The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency.
Abstract
Followers' identification with the leader and the organizational unit, dependence on the leader, and empowerment by the leader are often attributed to transformational leadership in organizations. However, these hypothesized outcomes have received very little attention in empirical studies. Using a sample of 888 bank employees working under 76 branch manages, the authors tested the relationships between transformational leadership and these outcomes. They found that transformational leadership was positively related to both followers' dependence and their empowerment and that personal identification mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' dependence on the leader, whereas social identification mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and followers' empowerment. The authors discuss the implications of these findings to both theory and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2001) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2001.s574 · Cited by 9,278
IMPACT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON FOLLOWER DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE: A FIELD EXPERIMENT.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069307 · Cited by 1,906
Self-citationCommon methods bias: does common methods variance really bias results?
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814002 · Cited by 1,380 · cited 1×
“Although researchers have shown that common method bias is rarely strong enough to invalidate research findings (e.g., Doty & Glick, 1998), replications and extensions of our findings using experimental and longitudinal designs are needed.”
Background
Cited by
Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002 · Cited by 5,435
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003 · Cited by 2,252
Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open?
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.26279183 · Cited by 2,250
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601111401017 · Cited by 1,315
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2013.759433 · Cited by 1,302
Metadata
- Authors
- Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 246-255
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2047008475
- Cited by
- 1,381
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 41.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
