
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 describes descriptive statistics of all the study variables including the mean, standard deviation, and correlation. Correlation coefficients are in the anticipated directions and provide preliminary support for our study hypotheses. Our results depicts that transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation (r = 0. 29, p < 0.01) are positively and significantly correlated. Further intrinsic motivation is significantly associated with work performance (r = .30, p < 0.01); working burnout (r = − 0.59, p < 0.01); social loafing (r = − 0.15, p < 0.01).
Table 2 Mean, standard deviations and correlations
Variables |
Mean |
SD |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Transformational leadership |
4.44 |
1.00 |
(0.84) |
||||
2. Intrinsic motivation |
2.98 |
1.11 |
.29** |
(0.89) |
|||
3. Working burnout |
3.25 |
0.97 |
− .20** |
− .59** |
(0.88) |
||
4. Work performance |
3.95 |
0.76 |
.17** |
.30** |
− .24** |
(0.80) |
|
5. Social loafing |
1.87 |
0.68 |
− .48** |
− .15** |
.23** |
− .17** |
(0.80) |
- N = 308; Cronbach's alpha (reliability coefficients) is on the diagonal in parentheses
- *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01
Reliability analysis
To examine the consistency of the variables, reliability analysis is calculated. The reliabilities of all the variables with number of items are summarized in Table 3. The values between 0.84 and 0.8 indicate good reliability. The reliability of transformational leadership is 0.84 which is good, and intrinsic motivation shows another good reliability which is 0.89. Working burnout shows 0.88 reliability. The reliability of work performance is 0.8 and the reliability of social loafing is 0.8 which is also good. So this explains that the data used is reliable.
Table 3 Reliability statistics
Scales |
No. of items |
Cronbach's' value |
---|---|---|
1. Transformational leadership |
4 |
0.842 |
2. Intrinsic motivation |
4 |
0.893 |
3. Working burnout |
7 |
0.877 |
4. Work performance |
4 |
0.800 |
5. Social loafing |
4 |
0.802 |
- Regression analysis
Hypothesis testing
Results of mediation for work performance
Firstly, we investigated the impact of Transformational Leadership (X) on Work Performance (Y) through mediating factor of Intrinsic Motivation (M). Results justify that total effect of transformational leadership on work performance (path c, Fig. 2) is significant (β = 0.13, t = 3.07, p < 0.01) as shown in Table 4. The relationship between transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation (path a, Fig. 4) is highly significant and positive which support Hypothesis 1 also (β = 0.31, t = 5.20, p < 0.01). Furthermore, the findings showed that the relationship between Intrinsic Motivation and Work Performance (path b, Fig. 2) is positive and significant relationship (β = 0.19, t = 4.79, p < 0.01).
Fig. 2 Mediation model - work performance
Table 4 Results of simple mediation model for work performance
Direct effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = M (intrinsic motivation) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
a |
0.31 |
0.06 |
5.20 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i1 |
1.57 |
0.28 |
5.67 |
0.00 |
Direct effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = Y (work performance) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
c′ |
0.07 |
0.04 |
1.68 |
0.09 |
M (intrinsic motivation) |
b |
0.19 |
0.04 |
4.79 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i2 |
3.07 |
0.19 |
15.41 |
0.00 |
Total effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = Y (work performance) |
||||
β |
SE |
T |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
c |
0.13 |
0.04 |
3.07 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i3 |
3.36 |
0.19 |
17.15 |
0.00 |
- N = 308; SE = standard error; bootstrap sample size = 500
Our overall findings represent that there is positive and significant impact of transformational leadership on work performance (path c′, Fig. 2) through the mediation of intrinsic motivation (β = 0.07, t = 1.68, p > 0.01) which accepts Hypothesis 3.
Results for mediation for working burnout
In this model we studied the relationship of Transformational Leadership(X) and Working Burnout (Y) through mediating role Intrinsic Motivation (M). Results indicated that total effect of transformational leadership on working burnout is significant (β = − 0.19, t = − 3.51, p < 0.01 We examined the relationship between the mediator, Intrinsic Motivation and the dependent variable, Working Burnout (path b, Fig. 3). The findings showed a significant and negative relationship (β = − 0.50, t = − 11.98, p < 0.01). This finding supports Hypothesis 4. As it is shown in Table 5 the final results determined a significant relationship between transformational leadership and working burnout with mediation of intrinsic motivation (path c′, Fig. 3) (β = − 0.03, t = − 0.66, p > 0.01). Therefore Hypothesis 5 is accepted.
Fig. 3 Mediation model - working burnout
Table 5 Results of simple mediation model for working burnout
Direct effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = M (intrinsic motivation) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
a |
0.31 |
0.06 |
5.20 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i1 |
1.57 |
0.28 |
5.67 |
0.00 |
Direct effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = Y (working burnout) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
c′ |
− 0.03 |
0.04 |
− 0.66 |
0.50 |
M (intrinsic motivation) |
b |
− 0.50 |
0.04 |
− 11.98 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i2 |
4.90 |
0.21 |
22.75 |
0.00 |
Total effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = Y (working burnout) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
c |
− 0.19 |
0.05 |
− 3.51 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i3 |
4.10 |
0.24 |
16.55 |
0.00 |
- N = 308; SE = standard error; bootstrap sample size = 5000
Results for mediation for social loafing
Our third and last finding for studied relationship between transformational leadership and social loafing through mediator intrinsic motivation, are presented in Table 6. According to the total effect model, the relationship between transformational leadership and social loafing (path c, Fig. 4) is significant and negative (β = − 0.32, t = − 9.57, p < 0.01) as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Results of simple mediation model for social loafing
Direct effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = M (intrinsic motivation) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
a |
0.31 |
0.06 |
5.20 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i1 |
1.57 |
0.28 |
5.67 |
0.00 |
Direct effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = Y (social loafing) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
c′ |
− 0.32 |
0.03 |
− 9.07 |
0.00 |
M (intrinsic motivation) |
b |
− 0.01 |
0.03 |
− 0.31 |
0.75 |
Constant |
i2 |
3.34 |
0.16 |
20.28 |
0.00 |
Total effect model |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Predictor |
Outcome = Y (social loafing) |
||||
β |
SE |
t |
p |
||
X (transformational leadership) |
c |
− 0.32 |
0.03 |
− 9.57 |
0.00 |
Constant |
i3 |
3.33 |
0.15 |
21.25 |
0.00 |
- N = 308; SE = standard error; bootstrap sample size = 5000
Fig. 4 Mediation model - social loafing
The outcomes showed that intrinsic motivation and social loafing (path b, Fig. 4) are insignificantly and related relationship (β = − 0.01, t = − 0.31, p > 0.01) which opposes Hypothesis 6.
Our last finding determined that transformational leadership does not have a significant negative impact on social loafing (path c′, Fig. 3), while controlling intrinsic motivation (β = − 0.32, t = − 9.07, p < 0.01). Thus Hypothesis 7 is not accepted. Thus, it can be resulted that there is no mediation.