Abstract

Practitioners and researchers are increasingly engaged and interested in digital transformation leadership. However, the existing literature is fragmented and we lack knowledge of the competencies required by business leaders to facilitate digital transformation. In response, we rely on a literature study and draw inspiration from the Competing Values Framework to identify digital transformation leadership competencies. We theorize four archetypical competency portfolios, which are labeled according to the types of leaders who personify the constituent competencies: the challenger, the bricoleur, the organizer, and the competitor. We draw inspiration from the Competing Values Framework in advancing a contingency perspective on archetypical these portfolios. By theorizing competency portfolios, we contribute new insights into the role of leadership in digital transformation, which requires different competencies depending on the transformation drivers and goals. Our proposed competency portfolio framework serves as a valuable tool for identifying the required competencies and making decisions on whether to upskill existing leaders or hire new ones to drive transformation efforts.

Introduction

The rising interest in digital transformation spans both academia and organizations (Markus & Rowe, 2023). The number of publications on this topic has tripled over the past decade (Hanelt et al., 2021), and organizations are constantly faced with new digital technologies that have the potential to transform business models and organizational identities (Wessel et al., 2021). The growing importance of these technologies has placed digital transformation at the top of business agendas (Imran et al., 2020, Zulu and Khosrowshahi, 2021) and produced an increased awareness of the need for new competencies among business leaders who are strategizing and spearheading digital transformation (Bennis, 2013, Imran et al., 2020, Klein, 2020, McCarthy et al., 2021, Schiuma et al., 2021). Business leaders are increasingly playing a pivotal role in driving the digital transformation agenda (Preston et al., 2008, Wolff et al., 2019, Adie et al., 2022) not only by strategizing and influencing the behavior of employees (Bunjak et al., 2022, Nguyen and Hooi, 2020) but also by leading by example in the pursuit of change (Imran et al., 2020, Zulu and Khosrowshahi, 2021). In short, digital transformation requires skilled leaders (Skare et al., 2023). By focusing on the role of business leaders, we adopt a view of “leadership as a social influence process” (Banks et al., 2022, p. 1) that emphasizes “the activities of an organized group in its efforts toward goal setting and goal achievement” (Stogdill, 1950, p. 4).

Previous studies of digital transformation leadership emphasize that business leaders must be able to recognize when digital transformation is needed (Bharadwaj et al., 2013, Cortellazzo et al., 2019), foster an environment that supports this transformation (Singh and Hess, 2017, Imran et al., 2020, van Toorn et al., 2019), understand the influence of organizational culture on a company’s ability to participate in digital transformation (Müller et al., 2019), take into account how digital transformation impacts organizational structures and leadership (Engesmo & Panteli, 2021), and empower employees to turn strategic initiatives into new work practices (Andriole, 2018, Sousa and Rocha, 2019, Nielsen et al., 2023). McCarthy et al. (2021) identify eight characteristics of digital transformation leadership and provide an initial mapping between these characteristics and C-suite roles. Klein (2020) expands the number of digital leadership characteristics to 23, and Schiuma et al. (2021) present a model, the transformative leadership compass, outlining six competencies “distinguishing a digital transformative leader capable of driving continuous company innovation and specifically digital transformation entrepreneurship” (p. 1273).

Concluding remarks

In this article, we describe the competencies that business leaders need to facilitate digital transformation. We argue that relevant leadership competencies depend on the drivers and goals of the organization’s digital transformation efforts. Based on a review of the literature, we theorize four distinct sets of competencies that leaders need under varying circumstances, something we refer to as archetypical leadership competency portfolios. These portfolios are gathered into a competency portfolio framework (Fig. 1). We label the portfolios according to the types of leaders who personify the constituent competencies: the challenger, the bricoleur, the organizer, and the competitor. These portfolios relate to the drivers and goals of (a) exploring market innovation, (b) supporting operational efficiency, (c) ensuring active stakeholder involvement, and (d) improving competitive positioning. Although there are other categorizations of digital transformation leadership competencies, for example, Zulu & Khosrowshahi’s (2021) taxonomy of different leadership types that range from forward-thinking to visionless leaders, our theorizing constitutes the first attempt at fencing in the digital transformation leadership competencies from a contingency perspective.

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

3. Method

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Conclusions and managerial implications

Declaration of Competing Interest

References

Abstract

     This study examines how the combined effects of work environmental factors and leadership behaviours lead to the presence (or absence) of industrial employees job performance by applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). A sample composed of supervisor-subordinate dyads was used to test the propositions of this study. The results show that the most important variables are transformational leadership and social support. Employee empowerment and task significance seem to play a secondary role in leading to employee job performance. These findings support the need for managers to use positive leadership to manage human resources. This paper contributes to the advancement of the knowledge of employee job performance through the identification of the combinations of conditions that can lead to the presence or absence of this important organizational outcome. Directions for future studies are commented on at the end of the paper.

Introduction

     Job performance is probably the most important and studied variable in industrial management and organizational behaviour (Carpini, Parker, & Griffin, 2017). It can be defined as individual behaviour-something that people do and can be observed-that generates value for the organization (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993) and contributes to the organization’s goals (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015). Job performance can also be understood as an achievement-related behaviour with some evaluative component (Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997), that is, the extent to which an employee meets general organizational performance expectations (Afzali, Arash-Motahari, & Hatami-Shirkouhi, 2014).

     Over the last decades, the meaning of job performance has varied considerably, from the more traditional view focused on employment and fixed tasks to a broader understanding of work roles in dynamic organizational contexts (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). The fundamental reason for this focus shift is to the highly competitive and global work environment, where all organizations must be oriented to respond to dynamic and changing situations (Baard, Rench, & Kozlowski, 2014). This new context requires a broader conceptualization of job performance that brings together all the potential behaviours that positively contribute to the achievement of organizational goals (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). The new conceptualization of individual performance includes in-role performance (e.g., Williams & Anderson, 1991), adaptative performance (e.g., Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010), proactive performance (e.g., Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006) and citizenship behaviours (e.g., Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Delving into this new conceptualization of job performance, Griffin et al. (2007) developed an integrative performance model that cross-classifies ‘the three levels at which role behaviours can contribute to effectiveness (individual, team, and organization) and the three different forms of behaviour (proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity) into subdimensions of work role performance’ (p. 330). Although previous research recommends taking advantage of the existing commonalities between the different job performance constructs (Carpini & Parker, 2017), this study is limited to the individual-level behaviours that generate value for organizations.

Results

     The outcome of the model was the presence of employees’ job performance. The five conditions were task significance, coworker social support, supervisor social support, transformational leadership, and empowerment. To conduct a more thorough analysis and provide greater insight into the proposed model, the analysis was conducted considering both the presence and absence of employee job performance. Table 1 shows the results of the analysis of necessary conditions for the presence (and absence) of job performance among industrial workers.

1- Introduction

2- Theoretical foundation and hypotheses development

3- Research method

4- Results

5- Discussion

6- Conclusion

References

Abstract

Because no prior studies investigated that green intrinsic and extrinsic motivation influence green creativity, this study aims to bridge this research gap and offers two novel constructs: green intrinsic motivation and green extrinsic motivation. A survey approach is employed to get insights from the information technology (I.T) industry located in Dalian, China. Using structural equation modeling (variance-based), the authors analyzed 298 respondents. The findings revealed that green transformational leadership has a substantial influence on green intrinsic motivation and green creativity, which are needed for employees to produce clean and green products and services. In addition, green intrinsic motivation partially mediates the relationship between green transformational leadership and green creativity. On the contrary, green extrinsic motivation as a moderator slightly undermines the green intrinsic motivation for green creative behavior. Therefore, leadership in organizations should raise the green motivation of employees so that they may innovate environment-friendly and sustainable products and services.

Introduction

Recently, greening the management and organizational philosophy has gained popularity both among the industry and the scholars in order to reduce the impact of industrial waste and hazards produced by organizations and conventional products. Stakeholders and scholars have pressured organizations to strategize policies to attain social, economic, and environmental outcomes. For instance, a few recent studies proposed that greening the information technology and computer practices can help to reduce carbon wastage, disposal activities, and energy consumption in organizations (Bai et al., 2017; Ojo et al., 2019). Thus, in academic areas and industries, focus of research is shifting from a general deliberation on green business into greening the functional areas, such as green innovation (Zailani et al., 2015), green finance (Przychodzen et al., 2018), green human resource management (Yong et al., 2019) and green creativity (Awan et al., 2019).

Tourism literature has presented the effects of leadership style on staff efficiency yet few have examined the causal relationship between leadership style and newcomer outcomes at the hotel workplace context. This study examined the underlying mechanism regarding how transformational leadership can facilitate hotel newcomers to exhibit better performance and retention. Using the structural equation model, this study tested research hypotheses using valid data collected from 234 hotel newcomers with their supervisors from 63 tourist hotels rated above four-star in Taiwan. Based on emotion in feedback system theory, this study noted that hotel newcomers displayed higher supervisor-triggered positive affect due to the transformational leadership of their supervisors. In turn, this led to newcomers’ high performance and motivation to continue working. Adapting social exchange theory, this study found that transformational leadership has led to the development of a higher perceived supervisor support, which facilitated better performance among newcomers at hotel organizations.

Introduction

One of the critical challenges faced by organizational managers is the task of providing support to newcomers so that they can quickly adapt to a new work environment (Haueter, Macan, & Winter, 2003; Morrison, 1993; Saks & Gruman, 2018; Yan, Francesco, Wu, & Wang, 2017). Especially in the hospitality industry, tourism organizational managers have high expectations of newcomers, who must be able to quickly learn their work roles and contribute toward increased performance and service quality (Song, Chon, Ding, & Gu, 2015). Past studies have indicated that supervisors can help newcomers in the process of adjusting to a new work organization and increasing their performance in the early stage (Chen & Klimoski, 2003; Wondra & Ellsworth, 2015; Yuan, Li, Mai, Ye, & Yu, 2017). Moreover, in accordance with the principle of social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), individuals are likely to voluntarily exhibit beneficial behaviors based on the treatment they received from their hotel supervisors. An increasing number of empirical studies on hospitality organizations have reported that supervisors display certain leadership behaviors to motivate their employees and change their behaviors at work (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Chen, Zhu, & Zhou, 2015; Tuan, 2018). For this reason, transformational leadership is considered as comprising leadership behaviors that can change hospitality organization employees’ behaviors and attitudes, which are associated with hotel employees’ work stress, organizational citizenship behaviors, service performance, workplace deviance, and other attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Chen & Wu, 2017; Grant, 2012; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Patiar & Wang, 2016; Uen, Wu, Teng, & Liu, 2012; Yukl, 1999).

This research aimed to investigate effect of transformational leadership (TL) in stimulating employee creativity (EC) leading to organizational innovation (OI) and assess the moderating role of Intrinsic Motivation (IM) between TL and EC. The data was collected from 164 supervisor-employee dyads of 31 Pakistani software firms. A three-step approach to SEM was applied to examine mediator and moderator variables. The findings indicate that the Idealized Influence, Intellectual Stimulation, and Inspirational Motivation have a great influence on OI and EC but Individual Consideration was not found to be significantly related to OI and EC. The findings further proved the positive and significant moderating effect of IM for TL and EC. Thus, through TL style, EC can be promoted with the interactive effect of IM by inspiring employees to think out of the box leading to innovation in the organization. This paper attempts to contribute to the current literature by developing moderating role of IM. Furthermore, we have also examined how each dimension of TL is affecting EC, and OI, further some interesting discoveries are also made which other studies have not done before.

Introduction

Today the organizations are functioning in a very vibrant environment with rapid development of technology, requiring organizations to bring creativity and innovation to products & services. A considerable amount of literature has emphasized the significance of employee creativity for innovation (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2017; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2009; Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014). Because stimulating individual creativity is a vital element for firms to remain competitive and survive in the market. Various organizations are also constantly looking for different ways to inspire their employees to work creatively and develop innovative ideas (Gu, Tang, & Wan, 2015; Liu et al., 2012; Walton, 2003). Consequently, many researchers are interested to understand the dynamics of employee creativity, especially, to recognize the factors that develop or inhibit creativity within organizations (De Alencar & De Bruno-Faria, 1997; Zhou & Shalley, 2008). The leadership is considered one of the significant factors that affect creative behavior of employees and organizational innovation (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Moreover, “Leadership has been put forth as a key driver of organizational innovation” (Prasad & Junni, 2016, p. 1542). The transformational leadership style has received extensive popularity as compared with other styles of leadership among leadership researchers (Khalili, 2016; Mittal & Dhar, 2015; Schaubroeck et al., 2012; Shin & Zhou, 2003; Wang & Rode, 2010; Wang, Rode, Shi, Luo, & Chen, 2013), due to its different approaches to motivate creativity of employees as compared with other styles of leadership (Gupta, Singh, Kumar, & Bhattacharya, 2012; ReiterPalmon & Illies, 2004).

1- Introduction

2- Material and methods

3- Results

4- Discussion

References

Abstract

The high turnover rate among child welfare workers is a constant, well-documented issue. This study aimed to examine how organizational factors, particularly leadership, affect child welfare worker turnover intentions in order to help child welfare agencies establish a practice model that prevents the turnover of qualified workers. In order to do so, it is important to examine the effects of organizational commitment on employees’ turnover intentions.
A cross-sectional survey was distributed among workers in public child welfare agencies in a Midwestern state in the United States (N = 214). A path model was developed to test the direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on the turnover intentions of child welfare workers using STATA. The survey results indicated that the transformational leadership styles of local office directors had direct and negative effects on child welfare workers’ turnover intentions. Therefore, this study recommends that child welfare services provide local office directors with leadership training in order to reduce the preventable turnover of child welfare workers.

Introduction

The quality of child welfare services provided to clients significantly depends on the person who delivers the services and the stability of the child welfare service workforce (National Association of Social Work 2016; Schweitzer, Chianello, & Kothari, 2013). Researchers who study child welfare worker turnover identified the negative effects of other factors that affect children and families and thus cause poor child welfare outcomes (Griffiths & Royse, 2017; Healy, Meagher, & Cullin, 2007; National Child Welfare Workforce Institute, 2016; Schweitzer et al., 2013; Strolin, McCarthy, & Caringi, 2007). In addition, Healy et al. (2007) took the existing research one step further and identified the negative effects of these factors on the social work profession. Because the employee turnover rate is higher in social work than in other industries (Tham, 2007; The British Association of Social Workers, 2012), the consequences of child welfare worker turnover on the social work profession were also considered. Despite the importance of the workforce in child welfare services, the average rate of worker turnover in child welfare organizations varies from 20% up to 57% annually (Burstain, 2009; Child Welfare League of America, 2008; Healy & Oltedal, 2010; Mack, 2001; Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin, 2001; National Child Welfare Workforce Institute, 2011), and some studies claim 100% annual turnover (see Mor Barak et al., 2001; Fulcher & Smith, 2010). Because child welfare agencies suffer from higher staff turnover rates than other human services do, turnover and retention of child welfare workers at every level have been extensively studied for decades (Mor Barak, Levin, Nissly, & Lane, 2006; Ellett, 2009; Ellett, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews, 2007; Fulcher & Smith, 2010; General Accounting Office, 2006; Hwang & Hopkins, 2012).

1- Introduction

2- Theoretical background and hypotheses

3- Methods

4- Results

5- Discussion

6- Conclusion

References

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the mediating role of structural empowerment in the positive relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. Based on self-reported questionnaires from 240 employees working in the tourism sector in Galicia (northwest of Spain), the findings reveal that the linkage between transformational leadership and work engagement is partially mediated by structural empowerment. These results imply that transformational leaders foster work engagement by enabling access to information, opportunities, support and adequate resources. This empirical study is one of the first to examine the role of structural empowerment as a mediator between transformational leadership and work engagement and may serve as a reference for promoting work engagement in service organizations. A number of contributions and practical implications are discussed.

Introduction

Work engagement has become a very popular term and a subject of great interest in the field of management and positive psychology over the past 20 years. Having an engaged workforce is a competitive advantage for organizations as it is associated with favourable organizational outcomes (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonz
alez-Roma,
& Bakker, 2002). Leadership is a critical component that influences the work environment and the way employees perceive their work (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). Specifically, transformational leadership behaviours such as intellectual stimulation and individual consideration may engender a supportive organizational climate that stimulates high levels of work engagement (Avolio & Bass, 1995) and enhances followers’ internal motivation (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). Further, transformational leaders who set clear expectations, praise employees for good performance, are fair, and are concerned about employees may play a part in bringing about feelings of attachment to one’s work and psychological safety (Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008). Structural empowerment refers to having access to information, support, enough resources and opportunities to learn and grow at work (Kanter, 1977). Moreover, leaders play an important role in creating empowering workplace conditions that may result in positive personal and organizational outcomes (Cummings et al., 2010). Bakker and Demerouti (2008) suggested that engaged employees are more imaginative, productive and more willing to go the extra mile. Therefore, the embedded understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership and structural empowerment is a key to increasing work engagement in today’s highly competitive business environment. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the mediating role of structural empowerment in the positive relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement in the Galician tourism sector (northwest Spain). The tourism sector in Galicia is one of the pillars of the economy, being one of the most powerful industries that generates employment.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the processes underlying the relationship between creativity processes and new product performance. Drawing on the literature of new product development (NPD) and organizational creativity, we hypothesize that NPD speed mediates the relationship between creativity processes and new product performance and that encouragement by leadership moderates this mediating model. Using a sample of 245 companies in China, we found that (1) not all components of creativity processes related positively to new product performance. Specifically, information search and encoding (ISE) and idea and alternative generation (IG) are respectively and positively related to new product performance, but problem identification (PI) is not. (2) NPD speed fully mediates the influence of PI and ISE on new product performance, but it only partially mediates the relationship between IG and new product performance. (3) Encouragement by leadership positively moderates the relationship of PI and NPD speed, as well as the relationship of ISE and NPD speed; however, it does not significantly moderate the relationship between IG and NPD speed. The implications of these findings and directions for future research in NPD performance are discussed.

Introduction

To remain competitive, firms need to provide a constant stream of new products and quickly deliver innovative products to the market while controlling costs (Allocca & Kessler, 2006; Carbonell & Rodriguez, 2006; Farid, Hakimian, Ismail, & Nair, 2017; Goktan & Miles, 2012). New product development (NPD) literature has focused on the NPD process, which starts from generating new ideas to commercializing new products, and proclaimed that new product innovativeness and NPD speed (the pace of progress that a firm displays in this process) are unequivocally important to new product performance (Chen, Reilly, & Lynn, 2012; Kessler & Bierly, 2002; Knockaert & Spithoven, 2014). However, the influences on NPD performance are quite complex. The relationship between new product innovativeness and NPD speed still has room for development (Kessler & Bierly, 2002; Wu, Liu, & Zhang, 2016). For example, are different tasks in the process of engaging creativity, which is crucial for new product innovativeness, equally associated with NPD speed? If not, how exactly do firms manage the NPD process by balancing creativity and speed to increase new product performance?

1- Introduction

2- Literature review and research hypotheses

3- Methodology

4- Results

5- Discussion

References

Abstract

This study investigates the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions that explain the relationship between transformational leadership and frontline employee performance. Specifically, it explores the mediating role of organizational identification and work engagement in the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance and organization-directed citizenship behaviors. Additionally, it examines whether proactive personality moderates the effect of transformational leadership on identification and engagement. Data from 323 frontline hotel employees were analyzed using partial least square regression. Results show that identification and engagement fully mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors, whereas engagement partially mediates the link between transformational leadership and job performance. Results indicate a sequential mediation effect of identification and engagement on employee performance. Finally, findings show that proactive personality strengthens the effect of leadership on identification and engagement. The study provides information for hotel managers about why and under what circumstances employees perform the way they do.

Introduction

Due to the importance of frontline employee performance in the competitive hospitality industry, scholars and practitioners have long tried to determine its predictors. Among the different variables investigated in the literature, previous research widely identifies supervisory behavior as playing a key role in affecting the performance of frontline employees. In service- and people-oriented businesses, such as the hospitality industry, the success of an organization largely depends on the role of managers (Terglav et al., 2016), as they influence employees’ emotions, attitudes and behaviors (Avolio et al., 2004) and the way they interact with customers (Wallace et al., 2013). Specifically, transformational leadership, defined as a “style of leadership that transforms followers to rise above their self-interest by altering their morale, ideals, interests, and values, motivating them to perform better than initially expected” (Pieterse et al., 2010, p. 610), is currently the most widely accepted paradigm in the leadership literature (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Prior studies in the transformational leadership area provide empirical evidence of the positive effects of this variable on frontline employee performance (Fuller et al., 1996; Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Lowe et al., 1996). However, further research is needed regarding the specific mechanisms by which these effects occur, and the boundary conditions under which transformational leadership improves employee performance (Holten et al., 2018; Pan and Lin, 2015; Patiar and Wang, 2016). Therefore, this research aims to provide new insights into why and under what circumstances transformational leadership enhances the performance of frontline employees, including job performance and organizational citizenship behaviors directed at the organization (OCBO), in the context of the tourism and hospitality industry. In response to these calls for further research, this study draws on social identity theory (SIT) and social exchange theory (SET) to explore the mediating role played by the psychological relationship between the employee and the organization, in terms of the employee’s organizational identification and work engagement. Under SIT, organizational identification is a form of social identification “where the individual defines him or herself in terms of their membership in a particular organization” (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, p. 105).

Based on a random sample of employees (n = 439) in the United States, this study examined the effect of transformational leadership and transparent organizational communication on cultivating employee organizational trust during an organizational change event. We also investigated the interplay between transformational leadership, transparent communication, and organizational trust, and their impact on employee openness to change. The findings suggested that transformational leadership and transparent communication were positively associated with employee organizational trust, which in turn, positively influenced employee openness to change. Theoretical and managerial contributions of the study were discussed.

Introduction

It has become a norm for organizations to engage in strategic change initiatives to remain competitive (Johansson & Heide, 2008). Nevertheless, characterized by uncertainties and ambiguities (Corley & Gioia, 2004), approximately 40%–70% of change initiatives fail (Burns, 2000). Organizational change not only costs time and money, but, when done inappropriately, also deteriorates employee morale and commitment, resulting in lower work efficacy and higher turnover rates (Chawla & Kevin Kelloway, 2004; Eby, Adams, Russell, & Gaby, 2000; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Organizational changes have increased pressure on organizational leaders, who play an important role in affecting organizational change implementation (Pawar & Eastman, 1997). An American Management Association survey indicated that leadership was the top determinant of successful change, followed by corporate values, and communication (Gill, 2002). Successful leadership not only develops vision, strategy, and culture for change, but also empowers and motivates employees in change engagement (Gill, 2002). Transformational leadership in particular has received a great deal of research attention in change management. Transformational leaders are viewed as charismatic and visionary leaders, and can garner identification, trust, and confidence from the employees. Research has consistently shown the positive impact of transformational leadership on employee outcomes across situations including organizational change (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008; Paulsen, Callan, Ayoko, & Saunders, 2013). The power of transformational leadership to facilitate change implementation lies in its ability to create and communicate a strong vision, provide empowering opportunities, encourage employees to think beyond self-interests, and boost employees’ confidence in adapting to a new environment (Carter, Armenakis, Feild, & Mossholder, 2013; Herold et al., 2008). Another major factor, which emerged from previous research, that impacts change management, is strategic internal communication. Change initiatives that lack strategic internal communication inevitably fail (Elving, 2005).

Theoretical Development

Transformational Leadership and Team Identification

Before we delve into discussing the relationship between transformational leadership and team identification, we believe it is necessary to clarify our conceptualization of these constructs in terms of their level of analysis, given that they have been conceptualized as both individual- and group-level constructs in previous studies. Team identification refers to the extent to which employees perceive oneness with or belongingness to a team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and, as such, reflects the extent to which the individual’s self-concept incorporates his or her team (Pratt, 1998). This construct is thus basically a psychological process located at the individual level (Kark et al., 2003; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 2000). Further, team identification entails a subjective claim or acceptance by the individual, whose identity is at stake (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Brickson, 2013; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), and therefore, individuals in the same team may develop varying degrees of identification with their team. For these reasons, team identification has been frequently conceived and assessed at the individual level of analysis (e.g., Chen, Zhu, & Zhou, 2015; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; van der Vegt, van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003), and we follow this practice. Transformational leadership has both individual- and group-level components (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Accordingly, researchers have investigated the construct at the individual level (e.g., Jiao, Richards, & Zhang, 2011; Liang & Chi, 2013), group level (e.g., Jiang, Gu, & Wang, 2015; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010), or both at the individual and the group levels (e.g., Chi & Pan, 2012; Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014). In the current study, we view it as an individual-level construct, given that we are interested in understanding leaders’ influence on the individual phenomenon of team identification. According to social identity theory, the self-concept consists of a personal identity comprising unique characteristics, such as abilities and interests, and a collective identity comprising salient group classifications (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Central to our current discussion is the dynamic nature of the self-concept: it is dynamic in that the salience (i.e., active use) of specific self-concepts is contingent in a given situation and the cues therein; that is, only a situationally relevant and meaningful portion of the self-concept governs individuals’ behaviors in the present moment (Hogg & Terry, 2000). In addition, individuals’ self-concepts may change over time as they learn about themselves through their own experiences and reflections, as well as through validation by other people (Baumeister, 1998; Bem, 1972).

Employee service performance is an important source of a hospitality organization’s competitive advantage as it helps distinguish one hospitality organization over its competitors. In addition to being able to provide excellence in service, service employees in the hospitality industry are also expected to provide service recovery performance––resolving a service failure to satisfy a customer and meet customer expectations (Babakus et al., 2003; Guchait et al., 2014). Examples of service failures common in the hotel industry that require service recovery performance include unavailable rooms during check-in, providing the wrong bill, internet not working, unclean rooms, food not properly cooked, and services not available during stay (Lee et al., 2011a). Service recovery performance has been linked to multiple positive outcomes, including customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, positive word of mouth, and intent to purchase (Ha and Jang, 2009; Liao, 2007; Lin, 2010a). Because effective service recovery performance is crucial for the success of the hospitality businesses, past research has examined factors that can enhance service recovery performance (Boshoff and Allen, 2000; Masoud and Hmeidan, 2013). Although the service recovery performance literature has examined several organizational and individual antecedents (Kim and Oh, 2012; Lin, 2010b; Boshoff and Allen, 2000), research has failed to examine the link between leadership and service recovery performance. This is a particularly surprising gap in the service performance recovery literature because research has demonstrated that leadership style and behaviors are vital for overall employee performance (Babakus et al., 2003; Guchait et al., 2014). Specifically, research shows that transformational leadership positively influences employee performance in service contexts (Lee et al., 2011b; Liao and Chuang, 2007). Transformational leaders engage and motivate others to increase expectations and performance (Bass, 1985), which can include their service performance. Although transformational leadership has been linked to employee performance in service jobs and the service literature has also theorized and discussed the possible link between transformational leadership and service recovery performance (Lin, 2010b; Punjaisri et al., 2013), research has yet to examine this relationship. Since transformational leadership is a possible distal antecedent, the relationship between transformational leadership and service recovery performance has not been researched or examined. In fact, research shows that transformational leaders evoke emotion and appeal to others on an emotional level, thereby affecting employee performance through emotions (Dasborough, 2006; Dasborough and Ashkanasy, 2002). Thus, the current study addresses this gap in the service recovery performance literature by examining emotional labor as a potential mediator of the transformational leadership and service recovery performance relationship. Not only are hospitality employees required to perform their core job tasks, but hospitality employees must also manage their emotions by expressing positive emotions at work, especially while interacting with customers (Kim, 2008). Emotional behavior and effort of this kind, as well as the control of feelings in response to organizational demands, is recognized as emotional labor (Lam and Chen, 2012; Grandey, 2000; Hochschild, 1979). Thus, the current study focuses on transformational leadership as a distal antecedent of service recovery performance through emotional labor.