5 Leadership stages involving Work from Home employees (WFH/Remote) , and Traditional employees as wel

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine whether relationships

exist among job performance, transformational leadership style, and employee turnover intention

in the United States. Interest grew in the past 30 years, combining transformational leadership

and employee turnover intention, based on the assumptions that employees are likely to be

influenced by their leader’s behavior (Gyensare et al., 2016). Gyensare et al. (2016) noted

transformational leadership style was a key variable in lowered employee turnover intention and

enhanced employee well-being. Buil et al. (2019) stated job performance was an organizational

benefit deriving from transformational leadership style.

This literature review was structured to provide key concepts and related factors to the

research variables. In the first section, the researcher defined job performance and measurements

related to this performance. This included the 360-feedback and performance appraisal. The next

section discussed and measured transformational leadership style followed by employee turnover

intention. The fourth section covered contrasting and supporting theories relative to my

theoretical framework. The final section entailed profitability and a discussion of the auto

manufacturing industry.

The existing research in the literature review focused on the relationships between the

variables of employee turnover intention, transformational leadership style, and job performance.

The top journals used include the International Journal of Academic Research in Business and

Social Sciences, International Journal of Productivity and performance management, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, International Journal of Business and Management, Journal of Human

Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, International Journal of Business Administration,

International Journal of Selection & Assessment, SAM advanced management journal, and

Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research.

To locate research for this study, EbscoHosts and Education Resources Information

Center (ERIC) were used. The keywords used in the searches include employee turnover

intention, transformational leadership style, factors of employee turnover intention, job

performance impact, employee turnover and job performance, transformational and

transactional leadership style, the cost of employee turnover intention, LMX theory, measuring

job performance, employee turnover and profit, transformational leadership theory, and

measuring employee turnover intention.

The Automotive Industry

In the early days, the majority of U.S. manufacturing was centered in a small part of the

Northwest and eastern side of the Midwest (Krugman, 1991). The early automotive

manufacturers primarily put together the completed product by components and parts brought

from outside suppliers (Peterson, 1987). Henry Ford established a vision of the automobile by

introducing the Model T in 1909 (Sturgeon & Florida, 2000). This Model T introduction

symbolized the mass production of identical objects, interchangeable parts, and sequentially

ordered moving assembly lines (Peterson, 1987). By 1909, unit output per worker rose from 6.8

to 11.4 in 1912 and 19.2 in 1913 (Sturgeon & Florida, 2000). For example, in 1910, one car was

found for every 19,000 people and by the 1930s, one car was possessed by every 4.5 individuals

(Peterson, 1987).

Cooney and Yacobucci (2007) stated that today, over one million Americans have

employment in motor vehicle, parts, and equipment manufacturing. Ford, Chrysler, and General

Motors (the Big Three) shed roughly 600,000 U.S. jobs since the 1980s and 25 percent of

employed Americans work for foreign-owned companies (Cooney & Yacobucci, 2007). By

2003, most of the vehicles sold in the U.S. were manufactured or imported by foreign-based

producers at new plants in North America (Cooney & Yacobucci, 2007). The North American

production has been accompanied by industry tension created by the entrance of international

competitors as domestic manufacturers (Drummond & Maxwell, 2010).

Predictor Variables

Job Performance

Job performance is performing the duty and responsibility of a given task encompassing

already known factors like time, speed, and efficiency (Zeb et al., 2019). Job performance can

worsen or improve with a change of employees (Dokko et al., 2009). At the most basic level, job

performance is about what an employee does and does not do on the job (Jackson & Frame,

2018). Jackson and Frame (2018) stated job performance is multidimensional, requiring different

kinds of behaviors. Job performance behaviors can be negative, neutral, or positive in terms of

the degree to which the behaviors contribute toward attaining the employee’s goals,

organizational mission, or department objectives (Jackson & Frame, 2018). Zeb et al. (2019)

noted in the corporate sector, research into employee job performance was a valuable resource

for organizational leaders as job performance destroyed or built the profitability and reputation

of a company.

Ramawickrama et al. (2017) discussed in the 1920s that job performance was stated as

quantity and quality of the output of each employee working in an organization. Arvey and

Murphy (1998) found from 1950 to 1980, most research focused on improving the tools used in

making job performance rating scales. Anderson et al. (2001) discussed in 1957 that job

performance had six dimensions: (a) lost time, (b) output, (c) quality, (d) satisfaction, (e) training

time, (f) and turnover.

Researchers and leaders showed an interest in recognizing conditions that encouraged job

performance (Hui et al., 2007). Mahdinezhad et al., (2013) explained the idea of performance

included two concepts: efficiency relating inputs with outcomes and effectiveness linking

outcomes with the anticipated goals and results. Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) mentioned leaders’

performance was an important factor in assessing organizational performance. High employee

performance was needed for organizations to achieve goals (Mahdinezhad et al., 2013). Hui et al.

(2007) declared employees with turnover intentions developed low job performance expectations

that undermined their actual performance.

Measuring Job Performance

Rating scales, job knowledge tests, hands-on job samples, and archival records were

previously used to assess job performance (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Pringle and Blumberg (1986)

explained influences in performance were organized into two categories: the first had to do with

an individual’s capacity to perform and the second with a leader’s willingness to perform.

Pringle and Blumberg (1986) discussed job performance be written as P= f (O, C, W) meaning

performance (P) is a function (f) of opportunity, capacity, and willingness (O, C, W). All three

categories- opportunity, capacity, and willingness- needed to be present for high job performance

to happen (Pringle & Blumberg, 1986). London and Tornow (1998) mentioned one measurement

of job performance is performance appraisal. From these measurement options, performance

ratings such as peer or supervisor ratings were the most frequent way of measuring job

performance (Sonnentag et al., 2008). Two performance ratings are discussed below.

The 360-degree Feedback

Ward (1997) defined 360-degree feedback as the systematic collection and feedback of

performance data on an individual or group derived from the individuals around them. London

and Beatty (1993) mentioned that the 360-degree feedback approach identified minimum change

to be expected without feedback. Ghorpade (2000) noticed the 360-degree feedback was

different from traditional performance appraisals, as feedback was given anonymously. The use

of 360-degree feedback in organizations had roots in several industrial and organizational

psychology (London & Tornow, 1998). Ghorpade (2000) stated the 360-degree feedback

program permitted organizational members to receive feedback on their performance. London

and Beatty (1993) noted that 360-degree feedback enhanced performance and communication in

employees by initiating leadership training programs for developmental purposes and guidance.

In some organizations, the 360-degree feedback was solely used for employee development

while in others served as input for merit evaluation and compensation adjustment (London &

Beatty, 1993). London and Tornow (1998) declared the performance dimensions measured by a

360-degree feedback instrument represented the standards used to evaluate organizational

members.

In 360-degree feedback, rating scales could be similar for all raters or be customized to

reflect the unique features of each relationship (London & Beatty, 1993). For example, London

and Beatty (1993) stated that upward feedback, where subordinates rated their supervisor, may

consist of items focused on the manager-subordinate relationship. Ghorpade (2000) stated the

360-degree concept did not solely rely on the information of leaders but instead enlisted

subordinates, peers, supervisors, and customers on providing feedback on aspects of their

performance. London and Beatty (1993) revealed feedback called attention to important

performance dimensions thus neglected by an organization in conveying organizational values.

Ghorpade (2000) mentioned research demonstrated that anonymous feedback was more honest

and closer to how raters felt.

This feedback cannot be seen as a tool of a one-time event but understood as a part of an

ongoing process of assessment, performance evaluation, and discussion of performance with

supervisors and subordinates (London & Tornow, 1998). Many of the programs were carried out

in the absence of a strategic context and failed to focus on contributions they made to the

organization’s competitive advantage (Ghorpade, 2000). London and Beatty (1993) stated the

costs associated with 360-degree feedback as time and money for preparation and

implementation. Many organizations adopted the 360-degree feedback without clearly defining

the program’s mission and left employees to figure out the results and not develop goals/action

plans (Ghorpade, 2000). For instance, Ghorpade (2000) detailed that employees who receive

feedback be left by themselves to figure out how to cope with results and not develop action

plans or goals following the 360-degree application.

Vinson (1996) noted individuals use their role as feedback providers to criticize others or

vent negative personal feelings. Ghorpade (2000) discussed raters who scored high on the

feedback examined their results with appraisers while fearful feedback raters attempted to force

providers to reveal themselves through intimidation. London and Beatty (1993) maintained the

time and money associated with 360-degree feedback for preparation and implementation added

complexity to the appraisal process. This complexity included distributing the forms to the

correct individuals, gathering data, entailing the use of sophisticated computer programming, and

getting outside help.

Performance Appraisals

Performance appraisals are conducted primarily for organizational evaluation and have

opportunities for job assignments and promotions (London & Beatty, 1993). Jackson and Frame

(2018) noted performance appraisals are meant for an organization to regularly describe and

assess the weakness and strengths of an employee’s performance. In traditional performance

appraisals, supervisory ratings were often the sole source of evaluation data (London & Beatty,

1993). Jackson and Frame (2018) stated that performance appraisals take standardized multi-item

scales and are rated by the leaders/supervisors working with employees. Hui et al. (2007)

provided leaders with evaluations of individual employee performances with a five-item job

performance scale. Sample questions for that study included “never neglects aspects of the job

he/she is obligated to perform” and “fulfills all responsibility required by his/her job” (Hui et al.,

2007, p. 740).

Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) found that leadership effect on performance was vital. Some

researchers view leadership as a key motivating force for enhancing job performance. Training in

job performance help ensure employee competency and encourages employees to meet

organizational objectives and goals, acquire new skills, ensure satisfactory performance, and

perform jobs in the organization (Long et al., 2012). Mahdinezhad et al. (2013) identified that

evaluation on the performance of a leader encompassed inquiring how well he/she is conducting

his/her functions. Hui et al. (2007) contended that the more desire an employee had to stay with

an organization, the more willing an employee would be to invest in the organization by doing

well.

Models in Job Performance

The first aspect of job performance is task performance (Rich et al., 2010). Rich et al.

(2010) defined task performance as the activities directly involved in accomplishing job tasks

that supported the organization’s technical core. Jankingthong and Rurkkhum (2012) further

explained task performance as the effectiveness in which job incumbents performed activities

that contributed to the organizational foundation. Rich et al. (2010) noted that task performance

behaviors are central to any given job. Sonnentag et al. (2008) explained task performance

covered fulfilling the requirements that are part of the contract between employee and employer.

Rich et al. (2010) noted that job performance included task performance and emergent behaviors

that indirectly contributed to the organization, such as contextual performance.

Jankingthong and Rurkkhum (2012) noted contextual performance is a performance not

formally required as part of the job but helps shape the psychological and social context of the

organization. Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) described contextual performance as cooperating

with others, supporting organizational objectives, and volunteering to carry out tasks not part of

their job. Contextual behaviors were less likely to be role-prescribed and less likely to be built

into a formal reward structure, while task-related behaviors were crucial in organizational

functioning (Schmitt et al., 2003). Sonnentag et al. (2008) mentioned contextual performance

indirectly contributed to organizational operations by facilitating task completion. Motowildo et

al., (1997) stated contextual performance does not contribute to an organization’s core processes

but did maintain the broader social, psychological, and organizational environment where the

core should function.

Organizations have been characterized by changing, dynamic environments where the

need for adaptive performance became increasingly significant (Pulakos et al., 2000). Shoss et al.

(2012) suggested adaptive performance is a fact that reflected acquiring enhanced competencies

in employees to respond to organizational change. An aspect of adaptive performance involved

adapting to physical factors such as noise, heat, difficult environments, and uncomfortable

climates (Pulakos et al., 2000). Charbonnier‐Voirin and Roussel (2012) mentioned successful

adaptive performance required that employees adapt quickly and made decisions in the face of

inherent uncertainty and ambiguity. Employees have demonstrated adaptive performance by

adjusting behaviors to new events and work situations (Pulakos et al., 2000). Without

consideration of adaptive performance, performance models become too static to represent the

vagaries and exigencies of the modern workplace (Schmitt et al., 2003). Tasks performance is

predicted mainly by ability, contextual performance is mainly predicted by personality and

motivation, whereas cognitive ability is associated with adaptive performance (Sonnentag et al.,

2008).

Transformational Leadership Style

Leaders use transformational leadership style to inspire workers to fulfill the vision of the

organization. Alatawi (2017) noted transformational leaders are concerned with vision,

supportive leadership, staff development, innovative thinking, empowerment, leading by

example, and charisma. A leader’s transformational leadership style will lower employee

turnover through increased trust in management and improved job performance

(Ariyabuddhiphongs & Kahn, 2017). Transformational leaders have influenced subordinate

emotional attachment to the organization which helped to reduce employee turnover and advance

job performance (Ariyabuddhiphongs & Kahn, 2017). Ariyabuddhiphongs and Kahn (2017)

stated that transformational leadership style helped organizations thrive in changing

environments by putting extra effort into performance, challenging attitudes, and encouraging

followers to have established creative solutions for complex problems.

Kark et al. (2003) mentioned transformational leadership style often resulted in employee

independence, growth, and empowerment. Rolfe (2011) noted the premise in transformational

leadership style is that a leader possessed the skills to grow successful relationships with

employees and created an environment where the employee and leader strive to have

organizational goals met. A transformational leader in an organization is one who considers how

to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of performance, and who has the strength to

argue for what is right, and who displays self-confidence (Ariyabuddhiphongs & Kahn, 2017).

Bass and Avolio (1990) and Kark et al. (2003) explained the impact of transformational

leadership style on employee performance was often described as stemming from employee

empowerment and development, which raised their motivation and ability. Kark et al. (2003)

determined transformational leadership style included empowering employee behaviors such as

the enhanced capacity for independent thought, increased responsibility, or the ability to delegate

and encourage new and creative ideas. Holsinger and Carlton (2018) stated only transformational

leadership style had been linked to employee satisfaction, improved quality, productivity, and

perceived leadership efficacy.

Research continues to invest efforts in exploring new frontiers of this leadership

paradigm, such as Siangchokyoo et al. (2020) study of the development of transformational

leadership, while critics noted serious flaws in transformational leadership style and called for

the abandonment of this leadership style. Van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) refuted that the

transformational leadership style’s measurement tools were invalid, failed to reproduce the

dimensional structure specified by theory, and failed to achieve distinctiveness from other

leadership aspects. Kuantan (2015) countered transformational leadership style did not clearly

recognize a condition where the leadership was unfavorable. Rolfe (2011) mentioned while the

benefits of implementing a transformational leadership style were significant, an awareness of

the limitations was crucial. One awareness was leaders being conscious of the misuse that may

have occurred when incorporating this leadership into practice (Rolfe, 2011). This occurred

when leaders strived to become transformational and misused the training to their self-interested

values (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Employees under this form of transformational leader misuse

could be misdirected away from their best interests and those of the organization (Bass &

Avolio, 1990).

Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Frey et al. (2009) declared that the multifactor

leadership questionnaire (MLQ) instrument was designed to measure transformational leadership

style and the degree to which leaders exhibited these styles. The MLQ is the most widely used

instrument for measuring transformational leadership style (Tejeda et al., 2001). The MLQ was

administered to employees to rate how often their leader used each form of leadership behavior

(Yukl, 1999). Frey et al. (2009) mentioned there are five leadership dimensions included on the

MLQ scale (a) idealized-influence attribute, (b) idealized-influence behavior, (c) inspirational

motivation, (d) individualized consideration, and (e) intellectual stimulation.

There are two aspects to idealized influence: the leader’s behavior and the fundamentals

attributed by followers to the leaders (Long et al., 2014). An example from the MLQ that

represented idealized influence is “the leader emphasizes the significance of possessing a

collective sense of mission” (Long et al., 2014, p 118). Frey et al. (2009) mentioned idealized

influence attributes and behaviors describe a purposeful, visionary, and trustworthy leader. Kark

and Shamir (2002) stated that idealized influences included sacrificing for the group’s benefit,

setting a personal example, and demonstrating high ethical standards.

Frey et al. (2009) discussed inspirational motivation exemplified a leader who motivated

performance levels in employees beyond expectations. Kark and Shamir (2002) noted

inspirational motivation included the formation and presentation of future visions, emotional

arguments, and demonstration of enthusiasm and optimism. An MLQ example from this

dimension can be found in Appendix G.

In individualized consideration, transformational leaders wage distinct attention to every

individual’s need for development and attainment by taking responsibility for each need (Long et

al., 2014). Schriesheim et al. (2009) mentioned leaders in individualized consideration uniquely

treated employees according to their individual capabilities and needs. Frey et al. (2009) noted

individualized consideration described an empathic leader who listened to employees’ needs. An

example of this dimension can be found in Appendix G.

Frey et al. (2009) stated that intellectual stimulation was designed to assess leader

attributes that question the status quo, value intellect, and prefer reasons over emotionally made

decisions. Followers are inspired to try new ways and their ideas are not disapproved if they

differ from a leader’s thoughts (Long et al., 2014). Intellectual stimulation included the behaviors

that raise awareness of issues and challenge followers to look at problems from a different

perspective (Kark & Shamir, 2002). An example of intellectual stimulation in the MLQ can be

found in Appendix G.

Criterion Variable

Employee Turnover Intention

Rahman and Nas (2013) described employee turnover as the employee’s permanent

movement beyond their current organization. In 2013, more than 25 million U.S. employees quit

their jobs, making employee replacement costs average up to 500% of the vacated employee’s

yearly salary (Okae, 2018). Even before an employee formally quit a job, turnover intentions

were likely to affect the employee’s performance in the organization (Biron & Boon, 2013).

Biron and Boon (2013) suggested employees having high turnover intentions were likely to show

minimal organizational citizenship behavior and often gave poor customer service.

Allen and Griffeth (1999) and March and Simon (1958) noted theory and research on

employee turnover intention drew from the perceived desirability and ease of movement

framework. This ease of movement happened when an employee began the quitting process after

another job is readily available (March & Simon, 1958; Jha, 2009). An individual with employee

turnover intention would lose long-term financial benefits such as health benefits, retirement

plans, and be a target of the “grass looks greener” phenomenon (Jha, 2009, p. 26). Employees

responded to “shocks” in the work environment causing them to think of quitting their jobs as

these shocks happened from employees receiving negative feedback during formal performance

appraisals or informal job performance feedback (Allen & Griffeth, 1999; Zimmerman &

Darnold, 2009, p. 144).

Kim et al. (2017) found employee turnover intention was linked with actual voluntary

turnover. Employees would consider the impact on family, career, and life before taking action

in leaving an organization (Hongvichit, 2015). Hongvichit (2015) mentioned employee turnover

intention was a direct factor that predicted the behavior of turnover and led to turnover behavior.

Hongvichit (2015) stated many factors were involved between turnover intention and job

performance, a multi-link and multi-path system of relationships. Jackofsky (1984) stated high

job performance employees were more likely to leave willingly, yet Dreher (1982) found

employees with high job performance may have less yearning to leave as they received greater

rewards from the organization.

Committed employees were less likely to leave an organization and achieved beyond

stated job requirements while contributing to the company (Perryer et al., 2010). Caldwell et al.

(2012) noted leaders benefited by understanding that committed employees whose character and

code of conduct not only motivated them to excel but assumed any risks that accompanied

having the courage to be the best at their work. Committed employees having courage

understood that while sacrificing principles to be the best, the organization could move toward

failure, but they cared enough to risk failure since it is the right thing to do (Caldwell et al.,

2012).

Employees committed to their organization were more likely to remain and exert efforts

on behalf of the organization and work toward its success (Dixit & Bhati, 2012). A committed

employee made a significant and personal organizational contribution, performed better than a

standard employee, engaged in organizational citizenship behaviors, and was less likely to

partake in unproductive behaviors (Perryer et al., 2010). Non-committed employees depicted the

organization in negative terms to outsiders, thereby inhibiting the organization’s ability to recruit

high-quality employees (Dixit & Bhati, 2012). Moreland (2013) estimated the costs of noncommitted employees in the U.S. economy exceeded $350 billion.

Measuring Employee Turnover Intention

Saridakis and Cooper (2016) stressed that the need to understand turnover came from

measuring turnover. Lee et al. (2018) mentioned company leaders were regularly surveying

employers to track job satisfaction, withdrawal thoughts, and employee engagement. Often,

organizational leaders used a turnover measure such as the number of employees leaving in a

year divided by the amount of staff present (Saridakis & Cooper, 2016). For example, if 200

employees work in an organization and 40 leave in a year, the turnover rate is 20%. Saridakis

and Cooper (2016) stated the downside of employee turnover rates is there are no distinguishing

factors whether employees lea