellel@sunway.edu.my

Review of the literature and hypotheses development

core component of intrinsic motivation. According to the motivational pathway of the

Job resources reduce turnover intention through work engagement

Hypothesis 2: Work engagement will be negatively related to turnover intention.

Inﬂuence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on supervisory

In addition, even though both transformational and transactional leaders inﬂuence

Hypothesis 4: Transformational leadership (but not transactional leadership) will be

Hypothesis 5: Transformational leadership (but not transactional leadership) will be

Figure 1. Hypotheses and research model.

Especially in Asian countries, such as Malaysia, wherein work relationships – usually

Overall, the proposed research framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

adequate according to scholars’ recommendations. For example, in simulation studies,

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, reliability, and Pearson’s bivariate correlations.

independent variables), followed by conducting a cross-level direct eﬀects analysis (i.e.

Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analysis of lower level outcomes.

Figure 2. Final model.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

Mathieu, J. E., and S. R. Taylor. 2007. “A Framework for Testing Meso-Mediational

You might also like