Transformational Leadership Behaviors and the Intrinsic Motivation of Employees in Turkey: The Role of Psychological Empowerment and Demographics

ABSTRACT

Transformational leaders make a difference in organizations by inspiring and motivating employees. This makes the concept of transformational leadership a significant area of research. This article investigates the relationship between transformational leadership, psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation in the Turkish workplace. The mediating role of psychological empowerment is also examined. Data was collected from 315 participants working in different sectors in Turkey and analyzed. We found that the transformational leadership behaviors of managers had a positive effect on psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation. Moreover, the relationship between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation was fully mediated by psychological empowerment. The article also tests whether employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership, psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation change according to demographics or not. The present study provides a comprehensive perspective on the psychological and motivational effects of leaders on employees.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, Psychological empowerment, Motivation.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership in the private sector requires the morale and intellectual ability to imagine the best for a company and its employees. Leaders, regardless of whether they are in the public and private sector, are important to empowering employees at every level of their organizations. They also increase competitiveness. Most significantly, leaders associate the goals of the individual with those of the group and create team spirit. Leaders are seen as people who can take risks, initiate change, motivate individuals with organizational goals and visions, and challenge the status quo in a competitive environment (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Transformational leaders are those who take risks and initiative in order to make a difference and develop their organizations and employees. The structure of transformational leadership, which attaches importance to motivation and supports development, competencies and autonomy, is associated with employees feeling strong psychologically (Yukl, 2010; Zhu, et al., 2012).

Transformational leadership is a leadership approach that encourages cooperation with employees, delegation of authority; creation of a learning environment by sharing experiences, participation in decision-making, and employees to create and implement innovative ideas (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). With the effects they leave on their followers, transformational leaders increase motivation, job satisfaction, and work efficiency, and reduce turnover and absenteeism (Robbins & Judge, 2017).

When the intrinsic motivation variable in our research is examined, it is seen that the subject is related to the "self-determination theory", which focuses on the internal processes that are effective in the formation of personality development and individual behaviors. According to this theory, there are three fundamental requirements for wellbeing: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These requirements are universal and necessary for psychological health and development (Deci & Ryan, 1980). Fulfillment of these needs positively affects wellbeing, while lack of fulfillment decreases wellbeing. According to the self-determination theory, satisfying these fundamental psychological requirements of the individual is highly important for the formation and maintenance of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). In this context, transformational leaders motivate their employees (followers) by reorienting their attitudes, beliefs, and values so that they can perform beyond expectations (Koçel, 2015). The concern of leaders for the needs of their followers is what makes them transformational and successful (Kovjanic et al., 2013).

Transformational leaders can make individuals feel stronger by enabling the formation of their social identities related to the group and organization they belong to (Avolio et al., 2004; Fuller, et al., 1999). According to the Social Identity Theory developed by Tajfel & Turner (1979), people often act not as individuals but as members of particular social groups. The theory is based on the idea that the concept of social identity that individuals create is shaped by the emotions they attribute to the group they belong to, and states that when the individual attaches importance to the group and organization he/she belongs to, he/she starts to use his/her social identity instead of his/her personal identity (Demirtaş, 2003, p. 128-129). Transformational leaders mobilize the higher-level needs of employees in order to transform them by encouraging them to surpass their own interests on behalf of the organization, and by raising awareness of the importance of organizational results (Kovjanic et al., 2013). The fact that leaders give equal importance to employees and to organizational goals supports the formation of their social and organizational identities.

Social identity theory postulates that the perception of being with or belonging to a particular social category, such as an organization or group, can intrinsically motivate individuals to achieve a collective good (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Edwards & Peccei, 2007). van Knippenberg et al. (2004) hypothesize that certain personal characteristics of transformational leaders (such as behaving selflessly and confidently) positively affect the collective social identity development of subordinates. Transformational leaders assist employees to develop a sense of self-esteem, self-development, and self-worth, which are among the important social needs of employees, and enable them to establish a psychological bond with the organization (Tse & Chiu, 2014). There is evidence that transformational leadership not only enables subordinates to identify directly with their leaders, but also with their work units and colleagues (Kark et al., 2003; Tyssen et al., 2014).

This study investigates the importance of transformational leadership qualities in terms of the psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation of employees in the Turkish business environment, which has social and organizational cultural characteristics defined as “collectivist” and “high-level power distance” (Hoftsede, 1983; Sargut, 2001). It also examines the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation. In this context, it is thought that transformational leaders, who define the vision of the organization, assign roles to employees in line with this vision, organize their efforts and contributions, and support the development of individuals, will increase the psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation of employees by inculcating an organizational identity within them.

This article also investigates if there is a difference in perception of psychological empowerment, transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation across different demographics such as age, gender, tenure length and education. Given their importance in social sciences and business research, demographic factors play an important role in explaining how people behave and feel (Mohammed et al., 2012). Gender, age, education, and tenure are key demographic factors to study how people perceive the world, and feel and interpret situations. Leadership styles, assumptions on how they (should) behave, and motivations might change according to gender, age and tenure (Eagly et al., 1994; Mohammed et al., 2012; Ng & Feldman, 2010). One study found that male leaders show more transformational leadership characteristics when it comes to setting goals (Gibson, 1995) but female leaders showed more transformational leader behaviors in general according to other studies (Rosenbusch & Townsend, 2004; Sharpe, 2000). However, some studies found no statistical difference between male and female leadership (Hall, 2011; Manning, 2002). Motivation is also a variable that differs based on demographics. There are studies indicating tenure might be negatively correlated with motivation, but also ones that indicate older people might have higher motivation (Boumans et al., 2011; Moynihan et al., 2007; Paynter, 2004). Although there are a significant number of factors determining leadership and motivation, it is important to consider demographics, which are often focused on less than other factors. Since the literature on this is contradictory, it might be beneficial to examine differences in terms of key demographics.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT, AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Transformational leadership is leadership that increases the competence and awareness of employees and facilitates their individual development, thus helping the growth of the organization (Bass, 1985; Jha, 2014). Transformational leaders, instead of responding to the immediate personal interests of followers with temporary solutions, increase the trust of followers, while awakening a high awareness of basic, group, and organizational issues in individual employees (Avolio & Bass, 1988). This style of leadership also ensures the realization of group and organizational goals by instilling mission, vision and strategy in employees, and directing their attention to other areas (Bass & Avolio, 1990). In the academic literature, transformational leadership is defined and measured with four basic components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Robbins & Judge, 2017).

Idealized influence refers to leaders being charismatic, being a role model to their employees or followers, and subject to respect. Inspirational motivation is about increasing the motivation of employees, making them more optimistic and enthusiastic about doing something. It occurs when leaders act to increase the performance of and effort expended by employees by expressing important goals and high expectations in ways that they can understand. On the other hand, intellectual stimulation is when leaders encourage their followers to look at current situations and problems from different and creative perspectives. Thus, transformational leaders promote the intellectual development of employees by supporting innovative and original approaches to problem solving. Individual consideration is when leaders are interested in the needs of employees and contribute to them fulfilling their potential. Leaders help followers develop by coaching/mentoring, providing feedback on their work, and increasing their self-confidence (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Robbins & Judge, 2017).

Transformational leaders contribute to the formation of individual social identities by providing a bond between them and the group and organization they belong to and can make employees feel stronger (Avolio et al., 2004; Fuller, et al., 1999). They also ensure employees feel stronger and more valuable, and increase how much they value their work by instilling a purpose and vision in them (Zhu et al., 2012). This leadership style assists psychological empowerment by encouraging employees to ask questions and solve problems, providing feedback on performance, mentoring, supporting the increase of competencies, and providing freedom in certain areas. Transformational leaders increase their followers’ feelings of commitment and empowerment, leading to positive organizational results, by promoting identification with the goals, values, and members of the organization (Kark et al., 2003; Ilies et al., 2006) and activating employees’ desires for self-development, success, and satisfaction. Many empirical studies claim transformational leadership has a positive effect on psychological empowerment (Dvir et al., 2002; Kark et al., 2003; Khanmohammadi & Mohseni, 2010; Kim & Shin, 2019; Pradhan et al., 2017). Based on theoretical explanations of transformational leadership and the research findings cited above, the following hypothesis is put forward regarding the effects of transformational leadership on psychological empowerment:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership positively affects psychological empowerment.

Transformational leaders are seen as visionary leaders with innovative perspectives, goal-oriented and supportive. They raise the motivation of employees, enhance job satisfaction and work efficiency, and reduce turnover and absenteeism (Robbins & Judge, 2017). Studies have shown that transformational leadership increases the motivation and emotional commitment of employees (Akbolat et al., 2013; Cappelli 2020; Çetin et al., 2017), and is associated with creativity and innovation (Shafi et al., 2020). In addition, in studies conducted on 1,481 teachers working in private and public schools, it was determined that the relationship between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation was mediated by three different basic needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). (Jensen and Bro (2018) Similarly, in a study examining the relationships between intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership and job performance in the pharmacology sector in Vietnam, it was found that transformational leadership style, ideal influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation positively affects job performance (Nguyen, et al., 2019). Therefore, in this study, it was assumed that transformational leadership would positively affect the intrinsic motivation of individuals, so the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership positively affects intrinsic motivation.

Empowerment is a very interesting subject and the number of studies related to the subject is high, leading to the development of various approaches to the subject and its definition with different concepts. In the literature, the concept of empowerment has been defined as ensuring the participation of employees in their work (Kanter, 1977), motivating individuals with “resource and power sharing” (Burke, 1986; Conger & Kanungo, 1988), autonomy (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen, 1999, p. 260), and active participation of a person in their work with a sense of control over it (Çekmecelioğlu & Eren, 2007). In light of these definitions, empowerment has been expressed and measured as a motivational concept consisting of meaning, competence, autonomy, and impact, all dimensions related to the work of the individual and arising from job characteristics (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; 1996; 1997; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990;). Studies have shown that there is a positive relationship between psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation (İhtiyaroğlu, 2017; Li et al., 2015; Özcan & Çekmecelioğlu, 2021; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Therefore, in this study, it is hypothesized that psychological empowerment will positively affect intrinsic motivation. The following hypothesis is put forward:

Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment positively affects intrinsic motivation.

According to the self-determination theory, satisfying basic psychological needs such as the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness for wellbeing of the individual is very important for the formation and maintenance of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). By meeting the high-level needs of the employees, transformational leaders ensure that employees act in line with the organizational purpose and vision (Kovjanic et al., 2013). In this way, they contribute to the formation of intrinsic motivation by making employees feel psychologically strong. Some studies show that empowerment mediates the effect of transformational leadership on work attitudes (Lan & Chong, 2015). Similarly, it was determined that transformational leadership positively affects creative behavior and psychological empowerment has a mediating role in this effect (Afsar et al., 2017). Similarly, in studies conducted in Turkey, it has been found that transformational leadership has a positive effect on psychological empowerment and that psychological empowerment has a mediating role in the effect of transformational leadership on innovation (Sağnak et al., 2015). Therefore, in this study, it is considered that psychological empowerment plays a mediating role in the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation, and the following hypothesis is put forward:

Hypothesis 4: Psychological empowerment has a mediating role in the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation.

METHODOLOGY

This article aims to examine the relationship between psychological empowerment, transformational leadership, and intrinsic motivation. The research model was established in line with the hypotheses and literature and is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1

DATA COLLECTION & INSTRUMENTATION

The article used a cross-sectional design to collect data through surveys. Research participants were employees from various industries in Kocaeli. As of 2021, the total number of employees (official and insured) in Kocaeli was 579,062
(İŞKUR, 2021). Since it is not possible to survey them all, 325 questionnaires were collected through the convenience sampling method. The research data were obtained through online questionnaires sent to the participants between January and April 2021. Among the 325 returned questionnaires, 315 completely coded questionnaires were included in the analysis. In one study, a sample of 384 people was deemed sufficient in a population of 1,000,000 or more (Yazıcıoğlu & Erdoğan, 2004). Given the population in this study, it can be said that a sample of 315 people is sufficient.

This study was approved by the Kocaeli University Humanities and Social Sciences Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The questionnaire prepared within the scope of the research included demographic information, a psychological empowerment questionnaire, a transformational leadership questionnaire and an intrinsic motivation questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised 37 items measuring transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and intrinsic motivation as well as demographic characteristics such as age, gender, tenure, and education.

In this study, the scale developed by Bass & Avolio (1995) was used to measure transformational leadership. A multifactor leadership questionnaire was designed on the basis of evaluating the behavior of leaders and includes expressions that measure not only transformational leadership but also transactional leadership. Transformational leadership was conceived as having four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual attention (Bass, 1998; Stewart, 2006). For the purpose of the study, only twenty expressions measuring transformational leadership were used and distributed to the participants in the form of a five-point Likert type scale, been translated into Turkish by Çekmecelioğlu et al. (2018). The Cronbach Alpha scale is 0.976. The psychological empowerment questionnaire was developed by Spreitzer (1996) and follows meaning, authority, effectiveness, and autonomy. Each section consisted of three expressions for a total of twelve. The questionnaire was distributed to participants in a five-point Likert type scale. It was translated into Turkish by Çekmecelioğlu et al. (2018). The Cronbach Alpha of the scale was 0.881. The intrinsic motivation scale was adapted by Tierney et al. (1999) from the intrinsic motivation scale of Amabile et al. (1994) and consists of five statements. It was presented to the participants as a five-point Likert type scale. The questionnaire was translated into Turkish as part of a study by Çekmecelioğlu et al. (2017). The evaluation statements in the five-point Likert type questionnaires were arranged from 1 – “I totally disagree” to 5 – “I totally agree”. The Cronbach Alpha of the scale was 0.821.

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to measure the validity of the scales in this study. CFA uses observed variables to validate the pre-constructed factor structure of a scale. CFA can be used to decide whether a scale is valid or not by looking at the goodness-of-fit values. According to CFA, the values related to the scales were acceptable. During the analysis, an expression related to the intrinsic motivation variable was excluded from the model because the regression coefficient was below 0.50.

Table 1

CFA results.

Note: T.L. = Transformational leadership, P.M. = Psychological Empowerment, I.M. = Intrinsic Motivation.

Correlation and regression analysis were performed to measure the relationships between the variables examined within the scope of the research. Table 6 shows the mean, standard deviation, and correlation values of the variables. The mean values of the variables are between 3.51 and 4.54. The standard deviation values are between .54 and 1.05. There is a positive relationship between the transformational leadership and psychological empowerment values of the participants (r = .449, P <.01). A positive relationship was also observed between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation (r = .286, P <.01). At the same time, a positive relationship (r = .428, P <.01) was observed between psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation.

The relationships between the dimensions of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and transformational leadership were also examined. Meaning (r= .268, P <.01), impact (r = .395, P <.01), competence (r= .279, P <.01), and autonomy (r = .358, P <.01) and dimensions of psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation were found to be positively related. Meaning (r = .276, P <.01), impact (r = .181, P <.01), competence (r = .384, P <.01), and autonomy (r = .431,
P <.01) as dimensions of psychological empowerment and transformational leadership levels were found to be positively related.

Table 2

Correlation matrix.

Note: T.L. = Transformational leadership, P.M. = Psychological Empowerment, I.M. = Intrinsic Motivation.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis was performed using Amos to test the hypotheses of the research. Table 8 shows the results of the regression conducted to examine the effect of transformational leadership on psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation, and the mediating effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation.

Figure 2

First model.

Table 3

SEM Analysis.

In order to conduct a mediation analysis, steps developed by Baron & Kenny (1986) were followed. Firstly, to reveal whether the condition for the independent variable to affect the dependent variable in the mediation analysis was met, the path analysis was performed to examine the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation as shown in Figure 1. Goodness-of-fit values for the first model were CMIN/DF= 3.233, CFI=.932, GFI= .827, TLI=.922, NFI=.891 and RMSEA=.084 and are shown in table 7. As can be seen, the goodness-of-fit values for the first model are at acceptable levels. The results obtained in the first model are given in table 8. Accordingly, we find that transformational leadership has a positive effect on intrinsic motivation (ß= .333; P<.01).

The second model created to test the mediating role of psychological empowerment in the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation is shown in Figure 3. When the goodness-of-fit values for the second model are examined, it is seen that the values are at acceptable levels: CMIN/DF = 2,540, CFI = .916, GFI = .794, AGFI = .762, TLI = .909, NFI = .870 and RMS.

Figure 3

Second Model.

The results for the first and second models are shown in table 7 and results for the first model are explained above. When the results given in the second model are examined, it is seen that transformational leadership has a positive effect on psychological empowerment (ß= .514; p<.01) and psychological empowerment (ß= .464; p<.01) has the same effect on intrinsic motivation. These findings support hypotheses 3 and 1. When transformational leadership and psychological empowerment variables are included in the analysis to observe the mediation effect, we see that the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation (ß= .090; p>.05) completely disappears. Accordingly, psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation. In line with these results, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Table 4

Mediation Analysis results.

Note: *= P <0.5; T.L.=Transformational leadership, P.M.=Psychological Empowerment, I.M.= Intrinsic Motivation

Analysis of variance tests were carried out to see whether the psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership levels of participants changed according to demographic variables, and the results are shown in tables 6, 7 and 8. Demographic information regarding the sample of the study is shown in table 5 in detail: 50.8 per cent of the participants are female and 49.2 per cent are male.

A total of 29.8 per cent of the participants were 30 years or younger; 26.7 per cent were between the ages of 31 and 35; 22 per cent were between 36-40 years old and 18.2 per cent were between 41 and 50 years old. Only 3.2 per cent of participants were aged 51 years or older. A significant majority of the participants have a bachelor’s degree (54.3 per cent), 7.6 per cent of the participants had a high school education, 10.5 per cent had an associate degree and 27.6 per cent had postgraduate education. Finally, 30.2 per cent of participants had between 1-5 years of professional experience, 29.2 per cent had between 6-10 years, 22.9 per cent had between 11-15 years, and 17.8 per cent had 16 years or more.

Table 5

Descriptive statistics.

According to ANOVA and t-test results, psychological empowerment and transformational leadership levels do not differ by age, gender, and tenure. Moreover, as can be seen in table 8, the intrinsic motivation level of the participants does not differ according to age and gender but does differ by tenure. As a result of the Tukey test, the internal motivation levels of employees with 6-10 years of experience are higher than those who work for 16 years or more.

Table 6

Test of mean differences based on gender.

Table 7

Test of mean differences based on age.

Table 8

Test of mean differences based on tenure.

CONCLUSION

In this study the relationships between transformational leadership, psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation were examined. Our findings indicate that transformational leadership has a positive effect on psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation. Accordingly, transformational leaders ensure their employees express themselves better in the business environment by supporting them; provide opportunities to increase their competencies; and empower them by helping them find meaning in jobs.

At the same time, transformational leaders give an identity to their organization by defining its vision and goals, and create an organizational identity in employees by assigning roles to the employees in line with organization’s vision and goals, as well as organizing the efforts and contributions of the employees. This psychologically empowers employees (Avolio et al., 2004; Fuller, et al., 1999). These findings are in line with the results of previous studies. In empirical studies conducted in different sectors in China and India, it was found that transformational leadership positively affects psychological empowerment (Afsar et al., 2017; Jha, 2014). Similarly, a study conducted with 672 participants working in different sectors and regions in the United States of America found that transformational leaders empower their employees psychologically (Zhu et al., 2012).

This article’s findings show that transformational leadership raises the intrinsic motivation of employees. This result illustrates that transformational leaders transform employees by triggering their higher-order needs, encouraging them to transcend their own interests on behalf of the organization, which has also been expressed theoretically (Kovjanic et al., 2013). Transformational leaders’ interest in their followers’ needs is one of the most important factors that make them successful. Transformational leaders ensure that employees act in line with organizational purpose and vision by meeting their high-level needs (Kovjanic et al., 2013). Both national and international field studies on this subject show that idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration, all have positive effects on the intrinsic motivation of followers (Akbolat et al., 2013; Çetin et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2019).

Another result obtained in the research is about the effect of psychological empowerment on intrinsic motivation. Psychological empowerment has a very strong positive effect on intrinsic motivation. This effect is greater than the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation. This shows that the intrinsic motivation of employees who find their job meaningful, have the necessary competence in their job, and have freedom in certain areas related to their job will increase. In the organizational behavior literature, psychological empowerment is an important issue that has received a lot of attention and has been found to be related to both individual and organizational outcomes. Meaning, competence, autonomy and impact dimensions of psychological empowerment were found to be associated with organizational commitment, job satisfaction, individual performance, and work-related stress (Chang, Shih, & Lin, 2010, p. 427; Lashinger et al., 2000; 2009; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000: 407; Spreitzer, 1997;), intrinsic motivation and individual creative behavior (Aslam, 2017; Knol & Van Linge, 2009; Çekmecelioğlu & Özbağ, 2014; Çekmecelioğlu & Özbağ, 2016; Spreitzer, 1995; Zhang & Bartol, 2010), welfare of employees (Taştan, 2013; Wardani & Ameliah, 2020), organizational identification (Yılmaz & Tan, 2018), and proactive behaviors of employees (Huang, 2017). On the other hand, it has been determined that psychological empowerment also increases innovation (Çekmecelioğlu & Özbağ, 2014). These research results on psychological empowerment show that executives who want their employees to be more productive, motivated and dedicated to their work should emphasize employee empowerment.

Although it is clear that there are significant relationships between transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and intrinsic motivation variables, in this study, in order to explore how relationships are formed, whether psychological empowerment has a mediating effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation was investigated. We found that psychological empowerment mediates the effect of transformational leadership on intrinsic motivation. In other words, transformational leaders increase the intrinsic motivation of their employees by making them feel psychologically stronger.

As expressed in the theory of self-determination, the basic psychological needs of the individual, such as the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness, must be satisfied for the formation and maintenance of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). In this context, in this study, it has been empirically proven that the formation and increase of intrinsic motivation of individuals is possible with psychological empowerment consisting of individuals’ perceptions of meaning, competence, autonomy and influence. As stated in the literature, research supports the claim that employees who feel psychologically empowered are prone to take responsibility in their business life, find their work more meaningful, and be more motivated (Spreitzer, 1996). The finding that transformational leadership affects the intrinsic motivation of employees through psychological empowerment is also supported by the results of other studies (İhtiyaroğlu, 2017; Jensen & Bro, 2018; Masood & Afsar, 2017; Shafi et al., 2020; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Similarly, some studies show that empowerment also mediates the effect of transformational leadership on work attitudes (Lan & Chong, 2015).

This study also analyzed whether the transformational leadership, empowerment and intrinsic motivation perceptions of employees differ in terms of demographic variables or not. It was found that transformational leadership and motivation scores did not show differences according to age, gender, tenure or education. Looking at the literature, neither transformational leadership nor motivation scores change in terms of education and age (Greiman et al., 2007; Hall, 2011). Although there are studies indicating that there may be differences in leadership styles in terms of gender, some studies found no significant difference, like the current study. According to our results, the only statistically significant relationship is between the tenure of the employees and intrinsic motivation scores of employees. People who have more than 16 years of experience are less motivated than people who have less than 10 years’ experience. The literature on job tenure focuses mainly on its effects on employee performance. Job design studies emphasize a fall in motivation as tenure increases—especially in the same organization or job (Ng & Feldman, 2013). The reason may vary according to several factors such as organizational and job characteristics, personality, and health, or it may be simply because of boredom.

THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

This article contributes to the organizational behavior and leadership literature by examining the relationships between psychological empowerment, transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation in the context of Kocaeli, Turkey, an industrial city. The study empirically demonstrates that individuals working in today’s dynamic and complex organizational environment feel psychologically empowered and have intrinsic motivation thanks to transformational leaders who contribute to their followers’ individual and intellectual development, inspire them, and organize groups’ efforts in line with the vision and mission of the organization.

The research presents empirical findings that transformational leaders create a social identity in individuals by emphasizing the group and organizational goals, as expressed in Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and increase psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation in this way. Moreover, empirical findings for self-determination theory were also obtained in the study. According to this theory, it is very important for an individual’s wellbeing to have basic psychological needs satisfied, such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness, to form and maintain intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Our findings provide support this theory by showing that there are both direct and indirect effects between transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and intrinsic motivation.

The results obtained in this study prove that transformational leaders are very important in terms of psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation of employees in the Turkish business environment, with its particular social and organizational cultural characteristics (Hoftsede 1983, Sargut, 2001). For this reason, it is important to develop transformational behaviors in leaders and to subject them to training and development programs for organizational success and economic growth, as well as for psychologically empowered, intrinsically motivated human resources, playing a key role in employee job satisfaction.

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Since the aim of this study is to clarify the relationship between transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and intrinsic motivation, it should be noted that a comprehensive model of all the antecedents of the intrinsic motivation process is not presented. Future research can contribute to a better understanding of the intrinsic motivation process, which is considered the driving force for increasing the number of desired behaviors of employees in the organization, by considering the mediator and regulatory effects with different variables. In addition, since the organizational structure, which affects the behavior of all organizational employees, can affect the leadership style and motivational processes of employees, research that includes organizational structure elements can help us better understand the subject. For example, Walter & Bruch (2010) found that centralization restricts the relations between transformational leadership and organizational energy, whereas formalization practices improve these relations. Therefore, when interpreting the results of the study the organizational structure elements that can have strong effects on the intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership process should be kept in mind.

As our study focused only on relationships at the individual level, the psychological and motivational effects of transformational leadership on teams have not been fully considered. Future research may examine the empowering and motivating effect of transformational leaders on a team or unit basis and allow comparisons to be made. In addition, this study could be expanded by considering other dimensions of transformational leadership and analyzing the connections between intrinsic motivation and psychological empowerment. As it is well known, cross-sectional studies are not suitable for testing causal relationships due to the uncertainty in the direction of relationships. For example, employees who have high self-confidence and see their job as meaningful and important may attribute these positive feelings to the leadership provided by their managers. In other words, employees may have evaluated their leaders as transformational leaders because they had satisfactory experiences with their work and themselves. Therefore, the results of the present study are relational in nature and caution is required when making causal inferences from the findings. Finally, it should be kept in mind that since the participants rated both transformational leadership and psychological empowerment, the relationships between study variables may have been over- or under-evaluated due to common method bias. Despite all the limitations listed above, this study reveals important results about the psychological and motivational effects of leaders on employees.

REFERENCES

Afsar, B., Badir, Y. F., Saeed, B. B., & Hafeez, S. (2017). Transformational and transactional leadership and employee’s entrepreneurial behavior in knowledge–intensive industries. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(2), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244893

Akbolat, M., Işık, O. & Yılmaz, A. (2013). Dönüşümcü Liderlik Davranışının Motivasyon Ve Duygusal Bağlılığa Etkisi̇. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 6(11), 35–50.

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950

Aquino, K., Grover, S. L., Bradfield, M., & Allen, D. G. (1999). The effects of negative affectivity, hierarchical status, and self-determination on workplace victimization. Academy of management journal, 42(3), 260-272.

Aslam, S. (2017). Psychological empowerment on creativity among employees of IT sector: The mediating role of creative process engagement and intrinsic motivation. Canadian Social Science, 13(6), 11-34.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. Lexington Books.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166789

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.283

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Developing Transformational Leadership: 1992 and Beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03624-000

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. Harper and Row.

Boumans, N. P. G., de Jong, A. H. J., & Janssen, S. M. (2011). Age-differences in work motivation and job satisfaction: The influence of age on the relationships between work characteristics and workers’ outcomes. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 73(4), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.73.4.d

Burke, W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. Executive power, 51, 77.

Cappelli, P. (2020). Stop overengineering people management. Harvard Business Review, 98(5), 56-63.

Chang, L. C., Shih, C. H., & Lin, S. M. (2010). The mediating role of psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and organizational commitment for school health nurses: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(4), 427-433.

Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., & Eren, E. (2007). Psikolojik güçlendirme, örgütsel bağlılık & yaratıcı davranış arasındaki ilişkilerin değerlendirilmesi. Yönetim Dergisi: İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme İktisadı Enstitüsü, 18(57), 13-25.

Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., & Özbağ, G. K. (2014). Linking Psychological Empowerment, Individual Creativity and Firm Innovativeness: A Research on Turkish Manufacturing Industry. Business Management Dynamics, 3(10), 1-13.

Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., & Özbağ, G. K. (2016). Psychological empowerment and support for innovation in Turkish manufacturing industry: Relations with individual creativity and firm innovativeness. Journal of East European Management Studies, 10-34.

Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., Ilhan, Ö. Ö., & Günsel, A. (2017). Transformational Leadership and Individual Creatıvıty: The Mediating Role of Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 6(3), 224-232.

Çekmecelioğlu, H. G., Günsel, A., & İlhan, Ö. Ö. (2018). Keşifsel & geliştirici yeteneğe dayalı çift yönlülük: Dönüşümcü liderlik, çift yönlülük, firma yenilikçiliği arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(1), 137-150.

Çetin, S., Giderler, C., & Güler, M. (2017). Lider yöneticilerin çalışanların motivasyonuna & performansına etkisi: kamu kuruluşunda bir çalışma. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi & İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(4), 36-49.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60130-6

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

Demirtaş, H. A. (2003). Sosyal kimlik kuramı, temel kavram ve varsayımlar. İletişim Araştırmaları, 1(1), 123-144.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment, Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735-744.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., Miner, J. B., & Johnson, B. T. (1994). Gender and motivation to manage in hierarchic organizations: A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 135-159.

Edwards, M. R., & Peccei, R. (2007). Organizational identification: development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 16(1), 25–57.

Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R., Jones, L., Bridger, D., & Brown, V. (1999). The effects of psychological empowerment on transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 389-391.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Gibson, C. B. (1995). An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2), 255-279.

Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (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.

Greiman, B. C., Addington, L. S, Larson, T. G., Olander, K. R. (2007). Preferred leadership style of agricultural education teachers: An expression of epistemological beliefs about youth leadership development. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 93-105.

Hall, J. L. (2011). A Philosophical, Qualitative, and Quantitative Examination of Transformational Leadership in Secondary Agricultural Education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Texas A & M University.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of international business studies, 14, 75-89.

Huang, J. (2017). The relationship between employee psychological empowerment and proactive behavior: Self-efficacy as mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 45(7), 1157-1166.

İhtiyaroğlu, N. (2017). Yapısal & Psikolojik Güçlendirmenin Öğretmen Motivasyonu Üzerindeki Etkisi. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(2), 361-378.

Ilies, R., Judge, T., & Wagner, D. (2006). Making sense of motivational leadership: The trail from transformational leaders to motivated followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(1), 1–22.

İŞKUR, 2021. Yıllık İstatistik Bültenleri, Retrieved from: https://iskur.gov.tr/kurumsal-bilgi/istatistikler

Jensen, U. T. & Bro, L. L. (2018). How Transformational Leadership Supports Intrinsic Motivation and Public Service Motivation: The Mediating Role of Basic Need Satisfaction. American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 535–549.

Jha, S. (2014). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3(1), 18–35.

Kanter R.M. (1977) Men and Women in the Corporation. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246

Khanmohammadi, O. M., & Mohseni, A. (2010). Studying the impact of leadership styles (transformational, transactional, non-interference) on psychological empowerment. In Proceedings of the 24th International Electricity Conference (pp. 251-255).

Kim, S., & Shin, M. (2019). Transformational leadership behaviors, the empowering process, and organizational commitment: investigating the moderating role of organizational structure in Korea. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(2), 251-275.

Knol, J., & Van Linge, R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: The effect of structural and psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of advanced nursing, 65(2), 359-370.

Koçel, T. (2015). İşletme Yöneticiliği (16. bs.). Beta Basım.

Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543–555.

Lan, X. M. & Chong, W. Y. (2015). The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment between Transformational Leadership and Employee Work Attitudes. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 184–191.

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Casier, S. (2000). Organizational trust and empowerment in restructured healthcare settings: effects on staff nurse commitment. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 30(9), 413-425.

Li, Y., Wei, F., Ren, S., & Di, Y. (2015). Locus of control, psychological empowerment, and intrinsic motivation relation to performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(4), 422 – 438.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 407.

Manning, T. T. (2002). Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 17(5), 207-216.

Masood, M., & Afsar, B. (2017). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior among nursing staff. Nursing Inquiry, 24(4), e12188. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12188

Mohammed, K. A., Othman, J., & Silva, J. L. D. (2012). Social Demographic Factors That Influence Transformational Leadership Styles among Top Management in Selected Organizations in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 8(13), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n13p51

Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration & Society, 39(7), 803-832.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677-718.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 305-314.

Nguyen-Huynh, M. N., Young, J. D., Alexeeff, S., Hatfield, M. K., & Sidney, S. (2019). Shake Rattle & Roll–Design and rationale for a pragmatic trial to improve blood pressure control among blacks with persistent hypertension. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 76, 85-92.

Özcan, M., & Çekmecelioğlu, H. G. (2021). Psikolojik Güçlendirme, Benlik Belirginliği & İçsel Motivasyon Arasındaki İlişkiler. In M. Özkan (Ed.), 20. Uluslararası İşletmecilik Kongresi Bildiriler Kitabı içinde (s.s. 829-839). Giresun Üniversitesi.

Paynter, J. L. (2004). The motivational profiles of teachers: Teachers' preferences for extrinsic, intrinsic, and moral motivators. The Johns Hopkins University.

Pradhan, R. K., Panda, M. & Jena, L. K. (2017). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: the mediating effect of organizational culture in Indian retail industry. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(1), 82-95.

Robbins, S., & Judge, T. A. (2017). Örgütsel Davranış. Nobel Akademik Yayincilik.

Rosenbusch, K., & Townsend, C. D. (2004). The relationship of gender and organizational setting to transformational and transactional leadership skills of selected college student leaders. Journal of Leadership Education, 3(3), 4-20.

Sağnak, M., Kuruöz, M., Polat, B., & Soylu, A. (2015). Transformational leadership and innovative climate: An examination of the mediating effect of psychological empowerment. Eurasian Journal of educational research, 15(60), 149-162.

Sargut, S. (2001). Kültürler arası farklılaşma ve yönetim (2. Baskı). İmge Kitabevi.

Shafi, M., Zoya, Lei, Z., Song, X., & Sarker, M. N. I. (2020). The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity: Moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 25(3), 166–176.

Sharpe, R. (2000, November 20). As leaders, women rule: New studies find that female managers outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure. Business Week.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological Empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 483-504.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). Toward a common ground in defining empowerment. In Proccedings of the 1995 National Academy of Management Meetings, Vancouver. JAI Press.

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership: An Evolving Concept Examined through the Works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1-29.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. Brooks-Cole.

Taştan, S. B. (2013). The relationship between psychological empowerment and psychological well being: the role of self-efficacy perception and social support. Öneri Dergisi, 10(40), 139-154.

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.2307/258687

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591-620.

Tse, H. H. M., & Chiu, W. C. K. (2014). Transformational leadership and job performance: a social identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67, 2827–2835.

Tyssen, A. K., Wald, A., & Heidenreich, S., 2014. Leadership in the context of temporary organizations: a study on the effects of transactional and transformational leadership on Followers’ commitment in projects. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies, 21, 376–393.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., de Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly. 15(6), 825–856.

Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Structural impacts on the occurrence and effectiveness of transformational leadership: An empirical study at the organizational level of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 765–782.

Wardani, L. M. I., & Amelia, L. (2022). Career Competencies: Mediator Psychological Empowerment dan Employee Well-Being di Era New Normal. Penerbit NEM.

Yazıcıoğlu, Y., & Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, (s 53).

Yilmaz, C., & Tan, A. (2018). Psi̇koloji̇k Güçlendi̇rmeni̇n Örgütsel Özdeşleşmeye Etki̇si̇: Gazi̇antep Büyükşehi̇r İtfai̇yesi̇nde Bi̇r Araştırma. türk i̇dare dergisi, 1(4

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7^th ed.). Prentice Hall.

Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management journal, 53(1), 107-128.

Zhu, W., Sosik, J. J., Riggio, R. E., & Yang, B. (2012). Relationships between transformational and active transactional leadership and followers’ organizational identification: The role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 13(3), 168-212.