Influential leadership and employee well being: the mediating role of meaningful work

A synopsis2014-1015

Department of PsychologyThe IIS UniversityJaipur.Supervised by: Submitted by:Dr. Chandrani Sen. MS Reeva chaudhary MA SEM III PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE OF CONTENTSSR.NO.TOPICPAGE NO.

1.INTRODUCTION

2.REVIEW OFLITERATURE

3.METHODOLOGY

4.REFERENCES

5. APPENDIX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to thank all those have helped me in the preparation and successful completion of this project work. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Ashok Gupta, Vice Chancellor, The IIS University; Dr, Rakhi Gupta, Rector and Registrar, The IIS University for providing me the required facilities to complete my project work and supporting and cooperating in various ways. I acknowledge with a deep gratitude the continual support and guidance of my supervisor and HOD, Dr. Roopa Mathur. She helped me throughout with a positive approach and gave her valuable inputs which helped me complete my project work on time.I am also thankful to my parents, faculty members and classmates who supported me throughout the project work.

Reeva chaudhary

RATIONALEInfluential leadership has been the focus of much research interest, comparativelyless is known about the processes through which Influential leadership exerts its effects(Sivanathan, Arnold, Turner, & Barling, 2004). Transformational leaders go beyond exchange relationships and motivate others to achieve more that they thought was possible (Bass, 1998, Bass &Riggio, 2006). Some researchers have argued that this kind of leadership gives meaningfulness to work by infusing work . . . with moral purpose and commitment(Shamir et al., 1993, p. 578).

INTRODUCTION

Influential leadershipThe concept of Influential leadership was initially introduced by leadership expert and presidential biographer James Macgregor Burns. Burns (1978) created the concept of Influential leadership as a description of political leaders who transform the values of their followers. According to Burns, Influential leadership can be seen when "leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of morality and motivation. Through the strength of their vision and personality, transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to change expectations, perceptions, and motivations to work towards common goals. Unlike in the transactional approach, it is not based on a "give and take" relationship, but on the leader's personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation of an energizing vision and challenging goals. Transforming leaders are idealized in the sense that they are a moral exemplar of working towards the benefit of the team, organization and/or community. Burns theorized that transforming and transactional leadership was mutually exclusive styles. Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded upon Burns' original ideas to develop what is today referred to as Bass Influential leadership Theory. According to Bass, Influential leadership can be defined based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass suggested, garner trust, respect, and admiration from their followers.Bernard M. Bass (1985), extended the work of Burns (1978) by explaining the psychological mechanisms that underlie transforming and transactional leadership. Bass introduced the term "transformational" in place of "transforming." Bass added to the initial concepts of Burns (1978) to help explain how Influential leadership could be measured, as well as how it impacts follower motivation and performance. The extent, to which a leader is transformational, is measured first, in terms of his influence on the followers. The followers of such a leader feel trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for the leader and because of the qualities of the transformational leader are willing to work harder than originally expected. These outcomes occur because the transformational leader offers followers something more than just working for self-gain; they provide followers with an inspiring mission and vision and give them an identity. The leader transforms and motivates followers through his or her idealized influence (earlier referred to as charisma), intellectual stimulation and individual consideration. In addition, this leader encourages followers to come up with new and unique ways to challenge the status quo and to alter the environment to support being successful. Finally, in contrast to Burns, Bass suggested that leadership can simultaneously display both transformational and transactional leadership. Influential leadership is a style of leadership where the leader is charged with identifying the needed change, creating a vision to guide the change through inspiration, and executing the change in tandem with committed members of the group. It also serves to enhance the motivation, morale, and job performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms; these include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the project and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers in order to inspire them and raise their interest in the project; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, allowing the leader to align followers with tasks that enhance their performance.

Since then, Influential leadership has become one of the most widely-studied leadership styles due to its emphasis on changing workplace norms and motivating employees to perform beyond their own expectations (Yukl, 1989). Transformational leaders are believed to achieve such results through aligning their subordinates goals with those of the organization and by providing an inspiring vision of the future (Bass, 1985).

Influential leadership is typically divided into four major components:

(1) Inspirational motivation: Inspirational motivation involves the ability to communicate clearly and effectively while inspiring workers to achieve important organizational goals. Transformational leaders are considered to be enthusiastic and optimistic when speaking about the future, which arouses and heightens their followers motivation (Dubinsky, Yammarino, & Jolson, 1995).

(2) Idealized influence: Idealized influence refers to behaviors that help to provide a role model for followers. Such behaviors could involve displaying strong ethical principles and stressing group benefits over individual benefits (Bono & Judge, 2004).

(3) Individualized consideration: Individualized consideration involves treating each 6 Follower as an individual with his or her own unique needs and attending to these needs appropriately (Judge & Bono, 2000). The focus of behaviors falling under the individualized consideration category is on the development of the follower (Bass, 1985).

(4) Intellectual stimulation lastly, intellectual stimulation involves encouraging the follower to be creative and challenging him or her to think of old problems in new ways (Bass, 1985).Transformational leaders create a culture of active thinking through intellectual stimulation, and this culture encourages followers to become more involved in the organization (Tims et al., 2011).

WELL BEING The term "wellbeing" covers several aspects of the way people feel about their lives, including their jobs and their relationships with the people around them. Of course, a person's wellbeing is to do with their own character and home or social life along with the workplace, but research shows that employers can have an influence on an individual's sense of wellbeing in the way they run a workplace. Perhaps the most important factor in employee well-being is the relationships employees have with their immediate manager. Where there are strong relationships between managers and staff, levels of well-being are enhanced. A good manager will recognize the strengths, likes and dislikes of their team members and will be able to recognize when the volume or complexity of the work is too much for a particular team member. The more capable that line managers are in identifying the personal interests and concerns of the individual, the more likely they will be able to create a team where employee well-being becomes an integral part of getting the job done. Employee well-being involves: maintaining a healthy body by making healthy choices about diet, exercise and leisure developing an attitude of mind that enables the employee to have self confidence, self-respect and to be emotionally resilient having a sense of purpose, feelings of fulfillment and meaning possessing an active mind that is alert, open to new experiences, curious and creative having a network of relationships that are supportive and nurturing (Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2002).

How can individual wellbeing at work be improved?Employers have the potential to influence the wellbeing of their staff. There is no 'one size fits all' but where employers are able to raise wellbeing in their workforce, they are also likely to see improvements in the performance of their workplace.There will be different factors that influence wellbeing at an individual level, but detailed analysis of awide range of research studies has suggested that there are 11 key factors for increasing wellbeing to boost performance in general. The research suggests that employers who are able to focus effort on a number of these areas should be able to increase wellbeing. Where employees have a degree of autonomy over how they do their job - this does not mean that people should ignore set processes, but could mean that staff have a level of discretion about how they undertake their work. Involvement in organisational decision-making can also be beneficial. Good communication and consultation is an element of this, as is having a 'voice' at work, whether through unions or more direct forms of involvement. Variety in the work employees undertake, which could be addressed through job design. Staff responds positively to a sense that their job has significance within the workplace, as well as the perceived value of the job to society. Being clear about what is expected of staff, including feedback on performance, which could be addressed through a combination of effective induction, clear terms and conditions and a regular appraisal process Supportive supervision, which may be addressed through ensuring that line-managers are adequately trained; and an environment in which co-workers offer support can also be positive. Staff also benefit from positive interpersonal contact with other people.This includes contact with managers and co-workers, as well as with customers or the general public (where the job requires it). Opportunities for employees to use and develop their skills, which could be through training on and off the job, and/or by increasing the variety of work they undertake. A sense of physical security is important for employees, including the safety of work practices the adequacy of equipment and the pleasantness of the work environment. A sense of job security and clear career prospects both help increase wellbeing. Staff responds well to the perception of fairness in the workplace, both in terms of how the employee is treated but also how they see their co-workers being treated.Negative behavior such as bullying can be damaging to well being - be it from co-workers, customers or managers. Effective use of procedures for responding to bullyingcoupled with disciplinary and grievance procedureswhere needed would be one way for employers to address this. Higher pay was also registered as a strong positive motivator.However, this relationship depends not only on the absolute level of pay but how this compares with pay of other workers.

MEANINGFULL WORKRosso et al. (2010) have defined meaningful work as work that is significant and that has positive meaning for individuals, which means that people make sense of it in a positive way within the context of their lives. Meaning (as in meaning in life or meaningful work) is obviously important. Its important to a person for its own sake. It also affects other peoplefor example; it could be a motivational factor, affecting purpose, goals, and behavior. Most adults spend most of their waking hours working, so its important for people to find meaningful work, and to find more meaning in the work theyre currently doing.Michael F. Steger has done some research work in this area, and concludes that meaningful work has three, central components:First, the work we do must make sense; we must know whats being asked of us and be able to identify the personal or organizational resources we need to do our job.Second, the work we do must have a point; we must be able to see how the little tasks we engage in build, brick-by-brick if you will, into an important part of the purpose of our company.Finally, the work that we do must benefit some greater good; we must be able to see how our toil helps others, whether thats saving the planet, saving a life, or making our co-workers jobs easier so that they can go home and really be available for their families and friends.Workers experience meaningfulness when they feel as though they have something to contribute. They must feel useful, worthwhile, and valuable as if they can make a difference. To experience meaningfulness, they must also feel as though they are not taken for granted, as though they are recognized for their contribution and are gaining something in return. They must feel as though they are receiving a return on the investments that are made in terms of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy. Meaningfulness is experienced when workers receive feedback at the job that confirms these feelings. Such feedback can come from ones working relationships and/or from the work itself. With regard to relationships, this confirmation is manifested in high-quality Co-worker relationships and supportive supervisors. High-quality relationships with others in the workplace promote self-appreciation, dignity, and a sense of worth wholeness. They are an invaluable source of meaning in peoples lives because they meet relatedness needs (Alderfer, 1972): they allow people to feel known and appreciated and that they are sharing their existential journeys with others (May et al., 1958) (Kahn, 1990, p.707). In terms of the work itself, when individuals experience both a sense of competence (from the routine) and growth and learning (from the new) in their tasks, they receive confirmation that they have something to contribute as well as something to gain. The validation that this provides them with, in turn, makes the work Meaningful to them. Theoretically then, meaningfulness was expected to only be affectedby job features because it depends largely upon workers assessment of the context in which they find themselves characteristics of their relationships with others in the workplace (e.g., co-worker and supervisor relations) and characteristics of the job itself(e.g., level of autonomy, skill variety, PJ fit). Psychological meaningfulness. Kahn (1990) defined meaningfulness as afeeling that one is receiving a return on investments of ones self in a currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy. People [experience] meaningfulness when they [feel] worthwhile, useful, and valuable as though they [make] a difference and [are] not taken for granted (p.704). He argued that it tended to be associated with elements that created incentives or disincentives for workers to personally engage. Kahn is not alone in recognizing the importance of meaningfulness.

The idea that individuals have an inherent need to lead a work life that they consider meaningful was first introduced by classic humanistic psychologists and motivation theorists (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1943, 1954, 1971; McClelland, 1965; McGregor, 1960; Rogers, 1959, 1961). Maslow (1971), one of these classic motivation theorists, stated that individuals who do not believe their work to be full of meaning and purpose will not work up to their professional potential. His hierarchy of needs theory argued that individuals are initially motivated to take actions based upon fulfilling needs that are inherent to all human beings(e.g., breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping). As these basic survival needs are satisfied, individuals move on to higher order needs, which are more intrinsic and reflective in nature. These higher order needs are reflective of life values such as working toward a higher cause and leading a purposeful life. Specifically, he theorized that individuals have the potential to reach self-actualization or a level in which an individual focuses on the process of developing his or her potential to the fullest possible extent in a manner that is personally fulfilling.

Darling and Chalofsky (2004) discussed that in the late 1990s and early 2000s,meaning and spirituality at work emerged in reaction to the loss of job security. Perhaps the underlying reason why psychological meaningfulness is starting to appear in research and the workplace today is because the struggling economy, which has caused so many individuals to lose their sense of job security, has driven workers to realize just how much meaning their job carries in their life. In accordance with Maslows hierarchy of needs, the meaningfulness of a job can extend anywhere from it being the medium through which individuals are able to put food on the table and shelter over their heads, to it being the channel through which they can carry out their life work and say to themselves This is what I was meant to do in life. A job is meaningful to the extent that the needs that the individual expects to be fulfilled by the job are actually fulfilled.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Influential leadership:Many researches have been conducted on Influential leadership. A pastStudy has found that by aligning values of followers to their own and to theOrganizations, transformational leaders are able to increase their followers intrinsic motivation more than other leadership styles (Gardner & Avolio, 1998, as cited inLee, 2008). The enhanced motivation of each individual in a team would result in an improved motivation of the team overall, and thus, inspire them to think and perform outside the norms. This is supported by Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009) who discovered that Influential leadership is positively related to individual creativity and organizational innovation.

transformational leaders attempt to stimulate and motivate their followers to perform beyond the status quo and to achieve remarkable results (Bass & Riggio, 2006).A transformational leader is aware of the needs of his or her followers and motivates and helps them to develop and achieve their fullest potential (Northouse, 2009). As opposed to transactional leaders also, leaders exhibiting Influential leadership behaviors support out of the box thinking which results in the generation of more creative ideas and solutions (Sosik, Avolio & Kahai, 1997, as cited in Jung, Chow &Wu, 2006). Therefore, theoretically, it has been said that Influential leadership enhances followers performance (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998, as cited in Stone et al., 2004) esteem (Battista & Almond, 1973), and are more satisfied with their lives (Chamberlain & Zika, 1988).

.

Furthermore, studies have found that Influential leadership is positively correlated to leader effectiveness ratings, leader and follower satisfaction, followers efforts, and overall organizational performance (Avolio, Waldman & Einstein, 1988;Bass, Avolio & Goodheim, 1987; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Lowe, Kroeck &Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Seltzer & Bass, 1990; Waldman, Bass & Einstein, 1987;Yammarino, Spangler & Bass, 1993, as cited in Humphreys, 2002). Transformational leaders inspire change and encourage their followers to share convergent values towards achieving higher levels of performance (House & Shamir, 1993; Jung &Avolio, 2000, as cited in Jung et al., 2006). Similarly, other researchers have shown that Influential leadership improves performance beyond expectations (Avolio& Yammarino, 2002; Bass, 1985, 1988, 1990, as cited in Dionne et al., 2004).Specifically, at the team level, Influential leadership is positively related to team potency, which in turn leads to an improvement in team performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, as cited in DuBrin, 2009).

Some researchers have suggested that Influential leadership is enhancedby a lack of proximity (Hollander, 1978; Yammarino, 1994, as cited in Humphreys,2002), whereas others have found that physical distance moderates the effect between a charismatic leadership style and follower performance (Howell, Neufeld & Avolio,1998). However, in a laboratory study conducted by Kelloway, Barling, Kelley, Comtois, and Gatien (2003), it was revealed that remote Influential leadership still affects performance and attitudes positively. Thus, it can be surmised that Influential leadership affects performance regardless of the physical proximity between the leader and the followers. It has also been suggested that Influential leadership is more appropriate for leading employees who are well educated and enjoy challenging work (Hater & Bass, 1988, as cited in Hotzel, 2004).

Recent studies have shown that Influential leadership is importantRegardless of industries (Avolio & Yammering, 2002, as cited in Bass & Riggio,2006). Studies have also been conducted in non-Western societies, hence suggesting that Influential leadership is effective in various settings (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003; Lim & Ploy hart, 2004; Shin &Zhou, 2003; Walumbwa & Lawler, 2003, as cited in Schaubroeck et al., 2007).

Innes et al. (2010) examined the impact of supervisor Influential leadership on employee safety performance (safety participation and compliance) and further explored whether the effects of Influential leadership were confined to one organizational context (i.e. context-specific) or whether they carried over across different contexts (i.e. context spill over). The authors carried out a cross-sectional survey of 159 individuals who held two jobs in different organizations. The findings showed a positive relationship between Influential leadership and safety participation but not safety compliance (in either the primary or secondary jobs). Further, the effects of Influential leadership were context-specific whereby Influential leadership in the primary job did not predict safety performance (e.g. safety compliance and participation) in the secondary job.

Influential leadership promotes employees affective commitment to change by influencing their perception of change benefits and expectations fulfillment (Hill et al., 2012) and building trust in them (Caldwell et al., 2008). It influences the attitude of the top management personnel towards goals (Barrick et al., 2008) and makes them committed to the change, that results in their active involvement, support and management of the change (Gill, 2003). Sensitivity and responsiveness of transformational leaders to employee emotions (Huy &Sanchez-burks, 2009) and their own commitment to change (Levay, 2010) strongly impact employee commitment to change. Weak Influential leadership can result in cynicism towards change (Neubert, Wu, & Yi, 2007).

Bass and Avolio (1993) found that transformational leaders increase their followers levels of motivation and self-efficacy through inspirational appeals (inspirational motivation) and clear communication of high performance expectations (idealized influence). These leader behaviors establish organizational norms that foster follower initiative, achievement-oriented behaviors, and goal-attainment (Masi & Cooke, 2000), thereby leading to a culture of employee empowerment (Harrison, 1995).

In another study, Bass (1985a) performed exploratory factor analysis on data collected from 104 military officers attending Army War College. The officers were asked to complete a 73-item questionnaire describing their supervisor. Three dimensions of Influential leadership were identified from the research: charismatic leadership, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Avolio, Waldman, andYammarino (1991) later added another component, inspiration motivation, and changed charismatic leadership to idealized influence to create the 4 Is of Influential leadership.

In his study of 70 senior executives, Bass (1985b) reported that respondents likened the transformational leader to a benevolent father who inspired them to work long hours to meet the leaders expectations. The transformational leader encouraged self-development by allowing the follower to work autonomously, but remained accessible to provide the follower with support, advice, and recognition. The transforming leader engendered trust, admiration, loyalty, and respect (Bass, 1985b).

Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai (1997) conducted a longitudinal study of 36 undergraduate student work groups performing a creativity task using a Group Decision Support System. They evaluated the effects of leadership style on group effectiveness and found that transform One of the most researched outcomes is financial performance.

In fact, Parry (2000) stated that decades of research have provided consistent evidence (i.e., correlations of 0.30 or higher) that Influential leadership has a significant positive impact on the financial measures of organizations. It was also shown to affect employee perception of firms financial standing relative to industry peers (Zhu, et al., 2005).Influential leadership had both a direct and indirect relationship with performance of the group.

Studies have found significant and positive relationships between Influential leadership and the amount of effort followers are willing to exert, satisfaction with the leader, ratings of job performance, and perceived effectiveness (Bass, 1998). Leaders vision and vision implementation through task cues affects performance and many attitudes of subordinates (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996). Zhuet al.(2005) found that human-capital-enhancing human resource management fully mediated the relationship between CEO Influential leadership and subjective assessment of organizational outcomes.

Piccolo and Colquitt (2006) found that Influential leadership was positively related to perceived levels of the five core job characteristics (variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and feedback), which were related to intrinsic motivation and goal commitment. Intrinsic motivation was related to both task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Gootyet al.(2009) showed that Influential leadership enhanced followers positive psychological capital a higher-order construct that represents an individuals motivational propensity and perseverance toward goals.

EMPLOYEE WELL BEING:

Although employee well-being has become an important topic in scholarly research journals, there is considerable variation in the conceptualization of well-being (Danna &Griffin, 1999). A first distinction can be made between peoples overall well-being or happiness and more specific domains of well-being such as family or work (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999). In this review the interest is on well-being at work, as the aim ofthis review is to examine linkages between two work concepts of management activities(HRM), and organizational performance. Employee well-being at work can broadly be described as the overall quality of an employees experience and functioning at work (Warr, 1987).

Different dimensions of employee well-being at work are distinguished in the literature, for example, job satisfaction and job stress. Within the organizational context, two general types of employee well-being are differentiated (Danna & Griffin, 1999; Grant, Christianson & Price, 2007). In the first type, employee well-being is focused on subjective experiences and functioning at work. This refers to job-related experiences as overall job satisfaction, facet specific work satisfaction (e.g. satisfaction with pay, promotion opportunities), and organizational commitment. On the other handwork-related health is distinguished. Health in the workplace encompasses both physiological and psychological indicators related to employee health (Danna & Griffin , 1999), for example job strain, or job stress. In sum, both dimensions are defined as properties of the individual employee.

Employee psychological health is of central importance for organizations, as promoting employee resilience and preventing stress-related illness ultimately reduces costs to organizations, such as turnover (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). Given the importance of employee psychological health, an extensive body of research has investigated its antecedents and outcomes (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). Over the past decade, it has been concluded that leadership is one of the most important factors to consider in relation to employees psychological well-being (Kelloway & Barling, 2010). The style of trans-formational leadership, in particular, has been shown to have positive impacts on followers psychological health in a variety of contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Less is known, however, about the specific processes through which Influential leadership influences employee well-being. Sivanathan, Arnold, Turner, and Barling (2004) have suggested that transformational leaders have an indirect impact on employees psychological health, and research has begun to further uncover mediators of this relationship. We propose, using Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a theoretical framework, that transformational leaders impact employee well-being through enabling the creation of valued resources for followers (Clarke, Arnold, & Connelly, forthcoming). In the current study we examine the mediating roles of two positive resources: employees perceptions of procedural justice of the organization and psychological empowerment. Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) argue that there has been a lack of investigation into how Influential leadership has a distinct influence on mediating processes and outcomes (p.2), and our study contributes to filling this research gap. In the sections that follow we define Influential leadership and our theoretical framework in more detail, and will develop hypotheses based on COR theory and relevant empirical finding.

Meaningful work

Hackman and Oldham (1980) suggested that the antecedents likely to impact meaningfulness at work are those tasks which facilitate personal growth. Furthermore, Kahn (1990) identified interpersonal relationships as a predictor of experienced meaningfulness, asserting that good interpersonal interactions foster a strong sense of belonging, which then increase ones sense of meaningfulness (May et al., 2004).

Research confirms the hypothesized link between PJ fit and psychological meaningfulness. May (2003) examined the relationship between work-role fit and experienced meaningfulness in a manufacturing company and found that they were significantly (and positively) related to one another. May et al. (2004) confirmed that psychological meaningfulness mediated the relationship between work-role fit and engagement. Finally, Olivier and Rothmann (2007) found that work-role fit and coworker relations were significantly related to engagement through their positive relationships with psychological meaningfulness. This reasoning and research supported the expectation that there would be a positive relationship between PJ fit and psychological meaningfulness.

Kahn (1990) found that people experienced meaningfulness when their jobs included rewarding interpersonal relations with clients and co-workers. These favorable interactions promoted self-appreciation, dignity, and a sense of worthwhileness. They created a condition in which people felt the desire to give to and receive from others. Relations with others are an invaluable source of meaning in individuals lives as they meet the relatedness needs (Alderfer, 1972). They enable people to feel appreciated and known, as though they are sharing their life journey with others (May et al., 1958). Individuals are also likely to experience meaningfulness from the social identities that they receive from being members of a group. Interactions with co-workers that make individuals feel as though they belong are likely to foster experienced meaningfulness (May et al., 2004).

To the researchers knowledge, only one quantitative study has provided empirical support for the positive relationship between supervisor support and perceived psychological meaningfulness of the job. In their test of Kahns (1990) model, Oliver and Rothmann (2007) found a positive correlation between supervisor relations and meaningfulness. However, it was believed that Kahns observation that meaningful interactions [promote] dignity, self-appreciation, and a sense of worthwhileness could be extended beyond just co-workers to supervisors support of employees and, in turn, has a significant effect on workers sense of meaningfulness of the job.

MEANINGFYULL WORK: Transformational leaders add to their subordinates sense of challenge in the workplace (Zhu et al., 2009). By challenging their employees to think creatively and proactively (Bass, 14 1990), transformational leaders work to re-frame seemingly routine, everyday tasks into exciting work that instills in the employee a greater sense of meaning (Sparks & Schenk, 2001). The process of challenging employees to see problems from a new perspective is known as intellectual stimulation, one of the main components of Influential leadership (Bass, 1985). The benefits of intellectual stimulation are plentiful. For example, Bolkan and Good boy (2010) found that when teachers were viewed as intellectually stimulating, their students reported high levels of motivation, satisfaction, and empowerment. Intellectual stimulation has also been shown to relate to subordinate feelings of significance and autonomy in the workplace (Judge, Parker, Colbert, Heller, & Ilies, 2001). Kahn (1990) proposed that psychological meaningfulness arises out of feelings that an individual is worthwhile, useful, and valuable, which are associated with high levels of felt significance and autonomy. Thus, it appears as though transformational leaders foster engagement through increasing employees sense of meaning.

Social Learning Theory (SLT; Bandura, 1977) may explain how followers of transformational leaders adopt meaningfulness and are therefore more engaged in their work. Although SLT is generally thought of as explaining how individuals modify their behavior based on the observation of others (Manz & Sims, 1981), it has also been conceptualized as a mechanism in which leaders pass on abstract concepts such as values, attitudes, and beliefs (Lam, Krause, & Ahearn, 2010; Weiss 1977, 1978). One reason why leaders achieve this transference of concepts is because they are often viewed by their followers as the face of the organization (i.e.., the agents of the organization), and as such they are seen as social referents worthy of imitation (Weiss, 1977). It is far more difficult to pass on values and beliefs than it is to pass on behaviors; however, it may be that transformational leaders do so, most likely through their use of inspirational motivation in which they develop and articulate a shared vision and 15 high expectations that are motivating, inspiring, and challenging (Wang et al., 2011, p. 230). This articulation of expectations and goals, along with the individualized consideration and support that transformational leaders provide, add to their followers sense of meaning, as well as the belief that they can accomplish great things (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Thus, as the transformational leader is viewed as a social referent and articulates a value system that includes making meaning out of work, consistent with SLT followers adopt similar values in a desire to be like and identify with the leader.

At the personal level, meaningfulness enhances psychological wellbeing (Ryff & Singer, 1998; Zika &Chamberlain, 1992) and meaninglessness undermines it (Debats, 1996). To the extent that meaningful work is a part of leading a genarly meaningful life ,people who consider their lives to be meaningful are better able to cope with stressful events(park& folkman,1997),have a higher self esteem esteem (Battista & Almond, 1973), and are more satisfied with their lives (Chamberlain & Zika, 1988).

Influential leadership and Well-Being

Several studies have found that leaders behavior affects employees well-being. Gilbreath and Benson (2004) investigated the effect of supervisory behavior on employee well-being (conceptualized as psychiatric disturbance) using a structure versus consideration conceptualization of supervisory behavior. Findings indicated that positive supervisory behavior (e.g., allowing more employee control, communicating and organizing well, considering employees and their well-being) made a statistically significant contribution to employee well-being over and above the effects of age, lifestyle, social support from coworkers and at home, and stressful work and life events.

Van Dierendonck et al. (2004) investigated a similar conceptualization of leader behavior and the effects of this on both job-related affective well-being and context-free psychological well-being, suggesting that high-quality leadership behavior was associated with increased employee well-being. Evidence specific to Influential leadership is also beginning to accrue.

A recent experimental study (Bono & Ilies, 2006) focused on the effect of charismatic leaders on the mood of followers and showed that charismatic leaders enable their followers to experience positive emotions (p. 331). Positive moods and emotions would be forms of positive affective well-being conceptually similar to the outcome we focus on in our first study. The potential mechanism accounting for this finding may be that charismatic leaders express more positive emotions themselves and these positive emotions are caught by their followers (the contagion hypothesis). Influential leadership may also reduce stress experienced by individuals through its impact on mentoring functions (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). One study found that Influential leadership behavior was positively related to mentoring functions received, and in turn negatively related to job-related stress (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEDEARSHIP AND MEANINGFULL WORK

Individuals perceptions of their jobs do not depend entirely on the objective characteristics of the job (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Hack man and Oldhams (1980) job characteristics model describes meaningful work as it is related to jobs with characteristics such as task variety, identity and significance, Feedback, and autonomy. Recent research has demonstrated a positive link between Influential leadership and employee perceptions of meaning in terms of these job characteristics (Piccolo &Colquitt, 2006).

Transformational leaders aspire to raise followers levels of morality to more principled levels of judgment(Burns, 1978, p. 455) and also activate higher order needs in followers based on Maslows hierarchy(Bass, 1985). Some researchers have argued that this kind of leadership gives meaningfulness to work by infusing work . . . with moral purpose and commitment(Shamir et al., 1993, p. 578). Second, the individual respect that a transformational leader exhibits for each follower should also apply to the actual work in which each follower is engaged. The verbal cues that individuals in the work environment give one another about work and the work they do are powerful (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; White & Mitchell, 1979), and the transformational leader is likely to provide positive verbal cues to followers about the importance and purpose of their work.

Sparks and Schenk (2001) found that Influential leadership was associated withFinding a higher purpose in the work. The concept of a higher purpose in that study was broad in that it did not measure any specific purpose, but it was clearly a more important purpose than making money (Sparks & Schenk, 2001, p. 858). Higher purpose was associated with increased job satisfaction, perceptions of unit cohesion, and work effort. Ascribing a higher moral purpose to ones work, in this case, mediated the Influential leadershipsatisfaction and performance relationships.

METHODOLOGY

The present study was designed to examine the Influential leadership and employee well being: the mediating role of meaningful work.

OBJECTIVES:

To study the relationship between Influential leadership and employee well being.

To study the mediating role of meaningful work on Influential leadership and employee well being.

HYPOTHESIS:

Influential leadership is positively associated with psychological well-being.

The positive relationship between Influential leadership and psychological wellbeing is mediated by perception of meaningful work.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In the view of above aims and hypothesis, co relation design was employed

Meaningful Work

Influential leadership

Employee Wellbeing

SAMPLE

The total sample will consists of 100 individuals who are in leadership position. The participants were contacted through organization. The random sampling will be used for selection of sample.Criteria of inclusion: Employees in leadership position. Employees working in BPO.Criteria of exclusion: Gender was not considered in selecting employees in leadership. Employees at lower level position.

Measurement of tools

Influential leadership behavior (TLB) and its subscales (IIA, IIB, was measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Short Form (MLQ 5X) (Bass & Avolio, 1995).

The measure of the meaning of work used in this study is taken from Ashmos and Duchons (2000) Workplace Spirituality scale (six items, _ _ .84).

For well being Ryffs Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWB), 42 Item versions are used.REFERENCES