Ways to Leadership: Considering Different Perspectives on What it Needs to Lead

This dissertation looks at underlying mechanisms in the performance of leadership. Specifically, we examine possible antecedents that enable the leader to lead in a transformational way. We link existing resource theories such as Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources theory (1989) and the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), and apply them in the leadership context. In addition, social factors are also included so that the existing theoretical assumptions are also linked to social- psychological processes, building a bridge between work-psychological and social- psychological knowledge. In the present work, three research questions are addressed: 1) How are leaders’ well- being and their leadership behavior related? 2) How do leaders’ resources shape their leadership behavior? 3) How is the leader’s behavior influenced by social-psychological factors in terms of a social work environment? In the first manuscript, we examined the relationship between leaders’ well-being, their demonstrated transformational leadership, and team performance across three measurement time points (N = 276). We addressed the question of the direction of the relationship between leaders’ well-being and their transformational leadership. We also integrated team performance as a potential positive effect of transformational leadership behavior and explored the question of a possible resource process as gain vs. loss. The study results indicated that leaders’ well-being (indicated through general health and work engagement) positively predicted their transformational leadership behavior over time. In addition, leaders’ well-being (general health) predicted team performance, which led to decreased leaders’ well-being, representing a loss of resources. Manuscript 2 focused on role clarity and self-efficacy as resources and work engagement as possible antecedents for transformational leadership. The study (N = 216) again emphasized the positive relationship between work engagement and transformational leadership. Further, it was demonstrated that the two resources examined here also positively influenced the demonstrated leadership behavior. In addition, the model included social- psychological processes. Affective commitment moderated the positive relationship between work engagement and transformational leadership. The relationship was even stronger when leaders indicated a high level of commitment to the organization. Study 2 made clear that leadership is always something social, and that social mechanisms of action play a role. In the third manuscript, the role of expectations in eight different leadership behaviors – including transformational leadership behavior – (displayed as scenarios) was examined in more detail. Expectations as leading factors (Heckhausen, 1977) were compared with regard to four different leadership outcomes; namely, job satisfaction, well-being, performance, and affective commitment of the employee. Further, leadership behaviors were compared in terms of their attractiveness. In addition, the relationship between outcome expectations and self- perceived leadership behaviors was examined. The results of the quasi-experimental study (N = 440 in total, N = 95 leader) showed significant differences in the assessment of the different leadership behaviors as well as a correlation between self-perceived leadership behavior and rated expectations in the different scenarios regarding the displayed leadership scenarios. In summary, the three manuscripts provide evidence that leaders need sufficient existing resources to practice transformational leadership. Moreover, the dissertation confirms that social-psychological factors play an important role in explaining leadership behavior and should be considered in established work psychology theories. Thus, this dissertation theoretically extends existing stress and resource-based assumptions on how organizational outcome evolves with social-psychological assumptions. Furthermore, it demonstrates that leadership cannot be considered alone – by only looking at the leader him-/herself – but that leaders are part of a social group and environment. Therefore, social-psychological aspects and expectations should also be included to explain leaders’ behavior. Finally, a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms and antecedents for transformational leadership would help to promote this promising leadership behavior more and support leaders and organizations in this direction. Consequently, the results are of both theoretical and practical value.