Search

The objective of this article is to test the roles of self-efficacy and resilience as consecutive mediators in the relationship between the four dimensions of transformational leadership and well-being (operationalized as psychosomatic complaints and psychological distress). The sample consists of 225 social services employees in Spain. Data were gathered at two time points with a time-lag of 6 months. We used path analysis to test the hypothesized model and Monte Carlo confidence intervals to check the significance of the indirect effects. Our results showed that only two of the four transformational leadership dimensions have a direct impact on self-efficacy: inspirational motivation and individualized consideration, although contrary to our hypothesis, the latter had a negative effect on self-efficacy. As for the indirect effects, self-efficacy did not mediate between the leadership dimensions and well-being, whereas resilience mediated between self-efficacy and well-being. Self-efficacy and resilience consecutively mediated between the leadership dimensions and well-being. Our findings contribute to understanding the underlying mechanisms connecting different dimensions of transformational leadership and well-being, and they highlight the importance of developing employees’ personal resources.

According to the happy-productive worker thesis (HPWT), &ldquo, happy&rdquo, workers perform better than &ldquo, less happy&rdquo, ones. This study aimed to explore the different patterns of relationships between performance and wellbeing, synergistic (i.e., unhappy-unproductive and happy-productive) and antagonistic (i.e., happy-unproductive and unhappy-productive), taking into account different operationalizations of wellbeing (i.e., hedonic vs. eudaimonic) and performance (i.e., self-rated vs. supervisors&rsquo, ratings). It also explored different demographic variables as antecedents of these patterns. We applied two-step cluster analysis to the data of 1647 employees. The results indicate four different patterns&mdash, happy-productive, unhappy-unproductive, happy-unproductive, and unhappy-productive&mdash, when performance is self-assessed, and three when it is assessed by supervisors. On average, over half of the respondents are unhappy-productive or happy-unproductive. We used multidimensional logistic regression to explain cluster membership based on demographic covariates. This study addresses the limitations of the HPWT by including both the hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of wellbeing and considering different dimensions and sources of evaluation. The &ldquo, antagonistic&rdquo, patterns identify employees with profiles not explicitly considered by the HPWT.