Transformational Leadership Role and Means Efficacy on Work Performance under Volatile Uncertain Complex and Ambiguous Environment ()
1. Introduction
Leadership plays a significant role to work performance (Sulasmi et al., 2020). Research indicates that different leadership styles are generally predictive of work performance and it also influences the beliefs of employees in the means or work tools that are provided by the organization (Hassi, 2019). However, some researches have suggested that the influence of leadership may vary across the contexts of organizations, environments, cultures and situations (NawoseIng’ollan & Roussel, 2017). In addition, research suggests that transformational leadership style positively impacts on employees’ performance and organizational success in challenging environments. This is also because it is the most suitable leadership style to manage and lead resources in challenging environments (Buil et al., 2019). Therefore, this study examined the role of transformational leadership dimensions and means efficacy on work performance in Beverages manufacturing companies listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange that have been operating in VUCA environment for the last 5 years. Specifically, the study determined the relationship of all the dimensions of transformational leadership style and means efficacy on work performance in light of the VUCA environment. It further examined the mediating effect of means efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership dimensions and work performance for organizations operating in the VUCA environment. The VUCA environment is the acronym which stands for volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguous. It is within this VUCA environment context which is characterized by chaotic and turbulent global landscape that business leaders driving businesses become imperative in terms of their leadership and their preparedness in not only dealing with their resources, but also in dealing with business (Bawany, 2016).
Leadership styles influence employees differently under different environments and as such employees respond differently to different leadership styles (Mashavira, 2016). However, transformational leadership style is the most suitable leadership style to practice under unstable environmental conditions (Figueiredo and Sousa, 2016). Despite several studies on leadership, including the contemporary transformational leadership studies which show that transformational leadership practices can positively transform employees and organizations (Purwanto et al., 2019), results obtained from previous researches are inconclusive and or even contradictory. There is dearth of evidence on the relationship, application and practice of transformation leadership style and the belief in means availed for work performance, in the Zimbabwean manufacturing context. This suggests that there is need to more studies on transformational leadership in organizations. Ma and Yang (2020) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed many organizations’ problems of leadership crisis and management ineptitude. It also exposed general insufficient research on leadership style and means efficacy on work performance.
Statement of the Problem
In Zimbabwe, the manufacturing sector has failed to operate at full capacity due to the turbulent economic environment which is not conducive for its business. Consequently, the deteriorating business environment has led to the problems of low production volumes and low fluctuating revenue generation, of which capacity utilization depends upon the resources availed, such as machinery, equipment, systems and labor availed by organizations. When such problems occur, they point at lack of suitable and effective leadership style that match the prevailing environment. Specifically, transformational leadership style which gives organizations a unique character and form towards achievement of set targets under challenging environments.
The survey by the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries of 2020 revealed that the capacity utilization of manufacturing companies remained low for the periods 2015-2020 with an average capacity utilization of 40% for the whole duration. Mhlanga (2019) argued that there is leadership deficiency in Zimbabwe which is seemingly inadequate and unsatisfactory. Similarly, the State of Zimbabwean Corporate Leadership Survey (2020), revealed that most people are not convinced with the corporate leadership in Zimbabwe. In light of that, this study examined the role of transformational leadership practices and employees’ beliefs in the means available for work performance in Beverages Manufacturing organizations listed on the ZSE that have been operating in the VUCA environment for the last 5 years. In which case, the study fosters appropriate leadership and management practices in turbulent environment. To fulfill this purpose, a quantitative type of study research surveyed employees of two beverages manufacturing companies listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange.
2. Literature Review
Literature substantiates that among several leadership styles, transformational leadership style is widely used in organizations and it plays a significant role on organizational performance (Arif & Akram, 2018). Several studies done on transformational leadership have examined how this leadership style impacts on employee performance based on the premises that employee performance always improves organizational performance (Li et al., 2019). However, in a turbulent environment, employee performance with poor leadership may fail to enhance organizational performance (Manzoor et al., 2019). In that regard, more research is required to understand how leadership contributes to employee performance in hostile environments which leaders themselves have little control over. Nonetheless, there is lack of robust research on Transformational leadership style under the VUCA environment and this environment has become the new normal in Zimbabwe.
2.1. Transformational Leadership and Work Performance
Literature substantiate that each dimension of transformational leadership affects work performance in unique ways in terms of how employees are motivated and inspired to willingly want to exceed their expectations. These dimensions of transformational leadership are; first, Idealized Influence which refers to the charismatic characteristics of the leader who behaves as a role model for others (Ngaithe et al., 2016) where the employees admire, respect and trust the leader. Ultimately, followers identify with their leader’s goals, interests and values (Choudhary et al., 2016). Second, intellectual Stimulation is the leader’s ability to help followers to think on their own, through challenging them by questioning and developing their beliefs, assumptions and values (Camps et al., 2016), then followers are motivated to be creative and innovative in solving problems (Northouse, 2016). Third, Inspirational Motivation entails the ability of a leader to promote followers’ emotional commitment and excitement to a mission by not only providing challenging tasks and promoting positive expectations of what needs to be done, but also, demonstrating commitment to the shared vision (Renjith et al., 2015). Last, Individualized Consideration, whereby the leader assists followers to become fully actualized by providing personalized career guidance (Choudhary et al., 2016).
However, the extent of the influence of each dimension of transformational leadership on work performance is varied and at times conflict each other (Lai et al., 2020). This suggests that, in challenging environments, to continue viewing transformational leadership as a composite or single construct may not bring out the deeper understanding and conclusive results which can be generalized in different environments. Instead, transformational leadership is understood more when it is broken down and studied in their respective dimensions. However, few attempts that attempted to study transformational leadership dimensions separately yielded conflicting results. This may be partly due to different environmental contexts under which these studies were conducted. In light of the VUCA environment currently affecting manufacturing companies in Zimbabwe negatively, the study of the role of specific dimensions of transformational leadership becomes crucial.
Manzoor et al. (2019) argue that organizations that seek to remain competitive are those that are focused at improving employees job performance. While job performance is enhanced by transformational leadership approach, transformational leadership deals with change processes which in turn transform followers’ attitudes, belief and values (Hechanova & Cementina-Olpoc, 2013). Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:
H1: There are significant relationships between each transformational leadership dimension and work performance for organizations operating in the VUCA environment.
2.2. Transformational Leadership and Means Efficacy
Leadership and the organizational context are inseparable, and they depict a social process involving others and resources (Hannah et al., 2012). As such, the beliefs of leaders in others and resources delineate their ability to provide supportive means and it ultimately supports the credibility of their leadership. Similarly, the beliefs of employees in peers and resources provided by transformational leaders do not only make employees want to use the resources but it also gives them a sense of control which enable them to think on their own (Li et al., 2019). Besides, transformational leaders can only provide and talk optimistically and enthusiastically about those resources which they are also knowledgeable about and believe. Of which employees in turn are compelled to believe in them. Although literature suggests that transformational leadership impact on means efficacy, literature is populated with the relationship of transformational leadership and other forms of efficacies, and there are limited studies on the relationship between transformational leadership style and means efficacy. Walumbwa et al. (2011) argue that means efficacy is a critical aspect of leaders’ perceived capabilities in driving performance. The study of banking employees done by Walumbwa et al. (2008), shows that transformational leadership was partially mediated by the interaction of self-efficacy and means efficacy. By the same token, Walumbwa et al. (2011) concluded that member-leader exchange leadership style is positively associated with subordinates’ high levels of means efficacy. Similarly, Simmons et al. (2014) note that management can elevate means efficacy of employees despite limitations of resources. However, literature lack current studies on these relationships, which shows that this relationship is not conclusive specially the mediating role of means efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership and work performance.
In addition, tasks in organizations differ and because of that they are means dependent. It therefore, resides in the leader to provide appropriate work tools which employees can believe that they can successfully complete their jobs using such work tools. For instance, employees need to believe that the work tools they have are the best of their kind and can facilitate efficient service delivery to customers. In that case, it arouses the means efficacy of employees which in turn motivates them to work hard for the success of the organization. The means efficacy, apart from being a function of the availability of means, it is also found in one’s belief about what he or she can do with those means to enhance his or her performance (Eden et al., 2010: p. 688).
Transformational leadership is an effective leadership style that inspires, motivates and influences others alongside extrinsic elements like, an appealing management systems and policies, communication systems and networks (Zameer et al., 2014; Andersen et al., 2018). In which case, these intrinsic elements represent the means to doing work. Therefore, the extent at which employees perceive these systems that are put in place by transformational leaders after considering context and employee perspectives, can influence the level of means efficacy in employees. However, the extent of the effect of each dimension of transformational leadership and means efficacy as far as is known have not been explored. Again, the mediating effect of means efficacy on the relationship between each dimension of transformational leadership and work performance is not clear. Of the few studies conducted, they did not empirically study transformational leadership dimensions separately instead a composite score of all dimensions was used for analysis of results and findings of transformational leadership. Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:
H2: Each transformational leadership dimension is positively related to means efficacy in organizations operating in a VUCA environment
2.3. Means Efficacy and Employee Work Performance
Means efficacy is a crucial element to enhance work performance. It entails the employees’ beliefs in the resources or work tools available for the successful completion of their tasks (Eden et al., 2010). While, an employee may be confident about his or her skills in completing a task, but if he or she is skeptical about the tools and other resources necessary, then successful completion of the task is compromised. In that regard, the higher the positive perception of employees about the work tools, the more employees would feel obliged to engage in social exchange behavior within the organization regarding positive work-related behavior (Wu & Wang, 2017). It is this positive transaction that takes place between leader and employee that leads to a strong bond between employees and means available, and the expectations are that of higher work performances (Herman et al., 2013). In other words, if there is a strong belief in employees that they have adequate and right tools to perform their work successfully, then the employees are more likely to consistently perform way beyond expectations which results in the organization’s goals and objectives being achieved.
Several authors revealed that supportive environments provided by the organization impact significantly on work performance (Kelly et al., 2020). Therefore, it shows that the relationship between various supporting tools and work performance are well established in literature (Chen et al., 2020). However, the belief in those tools is not adequately covered and understood especially in challenging environments. Yaakobi (2018) argued that availability of work tools which in this case are called means and the belief about those work tools which in this case is called means efficacy can potentially impact employees work performance. Hannah et al. (2012) argued that means efficacy plays a significant role to work performance because dwindled belief in the efficacy of the work tools frustrates and demoralizes employees to the extent that it can end up neutralizing even the abundant internal resources (self-efficacy). This suggests that, the provision of conducive and supportive environment stimulate belief which is critical for individual work performance. Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:
H3: There is a positive relationship between means efficacy and work performance in organizations operating in the VUCA environment.
2.4. The Mediating Effect of Means Efficacy
Transformational leaders are obliged to create and provide their employees with a conducive organizational climate and appropriate means to do the job to enable employees to successfully carry out their work (Imran et al., 2012). The conducive organizational climate and support tools include; on one hand, shared perceptions of the tools like policies, missions, budgets, systems and procedures of the organization which are formulated and implemented by leaders (Imran & Haque, 2011). On the other hand, the conducive climate and organizational support tools include: infrastructure such as buildings and associated utilities, machinery and equipment including hardware and software, transport resources and information and technology communication (Garg et al., 2017). Hannah et al. (2012) argued that owing to the actions and behavioral practices of the leader towards the organizational support mentioned above, and depending on the context, leadership can influence the efficacy of the work tools (means) available.
Literature revealed that several factors mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and work performance such as work engagement, organizational identification and culture to mention a few (Lai et al., 2020). However, there are limited researches on the means efficacy mediation effects on the relationship between transformational leadership and work performance. The few researches that are there established that the associations between transformational leadership, means efficacy and work performance are significant and positive although the environmental contexts were not revealed (Yasir et al., 2013).
However, there is dearth of evidence on the mediating effect of means efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership and work performance. What is coming out clear is the mediation of factors akin to means efficacy such as the mediating roles of self-efficacy and collective efficacy which show that they partially and fully mediate the relationship between leadership and work performance (Gümüş & Bellibaş, 2020). According to Monika and Kaliyamurthy (2017), appropriate and reliable means or organizational support tools not only do they create feelings that potentially influence employees’ behaviors and attitudes towards the means, but they also energize employees to work hard. Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:
H4: Means efficacy mediates the relationship between each dimension of transformational leadership and employee work performance for organizations operating in the VUCA environment.
2.5. The Conceptual Framework
The relationship between each transformational leadership dimension and employee work performance, as well as the mediating effects of means efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership dimensions and work performance are illustrated in the conceptual frame. The dimensions of transformational leadership on one hand positively impact on both employee work performance and means efficacy, and on the other hand, means efficacy affect employee work performance. The important issues underpinning this conceptual framework is to stress the role of five transformational leadership dimensions and means efficacy in improving work performance in the wake of the VUCA environment. The diagram shows five independent variables namely inspirational motivation, idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavioral, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. The diagrammatic presentation further presents one mediating variable which is called means efficacy and lastly there is one dependent variable which is work performance (Figure 1).
3. Research Methodology
This study focused on the role of transformational leadership dimensions and means efficacy on work performance in Beverages manufacturing companies listed on the Zimbabwe stock exchange for the last five years. A total of 369 participants were selected for the study using systematic random sampling techniques. A survey questionnaire was used for data collection. This quantitative data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The study first analyzed Pearson’s correlation. Pearson’s correlation was used ahead of other techniques like spearman’s rho correlation because although the data has ranked variables (ordinal data) which makes it a non-parametric statistic, this study conducted normality tests and found out that data was approximately normally distributed. Hence, Pearson’s correlation statistical statistics were more appropriate for this data set than Spearman’s rho correlation. Apart from descriptive statistics, the study used several statistical techniques to analyze the data. The study used one-way ANOVA and post hoc comparisons of mean values using Tukey HSD in order to identify the extent to which dimensions of transformational leadership style influence work performance of organizations operating in a VUCA environment. In this case, the work performance was the dependent variable while the dimension of transformational leadership was the independent variables. One-way ANOVA was the most appropriate in this study because it is a robust method for evaluating differences between groups and the post hoc test of ANOVA is advantageous in that it can control the type 1 error
(Jorgensen et al., 2018) than a similar t-test analysis technique. In this study, a p-value of less than 0.05 was required for significance.
Further, the study used descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation to find association of data, in addition to linear regression analyses methods. Again, simple linear regression using SPSS was used to explore the predictive abilities of transformational leadership dimensions on means efficacy as well as means efficacy on work performance respectively. Furthermore, multiple regression analysis using SPSS was conducted to test the mediation effect of means efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership dimensions and work performance. Regression analysis is most appropriate in this study because it provides a more detailed analysis to predicting, optimizing, or explaining a numeric response of work performance from transformational leadership and means efficacy, that are thought to influence performance, while other predictive statistical tools like correlation provided a quick and simple summary of the direction and strength of pairwise relationships between variables. But this study seeks to predict and explain relationships.
3.1. Sample and Sampling Techniques
The sample consisted of all employees of the organizations who were systematically randomly selected to participate in the study. First, the human resources officers of the organizations were requested to assist by availing the full list of all employees in their companies. Second, these Human resources officers, then selected individuals according to the lists using a regular interval basis method. This method involves selecting from the list of employees the tenth person and this would go on and on until the lists were exhausted. The procedure was that, after every ninth person on the lists, all the tenth persons were recorded as the potential participants. Therefore, the total number of employees to constitute the target population was approximately 7000 employees. Then this study employed the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table to establish a suitable sample size, in which case, the table shows that for a population size of 7000, a sample size of 364 was adequate to conduct a research. The survey questionnaires were sent to 700 participants through a blind cope email and through hard copies to those not on email, then 369 questionnaires were returned and usable denoting a rate of return on 52%.
The study employed positivism research philosophy, and it also adopted the deductive approach. The basis for this philosophy is that, the study is quantitative in nature using structured closed ended questionnaires which handled large amounts of information from many participants in a short period of time and in a relatively cost-effective way. In this case data were analyzed with scientific methods and objectively, which was not possible with other forms of research philosophies. The results were quickly and easily quantified using SPSS software package for the purpose of comparing and contrasting with other research and to test existing hypotheses. The study administered a survey questionnaire that was accomplished using a descriptive rating on a Likert-scale-type on well-structured questions. Furthermore, the questionnaire used for this study comprises of adapted questionnaires from previous studies. Adapted questionnaires were selected because they have been tested and proved to assess accurately the constructs under study and have been producing consistent results. In addition, the survey questionnaire provided honesty answers because of the anonymity that the survey questionnaire carried, unlike personal interviews and observations where participants are not anonymous and are likely to be biased.
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
The survey instruments included the Multifactor Leadership questionnaire, Work performance questionnaire and Means efficacy questionnaire. These questionnaires were combined into one continuous document and were made readily available for participants to access on their on-site work computers, work laptops or on their personal devices. The survey questionnaires were anonymous and were sent out to all employees that met the sample requirements through a blind carbon copy email and hard copies inviting participants to participate in the survey. A total of 369 employees of Beverages Manufacturing companies responded to the survey.
The independent variables of this study were the 5’I’s of transformational leadership. The questions on transformational leadership dimensions comprises of twenty items contained in the MLQ which were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5, that is 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Additionally, each dimension on the MLQ survey has four statements and each statement started with the phrase, “The person I am rating...” then followed by phrases such as, goes beyond self-interest; models ethical standards; emphasizes the collective mission; talks optimistically; arouses awareness about important issues.
The mediating variable is Means efficacy. The assessment of Means efficacy used the scale adapted from Eden et al. (2010) and it consists of 7 statements which are; the work tools I have save me time, the work tools I have are the best of their kind of work, the work tools I have are easy to operate, the work tools I have are reliable, the work tools I have operate without problems, the work tools I have facilitate efficient service delivery to customers and clients and finally, the work tools I have contribute my work time efficiency. The respondents indicated this by expressing the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statements using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 to 5. That is, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Lastly, the dependent variable is work performance. The questions for work performance were adapted from the work of Koopmans et al. (2013, 2014) and consists of a Likert-type scale that has eight questions and the answer options range from 1 to 5, to say 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. For example, the questions read; my quality of work is higher than average, my work load is higher than average level of the department; I always complete my task on time.
4. Results
Normality Test
The results of Normality test using Shapiro-Wilks test (p > 0.05) shows that work performance is approximately normally distributed for all transformational leadership dimensions and means efficacy. Table 1 below shows the results of the normality tests. In this case, the assumption for normality were met, therefore the sample data were drawn from normally distributed population.
Specifically, the transformational leaderships dimensions do follow a normal distribution, for example, inspirational motivation df(39) = 0.967, p = 0.722; Individual consideration df(39) = 0.978, p = 0.623; Idealized influence behavior df(35) = 0.946, p = 0.088; idealized influence attributed df(42) = 0.954, p = 0.087; intellectual stimulation df(43) = 0.954, p = 0.086 and means efficacy df(29) = 0.969, p = 0.525. This means that the sample means, and standard deviations can be representatives of the data, and ANOVA and regression analysis are applicable for this study.
4.1. Results for the Relationship between TL Dimensions and Work Performance
Table 2 below shows descriptive statistics; the mean values, standard deviations, standard error, confidence interval for the mean, as well as the one-way ANOVA. The descriptive statistics results were read in conjunction with ANOVA and post hoc test results to describe the effect of each transformational leadership dimension on work performance.
The one-way ANOVA indicates that the overall test of the descriptive was significant, F(4, 364) = 6.076, p = 0.001, and a post hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD test to compare the means of the five dimensions of transformational leadership are shown Table 2 below.
Table 2 and Table 3 show that the mean score for Inspirational motivation (M = 17.12, SD = 2.49) was statistically significantly different than the other four practices, that is, Idealized influence-behavioral, (M = 16.84, SD = 2.50, p = 0.009); Idealized influence-attributed (M = 16.78, SD 2.57, p = 0.002; Intellectual stimulation (M = 16.44, SD = 2.57, p = 0.001) and Individualized consideration
![]()
![]()
Table 2. Results of the descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA.
![]()
Table 3. Multiple comparisons of the mean values.
Dependent variable: Work performance.
(M = 16.33, SD = 2.39, p = 0.001). On another note, Idealized influence (behavioral) is statistically significant than intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration with the same p-value of 0.001. Similarly, Idealized influence (attributed) is statistically significant than intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration with the p-values of 0.017 and 0.003 respectively. However, idealized influence-behavioral (M = 16.84, SD = 2.50), did not statistically significantly differ from idealized influence-attributed (M = 16.78, SD = 2.57), p-value = 0.369. Similarly, intellectual stimulation (M = 16.44, SD = 2.57), did not statistically significantly differ from individualized consideration (M = 16.33, SD = 2.39), p-value = 0.545.
4.2. Results for the Relationship between TL Dimensions and Means Efficacy
The Pearson’s correlation Table 4 below shows correlation among variables with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p < 0.05.
Table 5 shows regression analysis for the five dimensions of transformation leadership. Each dimension of transformational leadership style has positive
![]()
Table 4. Pearson’s correlations of the constructs.
![]()
Table 5. Regression equation coefficients for 5 dimensions of TL and means efficacy.
Dependent variable: Means efficacy.
values of R2, F values, beta values and p-values denoting that there are significant relationships between each dimension of transformational leadership and means efficacy.
Table 4 and Table 5 indicate that: First, the relationship between inspirational motivation and means efficacy recorded Pearson correlation at 0.447 with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p = 0.001 and the linear regression analysis recorded R2 = 0.373 with F(1, 367) = 194.160, explains variance of 37.3%, beta value and p-value of 0.610 and 0.001 respectively. Second, the relationship between idealized influence (behavior) and means efficacy exhibit a strong degree of Pearson’s correlation at 0.401 with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p = 0.001 and the linear regression analysis recorded R2 = 0.380 with F(1, 367) = 200.482, explains variance of 0.38%, beta value and p-value of 0.617 and 0.001 respectively. Third, the relationship between idealized influence (attributed) and means efficacy exhibit a medium degree of Pearson’s correlation at 0.304 with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p = 0.001 and the linear regression analysis recorded R2 = 0.378 with F(1; 367) = 198.894, explains variance of 37.8%, beta value and p-value of 0.615 and 0.001 respectively. Fourth, the relationship between intellectual stimulation and means efficacy exhibit Pearson’s correlation at 0.334 with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p = 0.001 and the linear regression analysis recorded R2 = 0.386 with F(1, 367) = 205.858, explains variance of 38.6%, beta value and p-value of 0.622 and 0.001 respectively. Lastly, the relationship between Individualized consideration and means efficacy exhibit a moderate degree of Pearson’s correlation at 0.298 with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p = 0.001 and the linear regression analysis recorded R2 = 0.305 with F(1, 367) = 143.578, explains variance of 30.5%, beta value and p-value of 0.552 and 0.001 respectively.
4.3. Results for the Relationship between Means Efficacy and Work Performance
Table 4 and Table 6 show that the relationship between means efficacy and work performance exhibit a strong degree of correlation at 0.415 with a confidence interval of 95% and a statistical significance of p = 0.001, and linear regression analysis recorded R2 = 0.503 with F(1, 367) = 331.243, explains variance of 50.3%, beta value and p-value of 0.709 and 0.001 respectively.
4.4. Results for the Mediating Effect of Means Efficacy
Table 7 shows the results of the first and second steps of the multiple regression analysis of the 5 dimensions of transformational leadership.
![]()
Table 6. Means efficacy and work performance.
![]()
Table 7. Regression equation coefficients for five dimensions of TL and means efficacy with work performance.
Table 7 above indicates a significant regression for the first step on the multiple regression analysis on all the dimensions of transformational leadership and work performance. That is, Inspirational motivation recorded F(1, 367) = 253.91, p-value = 0.001 with R2 = 0.437 and Beta value of 0.661. Idealized influence (behavioral) recorded F(1, 367) =298.555, p-value = 0.001 with R2 = 0.477 and Beta value of 0.691. Idealized influence (attributed) recorded F (1, 367) = 276.174, p-value = 0.001 with R2 = 0.458 and Beta value of 0.667. Intellectual stimulation recorded F(1, 367) =334.92, p-value = 0.001 with R2 = 0.506 and Beta value of 0.711. Individualized consideration recorded F(1, 367) = 222.85, p-value = 0.001 with R2 = 0.405 and Beta value of 0.637.
In addition, when the second step of the regression analysis introduced means efficacy as the second independent variable, the regression weights of the Beta values of all the dimensions of transformational leadership were substantial reduced but remained significant denoting a partial mediation effect. Table 8 below shows the summary of the mediation analysis results.
Hypothesized Paths
Overall, the ANOVA test indicates that there is a statistical significance between the mean values of the group under study, F(4, 364) = 6.076, p = 0.001. In that regard, the most influential dimension of transformational leadership on work performance is Inspirational motivation followed by idealized influence, followed by intellectual consideration and the least rated is individualized consideration. Further, the statistical relationships between each dimension of transformational leadership and work performance were all significant. Similarly the statistical relationships between each dimension of transformational leadership and means efficacy were also significant. Again, the statistical relationship between Work performance and means efficacy showed significant result. Finally, results show that means efficacy partially mediates the relationship of each dimension of transformational leadership dimension and work performance.
5. Discussion
The study provided an exhaustive analysis of the results and findings. The findings and analysis in this study were mainly consistent with literature related to transformational leadership, means efficacy and work performance. The study
![]()
Table 8. Summary of mediation analysis results.
clearly confirms the importance of transformational leadership style for organization operating in the VUCA environment. In which the interaction of the five dimensions of transformational leadership and means efficacy on work performance revealed significant relationships. These relationships are such that transformational leadership dimensions and means efficacy have direct effects on the work performance on one hand, and on the other hand, transformational leadership dimensions have an indirect effect on work performance through means efficacy. Since the study was performed for organizations operating in the VUCA environment, the findings of this study provided additional evidence on the relationship between transformational leadership dimensions and work performance under volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment. The study further shows that although transformational leadership dimensions jointly influence work performance, the degree of influence differs particularly in challenging environments. As such, in the VUCA environment inspirational motivation is ranked the most influential dimension, followed by idealized influence (behavioral and attributed). Then the third influential dimension is intellectual stimulation and the least influential dimension is individualized consideration. This finding supports hypothesis 1 of this study. Further to that the positive relationship between transformational leadership dimensions and means efficacy supports hypothesis 2 of this study. The results further support findings of similar studies which claim that, means efficacy was a critical aspect of leaders’ perceived capabilities, in driving performance (Simmons et al., 2014). Andersen et al. (2018) argued that transformational leadership style has an effect on organizations’ appealing management systems, policies and networks. The significance of this hypothesis indicates that transformational leadership dimensions play an important role in creating employee strong belief in organizational support tools supplied by the organizations. For example, while organizations are investing heavily in the acquisitions of new state of the art machinery, plant and equipment, it is clear that these investments alone do not necessary translate into high productivity, but managers need also to heavily invest in stimulating employees’ beliefs about those highly technological machinery, plant and equipment. Unless employees believe in those machinery, plant and equipment which are of high-quality capacity, it will be nonproductive and a worst of investment. Similarly, appealing company systems like strategy, processes, procedures and work instructions, as well as, developmental programs, they do not necessary produce positive results, unless the users, which are employees, believe in these systems to say, they can assist them to successfully complete their tasks. Therefore, belief in the means available motivates and encourages employees to use them to a larger extent.
Furthermore, the findings of this study are consistent with the theory of organizational justice theory (Olowookere et al., 2020), particularly the procedural justice theory (Kim & Beehr, 2020) which is defined as the perceived fairness in the procedures, rules, regulations and processes that the organization adopted to make sure company dealings happen according to the equity of the procedures and policies used in the organization (Engelbrecht & Samuel, 2019). Therefore, when employees believe that the policies, procedures and manufacturing processes of the organization are reliable, correct and ethical, then, employees are compelled to be loyal, trust, respect and believe in their managers, and would want to be identified with them and the organization. In turn, employees work hard to meet goals. Simmers and McMurray (2019) argued that organizational formal justice procedures (means) on work innovation showed that organizational justice procedure had an impact on the workplace innovation. Workplace innovation may be enacted by managers who practice transformation leadership style particularly intellectual stimulation dimension.
Furthermore, the study revealed that means efficacy predicts work performance, through motivating employees to have confidence to skillfully apply themselves to achieve high performance despite the complexity of the job and the environment. This finding supports hypothesis 3 of this study. These means available which employees believe in include; systems, processes, procedures, policies, budgets, peers, supervisors, plant machinery, tools and equipment. These are the external resources, that managers determine, maintain and improve to match the changing environment in order to maintain and enhance the means efficacy of employees so that their quantity, quality, efficiency and effectiveness toward work is not compromised. In that case, if the current complex situation demands complex technology, then it is better dealt with by developing means efficacy towards technology, processes and co-workers, of which failure to embrace technology to deal with complex situation is fatal. In that regard, failure to develop the means efficacy in employees many overshadow other forms of efficacies such as self-efficacy and collective efficacy.
In addition, the results of the present study demonstrate that transformational leadership dimensions individually and collectively affect employees’ perceptions of work and the means available (Vila-Vázquez et al., 2018). The results reveal that each dimension of transformational leadership has direct effect on work performance as well as an indirect effect on work performance through means efficacy. Since transformational managers are sources of important organizational information, they can influence employees’ perceptions of the importance of the job and the pathways on how to successfully execute the job. This in turn, increases employees’ beliefs on the means available. According to Cleavenger and Munyon, (2013), transformational managers achieve this by using words, actions and symbols when talking about work and the means available. This finding supports the hypothesis 4 of this study. The finding also shows that means efficacy can alter the relationship between transformational leadership style and work performance. That is, in as much as, transformational managers set challenging goals and provides resources or means by which these goals can be attained, they are basically making an association between organizational goals and the means (Inzlicht et al., 2020). It is the strength of this goal-means association that can ultimately change behaviors, attitudes and beliefs of employees, where employees would say, the means available are the best to achieve the set goals. In other words, strong goal-means association may be believed more and viewed by employees as a challenging goal that set them apart than weaker goal-means associations. For instance, budget allocation to a specific project may motivate or demotivate individuals because perception about the budget’s adequacy precedes zeal, effort and initiatives to carry out the project. In fact, under budget allocation to employees kills innovation, creativity, trust and loyalty.
6. Conclusion
Transformational leadership style dimensions impacted on work performance in unique and different ways and it brought deeper and sharper distinct understanding of their contributions in relation to work performance in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment. Present study contributes evidence of the uniqueness of each dimension of leadership on work performance and their interaction with means efficacy to influence work performance. The study further filled the theoretical gap by adding means efficacy as mediator between dependent and independent variables. The study also closes the contextual and literature gap on transformational leadership, means efficacy and work performance in which transformational leadership validated the importance of external resources and beliefs in them. Academicians and practitioners can take benefits from findings of this study. For example, Human Resources Practitioners can raise awareness on means efficacy in manufacturing companies and recommend informed strategies to meet organization’s resource capabilities so that performance of manufacturing companies can be increased. Also, Human resources practitioners can develop rules, regulations and policies governing the code of conduct for managers and supervisors in the way they should conduct themselves at work places with special emphasis on transformational leadership characteristics. This helps to bring up a right standing individual with the right business acumen. This study provides several implications to management practices and offer managers of Beverages manufacturing industry a comprehensive framework by which to understand what contributes to high employee work performance in uncertain environments. First, the selection and recruitment processes and deployments of managers in manufacturing companies in Zimbabwe should consider those with high transformational leadership styles ahead of all other types of leadership styles such as transactional and laissez-faire. Therefore, managers of manufacturing companies in Zimbabwe must adopt transformational leadership practices which comprise of the four transformational leadership dimensions.
In future, the study can be given more time so that the mixed approach can be used in order to draw insights and answer the questions why things happened the way they came out in descriptive analysis. Again, future research should include a comprehensive framework that will account for the interaction of combined effect of several efficacies, such as self-efficacy, collective efficacy, leader efficacy and many more, on the relationship between transformational leadership and work performance. In addition, future research should replicate these present study findings with alternative measures, such as innovation and entrepreneur for example, the study may investigate how means efficacy contributes to organizational innovation and creativity in different employment settings and the antecedents thereof that will facilitate the ability to identify ways to enhance means efficacy. In addition, future research could aim to stratify the population according to size of organizations and sectoral strata they belong. By this way, it avoids the ambiguity associated with unclear characteristics when creating subpopulation and sampling.