The Influences of Transformational Leadership and Compensation Can Affect Employees’ Performance and their Motivation

Melissa P. Stolz

Student of School of Business, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh,, USA

Weng R. Lau

Associate Professor of Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia

Irine R. Lee

Senior Lecturer of Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia

Abstract

Numerous empirical articles in management emphasize the influence managers can have on various job-related responses of employees, such as job satisfaction, motivation, and performance. The purposes of this study is to examine and analyze the influences of transformational leadership and compensation to employee performance on their motivation. The primary research data is surveys, and secondary data are performance values and interview results. Saturated sampling as a sampling method in this study, the subjects were taken from all employees consist of 93 people. The analytical method in this study is using the SmartPLS software there is variant based structural analysis (SEM) that can simultaneously test to measurement model and target the structural model. This paper reports results of a study, however, which found that a transactional approach may be preferable to a transformational style for enhancing employee’s motivation and behavioral responses.

Keywords

Transformational Leadership, Compensation, Motivation, Employee Performance

To cite this article

Stolz, M. P., Lau, W. R., & Lee, I. R.  (2017). The Influences of Transformational Leadership and Compensation Can Affect Employees’ Performance and their Motivation, International Journal of  Management, and Social Sciences Review (IJMSSR). Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.41-57. Doi:10.5281/zenodo.2648495

 

Copyright

Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

References

  1. Aldas-Manzano, J., Kuster, I., & Vila, N. 2005. Market orientation and innovation: An inter-relationship analysis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(4): 437–452. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. 2003. Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 261–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Balkin, D. B., Markman, G. D., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2000. Is CEO pay in high-technology firms related to innovation?. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1118–1129. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  1. Bass, B., Avolio, B., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207–218. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Bliese, P. 2000. Within-group agreement, nonindependence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  1. Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. 1994. Understanding professional culture in organizational context. Organization Studies, 15(2): 275–295. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Cabrales, A., Medina, C., Lavado, A., & Cabrera, R. 2008. Managing functional diversity, risk taking and incentives for teams to achieve radical innovations. R&D Management, 38(1): 35–50. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Carmen, C., & Maria Jose, G. 2008. The role of technological and organizational innovation in the relation between market orientation and performance in cultural organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3): 413–434. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 627–668. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. [Google Scholar]
  1. Deshpande, R., Farley, J., & Webster, F. 1993. Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57: 23–37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Howell, J. P., & Villa, J. R. 2005. Substitutes for leadership, or not?. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1): 169–193. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Elenkov, D., Judge, W., & Wright, P. 2005. Strategic leadership and executive innovation influence: An international multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Management Journal, 26: 665–682. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Erez, M., Gopher, D., & Arzi, N. 1990. Effects of goal difficulty, self-set goals, and monetary rewards on dual task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47: 247–269. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. 1984. Organizational strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30: 682–95. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  1. Fey, C., & Furu, P. 2008. Top management incentive compensation and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1301–1323. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]