How transformational leadership shapes employee task performance? A sequential mediation model

1 This is the accepted version of the article: Vila-Vázquez, G., Castro-Casal, C., García-Chas, R. and Álvarez-Pérez, D. (2024), "How transformational leadership shapes employee task performance? A sequential mediation model", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-20230027 Accepted: 29-Apr-2024 Abstract: The purpose of this study was to analyze through a sequential model the underlying mechanisms connecting transformational leadership with employee task performance. Specifically, it examined the causal chain transformational leadership-job characteristics (task variety and task significance)-job engagement-task performance. The hypotheses were tested on a sample of 320 employees and their supervisors from Spanish young technology and knowledge-intensive small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), using structural equations. The results show that the effect of transformational leadership on task performance (assessed by supervisors) occurs sequentially via task significance and job engagement. Additionally, job engagement mediates the relationship between task variety and task performance. Findings highlight the relevance for supervisors to employ a transformational leadership style that leads employees directly and indirectly, through task significance, to be more engaged and achieve higher task performance. They also emphasize the importance of proper job design that allows employees to be fully invested in the job performance. Despite the importance of leadership and employee performance for the survival and growth of these firms, the study of these relationships is largely unexplored. This study proposes and tests a serial model in which supervisor transformational leadership is linked to employee task performance through two sequential mediators: job characteristics (task variety and task significance) and job engagement. 2 How transformational leadership shapes employee task performance? A sequential mediation model Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze through a sequential model the underlying mechanisms connecting transformational leadership with employee task performance. Specifically, it examined the causal chain transformational leadership-job characteristics (task variety and task significance)-job engagement-task performance. Design/methodology/approach: The hypotheses were tested on a sample of 320 employees and their supervisors from Spanish young technology and knowledgeintensive small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), using structural equations. Findings: The results show that the effect of transformational leadership on task performance (assessed by supervisors) occurs sequentially via task significance and job engagement. Additionally, job engagement mediates the relationship between task variety and task performance. Practical implications: Findings highlight the relevance for supervisors to employ a transformational leadership style that leads employees directly and indirectly, through task significance, to be more engaged and achieve higher task performance. They also emphasize the importance of proper job design that allows employees to be fully invested in the job performance. Originality: Despite the importance of leadership and employee performance for the survival and growth of these firms, the study of these relationships is largely unexplored. This study proposes and tests a serial model in which supervisor transformational leadership is linked to employee task performance through two sequential mediators: job characteristics (task variety and task significance) and job engagement. Keywords: Transformational leadership, job characteristics, job engagement, task performance Paper type Research paper Introduction The relationship between the supervisor’s leadership style and employees’ performance has been one of the issues that has attracted considerable interest in management literature in the last decades (Han et al., 2020). Recent meta-analyses (see Ng, 2017; Wang et al., 2011) confirm a positive influence of supervisor’s transformational leadership on employee performance. According to Lai et al. (2020), in the current context, characterized by complexity and fast changes, leaders need their followers to invest all their energies to fulfill the requirements of their jobs. In the same line, several authors have highlighted the important role of the leader in developing and maintaining subordinate job engagement (e.g., Crawford et al., 2014; Ghadi et al., 2013; Kahn, 1990; Authors, 2018). Managers can inspire and motivate employees through their leadership, and this process influences the job engagement experience. Recent research has corroborated the mediating role of job engagement in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee role and extra-role performance, creativity and innovation (Aryee et al., 2012; Fernando and Jayarwardana, 2024; Lai et al., 2020; Park et al., 2022; Pourbarkhordari et al., 2016; Salanova et al., 2011; Authors, 2018). However, the mechanisms through which the 3 relationship between transformational leadership, job engagement and employee performance occurs require further research (Bakker et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2014; Han et al., 2020). According to the social information processing model (SIPM, Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), “the social environment provides cues which individuals use to construct and interpret events” (p. 226). Supervisor leadership is considered a salient and relevant factor of the immediate social context (Hu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2019; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Rice and Young, 2023; Yang et al., 2019) that influences and shapes the "reality" in which employees perform their work (Lai et al., 2020; Cleavenger and Munyon, 2013; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Yang et al., 2019), with effects on their motivation and behavior. Hackman and Oldham (1980), in the job characteristics model (JCM), argued that employees' reactions to their jobs (such as motivation or performance) are based on their perception of the job motivational characteristics: variety, significance, identity, autonomy, and feedback. Both models share that employees' reactions (motivation or performance) are based on their perceptions of job characteristics. While JCM assumes that employees' perceptions of the job itself affect individual outcomes, SIPM assumes that the social environment in which employees perform their work affect to formation of their jobs’ perceptions, their motivation and performance. The former conceptualizes job characteristics as “objective” while the latter considers them as “subjective”, socially constructed (Grant, 2008, p. 109). Clearly, both models are complementary. Employees perceptions about their jobs are partially based on job design, and partially affected by cues from the social environment (Grant, 2008), in our case, the transformational leadership of the supervisor. Therefore, integrating both models (SIPM, Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978, and JCM, Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007), this study posits a serial mediation model in which supervisor transformational leadership is linked to employee task performance through two sequential mediators: job characteristics perceptions (namely, task variety and task significance) and job engagement. This is an important contribution to the literature with practical implications. Previous research has studied partial relationships, as such the link between transformational leadership, job characteristics (combining job characteristics in a single construct) and individual performance (e.g., Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Purvanova et al., 2006; Wang, 2020) but without including job engagement. Other studies have analyzed the transformational leadership-job engagement-job performance relationship (Breevaart et al., 2016; Jiatong et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2020; Park et al., 2022; Pourbarkhordari et al., 2016) but without taking into account particular job characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, research has not incorporated the proposed sequential mediators into a single model. This study provides, therefore, a better understanding of the relational chain between transformational leadership and task performance. This paper also fills a research shortfall on leadership and employee motivation in young technology and knowledge-intensive SMEs. The choice of study variables was based on both the literature and the context in which the research was carried out. In young technology SMEs, individual performance is likely to be closely linked to firm performance (Messersmith and Wales, 2013). Given their resource constraints, these firms must do more with fewer resources. Having employees who are highly engaged, connected to their job performance and the multiple roles they play (Messersmith and Guthrie, 2010), will maximize their task performance, their contribution to the firm and its performance. 4 Despite the recognition that human resources and their adequate management are key aspects for the competitiveness and development of these firms (Harney and Alkhalaf, 2021), most studies in this context have focused on the role of the owner/entrepreneur. Therefore, it has been ignored the fact that the extent to which these firms are able to lead and engage employees is crucial to convert the vision of the entrepreneur or founding team into a reality (Jensen and Luthans, 2006) and for firm growth (Harney and Alkhalaf, 2021; Messersmith and Wales, 2013). Task variety and task significance have been associated with meaningfulness in work Allan, 2017), motivation (Humphrey et al., 2007), and job engagement (Christian et al., 2011; Shantz et al., 2013). Regarding task variety, it is important to note that young technological intensive SMEs jobs are broadly defined, and the employees perform multiple tasks that change as the firm grows (Messersmith and Guthrie, 2010). Task significance is relevant for employees in all firms, as they increasingly seek to make an impact on others (Allan, 2017; Grant, 2008). But it is perhaps more pronounced for young technological SMEs, because to gain the necessary momentum it is essential that employees embrace the project and the vision of the founding team and perceive their work as having impact. Young technology and knowledge-intensive SMEs are characterized by a few hierarchic levels, which favors close collaboration between supervisors and employees. Supervisors and employees often interact closely, and those are involved in the day-to-day organizational life of employees (Yang et al., 2019). Thus, supervisors with a transformational leadership style, by providing informational cues to employees through their actions and messages, are expected to influence employees' perceptions and reactions (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Purvanova et al., 2006). In summary, the main contributions of this study are the following: On the one hand, it extends the literature by analyzing the complex causal chain connecting transformational leadership with task performance, integrating SIPM and JCM and going beyond the previous studies that have examined in isolation the mediating role of job characteristics (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006) or job engagement (Aryee et al., 2012; Lai et al., 2020; Ng, 2017; Park et al., 2022). On the other, it responds to calls for empirical research analyzing the underlying mechanisms by which transformational leadership affects job engagement (Aryee et al., 2012; Bakker et al., 2023; Crawford et al., 2014; Han et al., 2020), focusing on two motivational job characteristics: task variety and task significance. As antecedents of job engagement, both characteristics have received notably less attention than other motivational job characteristics such as autonomy or feedback (Christian et al., 2011; Crawford et al., 2014). This is surprising, since according to the findings of Christian et al. (2011), job engagement seems more strongly related to job characteristics that are associated with the perceived meaningfulness. For Grant (2008), task significance has not received the attention it requires. Humphrey et al. (2007) noted the paucity of research on task variety and called for studies to analyze its effect on work outcomes. Finally, it focuses on the role played by leaders and employees in young technological and knowledge-intensive SMEs, which has received much less attention than in large, established firms despite their important contribution to the economy in terms of employment, productivity, and innovation (Desmarchelier et al., 2013; Leung et al., 2006). Theoretical framework and hypotheses development According to Bass (1990, p. 21), leaders behave in a transformational way when they “broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and 5 acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interests for the good of the group”. Elements of transformational leadership are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Bass, 1990). Inspirational motivation is the degree to which leaders articulate a clear, compelling, and shared vision for their followers. Idealized influence is the degree to which leaders engage in behaviors that engender admiration, respect, and trust from followers and promote their identification with the leader and his/her mission. The leader is consistent in his/her behavior with the underlying principles and values, serving as a role model. Individualized consideration is the degree to which leaders listen to the concerns of their followers, recognize, and address their developmental needs, act as mentors and coaches, and treat them as unique individuals. Lastly, through intellectual stimulation, leaders challenge established assumptions, take risks, solicit ideas from followers, and encourage them to consider problems from multiple perspectives. Transformational leadership has been associated with employee attitudes and behaviors through multiples mediators, such as job engagement and job characteristics (Ng, 2017). Research has directed the attention towards the mechanisms by which transformational leadership affects job engagement, and subsequent individual outcomes. Salanova et al. (2011) concluded that transformational leadership, by reinforcing self-efficacy beliefs, promoted job engagement and this, in turn, extra-role performance in a sample of nurses. Aryee et al. (2012) found that transformational leadership increased job engagement, and subsequent innovation and task performance, by enhancing job meaningfulness and employees' felt responsibility in employees of Chinese telecommunications firm. Alamri's (2023) results revealed that transformational leaders triggered a promotion approach among followers that led them to be more engaged. Other studies have explored the mediating role of job characteristics (in aggregate) between transformational leadership and individual outcomes. In the study by Piccolo and Colquitt (2006), which included employees from different firms and industries, job characteristics, by generating greater intrinsic motivation, explained the effect of transformational leadership on task performance and citizenship behaviors. Purvanova et al. (2006) and Wang (2020) supported the mediating effect of job characteristics between transformational leadership and citizenship behavior, and creativity, respectively. Our study enriches this line of research that analyzes the complex causal chain linking transformational leadership with employee performance, incorporating two sequential mediators: job characteristics (task variety and task significance) and job engagement. Two theoretical perspectives are utilized to explain these relationships: Social information processing model (SIPM, Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) and job characteristics model (JCM, Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007). SIPM (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) assumes that social informational cues affect the employee’s evaluation of the work environment, how they interpret and perceive it, and their resulting motivation and behaviors. In line with this argument, research indicates that transformational leadership positively influences the sense of safety and meaning that employees experience in their work and the perception that they have resources necessary to put all their energies into the job (e.g., Aryee et al., 2012; Ghadi et al., 2013; Salanova et al., 2011). Employees use information from their social environment in developing perceptions of "job significance, importance, and variety" (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978, p. 228). So, immediate supervisors, as a source of social information, may have considerable influence on their subordinates' environment interpretation, job characteristics perceptions (namely, task variety and task significance), their motivation (job engagement) and their behaviors (task performance). 6 JCM posits that the motivating jobs allows employees to experience critical psychological states that favor their motivation and performance. Jobs that allow employees to perform a variety of tasks and use several skills, and endowed with task significance will lead to positive outcomes by generating greater meaningfulness. Based on this model, Kahn (1990) proposed that employees' perceptions of their job’s characteristics can increase or decrease their job engagement. Of course, it is up to the employees to decide whether or not to channel all their energies into job performance (Kahn, 1990), but the leader helps create the necessary conditions, and influences their construction of reality. According to SIPM, leaders provide key cues that shape employees' perceptions of work situations and job characteristics (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). For example, if a supervisor emphasizes the routine aspects of the job, employees will perceive less significance in the tasks they perform. If a supervisor, with transformational style, focuses on employees' understanding of the vision and mission of the firm and their contributions to the firm, employees will perceive their jobs as more valuable and significant. Job characteristics perceptions (influenced in part by social cues) will affect the degree to which employees to put all their energies into the performance of their work role (Grant, 2008). Job engagement as mediator in the transformational leadership–task performance relationship The concept of job engagement was introduced by Kahn (1990), who defined it as “the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). This approach considers job engagement as a motivational state that involves the simultaneous investment of the employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies in work performance (Rich et al., 2010). According to SIPM (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), leaders are part of the social context in which employees perform their work, with important effects on their motivation and behaviors. Since “direct supervisors tend to be perceived as the main organizational representative in the eyes of employees” (Rice and Young, 2023, p. 11706) and leaders and employees interact closely in SMEs, it is argued that the actions and messages of supervisor will shape the employees’ motivation and behaviors (Lai et al., 2020). Indeed, it has been argued that “employees tend to collect value information from what their leaders do and say” (Lu et al., 2019, p. 508), and based on this information, they will adapt their attitudes and behaviors (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). When leaders behave in a transformational way, developing and communicating a shared, inspiring, and challenging vision that emphasizes how collective goals are consonant with follower values, employees will perceive their work more congruently with their own values (Bono and Judge, 2003) and, consequently, will feel more intrinsically motivated and willing to engage in their job. The perception of a supportive and trusting environment is fundamental to the development of job engagement (Kahn, 1990; Macey and Schneider, 2008). Transformational leaders consider the achievement and growth needs of their followers and provide personalized support and interactions with each follower. Consequently, according to SIPM, the support and care offered by transformational supervisors will boost the perception of support from their organization and facilitate employee’s job engagement. In addition, transformational leaders motivate their employees by promoting their perception of resource availability (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010). Transformational leaders communicate high performance expectations and express confidence in the ability 7 of their followers to meet them by reinforcing their beliefs of self-efficacy (Bono and Judge, 2003; Salanova et al., 2011). As a result, employees will perceive and feel that they have the resources to invest themselves in role performance (Kahn, 1990) and will become more engaged. In a weekly study, Breevaart et al. (2016) confirmed that followers felt more engaged and achieved higher performance in weeks that the leader behaved in a transformational style. Engaged employees are characterized by their predisposition to invest all their energies (physical, emotional, and cognitive) in the performance of their work roles (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010). By working intensively on their tasks over long periods of time, paying close attention to their responsibilities, and being emotionally connected to the tasks that constitute their role, engaged employees will achieve better task performance (Rich et al., 2010). Because engaged employees experience positive emotions and great enthusiasm for their job, they are likely to discover opportunities to improve performance and take actions that contribute to job completion (Ho et al., 2011), extra-role behavior (Salanova et al., 2011; Lai et al., 2020; Authors, 2023), and creativity and innovation (Aryee et al., 2012; Wang, 2020; Authors, 2020). Research by Fernando and Jayawardana (2024), Pourbarkhordari et al. (2016), and Lai et al. (2020) in samples of employees from various industries, a telecommunications firm, and a sample of nurses, respectively, supported the mediating role of job engagement between transformational leadership and job performance. Jiatong et al. (2022) and Park et al. (2022), the former in a sample of hotel employees in China and the latter in employees of private firms in Korea, found that job engagement mediated both the link from transformational leadership to job performance and affective commitment. Based on the above arguments, we propose the following hypothesis: H1. Job engagement will mediate the relationship between the supervisor’s transformational leadership and employee task performance. Job characteristics as mediators in the transformational leadership–job engagement relationship Task variety and task significance are two core job characteristics with motivational potential. Task variety refers to the degree to which a job requires employees to perform a wide range of tasks on the job (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Task significance involves the degree to which a job has a significant impact on the lives or work of others (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Employees' perceptions of such attributes, based on both the nature of the job and the cues of their immediate social environment, will influence their attitudes and behaviors. According to SIPM (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), leaders, with this actions and informational cues, play a key role in developing employees' perceptions of job characteristics. Transformational leaders, by highlighting the ethical consequences of work (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006) and articulating a vision that focuses employees' attention on the contribution of their work (Grant, 2012) encourage the perception of significance of the tasks they perform. Inspiring leaders will be able to make their subordinates aware of the value of their work. If they emphasize the importance of the job to the achievement of organizational goals, employees will understand the importance of individual contributions to the organization (Bass, 1990) and their perceptions of task significance might increase (Wang, 2020). In addition, by encouraging employees to seek new ways of performing tasks, transformational leaders increase their perception of variety and autonomy (Piccolo and 8 Colquitt, 2006). If supervisors emphasize the scope of the job and the skills required for its performance, they encourage subordinates to question assumptions and to rethink the way of approaching different work situations, stimulating creativity, employees will perceive a greater task variety (Cleavenger and Munyon, 2013). Previous research has found that transformational leader behavior affected employees' perceptions of job characteristics (in aggregate) and, as a result, intrinsic motivation, and performance (Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006), citizenship behavior (Purvanova et al., 2006) and creativity (Wang, 2020). Purvanova et al. (2006) followed up with employees in one of the study firms and found that transformational leadership behavior affected job perceptions even when job objective characteristics had not changed. Based on JCM (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), Kahn (1990) proposed that task characteristics influence the degree to which people engage in work. Jobs characterized by variety, which offer task identity and significance, autonomy, and quick feedback offer employees the room and the incentive to bring more of their selves into their work (Kahn, 1992). Macey and Schneider (2008) reasoned that the nature of work (variety, challenge, autonomy) directly affects job engagement. Ho et al. (2011) argued that employees will put more effort and energy into the roles they find enjoyable. When employees perceive that the job requires the performance of a wide variety of tasks, they will find it more interesting and enjoyable (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006), more challenging and less monotonous (Humphrey et al., 2007; Shantz et al., 2013), and experience a greater connection with their work, whereas if the job requires limited skill variety it will probably be less stimulating and could lead to boredom. When employees consider that their jobs make substantial contribution to the lives of others and to the organization, they will be willing to devote more time and energy (Grant, 2008) and invest their entire selves in them (Kahn, 1990), therefore this provides employees´ a reason to be engaged. Previous studies found that variety task (Shantz et al., 2013) and task significance (Goštautaitė and Bučiūnienė, 2015; Shantz et al., 2013) drove to job engagement. Other studies showed that experienced meaningfulness, partly a result of transformational leadership, encouraged employees to be more engaged, (e.g., Aryee et al., 2012; Ghadi et al., 2013). Based on the aforementioned arguments, it is proposed: H2. Task variety will mediate the relationship between the supervisor’s transformational leadership and employee job engagement. H3. Task significance will mediate the relationship between the supervisor’s transformational leadership and employee job engagement. Job characteristics and job engagement as sequential mediators in the transformational leadership–task performance relationship Drawing on SIPM (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), we argue that supervisors by behaving in a transformational manner sent signals to employees about the variety and significance of the tasks they perform. As Cleavenger and Munyon (2013) argue, the transformational leader “is able to frame the employee’s work experience to create a new point of reference for understanding the meaning of his/her work” (p. 353). In turn, employees' perceptions about their jobs (formed on the basis of job characteristics and social information) will have an effect on job engagement and task performance. When employees perceive that their work is varied and that it impacts others (outside or inside the firm), they will feel 9 that what they do is useful, valuable, and worth doing (worthwhile) and, consequently, they will be willing to put all their energies (physical, cognitive, and emotional) into the job role (Kahn, 1990). According to JCM (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007), both task variety and task significance are expected to positively impact job engagement. As noted above, job engagement will, in turn, have positive implications for task performance (Shantz et al., 2013). Therefore, the proposed causal relationships are as follows: transformational leadership→task variety→job engagement→task performance; transformational leadership→task significance→job engagement→task performance. Based on the above arguments, the following hypotheses are put forward: H4. Task variety and job engagement will sequentially mediate the relationship between the supervisor’s transformational leadership and employee task performance. H5. Task significance and job engagement will sequentially mediate the relationship between the supervisor’s transformational leadership and employee task performance. Method Sample The data for the study were collected from employees working in 21 young –operating for 10 or fewer years (McKelvie et al., 2017) in high-tech and knowledge intensive industries according to Eurostat classification– SMEs located in Spain. A purposive sample technique was used. Two reasons justify the focus on this context: First, SMEs, and the way they are managed, can vary according to the stage of life cycle and the industry (Harney and Alkhalaf, 2021). Second, the relevant role played by these firms in the economic growth of the countries (Messersmith and Guthrie, 2010; Authors, 2023). Several sources of information were used to draw up a list of firms that met the requirements: the record of Spanish firms associated with RedEmprendia (an IberoAmerican University Network that encourages responsible entrepreneurship), the web records of the spin-offs of the main Spanish universities, and the directory of firms in the main technology parks in Spain. One hundred SMEs were contacted to collaborate in the study. Ultimately, 21 firms, sizing between 10 and 100 employees, agreed to participate. Management provided the research team with the employees’ emails. Matching online questionnaires were mailed directly to employees and their supervisors in each firm, guaranteeing the confidentiality of their answers. In the mail sent, a code was provided that would then allow the employee's responses to be linked to those of the supervisor. The relationship between the employee's identity and the code was only in the hands of the research team, which guaranteed the anonymity of the responses. The final sample comprised data from 320 employees and their supervisors (who assessed their employees’ task performance). The average age of the participating employees was 32.09 years, and the average tenure was 3.17 years, 63.75% were men. In terms of educational level, 69.06% held a higher education degree, 27.81% held a master or a PhD degree, and only 3.12% had high school education or below. Measures 16 Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-Concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 554–571. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040649 Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5, pp. 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901 Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Derks, D. (2016). Who takes the lead? A multi‐source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No 3, pp. 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2041 Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87 No 1, pp. 138–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12041 Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A short measure of transformational leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 389–405. https://doi.org/1022991115523 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17446570.2010.01203.x Cleavenger, D. J., & Munyon, T. P. (2013). It’s how you frame it: Transformational leadership and the meaning of work. Business Horizons, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 351–360. https://doi.org///doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.002 Crawford, E. R., Rich, B. L., Buckman, B., & Bergeron, J. (2014). The antecedents and drivers of employee engagement. In C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 57–81). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076965-12 Desmarchelier, B., Djellal, F., & Gallouj, F. (2013). Knowledge intensive business services and long term growth. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Vol. 25, pp. 188–205. https://doi.org///doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2012.07.003 Fernando, P. B. D., & Jayawardana, A. K. (2024). Impact of individual-focused transformational leadership on individual work performance: mediating role of work engagement and moderating role of regulatory focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-20230449 Gaskin, J. (2019). Gaskination’s StatWiki Plugins. http://statwiki.gaskination.com/index.php?title=Plugins Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement: The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-102011-0110 Goštautaitė, B., and Bučiūnienė, I. (2015). Work engagement during life-span: the role of interaction outside the organization and task significance. Journal of Vocational. Behavior, Vol. 89, pp. 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.05.001 Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 17 Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 458–476. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0588 Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. Y. A., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/978-0138132637 Han, S. H., Oh, E. G., & Kang, S. “Pil.” (2020). The link between transformational leadership and work-related performance: moderated-mediating roles of meaningfulness and job characteristics. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol 41 No. 4, pp. 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2019-0181 Harney, B., & Alkhalaf, H. (2021). A quarter‐century review of HRM in small and medium‐sized enterprises: Capturing what we know, exploring where we need to go. Human Resource Management, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22010 Ho, V. T., Wong, S. S., & Lee, C. H. (2011). A tale of passion: Linking job passion and cognitive engagement to employee work performance. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00878.x Hu, W., Luo, J., Chen, Z., & Zhong, J. (2020). Ambidextrous leaders helping newcomers get on board: Achieving adjustment and proaction through distinct pathways. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 118, pp. 406-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.064 Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D. & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332 Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’ attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 646–666. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730610709273 Jiatong, W., Wang, Z., Alam, M., Murad, M., Gul, F., & Gill, S. A. (2022). The impact of transformational leadership on affective organizational commitment and job performance: the mediating role of employee engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, 831060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.831060 Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287 Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500402 Lai, F.-Y., Tang, H.-C., Lu, S.-C., Lee, Y.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2020). Transformational leadership and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. SAGE Open, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 215824401989908. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899085 Leung, A., Zhang, J., Wong, P. K., & Foo, M. Der. (2006). The use of networks in human resource acquisition for entrepreneurial firms: Multiple “fit” considerations. Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 664–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2005.04.010 Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2 Lu, J., Zhang, Z., & Jia, M. (2019). Does servant leadership affect employees’ emotional labor? A social information-processing perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 159, pp. 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3816-3 18 Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17549434.2007.0002.x McKelvie, A., Brattström, A., & Wennberg, K. (2017). How young firms achieve growth: reconciling the roles of growth motivation and innovative activities. Small Business Economics. Vol. 49 No. 2, pp.273–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9847-9 Messersmith, J. G., & Guthrie, J. P. (2010). High performance work systems in emergent organizations: Implications for firm performance. Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20342 Messersmith, J. G. & Wales, W. J. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance in young firms: The role of human resource management. International Small Business Journal, Vol.31 No. 2, pp. 115-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242611416 Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 Ng, T. W. H. H. (2017). Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 385–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.008 Park, J., Han, S. J., Kim, J., & Kim, W. (2022). Structural relationships among transformational leadership, affective organizational commitment, and job performance: the mediating role of employee engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 920–936. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-10-2020-0149 Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1120-1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1783 Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079 Pourbarkhordari, A., Zhou, E. H. I., & Pourkarimi, J. (2016). How individual-focused transformational leadership enhances its influence on job performance through employee work engagement. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, 249-261. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n2p249 Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1901_1 Rauch, A., & Hatak, I. (2016). A meta-analysis of different HR-enhancing practices and performance of small and medium sized firms. Journal of business venturing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2016.05.005 Rice, D. B., & Young, N. C. (2023). Integrating ethics and inclusion: How and when upper-level managerial leadership impact supervisory inclusiveness. Current Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 14, pp. 11705–11718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02460-6 Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617– 635. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988 Salancik, G., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563 Salanova, M., Lorente, L., Chambel, M. J., & Martínez, I. M. (2011). Linking transformational leadership to nurses’ extra‐role performance: The mediating role of self‐ 19 efficacy and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2256– 2266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05652.x Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 13, pp. 2608–2627. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.744334 Wang, P. (2020). Core job characteristic and uncertainty avoidance: Into the black box of transformational leadership effect on creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.367 Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 Years of Research. Group & Organization Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179– 201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011 Yang, F., Huang, X., & Wu, L. (2019). Experiencing meaningfulness climate in teams: How spiritual leadership enhances team effectiveness when facing uncertain tasks. Human Resource Management, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21943 20 Figures Figure1. Coefficients of the hypothesized model TL Task variety Job engagement Task performance Task significance 0.136* 0.169** 0.394*** 0.204*** 0.268*** Notes: TL, transformational leadership; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; *p<0.05 21 Tables Table I. Descriptive statistics and correlations. Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 32.09 6.18 2. Gender - - -0.093 3. Transformational leadership 5.26 1.43 -0.195*** -0.063 (0.964) 4. Task significance 4.71 1.30 0.094 0.001 0.143* (0.814) 5. Task variety 5.63 1.12 0.134* -0.099 0.083 0.330*** (0.953) 6. Job engagement 5.78 0.82 0.042 0.108 0.380*** 0.433*** 0.303*** (0.930) 7. Task performance 5.82 1.10 -0.058 0.027 0.150** 0.088 0.064 0.162** (0.956) Notes: n = 320. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Table II. Overall reliability and validity of the constructs. Transformational leadership Task significance Task variety Job engagement Task performance Transformational leadership CR = 0.964 AVE = 0.792 Task significance SC = 0.019 (0.008; 0.266) CR = 0.818 AVE = 0.600 Task variety SC = 0.007 (-0.028; 0.200) SC = 0.137 (0.252; 0.488) CR = 0.954 AVE = 0.873 Job engagement SC = 0.105 (0.206; 0.442) SC = 0.233 (0.361; 0.605) SC = 0.092 (0.173; 0.435) CR = 0.917 AVE = 0.738 Task performance SC = 0.029 (0.051; 0.287) SC = 0.010 (-0.026; 0.224) SC = 0.004 (-0.063; 0.195) SC = 0.040 (0.070; 0.332) CR = 0.957 AVE = 0.846 Notes: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; SC, squared correlation Table III. Model comparison. Models χ2 df CFI IFI RMSEA CI 90 % RMSEA Δχ2 df p Saturated model 775.854 365 0.955 0.955 0.059 0.054-0.065 M1 779.497 366 0.954 0.955 0.060 0.054-0.065 3.643 1 ns M2 796.662 366 0.953 0.953 0.061 0.055-0.066 20.808 1 <0.001 M3 778.141 366 0.955 0.955 0.059 0.054-0.065 2.287 1 ns M4 780.485 366 0.954 0.955 0.060 0.054-0.065 4.631 1 <0.05 M5 775.862 366 0.955 0.955 0.059 0.053-0.065 0.008 1 ns M6 783.987 366 0.954 0.954 0.060 0.054-0.066 8.133 1 <0.001 M7 775.856 366 0.955 0.955 0.059 0.053-0.065 0.002 1 ns M8 811.675 366 0.951 0.951 0.062 0.056-0.068 35.821 1 <0.001 M9 781.787 369 0.955 0.955 0.059 0.053-0.65 5.933 4 ns Notes: n = 320. ns, not significant 22 Table IV. Summary of support/rejection of hypotheses Hypotheses Support/ rejection H1. Transformational leadership → Job engagement → Task performance Support H2. Transformational leadership → Task variety → Job engagement Rejection H3. Transformational leadership → Task significance → Job engagement Support H4. Transformational leadership → Task variety → Job engagement → Task performance Rejection H5. Transformational leadership → Task significance → Job engagement → Task performance Support