Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The ability of leaders to influence the behavior of individuals, groups, organizations, and communities keeps leadership as an ongoing topic of discussion. This study examines the impacts of transformational and transactional leadership on different types of firm performance. Accordingly, we attempt to explore the effects of these two leadership styles on various organizational performance indicators (e.g., innovation performance, financial performance, and non-financial performance) in the Turkish work environment, characterized by high power distance, low tolerance for uncertainty, short-term goal orientation, and an organizational culture consisting of feminine values. The study utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze data collected from 460 participants across 100 firms in the Marmara region—the heart of Türkiye’s industrial and service sectors—. It revealed that transactional leadership produced more positive, significant outcomes in financial and non-financial firm performance than transformational leadership in Turkish organizational culture. On the other hand, research results have shown that transformational leadership has a higher impact on firm innovation.

JEL Classification: M19.

Keywords

transformational leadership transactional leadership performance

Introduction

The necessity of enhancing firm performance to thrive in a constantly evolving external environment, along with the demanding needs within the organization—such as addressing diverse employee expectations, resolving conflicts, and ensuring effective coordination—highlights the importance of seeking capable leaders. This keeps leadership at the forefront of discussions and maintains scholarly interest. Leadership studies, originating in the 19th century with the Great Man theory (the 1840s) and further developed through Trait Theories (1930s–1940s) that emphasized the inherent characteristics and personality traits of effective leaders, progressed with the emergence of Behavioral Theory (1940s–1950s), which shifted the focus to leaders’ actions rather than their traits. By the 1960s, the field adopted Contingent and Situational theories, emphasizing the critical influence of environmental factors and specific contexts in shaping the leader-follower relationship (Benmira & Agboola, 2021). The ongoing focus on leadership research has led to the emergence of contemporary leadership within the literature, such as strategic leadership (Ireland & Hitt, 2005; Worden, 2003), transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Burns, 1978), transactional leadership, Laissez-Faire leadership (Bass, 1985), charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), visionary leadership (Nanus, 1992; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 2002; Van Dierendonck, 2011), authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), and cultural leadership (Price, 2017; Schein, 1997). While adopting diverse leadership perspectives is important, practitioners and researchers should focus on the most suitable approach for their business and employees while maintaining the essence of leadership (Bonsu & Twum-Danso, 2018; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989).

Bass (1985), applying the concepts proposed by Burns (1978) to the business, introduced a new leadership model with transformational, transactional, and Laissez-Faire leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The theory offers a comprehensive basis for understanding leadership in all situations and organizations (Bass, 1997). Drawing on Bass’ (1985) leadership model, transformational leaders do not hesitate to take risks and take initiative to make a difference and improve their organizations and employees. They promote motivation, development, competencies, and autonomy associated with employees feeling psychologically empowered (Gelaidan et al., 2022; Yukl, 2012; Zhu et al., 2012). Thus, they affect firm performance (Chen et al., 2021), organizational innovation (Hansen & Pihl-Thingvad, 2019; Prasad & Junni, 2016), employee performance (Hoch et al., 2018), and job satisfaction (Guevara et al., 2020; Rothfelder et al., 2012). Unlike transformational leadership, transactional leadership is based on rules, obedience, tangible goals, bureaucratic authority, and organizational power (Çelik, 2007; Erdoğan, 2004; Tavanti, 2008). The term “transactional” emphasizes using rewards for performance—an exchange relationship between performance and rewards (Abdelwahed et al., 2022; Macit, 2003).

This study, which investigates the effects of both transformational and transactional leadership on various dimensions of organizational performance, is grounded in Social Identity Theory. Considering that leadership is “a multidimensional process that has the capacity to represent, develop and create a sense of shared social identity with group members” (Steffens et al., 2014), it can be said that the leader creates a social identity in group members and motivates them. Transformational leaders are often confident and generous in helping employees bond with the organization (Demirtaş, 2003; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Consistent with this, they are famous for empowering individuals through their social identities linked to a particular group and organization they belong to by aligning them with organizational goals and culture (Avolio et al., 2004; Çekmecelioğlu et al., 2023; Fuller et al., 1999; Qin et al., 2023).

Social identity theory proposes that group members perform exceedingly and efficiently as they internalize group-specific behaviors, rules, and norms via identification with the group (Haslam, 2003; Willets & Clarke, 2014). By establishing reward and punishment systems, having clear guidelines and predefined performance standards, transactional leaders provide ingroup rules and norms that escalate performance and decent behaviors and diminish counterproductive behaviors (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018; Russell, 2011).

The leadership literature is dominated by research on transformational leadership and offers contradictory findings on transactional leadership. While some studies proposed that transactional leadership might not be effective in enhancing performance (Schermuly et al., 2022), others yielded that transactional leadership enhances employees’ job performance (Abdelwahed et al., 2022; Bakker et al., 2023) and organizational performance (Alrowwad et al., 2020). An experiment comparing the two leadership styles indicated that while achieving higher quantitative performance under transactional leadership, groups attained higher qualitative outcomes under transformational leadership (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2003). Some other findings showed a greater positive impact of transformational leadership on performance when compared to transactional leadership (Abbas & Ali, 2021; Mufti et al., 2020). Studies conducted in countries and regions characterized by a culture that advocates hierarchy, rapid change, high uncertainty, and job insecurity reveal contrasting results (Chen et al., 2021). A previous study in China indicated that transactional leadership positively affects employee creativity rather than transformational leadership (Ma & Jiang, 2018). Likewise, Alavi et al. (2022) claimed that transactional leadership was more effective in diminishing the drop in sales performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, remarking on the need for continuous feedback and certainty rather than a focus on long-term visions in highly uncertain and stressful times. These results imply that situational factors (e.g., economy, culture, work context, and politics) matter in addressing the potential of leadership styles. Turkish society and organizational culture reflect the cultural characteristics of Eastern societies. Turkish culture is characterized as conservative and collectivist, with a strong loyalty to traditions and a high regard for respect, familial ties, and national solidarity (Kılınçkaya, 2005; Sargut, 2015). Although transformational leadership is widely recognized in the literature for its positive impact on organizational outcomes, transactional leadership is often undervalued—particularly within the Turkish context—where it is frequently viewed as a rigid form of management rather than a genuine leadership style (Görgülü, 2020). This perspective is grounded in the assumption that transactional leaders exert a limited influence, focusing primarily on reward-and-punishment mechanisms that yield only performance-based results. Challenging this view, the present study posits that transactional leadership may also produce meaningful leadership effects beyond managerial functions. Notably, research that jointly examines transformational and transactional leadership styles and their comparative influence on organizational performance remains scarce in the Turkish context. By investigating their respective impacts on financial and innovative performance, this study seeks to advance leadership theory through a culturally informed lens. While much of the existing evidence derives from Western-centric studies, little is known about how these leadership approaches manifest in non-Western cultures—especially in Türkiye, which is characterized by high power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance, a short-term orientation, and predominantly feminine cultural values (Fikret Paşa, 2000; Hofstede, 2002; Sargut, 2010). Accordingly, this research contributes to the contextualization of leadership and social exchange theories by offering insights into how cultural dimensions may shape the interpretation and effectiveness of leadership styles in shaping organizational outcomes.

Literature Review

The concept of leadership has given rise to numerous definitions since its inception (Bennis & Townsend, 1995). In almost all leadership definitions, leadership is an influence process (Vroom & Jago, 2007). According to Yukl (2006), leadership is the process of guiding and influencing others in determining what actions should be taken and how they should be executed, as well as encouraging individual and collective efforts to achieve common goals. Similarly, Silva (2016) defines leadership as “the process of interactive influence that occurs when, in a given context, some people accept someone as their leader to achieve common goals.” This process is influenced by situational dynamics, context, culture, work environment, and organizational complexity (Amabile et al., 2004). To grasp the significance of leadership, it is essential to review the evolution of leadership theories. The Great Man Theory emerged in 1847 when Thomas Carlyle proposed that leadership was innate and that only individuals with heroic potential could become leaders. This was followed by Trait Theory, which argued that innate leaders possess specific physical and personality traits that distinguish them from non-leaders. In contrast, Contingency Theories challenged these earlier views by asserting that no single leadership style is universally effective, as its success depends on factors such as quality, follower characteristics, or other variables (Nawaz & Khan, 2016). Subsequently, leadership theorists introduced Situational Theory, which posited that leaders select the most appropriate course of action based on the situational context, suggesting that different leadership styles may be better suited to different decision-making scenarios.

Later developments in the field led to the Behavioral Theory, which shifted the focus from intellectual traits and intrinsic qualities to leader behaviors, emphasizing that leadership could be learned through education and observation, distinguishing it from earlier theories. Over time, it became evident that focusing on a single aspect or dimension of leadership was insufficient to capture its complex nature. This understanding spurred the emergence of various leadership theories, such as Participative Theory, Transactional Theory, Transformational Theory, and Skills Theory, which explored leadership from multiple perspectives, including leader-follower relationships and skill development (Amanchukwu et al., 2015; Benmira & Agboola, 2021).

This study primarily focuses on the leadership framework established by Burns (1978) and further developed by Bass (1985), encompassing transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. Beyond self-interest, transformational leadership can demonstrate intellectual stimulation, idealized influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration. While idealized influence points to leadership charisma, being a role model to followers and respecting the leader, inspirational motivation elevates followers’ motivation, optimism, and enthusiasm toward a task. Intellectual stimulation is when leaders encourage followers to adopt a creative perspective on current situations and problems. Finally, individualized consideration is when leaders pay close attention to their followers’ needs and help them realize their potential.

Transformational leaders coach/mentor their followers, provide feedback, and promote their self-confidence to ensure continuous development (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Robbins & Judge, 2017). Thus, it was frequently highlighted that transformational leadership affects job satisfaction (Al-Hussami, 2009; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), job performance (Kim & Brymer, 2011), intention to leave, individual and organizational creativity (Gao et al., 2021; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; G. Wang et al., 2011), psychological empowerment, and intrinsic motivation (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Özbağ & Çekmecelioğlu, 2022).

In literature, while transactional leadership is more task-oriented, transformational leadership is considered a human-oriented lead. Unlike transformational leadership, this style emphasizes extrinsic motivation and relies on a performance-reward exchange. Accordingly, followers are rewarded when performing well (contingent reward); otherwise, they may be punished (management by exception) (Hughes et al., 2018). Transactional leadership is based on the following principles: (1) leader-follower interactions are prioritized, (2) followers concentrate on tasks assigned by the leader, and (3) tasks are clearly outlined and communicated among followers.

Leadership literature contains a limited number of studies that simultaneously explore the impacts of transformational and transactional leadership on firm performance (Chen et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2018). In their study with bank employees in Jordan, Alrowwad et al. (2020) found both leadership styles to contribute to organizational performance. Similarly, it was concluded that both leadership styles are effective in subjective and objective performance (Voon et al., 2011; G. Wang et al., 2011). In another study, although it was discovered that both leadership styles improve project performance, the effect of transformational leadership tends to yield more robust performance outcomes than transactional leadership (Abbas & Ali, 2021). Chen et al. (2021) reviewed 32 empirical papers published in the last 10 years on the comparative effects of transformational and transactional leadership on performance. The results showed that overall supply chain leadership positively affects firm performance, with transformational leadership having a greater impact than transactional leadership. The authors also noted that leadership effects might vary by region and culture (Chen et al., 2021).

The results align with prior research conducted in Türkiye. Şentürk and Yetgin (2022) demonstrated that transformational and transactional leadership significantly affect firm performance. Gözükara (2014) highlighted that the visionary traits associated with transformational leadership significantly contribute to financial performance. In addition, Gümüş (2015) demonstrated that transformational leadership fosters innovative work behaviors, positively affecting firm performance. The literature also offers contradictory results on the subject. İşcan et al. (2014) claimed that while transformational leadership positively affects organizational performance, this is not the case for transactional leadership.

As previously noted, there is a notable scarcity of studies that simultaneously investigate transformational and transactional leadership styles and their comparative effects on financial and innovation performance within the Turkish context. This gap is particularly significant given that, in Türkiye, transactional leadership is often perceived as a rigid managerial approach rather than a legitimate form of leadership. Moreover, considering Türkiye’s distinct cultural characteristics—such as high power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance, a short-term orientation, and predominantly feminine values (Hofstede, 2002)— his study provides meaningful insights into how leadership and social exchange theories operate across cultural contexts. By addressing these dimensions, the research contributes to a deeper understanding of the culturally contingent nature of leadership effectiveness and its implications for organizational performance.

Transformational Leadership and Firm Performance

Leaders play a critical role in shaping organizational performance and fostering innovation by creating a supportive organizational climate. Transformational leadership models behavior for lower-level managers, influencing their actions through the example of top leaders. These practices can enhance overall performance as they spread through the organization (Jensen et al., 2020). Transformational leadership prioritizes collective interests, encouraging employees to align their personal goals with the organization’s, thus boosting commitment to initiatives that promote success (Puni et al., 2022). This perspective aligns with social identity theory, which posits that transformational leaders foster individuals’ identification with the group, guiding members to actively contribute toward achieving organizational objectives (Haslam, 2003).

In seeking its relationships with transformational and transactional leadership, we consider firm performance to encompass the level of achievement of fundamental goals, the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions, innovation performance, sustainable competitiveness, marketing-oriented performance (i.e., customer satisfaction and market share), and employee satisfaction (Bakoğlu, 2001; Hagedoorn & Cloodt, 2003). Firm performance is measured through objective and subjective (perceptual) firm performance. While objective firm performance is based on the firm’s publicly released sales amounts, return on assets (ROA), and return on equity (ROE), subjective-perceptual firm performance depends on the perceived managerial evaluations of the firm’s performance in sales amounts, profitability, market share, customer satisfaction, and employee satisfaction in the last 5 years compared to competitors. Both methods consist of financial and non-financial criteria. It is commonly asserted that firms should utilize both financial-quantitative criteria and non-financial indicators to assess their performance, particularly in environments characterized by unprecedented environmental changes and intense competition (E. Eren, 2010).

Discussing the pros and cons of objective and subjective firm performance measures is essential. Objective measurements provide considerable insights into a firm’s financial data; nevertheless, its prominent disadvantage may be that such data may remain obsolete and that firms tend to overestimate them. Subjective measures are well-known to be correlated with objective firm performance (Dawes, 1999; Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Dess & Robinson, 1984; Dollinger & Golden, 1992; Powell, 1992; Richard et al., 2009; Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986). Wardaya et al. (2019) argue that a firm’s performance outcomes include financial and non-financial measurements since performance measurement should be performed for different aspects of organizational performance. A measurement through financial performance measures using existing tangible data demands lower cost and less time (Bayraktaroğlu et al., 2014). In this study, we adopted subjective (perceptual) performance criteria to capture firm performance.

Research indicates that transformational leadership positively influences firm performance (e.g., Engelen et al., 2015; Jensen et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2009). In the Turkish context, recent investigations further corroborate these findings, affirming that transformational leadership enhances firm performance (e.g., Fırat & Yeşil, 2020; Gümüş, 2015; Küçükaltan & Mert, 2020; Özşahin & Zehir, 2011; Şentürk & Yetgin, 2022). Thus, we can assume that transformational leadership is associated with both financial and non-financial firm performance and propose the following hypotheses:

H1: Transformational leadership positively affects financial firm performance.

H2: Transformational leadership positively affects non-financial firm performance.

Transformational Leadership and Firm Innovation

Transformational leadership, along with its four basic dimensions —that is, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and individual consideration—is known for having a vision and an innovative perspective that inspires followers to be productive and creative (Bass & Avolio, 1995; Elkins & Keller, 2003; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Hughes et al., 2018; Robbins & Judge, 2017). Also, it is recognized for its contribution to employee motivation, particularly intrinsic motivation, which leads to positive employee outcomes such as improved job performance and increased commitment (Akbolat et al., 2013; Cappelli, 2020; Çetin et al., 2017; Nguyen-Huynh et al., 2019; Robbins & Judge, 2017). Transformational leaders significantly influence employee creativity through intrinsic motivation by intellectually stimulating and inspiring them (Elkins & Keller, 2003; Shafi et al., 2020).

Transformational leadership plays a crucial role in constructing a supportive organizational climate that advances employee creativity (Cummings & Oldham, 1997; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2015; Susantinah et al., 2023; Tierney et al., 1999). In his study, Khalili (2016) studied data from 1,172 employees from different industries and showed that transformational leadership influenced participants’ perceptions of a supportive climate for innovation, increasing their creativity. Transformational leaders are good at embracing changes toward organizational goals and innovation, interacting with employees to foster innovative behaviors, enhancing the synergy of the employee group, supporting employees with resources, and training to escalate their skills and confidence (Ahangar & Rooshan, 2009; Bakker et al., 2023; Pillai & Williams, 2004). Scholars propose that when the leader-member exchange is assessed more favorably, and leaders’ connection with the group identity is salient, employees feel more belongingness to the group, which in turn boosts their willingness and efforts to join creative processes (Haslam & Reicher, 2016; Hogg, 2005; Rast, 2015). A study of 420 leader-follower pairs in a Chinese energy company found that relational leadership aspects, like leader-employee identification and clear communication of creativity expectations, significantly enhanced employee creativity (Qu et al., 2015). In other words, innovative behavior is closely linked to the supervisor-subordinate relationship. In addition, some other hallmarks of transformational leadership, like trust and openness, challenge and involvement, debate, risk-taking, and support of diversity in organizational members, were previously found to be vital to consolidating creativity (Afsar & Masood, 2018; Tidd & Bessant, 2009; P. Wang et al., 2013). In short, the existing knowledge in the literature implies that transformational leadership boosts employee and organizational creativity by cultivating vision, increasing motivation, and steering employees toward innovation. We can reasonably hypothesize the relationship between transformational leadership and a firm’s innovation performance.

H3: Transformational leadership positively affects firm innovativeness.

Transactional Leadership and Firm Performance

The leadership literature presents seemingly contradictory findings regarding the impact of transactional leadership on firm performance. While some studies found negative (Pedraja-Rejas et al., 2006) or no impacts (İşcan et al., 2014) of transactional leadership on firm performance, some others discovered that transactional leadership nourishes firm performance (Alrowwad et al., 2020; Arsawan et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2021; Elenkov, 2002; Masa’deh et al., 2016; Yıldız et al., 2014). While the former finding can be explained by the divergence between transactional leadership and intrinsic motivation—as it is based on extrinsic rewards—(Amabile et al., 1996), the latter result may be attributed to the positive association between transactional leadership and job performance, stemming from contingent reward and punishment behaviors that reduce role ambiguity and clarify organizational goals and expectations (Limsila & Ogunlana, 2008; MacKenzie et al., 2001; Masa’deh et al., 2016). According to social identity theory, people tend to act as social members of their group rather than engaging in individual acts (Tajfel et al., 1979; Trepte & Loy, 2017). Also, people tend to follow societal norms and roles to stay within the group (Tajfel et al., 1979). In this regard, transactional leaders might positively affect firm performance by providing clear and precise group norms and social roles. A previous study on transactional leadership in South Africa showed that contingent reward and management by exception (active) are positively linked with firm performance (Jacobs & Mafini, 2019). Ultimately, substantial evidence in the literature steers us to hypothesize that transactional leadership is related to firm performance.

H3: Transactional leadership positively affects financial firm performance.

H4: Transactional leadership positively affects non-financial firm performance.

Transactional Leadership and Firm Innovation

Transactional leadership focuses on the leader-follower exchange, and the transformational leader manages rewards and consent—“keeping the ship afloat” (Abdelwahed et al., 2022; Meisam et al., 2013). Transactional leaders frequently utilize discipline and control to encourage optimal employee performance and make decisions based on their performance (Blickle & Schütte, 2017). Some scholars proclaim that this situation can hinder creativity and innovation as external rewards might decrease intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1996; Deci et al., 1999; Gagné et al., 2005; Kovjanic et al., 2013). In this regard, Moss and Ritossa (2007) found that management by exception is negatively associated with innovation and creativity. However, others claim that contingent rewards can polish employees’ creative behavior (Rickards et al., 2001) and innovation (J. Chang et al., 2015), suggesting that the effectiveness of transactional leaders lies in their ability to incentivize employees (Bass, 1997).

Recent studies investigating the impact of transactional leadership on firm innovation have offered empirical support for the association between transactional leadership traits and innovation. For instance, Thahira et al. (2020) found that transactional leadership positively influences firm innovation. Prasad and Junni (2016) demonstrated that CEO transactional leadership has a beneficial effect on organizational innovation. Likewise, Sang (2017) showed that transactional leadership positively contributes to innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

H5: Transactional leadership positively affects firm innovativeness.

Materials and Methods

Measures

To assess the study’s hypotheses, multi-item scales adapted from established scholarly research were employed to measure the various constructs under investigation. Data collection was conducted through questionnaire surveys utilizing a convenience sampling approach. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5), to capture respondent preferences.

To quantify leadership styles, we used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) developed by Bass and Avolio (1995) and adapted to Turkish by Çekmecelioğlu et al. (2018). MLQ consists of 45 items to assess leadership styles, including transactional and transformational leadership, as well as laissez-faire leadership. Specifically, twenty items pertain to transformational leadership, and twelve items relate to transactional leadership. The MLQ aims to measure transformational leadership on its four components (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration) and transactional leadership on its three aspects (contingent reward, management by exception (active), and management by exception (passive)). We calculated Cronbach’s alpha of the scale to be .97. Sample items from this scale include:

I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts (Transformational leadership)

I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards (Transactional leadership)

To measure firm performance, we adopted a subjective (perceptual) Firm Performance Scale (FPS) developed by Zehir (2016) which consists of two dimensions encompassing a total of 10 items. Specifically, four items pertain to financial performance and six items relate to non-financial performance. The scale yielded a high internal consistency (α = .90). Representative items from this scale include:

Employees’ loyalty to the company is strong (non-financial performance)

Company’s overall performance demonstrates a high level of success (financial performance)

The measurement of the firm innovativeness involved a five-item scale, and this instrument was designed by Calantone et al. (2002). We calculated Cronbach’s alpha of the scale to be .89. Example items from this scale are:

Our company seeks out new ways to do things

Our company frequently tries out new ideas

Sampling

The main purpose of this research is to scrutinize the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on financial (quantitative) and non-financial (qualitative) organizational performance and innovation performance in the Turkish work environment. To empirically test the hypotheses, a convenience sample of 460 individuals working in 100 firms operating in the Marmara region was selected due to its accessibility. Informed consent, which is about the research and voluntary participation, was obtained from the participants. Participants were given detailed information about the purpose, scope, potential risks, and benefits of the study and it was explained that participation was completely voluntary. It was also stated that the participants had the right to terminate their participation for any reason during the study. The design of the study was planned to avoid harming the participants. The survey package does not include any uncomfortable or identity-revealing questions. Participants’ data were anonymized, and the confidentiality of their personal information was protected. The objective of the study is to understand the effects of leadership styles on firm performance and innovation in the Turkish context and to transfer these findings into applied research at the societal level. Therefore, the contributions of the research to society and the participants are considered to be far greater than the potential risks.

Initially, all 492 potential participants were contacted via phone, email, and face-to-face meetings, with the study’s objectives clearly explained. Of those contacted, 460 agreed to participate, and all subsequently completed the survey. After a thorough review, incomplete responses with missing data were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 449 for detailed analysis. The majority of respondents were female (57.2%, n = 257), with the largest age group being 30–35 years old (27.8%, n = 125). Additionally, 64.6% (n = 290) were married, and the predominant educational level was a bachelor’s degree (52.6%, n = 236). A significant portion of participants (29.8%, n = 134) worked in engineering/design, with 50.6% (n = 227) holding non-managerial roles, while 49.4% (n = 222) held managerial positions. The data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) through IBM AMOS.

Results

Our preliminary analyses focused on seeking the validity and reliability of the data collection tools using SPSS and AMOS 29.0. Before analyses, we resorted to skewness and kurtosis values to check the normality of data distribution. Accordingly, all measurements yielded skewness and kurtosis values within the acceptable criteria (±3), indicating that the data demonstrated a normal distribution. Next, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) series to provide construct validity evidence. The findings demonstrated all χ² differences to be significant and that goodness-of-fit indices of the models set for the measurement tools yielded acceptable model-data fit (Table 1). Although only the CMIN/df value (7.326) of the model for the FPS initially indicated poor fit according to the rule of thumb (CMIN/df < 5; Byrne et al., 1989; Marsh & Hocevar, 1985; McIver & Carmines, 1981), some researchers propose that this value below eight would be acceptable when other indices hit the acceptable criteria (e.g., Petrov & Chernyak, 2019).

Table 1.

Goodness-of-Fit Values of the Measurements.

Indices	Transformational leadership	Transactional leadership	FPS	FIQ
CMIN/df	3.652	3.482	7.326	4.229
NFI	0.926	0.853	0.930	0.988
TLI	0.914	0.853	0.914	0.978
CFI	0.926	0.889	0.939	0.991
GFI	0.876	0.924	0.916	0.884
RMSEA	0.077	0.086	0.119	0.068

Furthermore, we performed a series of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to complement the findings of the validity of the instruments before hypothesis testing. In this respect, we resorted to KMO values, Barlett’s test of sphericity, and factor loadings of the items (Loo, 2000). The results showed that all measurements had KMO and sphericity values to be higher than 0.60. Except for one item in the FPS, which loaded more than one factor, items appeared with no weak factor loadings or cross-loading problems. That item in the FPS was then decided to be omitted.

Table 2 presents the descriptives of and correlations between the research variables. Transformational leadership had positive relationships with transactional leadership (r = .501, p < .05), non-financial firm performance (r = .380, p < .05), financial firm performance (r = .237, p < .05), and firm innovativeness (r = .442, p < .05). Our results also revealed that transactional leadership was positively associated with non-financial firm performance (r = .310, p < .05), financial firm performance (r = .191, p < .05), and firm innovativeness (r = .300, p < .05).

Table 2.

Descriptives of and Correlations Between the Research Variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Transformational leadership	3.63	0.79	1	0.501**	0.380**	0.237**	0.442**
2. Transactional leadership	3.07	0.49		1	0.310**	0.191**	0.300**
3. Firm performance (non-financial)	3.40	0.89			1	0.490**	0.648**
4. Firm performance (financial)	3.79	0.82				1	0.424**
5. Firm innovativeness	3.56	0.89					1

p < .05. **p < .01.

We then utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) to test our hypotheses. In other words, we set four equation models to uncover how transactional leadership and transformational leadership affect firm performance and innovativeness (see Table 3). Model statistics showed significant chi-square statistics with good overall fit indices for all models: χ²/df = 2.995, GFI = 0.848, CFI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.067 (Model 1); χ²/df = 2.839, GFI = 0.857, CFI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.072 (Model 2); χ²/df = 3.669, GFI = 0.871, CFI = 0.889, RMSEA = 0.077 (Model 3); χ²/df = 3.245, GFI = 0.910, CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.71 (Model 4; Tippins & Sohi, 2003). The tested models are illustrated in Figures 1 to 4.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Testing.

Model	Path	ß	p	Decision
1	Firm performance (financial) ← Transformational leadership	.233	.000	Accepted
1	Firm performance (non-financial) ← Transformational leadership	.410	.000	Accepted
2	Firm innovativeness ← Transformational leadership	.447	.000	Accepted
3	Firm performance (financial) ← Transactional leadership	.274	.000	Accepted
3	Firm performance (non-financial) ← Transactional leadership	.471	.000	Accepted
4	Firm innovativeness ← Transactional leadership	.329	.000	Accepted

Figure 1.

Effect of transformational leadership on financial and non-financial firm performance.

Figure 2.

Effect of transformational leadership on firm innovativeness.

Figure 3.

Effect of transactional leadership on financial and non-financial firm performance.

Figure 4.

Effect of transactional leadership on firm innovativeness.

The findings of the models showed that transformational leadership had a positive significant effect on both non-financial (β = .415, p < .01) and financial firm performance (β = .236, p < .01) and firm innovativeness (β = .453, p < .01). Thus, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are accepted.

Discussion

Organizations’ competitiveness and survival depend largely on their performance, which includes achieving economic goals, adapting to changing environments, innovation, sustainable competitiveness, marketing performance (e.g., customer satisfaction and market share), and employee satisfaction (Bakoğlu, 2001; Hagedoorn & Cloodt, 2003). To achieve these performance demands, organizations need leaders who can communicate a particular vision to the organization and have the ability to mobilize material and human resources in line with this vision. Accordingly, this study focuses on the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on financial and non-financial firm performance and innovation performance. The study finds that transactional leadership has a stronger positive impact on both financial and non-financial firm performance than transformational leadership. In other words, transactional leaders, who focus on achieving organizational goals, enhancing efficiency, minimizing unnecessary risks, and ensuring the continuity of existing organizational processes (McCleskey, 2014; McCall, 1976), can effectively drive improvements in firm performance in business environments.

Although our findings align with previous research demonstrating a positive relationship between transactional leadership and organizational performance (Abbas and Ali, 2021; Alrowwad et al., 2020; Masa’deh et al., 2016), they largely diverge from studies that examine the combined effects of transactional and transformational leadership on organizational performance. For example, Birasnav (2014a) investigated the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational performance and knowledge sharing and found that both styles had a favorable effect on performance, but the greater share belonged to transformational leadership. Contrary to our findings, some scholars revealed that transactional leadership does not affect firm performance (Flanigan et al., 2017; Gümüş, 2015; İşcan et al., 2014; Laohavichien et al., 2009; Özer & Tınaztepe, 2014; Xie et al., 2018), some others found that transactional leadership is associated with only financial firm performance. For example, S. Chang and Jeong (2021) found that transactional leadership only affected the financial performance of 251 firms in Korea. It should, however, be noted that the effect of transactional leadership on firm performance in the Turkish context may be attributed to cultural norms and values, and large-scale incidents like pandemics and global crises. Indeed, increased COVID-19-related anxiety and stress among individuals and the subsequent economic uncertainty may have fostered the influence of transactional leadership on firm performance. In this regard, previous research reported that the pandemic and economic uncertainties caused some alterations in employees’ behaviors, stress levels, and needs such as payment, incentives, bonuses, and travel and meal allowances (Yu et al., 2021; World Bank Group, 2024) and that employees need clarity, honesty, and understanding in such times of uncertainty (Kerrissey & Edmondson, 2020). Hence, it can be claimed that cultural and situational characteristics may have enhanced the effects of transactional leadership on firm performance in this study.

The results of this study are believed to be influenced by the characteristics of managers and employees shaped by Turkish social and organizational culture. It is argued that the characteristics of Turkish culture such as discipline, prioritizing security, giving importance to sharing, authority-based centralization, and being prone to superior-subordinate hierarchy are prominent in the formation of Turkish managerial values (Çağlar, 2001). In fact, studies indicate that managers and employees perceive authority as a hierarchical power derived from law, associating it with control, discipline, and order (Güngör, 2010). Additionally, it has been noted that cooperation and communication in the workplace are insufficient, and there is resistance to change and innovation (Erol & Türk, 2019). While Western standards are being integrated into the Turkish education and work system, it has been noted that local culture continues to profoundly influence our fundamental behaviors and thought processes (Erol & Türk, 2019; Sargut, 2010). Therefore, it is understandable that transactional leadership has a higher effect on firm performance and at the same time, increases firm innovation in Türkiye. In this context, it is evident that both transformational and transactional leadership are effective on firm performance (Akhan et al., 2020; Şentürk & Yetgin, 2022).

Another important finding from our study is related to the positive effects of transformational leadership on both financial and non-financial firm performance. In other words, adopting transformational leadership is likely to contribute to profitability, sales, market share (financial performance), employee and customer satisfaction, and product and service quality (non-financial performance). Therefore, transformational leaders thoroughly affect financial and non-financial performance by providing a vision for organizational change, expanding employees’ potential, and ensuring employee motivation in line with the specified vision. Previous research also supports the conclusion that transformational leadership positively impacts firm performance (Alrowwad et al., 2020; Birasnav, 2014a, 2014b; Chen et al., 2021; İşcan et al., 2014). For example, Alrowwad et al. (2020) recruited 298 white-collar employees in Jordan and revealed the positive effects of both transactional and transformational leadership on organizational performance.

One of the most important findings of this study is the effects of transactional leadership on firm innovation. Our finding overlaps with Keller’s (1992) proposition that transactional leadership is pursued to utilize existing knowledge to deliver developmental projects. Accordingly, transactional leadership is needed more in allocating tasks and ensuring coordination. On the contrary, transformational leaders are more persuasive in projects demanding originality and technical knowledge to reveal radical innovation (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Keller, 1992). In the Chinese organizational culture, which is distinguished by hierarchy, high uncertainty, and job insecurity, it was demonstrated that while transactional leadership fosters employee creativity, transformational leadership does not affect it (Ma & Jiang, 2018). In addition, it was previously suggested that the contingent reward component of transactional leadership may be positively associated with creative behaviors and innovation (J. Chang et al., 2015; Rickards et al., 2001).

Our findings may also be interpreted through the lens of social identity theory. It is apparent that transformational and transactional leaders motivate their employees in diverse ways and ensure the development of their social identities. Social identity theory suggests that individuals are influenced by, and define themselves through, the identity of the group to which they belong (Tajfel et al., 1979; Trepte & Loy, 2017). Both transformational and transactional leadership can reinforce a clear sense of group norms and membership, which encourages employees to identify with the organization (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Furthermore, the theory posits that people who identify with a social group are naturally motivated to act in the interest of that group (Edwards & Peccei, 2007; Tajfel et al., 1979). Thus, individuals who associate themselves with their organization are more likely to contribute to its financial and non-financial performance. When leaders embed high performance as part of the organizational culture, employees tend to align with this culture and contribute to achieving those goals (Haslam, 2003; Van Heerden & Roodt, 2007; Willets & Clarke, 2014).

In this study, it was found that transformational leadership exhibited the most significant positive impact on firm innovativeness. This is the natural result of transformational leadership. As transformational leaders communicate their vision of innovation and instill a sense of power and confidence in their followers, they contribute to the development of new products and services. Additionally, the results indicate that transformational leadership is more effective than transactional leadership in fostering innovativeness within organizations. It is an urgent need for Türkiye to elevate its innovativeness and growth which can be seen in OECD reports of patent and ARGE. They show that Türkiye ranks 13th among G20 countries in patent applications. In 2023, patent applications declined by 3.8% compared to the previous year, breaking the upward trend seen in 2020 to 2022 (BTHaber, 2023; OECD, 2023). Changing leadership approaches within organizations towards empowering and translating ones could break the upward trend in innovativeness in Türkiye.

Previous findings also suggested transformational leaders are key to the market success of innovations (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Paksoy et al., 2019) through a strong influence on employees (Jung et al., 2003). Our findings also coincide with the results by Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2009). The authors examined the relationship between transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation among 163 research and development (R&D) employees in 43 different small and medium-sized information technology companies in Türkiye and concluded that transformational leadership was positively linked with organizational innovation, measured market-oriented criteria proposed for developing countries and emerging industries. In their research on small and medium-sized firms in Türkiye, İşcan et al. (2014) found that transformational leadership positively affected perceived organizational performance and innovation. Similarly, a study conducted in Türkiye’s hotel industry found that transformational leadership influences aggressive and opportunistic innovation strategies, while transactional leadership impacts imitative and traditional innovation strategies (Bozkurt & Göral, 2013). Additionally, another study involving employees in Türkiye’s IT sector concluded that both transactional and transformational leadership significantly affect knowledge sharing and organizational creativity (Paksoy at al., 2019). It was also determined that knowledge sharing does not play a mediating role in the effect of transactional leadership on organizational creativity, while it has a partial mediating role in the effect of transformational leadership on organizational creativity.

Limitations

While this study offers valuable contributions to the literature, it also has several limitations. Firstly, the research is geographically restricted to the Marmara region, a major industrial hub in Turkey, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions with different economic and industrial dynamics. Secondly, the study examines leadership only through transformational and transactional frameworks, excluding alternative leadership styles that may provide additional insights. Thirdly, while leadership is a critical factor in firm performance and innovation, it is not the sole determinant; future research could explore other mediating and moderating variables to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Fourthly, reliance on survey data introduces potential response bias, and incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews or case studies, could enhance the robustness of the findings. Lastly, given that the study was conducted within the Turkish cultural and institutional context, the findings may not be directly transferable to other settings, underscoring the importance of cross-cultural comparative studies to validate and extend the results.

Directions for Future Research

The existing leadership literature offers limited research and presents contradictory findings regarding the leadership styles of interest. Future studies are encouraged to explore further the effects of transformational and transactional leadership on employee behaviors, organizational performance, and innovation. Researchers should particularly focus on cross-cultural variations in the influence of transformational and transactional leadership on organizational and innovation performance. The findings of this research highlight the importance of considering the cultural context in which leadership evolves. Specifically, we recommend that future research investigate how these leadership styles impact firm performance and innovation in cultures characterized by varying levels of power distance. Additionally, cultural dimensions such as uncertainty avoidance and long-term/short-term orientation can be considered as potential moderating factors in these relationships.

Implications

This study is one of the first to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership styles in Türkiye, providing critical insights for both scholars and practitioners. The findings of this study show that both transformational and transactional leadership increase firm performance and innovation in the Turkish work context. The findings show that transactional leadership has a stronger effect on firm performance in Turkish organizational culture, which has characteristics such as hierarchy, centralization, order, and a low tolerance for ambiguity; therefore, managers should give importance to rules, discipline, and order within the organization. Managers in Turkish firms should consider implementing clear reward structures and performance standards to maximize employee efficiency, aligning with transactional leadership principles. Managers should organize a work environment to meet their employees’ physical, security, and social needs. Since Türkiye has an inflationary economy (61.78% according to ENAG Turkish Statistical Institute, 100.88% according to ENAG-Independent Inflation Research Group) and unfortunately, the amount of wages (minimum wage 17,000 TL = 500 dollars) is low, managers and organizations should improve wages and fringe benefits (ENAG Inflation Research Group, n.d.; Jelača vd., 2020; Turkish Statistical Institute [TUIK], 2024). To reduce employees’ low tolerance for ambiguity, rules should be clear, implemented, and transparent, with well-defined job descriptions, authorities, and responsibilities. In managerial appointments and promotions, merit and job performance should be given more importance, and fairness should be exercised.

For Türkiye’s economic development and competitiveness to increase, importance should be given to innovation in the context of products, services, and ideas, and managers should display transformational and visionary characteristics. Therefore, company managers should organize the business environment to support innovation. Managers should encourage employees to develop new ideas, reduce their fear of making mistakes, and prioritize participation and autonomy. The low number of R&D and patents in OECD reports indicates the need for a business environment supporting innovation and transformational leadership (OECD, 2023).

The effectiveness of a particular leadership style is largely influenced by the characteristics of different work environments. While no single leadership style can be universally deemed the most effective, it is evident that various leadership approaches have distinct impacts on organizational success. Managers should align their leadership style with the business structure and organizational culture to enhance performance. Additionally, external factors, such as market dynamics and growth trends, must be taken into account when selecting an appropriate leadership approach. Based on the findings of this study, which indicate that transformational and transactional leadership are conducive to success in Turkish businesses, it is recommended that leaders embody traits associated with these leadership styles. Leadership development programs can be implemented to help managers acquire the necessary skills and characteristics associated with transformational and transactional leadership.

Conclusions

We can infer from our findings that while transformational leaders can increase financial and non-financial performance and innovation performance by empowering employees with a vision of the future, transactional leaders may contribute to firm performance by clearly determining performance standards and supporting employees with rewards in exchange for performance. It should be noted that transactional leadership can be more effective on financial and non-financial firm performance than transformational leadership and that it was the case for transformational leadership on firm innovation in the Turkish culture characterized by obedience, bureaucratic power, tangible goals, collectivism prioritizes cooperative behavior, kinship relations, and family (Hofstede, 1980; Sargut, 2001, 2015; Wasti, 2002).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251367515 – Supplemental material for Transformational or Transactional? A Comparison of the Effects of Leadership Styles on Firm Performance and Innovation in the Turkish Work Environment

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440251367515 for Transformational or Transactional? A Comparison of the Effects of Leadership Styles on Firm Performance and Innovation in the Turkish Work Environment by Hülya Gündüz Çekmecelioğlu, Meryem Özcan, Jale Balkaş and Fazilet Burcu Candan Çam in SAGE Open

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hülya Gündüz Çekmecelioğlu

Meryem Özcan

Jale Balkaş

Fazilet Burcu Candan Çam

Ethical Considerations

At the time this study was initiated,obtaining ethical approval for survey-based research was not a common practice in Türkiye. Therefore,no institutional ethical consent was sought prior to data collection. Although no institutional ethical approval was required/obtained at the time in Türkiye,the study fully complied with ethical principles by obtaining informed consent from participants and ensuring confidentiality.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset supporting the findings of this study is publicly available in the Harvard Dataverse repository at the following DOI:

References

Abbas

Ali

(2021). Transformational versus transactional leadership styles and project success: A meta-analytic review. European Management Journal, 41(1), 125–142.

Abdelwahed

N. A. A.

Soomro

B. A.

Shah

(2022). Predicting employee performance through transactional leadership and entrepreneur’s passion among the employees of Pakistan. Asia Pacific Management Review, 28(1), 60–68.

Afsar

Masood

(2018). Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncertainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 36–61.

Ahangar

R. G.

Rooshan

A. A.

(2009). Building managers as transformational leaders in public sector banks. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(5), 355–364.

Akbolat

Işık

Yılmaz

(2013). Dönüşümcü Liderlik Davranışının Motivasyon Ve Duygusal Bağlılığa Etkisiä Uluslararasıİktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 6(11), 35–50.

Akhan

C. E.

Kalemci

Altıntaş

M. H.

(2020). Grup Hedefleri Bağlamında Transformasyonel Liderliğin Satış PerformansıÜzerindeki Etkisinde Satış Yaratıcılığının Aracılık Rolü. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi. Journal of Business Research-Turk, 12(1), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2020.847

Alavi

Ehlig

P. A.

Habel

(2022). Transformational and transactional sales leadership during a global pandemic. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 42(4), 324–338.

Al-Hussami

(2009). Predictors of nurses’ commitment to health care organisations. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(4), 36–48.

Alrowwad

A. A.

Abualoush

S. H.

Masa’deh

R. E.

(2020). Innovation and intellectual capital as intermediary variables among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and organizational performance. Journal of Management Development, 39(2), 196–222

10.

Amabile

T. M.

Conti

Coon

Lazenby

Herron

(1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.

11.

Amabile

T. M.

Schatzel

E. A.

Moneta

G. B.

Kramer

S. J.

(2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.

12.

Amanchukwu

R. N.

Stanley

G. J.

Ololube

N. P.

(2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. Management, 5(1), 6–14.

13.

Arsawan

W. E.

Pasek

Suryantini

N. P. S.

(2016). Impact of transformational and transactional leadership styles on organizational commitment and SMEs business performance: A comparative analysis [Conference session]. 4th Gadjah Mada International Conference on Economics and Business (pp. 185–200). ACM Press.

14.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

(2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

15.

Avolio

B. J.

Zhu

Koh

Bhatia

(2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.

16.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Sanz-Vergel

(2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 25–53.

17.

Bakoğlu

(2001). Örgütsel Performans Kavramı ve Gelişimi. Öneri Dergisi, 4(15), 39–45.

18.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

19.

Bass

B. M.

(1997). Personal selling and transactional/transformational leadership. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17(3), 19–28.

20.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European Industrial Training, 14, 21–27.

21.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) [Database record; Computer Software]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t03624-000

22.

Bayraktaroğlu

Uluköy

Akçi

(2014). Kurumsal Kaynak Planlaması Başarısının Firmaların Algılanan ve Ölçülen Finansal Performansına Etkisinin İncelenmesi: Borsa İstanbul İmalat Sektörü Uygulaması. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(23), 277–299.

23.

Benmira

Agboola

(2021). Evolution of leadership theory. BMJ Leader, 5, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000296

24.

Bennis

W. G.

Nanus

(1997). Leaders: Strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). Harper Business.

25.

Bennis

W. G.

Townsend

(1995). Reinventing leadership. Collins Business Essential.

26.

Birasnav

(2014a). Relationship between transformational leadership behaviors and manufacturing strategy. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 22(2), 205–223.

27.

Birasnav

(2014b). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1622–1629.

28.

Blickle

Schütte

(2017). Trait psychopathy, task performance, and counterproductive work behavior directed toward the organization. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 225–231.

29.

Bonsu

Twum-Danso

(2018). Leadership style in the global economy: A focus on cross-cultural and transformational leadership. Journal of Marketing and Management, 9(2), 37–52.

30.

Bozkurt

Ö.

Göral

. (2013). Modern Liderlik Tarzlarının Yenilik Stratejilerine Etkisini Belirlemeye Yönelik Bir Çalışma. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(4), 1–15.

31.

Breevaart

Bakker

A. B.

(2018). Daily job demands and employee work engagement: The role of daily transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3), 338.

32.

BTHaber. (2023). Türkiye 2023 Ar-Ge ve Inovasyon Raporu Açıklandı. https://www.bthaber.com/turkiye-2023-ar-ge-ve-inovasyon-raporu-aciklandi/

33.

Burke

C. S.

Stagl

K. C.

Klein

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Halpin

S. M.

(2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307.

34.

Burns

J. M.

(1978). Leadership. Harper and Row.

35.

Byrne

B. M.

Shavelson

R. J.

Muthén

(1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456.

36.

Çağlar

. (2001). Yönetim-Kültür Bağlamında Türk Yönetim Modelinin Saptanmasına Yönelik Kavramsal Bir Çalışma. GÜİİBF Dergisi, 3, 125–148.

37.

Calantone

R. J.

Çavuşgil

Zhao

(2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(1), 515–524.

38.

Cappelli

(2020). Stop overengineering people management. Harvard Business Review, 98(5), 56–63.

39.

Çekmecelioğlu

H. G.

Özbağ

G. K.

(2016). Psychological empowerment and support for innovation in Turkish manufacturing industry: Relations with individual creativity and firm innovativeness. Journal of East European Management Studies, 21(1), 10–34.

40.

Çekmecelioğlu

H. G.

Özcan

Özbağ Kaya

(2023). Transformational leadership behaviors and the intrinsic motivation of employees in Turkey: The role of psychological empowerment and demographics. ASR: Chiang Mai University Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.12982/CMUJASR.2023.018

41.

Çekmecelioğlu

H. G.

Günsel

İlhan

Ö. Ö

. (2018). Keşifsel & Geliştirici Yeteneğe DayalıÇift Yönlülük: Dönüşümcü Liderlik, Çift Yönlülük, Firma Yenilikçiliği Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(1), 137–150.

42.

Çekmecelioğlu

H. G.

Ilhan

Ö. Ö.

Günsel

(2017). Transformational leadership and individual creativity: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 6(3), 224–232.

43.

Çelik

(2007). Eğitimsel Liderlik. Pegem Akademi.

44.

Çetin

Giderler

Güler

(2017). Lider Yöneticilerin Çalışanların Motivasyonuna & Performansına Etkisi: Kamu Kuruluşunda Bir Çalışma. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi & İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(4), 36–49.

45.

Chang

Bai

J. J.

(2015). The influence of leadership on product and process innovations in China: The contingent role of knowledge acquisition capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 50, 18–29.

46.

Chang

Jeong

(2021). Does leadership matter in performance of social enterprises in South Korea? Sustainability, 13(20), 11109.

47.

Chen

Zhang

(2021). Supply chain leadership and firm performance: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 235, 108082.

48.

Conger

J. A.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.

49.

Cummings

Oldham

G. R.

(1997). Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22–38.

50.

Dawes

(1999). The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures in market orientation research: Further empirical evidence. Marketing Bulletin-Department of Marketing Massey University, 10, 65–75.

51.

Deci

E. L.

Koestner

Ryan

R. M.

(1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668

52.

Delaney

J. T.

Huselid

M. A.

(1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969.

53.

Demirtaş

H. A.

(2003). Sosyal Kimlik Kuramı, Temel Kavram Ve Varsayımlar. İletişim Araştırmaları, 1(1), 123-144.

54.

Dess

G. G.

Robinson

R. B.

Jr . (1984). Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3), 265–273.

55.

Dollinger

M. J.

Golden

P. A.

(1992). Interorganizational and collective strategies in small firms: Environmental effects and performance. Journal of Management, 18(4), 695–715.

56.

Edwards

M. R.

Peccei

(2007). Organizational identification: Development and testing of a conceptually grounded measure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(1), 25–57.

57.

Elenkov

D. S.

(2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55(6), 467–480.

58.

Elkins

Keller

R. T.

(2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 587–606.

59.

ENAG Inflation Research Group. (n.d.). ENAGrup Consumer Price Index (E-CPI). Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://enagrup.org/?hl=en

60.

Engelen

Gupta

Strenger

Brettel

(2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, firm performance, and the moderating role of transformational leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1069–1097.

61.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2005.06.005

62.

Erdoğan

. (2004). School management and instructional leadership. Sistem Publishing.

63.

Eren

(2010). Örgütsel Davranış ve Yönetim Psikolojisi (12.bs.). Beta

64.

Eren

M. Ş.

Kaplan

(2014). Kurumsal Yetkinliklerin Örgütsel Performans Üzerindeki Etkileri: Üretim Firmalari Üzerine Bir Araştirma. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (40), 175–192.

65.

Erol

Türk

(2019). Türk Yönetim Kültürü Açısından Yöneticiler Ve Yönetilenler Arasındaki İlişkiler Hakkında Öğretmen Görüşleri [Conference presentation]. 5. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Kongresi, Balıkesir, Türkiye.

66.

Fikret Paşa

. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 414–426.

67.

Fırat

İ.

Yeşil

. (2020). Dönüşümcü Liderlik Özelliklerinin İşletmenin Yenilik Yeteneği Ve PerformansıÜzerindeki Etkisi. Beykent Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13(2), 40–57.

68.

Flanigan

R. L.

Bishop

J. L.

Brachle

B. J.

Winn

B. A.

(2017). Leadership and small firm performance: The moderating effects of demographic characteristics. Creiton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 3(1), 2–19.

69.

Fuller

J. B.

Morrison

Jones

Bridger

Brown

(1999). The effects of psychological empowerment on transformational leadership and job satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 389–391.

70.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

71.

Gao

Wang

Yan

Musse

S. Y.

(2021). Fostering workplace innovation through CSR and authentic leadership: Evidence from the SME sector. Sustainability, 13(10), 5388.

72.

García-Morales

V. J.

Jimenez-Barrionuevo

M. M.

GutierrezGutierrez

(2012), Transformational influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1040–1050.

73.

Gelaidan

H. M.

Houtgraaf

Al-Kwifi

O. S.

(2022). Creativity and innovation in rapidly developing Qatar: The impact of leadership and the mediation of psychological empowerment amidst rapid growth. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 35(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijpsm-01-2021-0016

74.

Görgülü

(2020). Case studies on the downside of transactional and authoritative organizational leadership styles during crisis management. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 10(4), 597–611.

75.

Gözükara

(2014). Liderlik Tipleri, Yenilikçi Kültür, Örgütsel Yaratıcılık Ve Firma Performansı Arasındaki İlişkiler [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].

76.

Greenleaf

R. K.

(2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

77.

Guevara

R. S.

Montoya

Carmody-Bubb

Wheeler

(2020). Physician leadership style predicts advanced practice provider job satisfaction. Leadership in Health Services, 33(1), 56–72.

78.

Gümüş

(2015). Dönüştürücü ve işlemci liderlik tarzının yenilikçilik davranışı ve firma performansına etkisi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Sakarya Üniversitesi.

79.

Gumusluoglu

Ilsev

(2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.

80.

Güngör

(2010). Eleştirel Kuram Bakış Açısından Ankara İli İlköğretim Okulu Yöneticileri Ve Öğretmenlerinin Eğitim Yönetiminde Otorite Ve Kültür Analizine İlişkin Görüşleri [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

81.

Hagedoorn

Cloodt

(2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32(8), 1365–1379

82.

Hansen

J. A.

Pihl-Thingvad

(2019). Managing employee innovative behavior through transformational and transactional leadership styles. Public Management Review, 21(6), 918–944.

83.

Haslam

S. A.

(2003). Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice. Psychology Press.

84.

Haslam

S. A.

Reicher

(2016). Rethinking the psychology of leadership: From personal identity to social identity. Daedalus, 145(3), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00394

85.

Hoch

J. E.

Bommer

W. H.

Dulebohn

J. H.

(2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44, 501–529.

86.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences. Sage Publications.

87.

Hofstede

(2002), Culture’s SCOLAR comparing values behaviors and institutions across nations. Sage.

88.

Hogg

M. A.

(2005). One of us: Social identity, group belonging, and leadership. MIT Press.

89.

Howell

J. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.891

90.

Hoyt

Blascovich

(2003). Transformational and transactional leadership in virtual and physical environments. Small Group Research, 34, 678–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403257527

91.

Hughes

D. J.

Lee

Tian

A. W.

Newman

Legood

(2018). Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 549–569.

92.

Ireland

R. D.

Hitt

M. A.

(2005). Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(4), 63–77.

93.

İşcan

Ö. F.

Ersarı

Naktiyok

. (2014). Effect of leadership style on perceived organizational performance and innovation: The role of transformational leadership beyond the impact of transactional leadership—An application among Turkish SME’s. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 881–889.

94.

Jacobs

Mafini

(2019). Transactional leadership, supply chain quality and business performance in the fast-moving consumer goods industry. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 13(1), 1–13.

95.

Jaiswal

N. K.

Dhar

R. L.

(2015). Transformational leadership, innovation climate, creative self-efficacy, and employee creativity: A multilevel study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.002

96.

Jelača

M. S.

Milićević

Bjekić

Petrov

(2020). The effects of environment uncertainty and leadership styles on organisational innovativeness. Engineering Economics, 31(4), 472–486.

97.

Jensen

Potočnik

Chaudhry

(2020). A mixed-methods study of CEO transformational leadership and firm performance. European Management Journal, 38(6), 836–845.

98.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

(2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755.

99.

Judge

T. A.

Robbins

S. P.

(2017). Organizational behavior. Pearson.

100.

Jung

D. I.

Chow

(2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 525–544.

101.

Kanter

R. M.

(1983). The change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. George Allen & Unwin.

102.

Kaplan

(2005). Transformasyonel ve Transaksiyonel Liderliğin İş Tatmini Ve Yenilikçilik Üzerindeki Etkisi [Unpublished Masters’ Thesis]. Dumlupınar University.

103.

Karahan

K. S.

Gümüş

(2021). Firma yönetici ve sahiplerinin liderlik tarzları: Van Organize Sanayi Bölgesi’nde Faaliyet gösteren işletmeler üzerine bir araştırma. In Sayısı

V. Ö.

(Ed.), Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi (pp. 673–702). Routledge.

104.

Keller

R. T.

(1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489–501.

105.

Kerrissey

M. J.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2020). What good leadership looks like during this pandemic. Harvard Business Review, 13(1), 1–8.

106.

Khalili

(2016). Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-supportive climate. Management Decision, 54(9), 2277–2293.

107.

Kılınçkaya

M. D.

(2005). Batının Doğu Tasavvurundaki Değişim ve Türkler. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları (HÜTAD), (3), 5–20.

108.

Kim

W. G.

Brymer

R. A.

(2011). The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1020–1026.

109.

Kittikunchotiwut

(2020). Transformational leadership and financial performance: The mediating roles of learning orientation and firm innovativeness. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 769–781.

110.

Koeslag-Kreunen

Van den Bossche

Hoven

Van der Klink

Gijselaers

(2018). When leadership powers team learning: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 49(4), 475–513.

111.

Kovjanic

Schuh

S. C.

Jonas

(2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543–555.

112.

Küçükaltan

Mert

(2020). Örgütlerde Dönüşümcü Liderlik ve Performans İlişkisinin Değişim Mühendisliği Aracı Rolünde İncelenmesi: İmalat Sanayii Örneği. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 15(1), 5065–5095.

113.

Laohavichien

Fredendall

L. D.

Cantrell

R. S.

(2009). The effects of transformational and transactional leadership on quality improvement. Quality Management Journal, 16(2), 7–24.

114.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2005). Transformational leadership. The Essentials of School Leadership, 31, 43.

115.

Lewin

Lippitt

White

R. K.

(1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299.

116.

(2019). Leadership styles and knowledge workers’ work engagement: Psychological capital as a mediator. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 38(5), 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9668-8

117.

Limsila

Ogunlana

S. O.

(2008). Performance and leadership outcome correlates of leadership styles and subordinate commitment. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 15(2), 164–184.

118.

Loo

(2000). A psychometric evaluation of the general decision-making style inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(5), 895–905.

119.

Jiang

(2018). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and employee creativity in entrepreneurial firms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 302–324.

120.

Macit

(2003). Leadership and Bass transactional and transformational leadership theory. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(5), 86–114.

121.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Rich

G. A.

(2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 115–134.

122.

Marsh

H. W.

Hocevar

(1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562.

123.

Masa’deh

R. E.

Obeidat

B. Y.

Tarhini

(2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681–705.

124.

McCall

M. W.

Jr . (1976). Leadership research: Choosing gods and devils on the run. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49(3), 139–153.

125.

McCleskey

J. A.

(2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117.

126.

McIver

Carmines

E. G.

(1981). Unidimensional scaling (No. 24). Sage Publications.

127.

Meisam

Saif-Urk

M. S.

Maryam

(2013). The job turnover, job satisfaction, ethical leadership, and organizational commitment impact on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Science and Agriculture, 8(5), 607–611.

128.

Moss

S. A.

Ritossa

D. A.

(2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadership style and follower performance, creativity, and work attitudes. Leadership, 3(4), 433–456.

129.

Mufti

Xiaobao

Shah

S. J.

Sarwar

Zhenqing

(2020). Influence of leadership style on job satisfaction of NGO employee: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(1), e1983.

130.

Mutahar

A. Y.

Rasli

A. M.

Al-Ghazali

B. M.

(2015). Relationship of transformational leadership, organizational learning and organizational performance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5(1), 406–411.

131.

Nanus

(1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. Jossey-Bass

132.

Nawaz

Z. A. K. D. A.

Khan

(2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review. Leadership, 16(1), 1–7.

133.

Nguyen-Huynh

M. N.

Young

J. D.

Alexeeff

Hatfield

M. K.

Sidney

(2019). Shake rattle & roll–design and rationale for a pragmatic trial to improve blood pressure control among blacks with persistent hypertension. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 76, 85–92.

134.

OECD. (2023). OECD economic surveys: Türkiye 2023. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-economic-surveys-turkiye-2023_864ab2ba-en.html

135.

Özbağ

G. K.

Çekmecelioğlu

H. G.

(2022). The relationships among employee empowerment, corporate reputation, and firm performance: Research in the Turkish manufacturing industry. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24, 23–47.

136.

Özer

Tınaztepe

(2014). Effect of strategic leadership styles on firm performance: A study in a Turkish SME. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 778–784.

137.

Özşahin

Zehir

(2011). Yüksek Performanslıİşletmelerde Liderlik, Girişim Odaklılık Ve Örgütsel Performans İlişkisi. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 115–140.

138.

Paksoy

Kumral

Sarp

(2019). The mediating role of knowledge sharing in the effect of transactional leadership and transformational leadership on organizational creativity. PressAcademia Procedia (PAP), 9, 69–73. http://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2019.1068

139.

Pedraja-Rejas

Rodríguez-Ponce

Delgado-Almonte

Rodríguez-Ponce

(2006). Transformational and transactional leadership: A study of their influence in small companies. Ingeniare. Revista Chilena de Ingeniería, 14(2), 159–166.

140.

Peterson

S. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Byron

Myrowitz

(2009). CEO positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of Management, 35(2), 348–368.

141.

Petrov

A. A.

Chernyak

N. B.

(2019). Validization of the Russian version of the questionnaire «internet gaming disorder scale—short-form. VM Bekhterev Revıew of Psychıatry and Medıcal Psychology, (3), 53–63.

142.

Pillai

Williams

E. A.

(2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 144–159.

143.

Powell

T. C.

(1992). Research notes and communications strategic planning as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 551–558.

144.

Prasad

Junni

(2016). CEO transformational and transactional leadership and organizational innovation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Management Decision, 54(7), 1542–1568.

145.

Price

(2017). The construction of cultural leadership. ENCATC Journal of Cultural Management & Policy, 7(1), 5–16.

146.

Puni

Hilton

S. K.

Mohammed

Korankye

E. S.

(2022). The mediating role of innovative climate on the relationship between transformational leadership and firm performance in developing countries: The case of Ghana. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(3), 404–421.

147.

Qin

Y. S.

DiStaso

M. W.

Fitzsimmons

A. B.

Heffron

(2023). Communicating the big picture with employees: The impacts of CEO vision communication on employee engagement. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884231190387

148.

Janssen

Shi

(2015). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 286–299.

149.

Rast

D. E.

(2015). Leadership in times of uncertainty: Recent findings, debates, and potential future research directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(3), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12163

150.

Razzaq

Sami

Hammad

(2020). Transformational leadership and organizational performance in Western & non-Western context: Systematic review of 2019. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Research, 3(3), 58–60.

151.

Richard

P. J.

Devinney

T. M.

Yip

G. S.

Johnson

(2009). Measuring organizational performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 35(3), 718–804.

152.

Rickards

Chen

M. H.

Moger

(2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and performance relationships. British Journal of Management, 12(3), 243–250.

153.

Robbins

Judge

T. A.

(2017). Örgütsel Davranış. Nobel Akademik Yayincilik.

154.

Rothfelder

Ottenbacher

M. C.

Harrington

R. J.

(2012). The impact of transformational, transactional and non-leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in the German hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12(4), 201–214.

155.

Russell

(2011). Leadership theories and style: A traditional approach. Unpublished paper submitted for the General Douglas MacArthur Military Leadership Writing Competition.

156.

Samson

A. T.

Ilesanmi

O. A.

(2019). The relationship between transactional leadership, transformational leadership and performance of SMEs in Nigeria. Noble International Journal of Business and Management Research, 3(4), 73–85.

157.

Sang

(2017). Effect of transformational and transactional leadership on innovation performance among small and medium enterprise in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 5(11), 747–760.

158.

Santos

J. B.

Brito

L. A. L.

(2012). Toward a subjective measurement model for firm performance. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 9, 95–117.

159.

Sargut

A. S.

(2001). Kültürler Arası Farklılaşma Ve Yönetim (2. Baskı). İmge Kitabevi.

160.

Sargut

A. S.

(2010). Kültürler Arası Farklılaşma Ve Yönetim. İmge Kitabevi.

161.

Sargut

A. S.

(2015). Lider Yöneticinin Benliğine Yolculuk. Beta.

162.

Schein

R. H.

(1997). The place of landscape: A conceptual framework for interpreting an American scene. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(4), 660–680.

163.

Schermuly

C. C.

Creon

Gerlach

Graßmann

Koch

(2022). Leadership styles and psychological empowerment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(1), 73–95.

164.

Scott

S. G.

Bruce

R. A.

(1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

165.

Şentürk

Yetgin

(2022). Mediator role of change management and corporate governance perception in the effect of leadership style on financial performance in corporations. Yıldız Social Science Review, 8(2), 108–120.

166.

Sezginer

(2014). Yöneticilik Kavramı ve Türk Yöneticileri Üzerine [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. St. Clements University.

167.

Shafi

Lei

Song

Sarker

M. N. I.

(2020). The effects of transformational leadership on employee creativity: Moderating role of intrinsic motivation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 25(3), 166–176.

168.

Shin

Sung

S. Y.

Choi

J. N.

Kim

M. S.

(2015). Top management ethical leadership and firm performance: Mediating role of ethical and procedural justice climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 43–57.

169.

Siegel

S. M.

Kaemmerer

W. F.

(1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(5), 553.

170.

Silva

(2016). What is leadership? Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(1), 1.

171.

Şişman

(2011). Örgütler ve Kültürler (3rd ed.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.

172.

Sosik

J. J.

Avolio

B. J.

Kahai

S. S.

(1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 89.

173.

Steffens

N. K.

Haslam

S. A.

Reicher

S. D.

(2014). Up close and personal: Evidence that a shared social identity is a basis for the ‘special’ relationship that binds followers to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.08.008

174.

Susantinah

Jusman

I. A.

Ardi

(2023). Transformational leadership dynamics and its influence on innovation in the realm of entrepreneurial management. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management (ADMAN), 1(3), 245–250.

175.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56(65), 1–16

176.

Tavanti

(2008). Transactional leadership. In Tavanti

(Ed.), Leadership: The key concepts (pp. 166–170). Routledge.

177.

Tavassoli

Karlsson

(2015). Persistence of various types of innovation analyzed and explained. Research Policy, 44, 1887–1901.

178.

Thahira

Tjahjono

H. K.

Susanto

(2020). The influence of transactional leadership on organization innovativeness (OI) mediated by organizational learning capability (OLC) in medium small enterprise Kendari City. Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis, 11(1), 90–104.

179.

Tidd

Bessant

(2009). Managing innovation—Integrating technological, market and organizational change (4th ed.). Wiley

180.

Tierney

Farmer

S. M.

Graen

G. B.

(1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.

181.

Tippins

M. J.

Sohi

R. S.

(2003). IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a missing link?. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.337

182.

Trepte

Loy

L. S.

(2017). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In Rössler

(Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media effects (pp. 1–13). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0088

183.

Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK). (2024). Consumer Price Index, July 2024. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Tuketici-Fiyat-Endeksi-Temmuz-2024-53617

184.

Uzkurt

(2008). Pazarlamada Değer Yaratma Aracı Olarak Yenilik Yönetimi ve Yenilikçi Örgüt Kültürü. Beta.

185.

Van Dierendonck

. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228–1261.

186.

Van Heerden

Roodt

. (2007). The development of a measuring instrument for assessing a high performance culture. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 33(1), 18–28.

187.

Van Knippenberg

De Cremer

Hogg

M. A

. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 825–856.

188.

Venkatraman

Ramanujam

(1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801–814.

189.

Voon

M. L.

M. C.

Ngui

K. S.

Ayob

N. B.

(2011). The influence of leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in public sector organizations in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Management and Social Sciences, 2(1), 24–32.

190.

Vroom

V. H.

Jago

A. G.

(2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17.

191.

Wang

I. S.

Courtright

S. H.

Colbert

A. E.

(2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223–270.

192.

Wang

Rode

J. C.

Shi

Luo

Chen

(2013). A workgroup climate perspective on the relationships among transformational leadership, workgroup diversity, and employee creativity. Group & Organization Management, 38(3), 334–360.

193.

Wardaya

A. S.

I. G.

Bandur

(2019). Mediating effects of digital technology on entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: Evidence from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT), 8(5c), 692–696.

194.

Wasti

S. A.

(2002). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization: Test of an integrated model in the Turkish context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(5), 525–550.

195.

Westley

Mintzberg

(1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 17–32.

196.

Willets

Clarke

(2014). Constructing nurses’ professional identity through social identity theory. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 20(2), 164–169.

197.

Sawyer

J. E.

Griffin

R. W.

(1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

198.

Worden

(2003). The role of integrity as a mediator in strategic leadership: A recipe for reputational capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 31–44.

199.

World Bank Group. (2024). The World Bank in Türkiye. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/turkey/overview#3

200.

Xie

Zou

(2018). Knowledge absorptive capacity and innovation performance in high-tech companies: A multi-mediating analysis. Journal of Business Research, 88, 289–297.

201.

Chen

Xie

Liu

Zheng

Wang

(2006). Total innovation management: A novel paradigm of innovation management in the 21st century. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1–2), 9–25.

202.

Yiğiter

. (2011). İçsel Performans Göstergeleri ve Müşteri Memnuniyeti İlişkisi. Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 23, 1–17.

203.

Yıldız

Baştürk

Boz

İ. T.

(2014). The effect of leadership and innovativeness on business performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 785–793.

204.

Zhu

Yao

Liu

Ren

Cai

Tang

(2021). Stress relaxation behaviour of marble under cyclic weak disturbance and confining pressures. Measurement, 182, 109777.

205.

Yukl

(2006). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Pearson Education India.

206.

Yukl

(2012). Leadership. Cases in leadership (3rd. ed. pp. 1–42). Sage.

207.

Zehir

(2016). Pazar Yönelimi, Öğrenme Yönelimi, Rekabet Stratejileri Ve Firma Performansıİlişkisi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gebze Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

208.

Zhu

Sosik

J. J.

Riggio

R. E.

Yang

(2012). Relationships between transformational and active transactional leadership and followers’ organizational identification: The role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 13(3), 168–212.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.64 MB