Introduction

Leadership and job satisfaction have long been primary areas of research in organizational studies. Many of the existing studies on this subject have examined the relationship between the two variables and concluded that leadership has an influence on a range of work outcomes including employee job satisfaction (Boehnke et al., 2003; Chang and Lee, 2007; Fernandez, 2008; Griffith, 2004; Mohammad Mosadegh Rad and Hossein Yarmohammadian, 2006; Shaw and Newton, 2014; Siddique et al., 2011; Yang and Islam, 2012; Yang, 2014). Compared to all other leadership theories combined, the leadership styles theory, of which transformational leadership is a part, has received the most attention in the literature (Antonakis and House, 2013). The justification for this is that transformational leadership is believed to generate inspiration amongst followers that enables them to think beyond their own aims and interests and achieve greater team, organizational, national and global objectives (Bass and Avolio, 1990, 1995; Durbin, 2001; Jandaghi et al., 2009; Northouse, 2004). Despite the substantial volume of research on transformational leadership and work outcomes, particularly job satisfaction, there is still much uncertainty about the relationship between these two variables. Extant literature has described the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction as positive, negative or neutral. For example, Wan Omar and Hussin (2013) and Hanaysha et al. (2012) found a positive relationship between intellectual stimulation dimension of transformational leadership and job satisfaction. To the contrary, Thamrin (2012) reported negative outcome between transformational leadership style and job satisfaction. Apart from the prevailing uncertainty about the relationship between transformational leadership and employee job satisfaction, questions still remain on the effect size and the interactive effect of transformational and transactional leadership on job satisfaction. In prior research, House (1996) has proposed that there is an interplay between contingent personal reward (an important aspect of transactional leadership) and aspects of transformational leadership. He posited that there is a negative interaction between contingent reward and transformational leadership in enhancing follower outcomes such that the relationship of aspects of transformational leadership should be stronger for low contingent reward, relative to high contingent reward. Bass and Avolio (1994) have also argued that the association between transformational and transactional leadership has been one of augmentation. That is, transformational leadership will significantly predict follower outcomes after controlling for transactional leadership. In a study to test the proposed interaction between transactional and transformational leadership, Schriesheim et al. (2006) did not find support for House’s proposed negative interaction or Bass and Avolio’s proposed augmentation hypothesis. However, in a meta-analytic study, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found support for the augmentation hypothesis. Vecchio et al. (2008) also found support for both the augmentation and negative interaction effect on performance.