Next Article in Journal
Health Risk Assessment in Southern Carpathians Small Rural Communities Using Karst Springs as a Drinking Water Source
Previous Article in Journal
Epidural Steroid Injections for Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 1
10.3390/ijerph19010233
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Transformational Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Employee Relations Climate and the Moderating Role of Subordinate Gender

by
Chiyin Chen
,
Xinyi Ding
and
Jiachen Li
*
Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, West Yan’an Road 1882, Shanghai 200051, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(1), 233; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010233
Submission received: 16 October 2021 / Revised: 23 December 2021 / Accepted: 24 December 2021 / Published: 26 December 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Scholars have paid extensive attention to transformational leadership for decades. However, existing studies still lack ample discussions on the underlying mechanism and boundary conditions of its influence on employee job satisfaction. This study proposed a moderated mediation model based on social exchange theory. We collected survey data from 211 frontline employees to verify our hypotheses. The results showed that transformational leadership was positively associated with employee job satisfaction via the mediation role of the perceived employee relations climate. Furthermore, the relationship between transformational leadership and the employee relations climate, as well as the indirect relationship between the two, was demonstrated to be more significant for male employees. This study offered a new account of the mechanisms of transformational leadership and clarified a boundary condition for its effectiveness.

1. Introduction

With the increasing competition of economic globalization and popularity of the employee-centered management approach, improving the leadership effectiveness of managers has become one of the most important ways to enhance the core competitiveness of companies and to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage [1]. In the past 20 years, transformational leadership has become one of the most popular leadership styles in both academia and in practice [2,3]. Transformational leadership is generally used to describe leaders who articulate a vision of the future that is shared with their subordinates, intellectually stimulate their subordinates, and pay attention to the individual differences among people [4]. Transformational leadership can motivate subordinates to put the interests of an organization first, as well as to put in extra effort to serve the organization [5].
Extant studies have shown that transformational leadership is positively related to the attitudes that employees have toward their jobs as well as work outcomes [6,7,8]. For example, Judge et al. [9] and Lowe et al. [10] demonstrated that there is a significant relationship between transformational leadership and the attitudes that employees have toward their jobs as well as their job performance. Employee job satisfaction refers to the attitudes or viewpoints that employees hold about their job or job experiences; as such, it is an evaluation of their overall roles at work [11,12]. The relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction is well established in the current literature [13,14,15]. Satisfied employees are a valuable organizational resource for success, well-being, and sustainability in the long run [16]. Extant studies have explored the mechanisms of transformational leadership from the perspective of intrinsic motivation and employee’s perceived relationship with the leader [17,18,19]. For example, empirical studies examined the mediation role of self-efficacy, psychological empowerment, psychological safety, and trust in leaders [20,21,22,23]. In addition to the employee’s personal motivation, job characteristics, and leader–follower interaction, recent studies on employee job satisfaction argued that employees’ perceptions of organizational settings were also critical in raising employee job satisfaction [24,25,26]. For example, Ahmad et al. [27] found that the organizational climate perceived by employees had an impact on job satisfaction. Bulińska-Stangrecka and Bagieńska [28] argued that employee relations played a role in shaping job satisfaction.
Meanwhile, research on transformational leadership has turned to discuss the impact of transformational leadership on promoting changes in the relationship between employees and the organization. Some studies argued that transformational leadership affects employee’ perceived organizational support; perceived organizational trust; and perceived climate which supports creative thinking [29,30,31,32]. However, there lacks ample empirical results to support whether transformational leadership affects employee job satisfaction from the perspective of employee’s perceived relationship with the organization. These findings raise the question of whether transformational leadership is able to affect employee attitudes toward the employee relations climate of their organization and whether this amendment in perception will affect employee job satisfaction. Empirically testing the mediating mechanism of employees’ perceived relations climate will enhance our knowledge on the effectiveness of transformational leadership. In addition, is transformational leadership effective for all employees? There is still a lack of in-depth discussion on the underlying mechanisms and boundary effects in the existing literature.
Employee relations climate refers to the shared perception and feeling of management practices among organizational members [33]. It reflects a highly engaged and employee-centered culture [33,34]. The employee relations climate is an important aspect of organizational effectiveness, and it is a source of communication between management and employees [35]. We propose that it works as a mediator between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. Transformational leadership will lead to close connections between employees and the organization and will create an employee-centered climate. This kind of climate will allow employees to feel the friendly side of the organization and will enable them to maintain a positive attitude in the work place, improving employee job satisfaction [36,37]. In addition, while an increasing number of gender studies on transformational leadership have explained the effectiveness of transformational leadership from the perspective of the gender of the leader, studies have ignored the gender of the subordinate [38,39]. We further argue a boundary condition of transformational leadership that is based on a subordinate gender perspective and propose that such a mediation relationship should be more significant for male employees. According to studies on gender difference, men are more achievement oriented than women at work, and they tend to pay more attention to challenges and development opportunities at work [40,41]. We contend that transformational leadership will have a more substantial effect on the employee relations climate perceived by male subordinates. Finally, we proposed and examined a moderated mediation model that incorporates the employee relations climate and gender difference into the discussion.
This study contains several contributions. First, we offer a new account to explain how transformational leadership affects employee job satisfaction from the perspective of the relationship between personal perception and the organization. It suggests that organizations can choose leaders when recruiting and can equip them with transformational leadership traits. It also reminds organizations of the importance of creating a positive employee relations climate to improve employee job satisfaction. Second, we identify how the effectiveness of transformational leadership is contingent on subordinate gender. It provides a basis for transformational leaders to classify and manage employees of different genders who are on the team. Furthermore, most research has focused on the impact of the employee relations climate at the organizational level [42,43]. Additionally, our study enriches the research on the employee relations climate by examining its individual-level effectiveness.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Transformational Leadership, Employee Job Satisfaction, and Employee Relations Climate

In organizations, climate is a measurable set of attributes of the work environment, which are perceived directly or indirectly by those who live and work in that environment [44]. The climate considers management, employees’ perceptions of how employee relations are handled, and employee interactions with each other [45,46]. The employee relations climate refers to the common perceptions that employees have about certain management practices, including interpersonal relationships, work climate, employee engagement, and performance [47]. It reflects a highly engaged, employee-centered culture [33,34]. The employee relations climate is an important aspect of organizational effectiveness [35], and current research confirms that the employee relations climate plays a mediating role between CEO relationship-focused behaviors and firm performance [42] and a mediating effect between strategy HRM practices and firm performance [43]. Establishing a positive employee relations climate is very important for an organization’s development [35]. The role of the employee relations climate between leadership style and employee attitude or behaviors deserves more attention from scholars.
Leaders play a significant role in their company and are not only the key to the company’s growth but are also the source of corporate culture [48]. Studies have shown that leaders can influence climate formation by holding a set of assumptions themselves and then by communicating them, engaging in symbolism, and inspiring consistent behaviors among their followers [49]. Additionally, the climate that is formed in the corporate environment is influenced by the leadership style. For example, Nemanich and Keller argued that transformational leaders influence subordinate outcomes through the perceived climate that they create [31,50]. Burns [51] defined transformational leadership as a behavioral process that stimulates employees to perform better at work by stimulating the spiritual aspects of their subordinates. Li and Shi [52] further combined transformational leadership with the Chinese context and identified four transformational leadership characteristics. The first characteristic, namely, be moral exemplification, suggests that transformational leaders can lead by example, consistent with their words and deeds, and demonstrate a spirit of dedication. Additionally, their morals and behaviors are recognized by employees. Second, vision motivation refers to leaders who describe the goals and visions for the company to their subordinates, allowing the employees to be more informed about the company’s future development, and the direction that they want to work toward, with the aim of bringing value to the company and to others. Third, personalized care means that leaders tend to care about the personal situations of their employees and care about their families. Finally, transformational leadership includes leadership charisma, whereby leaders have the ability to help and guide their subordinates, encouraging active innovation among their employees. Such leaders have a complete work ethic and a strong sense of professionalism, which is effective in leading employees forward.
The characteristics of transformational leadership, such as care, communication, and motivation, are beneficial in helping employees perceive a positive employee relations climate [31]. From the perspective of social exchange theory, social exchange and economic exchange in employee-organizational exchanges will have an impact on commitment and employee job satisfaction [53]. Transformational leaders are the embodiment of the organization; employees personify their organization by ascribing human-like characteristics to it [30]. Based on this organization’s personification, employees would view the organization’s expression and judge the organization’s attitude based on the leader’s behavior and attitude [54]. Transformational leaders not only convey the company’s vision and mission to employees, motivating them to work hard, but also encourage employees to innovate and challenge themselves and care about and help employees solve problems [55], which enables employees to establish a closer connection with the company. In this interactive climate, employees can feel the positive attitude and expression of the organization [36]. When transformational leaders provide help to employees when they need it, improve their abilities, impart knowledge to them, and treat them equally, employees will perceive organizational care and support. The personal and corporate interests are closely linked, and employees can perceive an employee-centered and highly involved employee relations climate, which will help improve the quality of social exchange between employees and the organization [56]. In order to fulfill the reciprocal responsibilities to the organization, employees will show more behaviors and attitudes that are beneficial to the organization as a reward for repaying or exchanging awareness [57]. When employees perceive a high-level employee relations climate, they will have positive behaviors and attitudes toward the company and contribute positive values and results to the organization, which will significantly improve employee job satisfaction. A satisfied workforce exerts more effort and works hard to achieve organizational objectives [58]. The following hypothesis is thus proposed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Employees’ perceived employee relations climate mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction.

2.2. The Moderating Role of Subordinate Gender

From a social information processing perspective, the effect that a leader’s behavior has on their subordinates will depend on how the subordinates perceive and process the situational cues that are conveyed by the leader [59]. Under transformational leadership, subordinates with positive characteristics are more actively engaged in their work because positive subordinates have a strong need for growth [60]. Transformational leadership develops the potential that employees have to a great extent by influencing and motivating them, thus enabling them to go beyond their interests [61]. Gender difference studies point out that men and women differ in their expectations and in their attitudes toward competition in the workplace. Generally, men value more the challenge and opportunity to develop at work. They are more willing to show their talents in competition [62]. Research has found that male subordinates pay more attention to their inner work values than female subordinates, such as being responsible and having opportunities to exert initiative and achievement [40]. Empirical studies conducted in Korea and China have supported the notion that men are more courageous, risk taking, and achievement oriented [63]. As such, they are more easily influenced by transformational leadership [64]. Our study is also rooted in a Chinese context, and we argue that the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived employee relations climate is contingent on the subordinate’s gender.
As males are more achievement oriented and value more challenge and opportunity at work, their work motivation and perceptions are more easily activated by the managerial context [65]. When transformational leaders describe the company’s future development goals to male subordinates, these male subordinates are more confident that they can bring value to the company and to others, and they feel more closely connected to the organization and are able to perceive a more positive employee relations climate [63]. However, female subordinates are relatively conservative, prefer to avoid competition, and have relatively lower expectations for developing their careers [40]. Transformational leadership creates a dilemma between the high-demand reality and the relatively conservative career expectations of female subordinates [66]. They may be less likely to prefer or embrace the values and visions of their leaders, resulting in a less positive attitude toward the organization and less engagement in their relationship with the organization [67]. Thus, the positive relationship between transformational leadership and the employee relations climate will be attenuated for female employees. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The relationship between transformational leadership and the employee relations climate perceived by employees is moderated by the subordinate gender in such a way that the above relationship is stronger for male subordinates and weaker for female subordinates.
Integrating the mediating role of Hypothesis 1 and the moderating role of Hypothesis 2, we further proposed an integrated moderated mediation model in which the mediating effect of the perceived employee relations climate is moderated by subordinate’s gender. Transformational leadership emphasizes interaction and connection between leaders and subordinates [66], which has a direct impact on the employee relations climate [46], and the employee’s perception of this climate has a positive impact on employee job satisfaction. In addition, the subordinate’s gender can play a moderating role in the positive role that transformational leadership plays in employee job satisfaction through the perceived employee relations climate. Specifically, male subordinates attach importance to development opportunities and job challenges, and they tend to benefit more from transformational leaders who convey their goals and visions of the company to them [65]. When employees have a stronger perception of an employee-centered climate and support from the organization, they will have more positive perceptions of the relations climate in the organization, resulting in enhanced employee job satisfaction [63]. Conversely, female subordinates are relatively conservative and more inclined to avoid competition [40]. They are lower in achievement orientation and may be less sensitive to the values and visions of their leaders, resulting in fewer perceptions about the employee relations climate, resulting in a lower level of employee job satisfaction [66]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis was formulated, and Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The indirect relationship between transformational leaders and employee job satisfaction via employees’ perceived employee relations climate is moderated by the subordinate’s gender. Specifically, this indirect relationship is stronger for male subordinates and weaker for female subordinates.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

We use survey data to examine our hypotheses. To ensure the anonymity of the research subjects and to allow them to express their opinions truthfully, data for this study were collected from various industries using an online survey platform called WJX.cn [68]. The platform is a third-party platform that follows very strict sample collection procedures to ensure valid responses, and it provides services that can be used to collect data from the target population. We recruited participants to answer our questionnaire via this platform. According to the ratio criteria (one item needs five responses), we planned to recruit around 250 participants for the survey. After the survey had been posted for one week, we received a total of 248 responses from frontline employees in China and eliminated 37 due to incomplete answers and missing information. This study is a cross-sectional design study. The final number of usable responses was 211, providing an effective recovery rate of 85.1.
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the respondents. In terms of the sex ratio of the respondents, 40.76% were male and 59.24% were female, which reflected the gender balance of the sample. In terms of age, the average age of the participants was 33.06 years old, and the majority of the respondents were 20–29 years old. From the perspective of educational background, tenure, and company industry, the participants were properly distributed for each aspect.

3.2. Measures

Unless otherwise indicated, the measures used five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”.
Transformational leadership (TL): We used the twenty-six-item scale determining transformational leadership that was proposed by Li and Shi [52]. An example item from this scale is “My leader endures hardship first and enjoys last”. We averaged the twenty-six-item scores to create a total scale score (Cronbach’s α = 0.912, mean = 4.113, SD = 0.373).
Employee relations climate (ERC). We used the eight-item scale to determine the perceived employee relations climate that was developed by Ngo et al. [47]. An example item from this scale is “I can fully utilize my knowledge and skills in the organization”. We averaged the eight-item scores to create a total scale score (Cronbach’s α = 0.714, mean = 4.118, SD = 0.455).
Employee job satisfaction (EJS). We used the twenty-item scale measuring employee job satisfaction that was created by Weiss [69]. An example item from this scale is “I have the opportunity to work independently”. We averaged the twenty-item scores to create a total scale score (Cronbach’s α = 0.875, mean = 4.061, SD = 0.369).
Subordinate gender. We controlled for subordinate gender (0 = male, 1 = female).
Control variables. We controlled for age, education background (1 = high school or below, 2 = bachelor’s degree, 3 = master’s degree), company’s industry (0 = manufacturing, 1 = service industry and others), and working years.

3.3. Analysis Strategy

First, we employed Harman monofactor analysis to analyze the common method biases and CFA analysis to assess the measurement validity. Second, we conducted a correlation analysis. Then, we employed ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis in Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, USA) to test the hypothesis. We further applied the Monte Carlo approach to examine the indirect effect. Then, we conducted a simple slope test to examine the moderation effect. Finally, we conducted the Monte Carlo approach to test the moderated mediation hypothesis.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Validation

As the survey was a self-evaluation for employees, we used the Harman monofactor analysis to analyze the common method biases of the sample data [70]. The results show that the unrotated monofactor interpretation variable was 25.88%, which did not account for half of the total variance that was explained. Additionally, after the data for each variable were centralized, the tolerance range was 0.90–0.98, and the variance inflation factor was less than 2.0. Therefore, it could be determined that there were no severe multicollinearity problems between the variables.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the measurement validity. We subjected the three sub-constructs for the TL, ERC, and EJS to one CFA. As TL contains many levels and because EJS contains a large number of items, we used the item-parceling strategy to improve the model fitness [71,72]. We parceled TL according to the four dimensions and EJS according to factor loading. The results showed that the three-factor model fit the data well (χ2 = 132, df = 88, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.0487, CFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.963). This baseline model was significantly better than the other two-factor models. The first two-factor model combined employee relations climate and employee job satisfaction into one factor (χ2 = 140, df = 89, ∆χ2 = 8, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01), the second two-factor model combined transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction into one factor (χ2 = 246, df = 90, ∆χ2 = 114, ∆df = 2, p < 0.01), and the third two-factor model combined transformational leadership and employee relations climate into one factor (χ2 = 181, df = 89, ∆χ2 = 49, ∆df = 1, p < 0.01). Additionally, this baseline model was also significantly better than the single-factor model (χ2 =246, df = 90, ∆χ2 =114, ∆df = 2, p < 0.01). Overall, the discriminant validity of the constructs was confirmed.

4.2. Correlation Analyses

Table 2 shows the correlations and reliabilities of each variable. A significant positive correlation was observed between transformational leadership and the employee relations climate and between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. At the same time, there was also a significant positive correlation between the employee relations climate and employee job satisfaction. The relationship between the variables was in line with the expectations of the study.

4.3. Hypothesis Tests

We employed OLS in Mplus 7.0 to test our hypotheses. The regression results are shown in Table 3. Model 1 regressed the effect of employee job satisfaction (EJS) on transformational leadership (TL). Model 2 regressed the effect of EJS on TL and the employee relations climate (ERC) simultaneously. Model 3 regressed the effect of ERC on TL, gender, and their interaction term. Moreover, Model 4 regressed the effect of EJS on TL, gender, the interaction term of TL and gender, and ERC simultaneously.
H1 argued that the employee relations climate mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. Incorporating the results of Model 1 and Model 2, we can observe that the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction remained significant after adding the employee relations climate into the regression model. However, the coefficient decreased significantly, indicating that the employee relations climate played a partially intermediate role between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. To examine the indirect effects, we applied the Monte Carlo approach to generate the confidence intervals (CIs) [73]. We constructed bias-corrected 95% CIs for the indirect effects based on 2000 re-samples. Bootstrap analysis showed that the mediating effect of transformational leadership on employee job satisfaction via employee relations climate was significant (indirect effect = 0.392, CI = [0.294, 0.514], not containing 0). Therefore, H1 was further supported.
We tested H2, which considered whether subordinate gender played a moderating role between transformational leadership and the employee relations climate. As shown in Table 3, the interaction term between transformational leadership and subordinate gender had a significant effect on the employee relations climate in Model 3. To examine the moderating role of subordinate gender more visually, we plotted the moderating role of the employee relations climate in Figure 2 and conducted a simple slope test. Figure 2 suggests that the positive effect of transformational leadership on the employee relations climate was more significant for male subordinates (b = 0.394, p < 0.01). In contrast, the effect of transformational leadership on the employee relations climate was relatively weaker when the subordinate’s gender was female (b = 0.308, p < 0.01), and the difference between the two conditions was significant (b = −0.086, p < 0.05). Therefore, H2 was supported.
We further examined the moderated mediation model in which the subordinate gender should moderate the indirect effect. The results of Model 4 in Table 3 show that the interaction term between transformational leadership and subordinate gender was no longer significant but that the employee relations climate predicted employee job satisfaction. The bootstrap analysis results in Table 4 showed that the mediation effect of transformational leadership on employee job satisfaction via the employee relations climate was significant when the subordinates were male; when the subordinates were female, the above relationship remained significant. Additionally, the difference was significant, and the indirect effect was stronger for male subordinates. Therefore, H3 was supported.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study offers several theoretical contributions. First, our study reveals a new mechanism of transformational leadership. Previous studies have verified the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction from intrinsic motivation and trust in leaders [17,18,19]. Recent studies found that the employee’s job satisfaction will also be affected by the perceived organizational interactions [24,25,26]. Therefore, we offer a new account from the perspective of employees’ perceived relationship with the organization to discuss the effect of transformational leadership on employee job satisfaction. Specifically, we examined the mediator of perceived employee relations climate. Transformational leadership emphasizes the connection and interaction between leaders and employees. The behavior of transformational leaders affects the formation of the employee relations climate within the company, which will further influence employee job satisfaction after employees perceive a positive employee relations climate. Our empirical conclusions are consistent with those of the previously published literature on employee job satisfaction, which indicates that the organizational climate is positively related to employee job satisfaction [27].
Second, this study contributes to the literature on the boundary conditions of transformational leadership based on a subordinate gender perspective. Studies of gender differences in transformational leadership focus on leaders’ gender [38,39]. However, studying whether and why transformational leadership produces different effects between male and female subordinates is also examined in the literature [74]. In previous studies, subordinate gender was generally only used as a control variable [63]. This study empirically regarded subordinate gender as the moderator variable and found that subordinate gender moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and the employee relations climate as it was perceived by the employees, in turn, affecting employee job satisfaction. Therefore, this study expands the gender theory as it pertains to the effectiveness of transformational leadership. In the future, research on the subordinate gender is worthy of attention in transformational leadership.
Last but not least, our study enriches the research on employee relations climate by examining its individual-level effectiveness. Existing research has focused on the impact of the employee relations climate at the organizational level. For example, research found that the employee relations climate had a positive impact on organizational performance [42,43]. We further empirically found that the employee relations climate mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. In addition, subordinate gender played a moderating role in the mediation of the employee relations climate between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. Our results provide insight into how the employee relations climate has a positive impact on individual outcomes.

5.2. Management Implications

The present research shows how employee job satisfaction can be effectively improved through transformational leadership behavior. The following implications can be drawn from the present research:
First, we suggest that organizations choose supervisors with transformational leadership traits when recruiting. Because transformational leadership can effectively predict employee job satisfaction [13,14], the organization can add relevant questions during the recruitment test and interview to examine the leader’s moral qualities, their level of concern for their employees, and the candidate’s ability to plan goals. For managers who do not have these traits, it is essential to organize training to help these managers acquire transformational leadership skills, such as how to help employees at work and in life, improve their capabilities and leadership charm, and strengthen their interactions with their employees.
Second, organizations should carry out training programs to improve manager awareness and their ability to establish an employee relations climate that is perceived as positive by their employees, as climate mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. Bowen and Ostroff argued that organizational intangible resources, such as organizational climate, create sustainable competitive advantages for the company; therefore, it is important to manage them properly [37]. This paper reminds organizations to put more effort into creating a positive employee relations climate. Transformational leadership as the incarnation of an organization has an important influence on forming the social climate [30]. They need to promote the formation of a positive employee relations climate and consciously enhance employees’ perception of the employee relations climate.
Finally, transformational leaders should notice that male employees and female employees perceive the effectiveness of transformational leadership differently. Previous research showed that the impact of transformational leadership on employee job satisfaction varied according to employees’ individual characteristics, such as education background [75]. Our study finds that subordinate gender also plays a moderating role in the efforts taken by transformational leaders to improve employee job satisfaction through the perceived employee relations climate. Specifically, this relationship is more pronounced for male subordinates. Therefore, the desire to improve employee job satisfaction by establishing a positive employee relations climate is more evident in organizations with more male subordinates.

5.3. Limitations and Further Research

Our study has some limitations, and these should be considered in future research. First, all of the hypotheses were tested using cross-sectional data, which did not allow accurate conclusions about the causal relationships between variables. We encourage future researchers to use a longitudinal design to examine the causal relationships between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. We also recommend that researchers use a mixed method, for example, conduct interviews and use field samples. Second, this article studies the concept of transformational leadership as a whole, but transformational leadership consists of multiple dimensions. Future research should continue to investigate how different dimensions under transformational leadership affect employee job satisfaction. Third, this study examined the role of the employee relations climate as perceived by employees at the individual level. Future research could study the impact of the employee relations climate at the team level.

6. Conclusions

This study provided a theoretical model of transformational leadership, the perceived employee relations climate, subordinate gender, and employee job satisfaction. The results showed that the perceived employee relations climate partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction. Subordinate gender moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and the perceived employee relations climate. In addition, the indirect relationship between transformational leaders and employee job satisfaction via perceived employee relations climate was moderated by subordinate gender, and this indirect relationship was stronger for male subordinates. This study offers a new account of the mechanisms of transformational leadership and clarifies a boundary condition for its effectiveness.

Author Contributions

C.C., X.D. and J.L contributed to the conceptualization and research design of the study; X.D. collected data and performed data analysis; C.C. provided funding support; X.D. and C.C. drafted the paper; J.L. made revisions and provided supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.71902023), Shanghai Philosophy and Social Science Foundation (No.2019EGL012), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No.2232018H-09).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of Ethical Guidelines of Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, and approved by Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, W.; Wang, H.; Pearce, C.L. Consideration for future consequences as an antecedent of transformational leadership behavior: The moderating effects of perceived dynamic work environment. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Piccolo, R.F.; Colquitt, J.A. Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 327–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Zhu, Y.; Akhtar, S. How transformational leadership influences follower helping behavior: The role of trust and prosocial motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 373–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers, trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yammarino, F.J.; Bass, B.M. Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings. In Measures of Leadership; Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B., Eds.; West Orange: West Orange, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 151–169. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ng, T.W. Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. Leadersh. Q. 2017, 28, 385–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Howell, J.M.; Hall-Merenda, K.E. The ties that bind: The impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 680–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Judge, T.A.; Piccolo, R.F. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Judge, T.A.; Piccolo, R.F.; Ilies, R. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 36–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Lowe, K.B.; Kroeck, K.G.; Sivasubramaniam, N. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadersh. Q. 1996, 7, 385–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Harter, J.K.; Schmidt, F.L.; Hayes, T.L. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 268–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Asif, M.; Jameel, A.; Hussain, A.; Hwang, J.; Sahito, N. Linking transformational leadership with nurse-assessed adverse patient outcomes and the quality of care: Assessing the role of job satisfaction and structural empowerment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Alonderiene, R.; Majauskaite, M. Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education institutions. Inter. J. Educ. Manag. 2016, 30, 140–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mickson, M.K.; Anlesinya, A. Enhancing job satisfaction among local government servants in Ghana: The relative roles of diverse leadership behaviors. Int. J. Public Leadersh. 2020, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Braun, S.; Peus, C.; Weisweiler, S.; Frey, D. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 270–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dorta-Afonso, D.; González-de-la-Rosa, M.; García-Rodríguez, F.J.; Romero-Domínguez, L. Effects of high-performance work systems (HPWS) on hospitality employees’ outcomes through their organizational commitment, motivation, and job satisfaction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bono, J.E.; Judge, T.A. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 554–571. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kovjanic, S.; Schuh, S.C.; Jonas, K.; Quaquebeke, N.V.; Van Dick, R. How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees’ needs as mediating links. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 1031–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Asencio, H. Leadership, trust, and job satisfaction in the public sector: A study of US federal employees. Int. Rev. Public Admin. 2016, 21, 250–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Choi, S.L.; Goh, C.F.; Adam, M.B.H.; Tan, O.K. Transformational leadership, empowerment, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of employee empowerment. Hum. Resour. Health 2016, 14, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Yildiz, I.G.; Simsek, O.F. Different pathways from transformational leadership to job satisfaction: The competing mediator roles of trust and self-efficacy. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2016, 27, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aydogmus, C.; Camgoz, S.M.; Ergeneli, A.; Ekmekci, O.T. Perceptions of transformational leadership and job satisfaction: The roles of personality traits and psychological empowerment. J. Manag. Organ. 2018, 24, 81–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moin, M.F.; Omar, M.K.; Wei, F.; Rasheed, M.I.; Hameed, Z. Green HRM and psychological safety: How transformational leadership drives follower’s job satisfaction. Curr. Issues Tour 2021, 24, 2269–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jaskyte, K.; Butkevičienė, R.; Danusevičienė, L.; Jurkuvienė, R. Employees’ attitudes and values toward creativity, work environment, and job satisfaction in human service employees. Creativ. Res. J. 2020, 32, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, J.; Yang, H.; Weng, Q.; Zhu, L. How different forms of job crafting relate to job satisfaction: The role of person-job fit and age. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bakotić, D.; Bulog, I. Organizational justice and leadership behavior orientation as predictors of employee job satisfaction: Evidence from Croatia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahmad, K.Z.B.; Jasimuddin, S.M.; Kee, W.L. Organizational climate and job satisfaction: Do employees’ personalities matter? Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bulińska-Stangrecka, H.; Bagieńska, A. The role of employee relations in shaping job satisfaction as an element promoting positive mental health at work in the era of COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Engelbrecht, A.; Samuel, O.M. The effect of transformational leadership on intention to quit through perceived organizational support, organizational justice and trust. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2019, 22, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Stinglhamber, F.; Marique, G.; Caesens, G.; Hanin, D.; De Zanet, F. The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career Dev. Int. 2015, 20, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nemanich, L.A.; Keller, R.T. Transformational leadership in an acquisition: A field study of employees. Leadersh. Q. 2007, 18, 49–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McCallaghan, S.; Jackson, L.T.B.; Heyns, M.M. Transformational leadership, diversity climate, and job satisfaction in selected South African companies. J. Psychol. Afr. 2019, 29, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Riordan, C.M.; Vandenberg, R.J.; Richardson, H.A. Employee involvement climate and organizational effectiveness. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2005, 44, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schuster, F.E. Employee-Centered Management: A Strategy for High Commitment and Involvement; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  35. Chuang, A.; Judge, T.A.; Liaw, Y.J. Transformational leadership and customer service: A moderated mediation model of negative affectivity and emotion regulation. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2012, 21, 28–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ferris, G.R.; Arthur, M.M.; Berkson, H.M.; Kaplan, D.M.; Harrell-Cook, G.; Frink, D.D. Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1998, 8, 235–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bowen, D.E.; Ostroff, C. Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 203–221. [Google Scholar]
  38. Stempel, C.R.; Rigotti, T.; Mohr, G. Think transformational leadership—Think female? Leadership 2015, 11, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sahin, F.; Gurbuz, S.; Sesen, H. Leaders’ managerial assumptions and transformational leadership: The moderating role of gender. Leadersh. Org. Dev. J. 2017, 38, 105–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Vaus, D.; McAllister, I. Gender and work orientation: Values and satisfaction in Western Europe. Work Occup. 1991, 18, 72–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Karakowsky, L.; Siegel, J.P. The effects of proportional representation and gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 620–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xi, M.; Zhao, S.; Xu, Q. The influence of CEO relationship-focused behaviors on firm performance: A chain-mediating role of employee relations climate and employees’ attitudes. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2017, 34, 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ali, M.; Lei, S.; Wei, X.Y. The mediating role of the employee relations climate in the relationship between strategic HRM and organizational performance in Chinese banks. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018, 3, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kuenzi, M.; Schminke, M. Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 634–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Schneider, B.; González-Romá, V.; Ostroff, C.; West, M.A. Organizational climate and culture: Reflections on the history of the constructs in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ngo, H.Y.; Lau, C.M.; Foley, S. Strategic human resource management, firm performance, and employee relations climate in China. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 47, 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. George, G.; Sleeth, R.G.; Siders, M.A. Organizing culture: Leader roles, behaviors, and reinforcement mechanisms. J. Bus. Psychol. 1999, 13, 545–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kucharska, W. Leadership, culture, intellectual capital and knowledge processes for organizational innovativeness across industries: The case of Poland. J. Intellect. Cap. 2021, 22, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shen, Y.; Ju, C.; Koh, T.Y.; Rowlinson, S.; Bridge, A.J. The impact of transformational leadership on safety climate and individual safety behavior on construction sites. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper Perennial: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  52. Li, C.P.; Shi, K. The structure and measurement of transformational leadership in China. Acta Psychol. Sin. 2005, 37, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Casimir, G.; Ng, Y.N.K.; Wang, K.Y.; Ooi, G. The relationships amongst leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and in-role performance: A social-exchange perspective. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2014, 35, 366–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J.; Jung, D.I.; Berson, Y. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Wu, W.L.; Lee, Y.C. Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing: Integrating the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 474–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dormann, C.; Zapf, D. Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. J. Organ. Behav. 2001, 22, 483–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ho, S.S.; Li, A.Y.; Tam, K.; Zhang, F. CEO gender, ethical leadership, and accounting conservatism. J. Bus. Ethics. 2015, 127, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Zhu, W.; Avolio, B.J.; Walumbwa, F.O. Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group Organ. Manag. 2009, 34, 590–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bass, B.M. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 1999, 8, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Schein, V.E. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 1973, 57, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, S.; Shin, M. The effectiveness of transformational leadership on empowerment: The roles of gender and gender dyads. Cross Cult. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 24, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hackett, R.D.; Wang, A.C.; Chen, Z.; Cheng, B.S.; Farh, J.L. Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model of leader-member-exchange and subordinates’ gender. J. Appl. Psychol. 2018, 67, 617–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Diekman, A.B.; Eagly, A.H. Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and future. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 26, 1171–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kalleberg, A.L.; Griffin, L.J. Positional sources of inequality in job satisfaction. Sociol. Work. Occup. 1978, 5, 371–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Puni, A.; Hilton, S.K.; Quao, B. The interaction effect of transactional-transformational leadership on employee commitment in a developing country. Manag. Res. Rev. 2020, 44, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kang, F.; Qu, Q.; Zhang, H. Ethical leadership, positive emotion and voice: The moderating effect of subordinate gender. Soft Sci. 2018, 6, 66–69. [Google Scholar]
  69. Weiss, D.J.; Dawis, R.V.; England, G.W. Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota Studies Vocat. Rehabil. 1967, 22, 120. [Google Scholar]
  70. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Bandalos, D.L. The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Struct. Equ. Modeling 2002, 9, 78–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hall, R.J.; Snell, A.F.; Foust, M.S. Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organ. Res. Methods. 1999, 2, 233–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Selig, J.P.; Preacher, K.J. Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation: An Interactive Tool for Creating Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects. Available online: http://quantpsy.org (accessed on 10 September 2021).
  74. Vecchio, R.P. In search of gender advantage. Leadersh. Q. 2003, 14, 835–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Abelha, D.M.; Carneiro, P.C.D.C.; Cavazotte, F.D.S.C.N. Transformational leadership and job satisfaction: Assessing the influence of organizational contextual factors and individual characteristics. RBGN-Rev. Bras. Gest. Negocios. 2018, 20, 516–532. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 19 00233 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual model of the relationship between transformational leadership, employee relations climate, subordinate gender, and employee job satisfaction.
Figure 1. The conceptual model of the relationship between transformational leadership, employee relations climate, subordinate gender, and employee job satisfaction.
Ijerph 19 00233 g001
Ijerph 19 00233 g002 550
Figure 2. The influence of transformational leadership on employee relations climate under different subordinate genders.
Figure 2. The influence of transformational leadership on employee relations climate under different subordinate genders.
Ijerph 19 00233 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1. Characteristics of the respondents.
CharacteristicsFrequencyPercentage (%)
Gender (mean = 0.590, sd = 0.493)Male8640.76%
Female12559.24%
Age (mean = 33.060, sd = 12.824)20–2911052.13%
30–393818.01%
40–49188.53%
>504521.33%
Education (mean = 1.900, sd = 0.589)High school or below4822.75%
Bachelor’s degree13664.45%
Master’s degree2712.80%
Tenure (mean = 10.060, sd = 4.113)<36430.33%
3–65124.17%
7–102310.90%
>107334.60%
Company’s industryManufacturing2813.27%
Service and others18386.73%
Financial service4018.96%
Real estate136.16%
Education2511.85%
Internet2210.42%
Wholesale and retail2511.85%
Public administration167.58%
Others4219.91%
Table
Table 2. Correlations and reliabilities.
Table 2. Correlations and reliabilities.
VariablesGenderAgeEducationIndustryTenureTLERCEJS
1. Gender
2. Age−0.111
3. Education−0.0420.561 **
4. Industry0.125−0.014−0.029
5. Tenure0.1350.933 **0.609 **0.023
6. TL−0.1280.0190.083−0.092−0.015(0.912)
7. ERC−0.1130.293 **−0.0890.0470.282 **0.644 **(0.714)
8. EJS0.154 **0.140 *0.0270.0100.157 **0.628 ***0.747***(0.875)
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 (two tailed). Italic and bold numbers in parentheses represent the variable reliability. TL = transformational leadership; ERC = employee relations climate; EJS = employee job satisfaction.
Table
Table 3. Hierarchical multiple regression of employee relations climate and employee job satisfaction.
Table 3. Hierarchical multiple regression of employee relations climate and employee job satisfaction.
EJSEJSERCEJS
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Intercepts1.3791.2083.6592.235
Age0.000−0.0050.010−0.005
Education0.0230.0030.048−0.001
Industry0.070−0.0040.162 *0.010
Tenure0.0060.0050.0030.005
Transformational leadership0.627 **0.233 **0.350 **0.110 **
Subordinate gender 0.001−0.042
Employee relations climate 0.489 ** 0.479 **
TL × Subordinate gender −0.094 *−0.040
R20.4280.5990.5330.604
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. TL = transformational leadership. The results of the standardized regression coefficients.
Table
Table 4. The moderated mediation model test.
Table 4. The moderated mediation model test.
95% Confidence Level (CI)
Subordinate GenderIndirect EffectBoot LCIBoot UCI
Male0.1890.1310.261
Female0.1470.1120.191
Variance−0.041−0.080−0.006
Note: Bootstrapping sample size = 2000.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, C.; Ding, X.; Li, J. Transformational Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Employee Relations Climate and the Moderating Role of Subordinate Gender. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010233

AMA Style

Chen C, Ding X, Li J. Transformational Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Employee Relations Climate and the Moderating Role of Subordinate Gender. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(1):233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010233

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Chiyin, Xinyi Ding, and Jiachen Li. 2022. "Transformational Leadership and Employee Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Employee Relations Climate and the Moderating Role of Subordinate Gender" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 1: 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010233

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop