The path-goal theory has its roots in the expectancy theory of motivation.

History of Leadership in Sport

Like many theoretical and technological advances, progress in the study of leader behaviors emerged in response to the events of World War II (Guetzkow, 1951). The majority of these early theoretical outcomes focused on military, political, or industrial leadership. The concept of leadership gained broad acceptance as “the behavioral process of influencing individuals or groups toward set goals” (Barrow, 1977, p. 232). It was also in the 1970s when scholars began to apply leader behavior concepts to the sport leader (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1978). Coaches are universally recognized as the leaders in sport. Early research in the sport setting indicated that coaches demonstrate identifiable behaviors when leading their teams (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). Unfortunately, there was a lack of importance assigned to athletic leadership and efforts to further understand this unique role. Two major categories of theories were employed as the early sport leadership literature was born: behavioral and situational.

Behavioral Theories

The position taken by those condoning the behavioral approaches to leadership directs the focus on behaviors exhibited by effective leaders. It was suggested that successful leaders demonstrate similar behaviors such as communication, organization, and initiation (Hemphill & Coons, 1957). This lent an optimistic perspective; if these behaviors could be identified, it follows that they could then be taught. Thus, leaders could be trained to become effective by learning and exhibiting specific behaviors (Cox, 1998).

The majority of this classic research was conducted at The Ohio State University (OSU) and the University of Michigan (UM) during the 1950s and 1960s. The goal of both of these ambitious projects was to determine universal behaviors of successful leaders. The longitudinal work performed at OSU focused on identifying, describing, and evaluating leader behaviors in varied settings (military, business, industrial, education); the researchers at UM aimed to identify leader behaviors specifically associated with production in industrial environments (Kahn & Katz, 1951). Both groups of researchers concluded their work by identifying two key leadership factors. For the OSU team, those factors included Initiating Structure and Consideration; for their counterparts at UM the two factors included Production Emphasis and Employee Orientation. These two major outcomes paralleled one another, and the terms have been used interchangeably in research (Cox, 1998).

Situational Theories

While behavioral theorists were busy identifying effective leader behaviors, the situational approach was being developed to accommodate contextual demands. In short, leadership demands change in certain environments, so situational variables (i.e., experience, goals, environment) must be taken into account. Several theories emerged; there are four, in particular, that served as the framework for contemporary theoretical development in coach leadership in the sport setting. These theories are the following: the Contingency Theory of Leader Effectiveness (Fiedler, 1967), Path-Goal Theory (Evans, 1970), Adaptive-Reactive Theory (Osborn & Hunt, 1975), and Discrepancy Theory (Yukl, 1971). Using these theories as the basis for studying leadership in sport, researchers integrated concepts gleaned from these situational approaches to create theories relevant to the sport environment (Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

Multidimensional Model of Leadership

In the late 1970s, researchers began applying leader behavior concepts to sports. However, there is a considerable gap between the importance assigned to athletic leadership and efforts to systematically understand the leader role in this unique competitive setting. One factor contributing to this gap is that early sport researchers interested in coaching behavior tested their hypotheses using theories developed for the corporate environment. However, there are differences between these two settings, and these differences may contribute to the inconsistent results on coach behaviors in early research. One difference is the disproportionate amount of time spent training and being assessed. In sports, the majority of time is spent practicing, while in the work setting, employees may have one training session a year (Chelladurai, 1978). Furthermore, in sports, there is only one winner, and the life of intact teams is relatively short compared to employment stability in work environments. Therefore, a sport-specific model was needed to study coach behaviors. The integration of the four situational theories delineated above served as the basis for Chelladurai’s Multidimensional Model of Leadership (MML; Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1978).

The MML posits that group performance and member satisfaction are functions of the congruence among three leader behaviors: required, actual, and preferred (Chelladurai, 1978). Situational, leader, and member characteristics are treated as antecedents to the three leader behaviors, while performance and satisfaction are consequences. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the MML (Figure 2).

As demonstrated by the model, situational characteristics (i.e., goals of the team, organizational structure, social norms, cultural values, governmental regulations) directly affect the coach’s required behavior and the team’s preferred behavior. The individual characteristics of group members directly affect the coach’s required behavior and the group members’ preferred behavior. Furthermore, the coach’s actual behavior is influenced by the coach’s personal characteristics, requirements demanded by the situation, and the preferred behaviors of the team members. Consequently, the degree of congruence among the required, actual, and preferred behaviors directly affects the levels of performance and satisfaction of the group members. The embedded feedback loop projects how the actual coach behavior may be a consequence of performance and satisfaction of the group. In order to test the efficacy of this model in sport, Chelladurai and Saleh (1978, 1980) created the Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS). This questionnaire is utilized to measure athlete perceptions of coach behavior (required, actual, preferred) via five dimensions. The dimension of Training and Instruction measures coaches’ teaching behavior; both Democratic Behavior and Autocratic Behavior measure coaches’ decision-making styles; and the two dimensions of Social Support and Positive Feedback measure coaches’ motivational tendencies.

The majority of research using the MML as a framework and the LSS as a tool addresses three distinct facets. The most widely studied facet is the predominantly descriptive work influence of member characteristics on preferred and perceived coach behaviors. The second, and more complex, approach is to determine the congruence between preferred and perceived coach behaviors in relation to athlete satisfaction. Finally, researchers attempt to relate coach behaviors to athlete performance.

Member Characteristics and Coach Behavior

The most commonly perceived coaching behavior reported by all athletes is Training and Instruction (Amorose & Horn, 2000; Chelladurai, 1984; Wallin, 2003). However, personality differences impacting preferred coaching are also identified (Chelladurai & Carron, 1981, pp. 87–101; Serpa, Unpublished manuscript). Therefore, the most common approach researchers take when studying leadership via the MML is how member characteristics affect preferred and perceived coach behaviors. The member characteristics that have been subjected to scientific inquiry include gender, age, experience, and various psychological qualities (confidence and motivation).

Coach Behavior and Satisfaction

As predicted by the MML, the greater the congruency between preferred and actual coach behavior the greater the levels of satisfaction (Chelladurai, 1978; Chelladurai & Carron, 1978). Supportive results reveal that low levels of discrepancy between coach behavior and athletes’ preferences are strongly associated with satisfaction in leadership (Riemer & Chelladurai, 1995; Madeson, 2005; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). Furthermore, high congruency between preferred and actual Training and Instruction, Democratic Behavior, and Social Support increases satisfaction (Schliesman, 1987; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). These results offer evidence that the premise of the MML is reliable. When coach behaviors are consistent, satisfaction is enhanced.

Coach Behavior and Performance

This third line of inquiry attempts to determine congruencies between specific coach behaviors and performance outcomes. The results of much of this research are inconsistent. One reason may be the diverse methods for measuring performance (win-loss percentage, point differential, and individual statistics). Furthermore, performance outcomes may be influenced by factors such as weather, opponent’s great performance, and poor officiating. Thus, the relationship between coach behavior and performance posed in the MML has not been confirmed (Chelladurai, 1978; Garland & Barry, 1988; Wallin, 2003). In fact, one study reported that high levels of Social Support were related to low levels of team performance (Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). Summers (1983) found that coaches who use Training and Instruction through the season actually decreased in team performance. Clearly, further exploration on the impact of coach behaviors (preferred, perceived) on performance is warranted.

Summary of Leadership in Sport

There is concrete empirical evidence, which supports the utility of the MML in sport. There are recurring themes in the coach behavior literature. Training and Instruction is consistently identified as the primary perceived leader behavior. Furthermore, the effects of member characteristics (i.e., gender, age, experience) on preferred leader behavior are evident. In support of the model, congruency between preferred coach behavior and actual coach behavior is found to correlate with athletes’ satisfaction. However, minimal evidence demonstrates the relationship between coach behaviors and performance. Further exploration into athlete perceptions of coaching has ensued and will be examined here.

6.1.1 Self-expansion

The path goal theory style of leadership encourages self-expansion in followers by directing followers toward a mutually desired goal. Much like situational leadership, path goal theory is a style that is tailored to individual followers. The appropriate leader behavior is dictated by follower-, task-, and situation-related characteristics: Individuals face different obstacles and require different resources in achieving goals, and leaders base their behavior and assistance on these varying needs. Followers, in turn, tend to self-expand due to two factors. First, a sense of shared purpose develops because leaders are so closely involved in clearing the path for followers' achievements. Because leader and follower move along the same path toward the follower's goals, the follower will likely self-expand to include the leader. Second, followers recognize that the leader is a source of the very particular resources that are needed for goal completion. Because the leader possesses such valuable resources, followers tend to include the leader and those resources in the self.

Path goal theory allows for self-expansion in followers because the leader provides resources needed to make goals more achievable by followers. Because leadership is customized to address particular follower obstacles and needs, followers view the leader as a valuable resource and will expand to incorporate the leader in the self. In addition, followers perceive the leader to have mutually held goals because the leader focuses on helping followers achieve those goals. This can also result in the close relationships required for self-expansion.

6.1.2 Boundary conditions and self-expansion

Because a leader who adheres to path goal theory should reduce followers' role ambiguity, it is important to note that not all followers will respond to role ambiguity in the same way. As such, boundary conditions for path goal theory include factors influencing followers' reactions to role ambiguity. For example, need for clarity (Keller, 1989) acts as a boundary condition for path goal theory. Keller (1989) noted that “subjects who also have a low need for clarity may prefer to provide their own task structure rather than rely on the leader” (p. 209). This suggests that those persons with a low need for clarity may not find a leader who initiates structure according to path goal theory as a resource and, therefore, may not self-expand.

In addition, the leader's role in path goal theory is to make goals more accessible. Consequently, the nature of the task may act as a boundary condition. Three task dimensions—task variety, task feedback, and opportunity to deal with others—act as boundary conditions as well (Schriesheim & DeNisi, 1981). For those followers with low task variety, the need for an instrumental leader may be diminished because the tasks would become routine. This may mean that there is less opportunity or motivation for the follower to expand with the leader. Conversely, higher task feedback and opportunity to deal with others may hinder the self-expansion process because the follower has other resources to use in achieving goals, so expansion with the leader may not be necessary.

2.2.1 Trait approach

Traits reflect those characteristics that are hard-wired in people, those that are innate and cannot be changed.

2.2.2 Skills approach

Skills are those elements of leadership that can be learned and developed through practice. Leadership skills can be further divided into two types; technical skill and human skill. Examples of specific skills include: problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge.

2.2.3 Style approach

The focus here is all about what leaders do and how they act. It is known for extending the study of leadership into looking at actions of leaders toward subordinates in different contexts. Research involving the style approach attempts to explain how leaders' task behaviors and relational behaviors influence subordinates toward reaching goals.

2.2.4 Situational approach

Highly utilized in leadership training and development, this approach emphasizes the need for different types of leadership according to situations. Thus, leadership style should be determined by what the situation calls for.

2.2.5 Contingency theory

Fiedler's contingency theory suggests that a leader's effectiveness depends on how well their leadership style fits the context. This theory provides leadership researchers and practitioners with a framework for effectively matching leaders to situations.

2.2.6 Path-goal theory

A derivative of expectancy theory, path-goal theory suggests that the leader is challenged with using a leadership style that best meets subordinates' motivational needs. It's all in how leaders are able to motivate subordinates to accomplish specific goals.

2.2.7 Leader–member exchange theory (LMX)

Characterized by treating the leader–subordinate relationship as a dyadic event, LMX theory is based on interactions between leader and subordinate in ways that formulate in-groups and out-groups.

2.2.8 Transformational leadership

A leadership process that is thought to transform people, transformational leadership includes four factors; idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual motivation, and individualized consideration. According to Avolio (1999), Bass and Avolio (1990) leaders improve subordinates' performance by developing their potential through practicing the four factors.

2.2.9 Servant leadership

Servant leadership offers a unique perspective to leadership in that it views leadership within a framework of leaders serving their followers by putting the good of followers over their own self-interests. In the context of leadership research, servant leadership is sometimes viewed as a trait and other times as a behavior.

2.2.10 Authentic leadership

The main focus of authentic leadership is on a leader's genuineness. Although there is no single acknowledged definition of authentic leadership, it is collectively viewed in three different ways including; intrapersonal, developmental, and interpersonal.

2.2.11 Team leadership

This approach to leadership looks at how leader behaviors (mainly leader decisions) affect team performance. Although this is one approach that takes into consideration the complexities of working teams, existing disapproval for team leadership rests on the very nature of the model's complexity making it difficult to effectively research and practice.

2.2.12 Psychodynamic approach

This model represents many different ways of looking at leadership using one underlying fundamental concept, personality. The concept of personality is defined as a consistent pattern of thinking, feeling, and acting toward the environment, which includes other people. Therefore, the psychodynamic approach focuses on personalities of leaders and followers for studying leadership.

2.2.13 Women and leadership

Much of this research approach is based on gender and leadership styles and effectiveness, along with identification of barriers to high-level leadership positions by women in general.

2.2.14 Culture and leadership

Since globalization has required countries around the world to become more interdependent there is a clear need for developing an understanding of how cultural differences affect leadership performance and outcomes. Research in the area of culture and leadership provides leaders with the ability to practice effective leadership cross-culturally.

2.2.15 Leadership ethics

This approach discusses what ethical issues arise in leadership situations and how they affect others individually and collectively.

2.1 The role of followers in traditional leadership research

The traditional view of leadership framed followers as the passive recipients of leader characteristics (e.g., traits and skills) and behaviors and restricted itself to examining the flow of influence from leaders to followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1980, 1992). This limited perspective began to change with situational theories of leader effectiveness (i.e., contingency models) that recognized the potential effects of followers on leader behaviors and identified when and for whom certain leader behaviors were optimal. In many of these theories, follower effects are either explicitly modeled (e.g., Fiedler, 1967) or implicitly hinted at (e.g., Evans, 1970). For example, Fiedler's Contingency Theory theorized that the relationship between leadership style and leader effectiveness was based on whether or not the leader's style matched the context, in particular the quality of the leader–member relations (the extent to which followers trust, respect, and have confidence in their leaders, Fiedler, 1967). Other contingency theories followed suit. Hersey and Blanchard's (1969) Situational Leadership Theory suggested that leaders should strike a balance between their task- and people-oriented behaviors depending on the confidence and skill set of their followers while Path-Goal Theory (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House & Mitchell, 1974) argued that follower characteristics were key factors to shaping leader effectiveness.

In each of these approaches the role of followers is made clear. Their capabilities, traits or preferences are said to determine what type of leader is most effective (Achua & Lussier, 2007; Yukl, 2013). However, in each of these theories followers are still non-actors. They are not behaving or explicitly reacting to leader behaviors. At best they are simply features (albeit important ones) of the leader's context. A truly explicit follower-centered approach did not appear until the emergence of implicit leadership theories (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994) and Meindl's (1995) social constructionist approach to leadership (Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-Bien, 2006).

2.2 Follower-centered approaches to leadership

Implicit leadership theories (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann et al., 1994) argue that leadership actually exists in the minds of followers. These approaches represent the first shift from a leader-centered to a follower-centered perspective of leadership. They focus on how followers' implicit beliefs and assumptions regarding the characteristics of leader effectiveness (e.g., Lord et al., 1984) translate into prototypes for an ideal leader in a given situation or context. Leaders who match the prototype are expected to be assessed more favorably by their followers.

Meindl (1995) built on this approach to argue that leadership can be effective only when followers view it as such and highlighted two important issues regarding the extant leadership research. First, there is a reciprocal relationship between leaders and followers. Second, because leadership focuses on “the linkage between leaders and followers as constructed in the minds of followers” (p. 220), leadership outcomes should not be operationalized as the self-perceptions or self-reports of leaders, but as the perceptions of followers (Bligh & Schyns, 2007).

This follower-centered approach to leadership research did not assign an active role to followers, however it did argue that follower perceptions, preferences or attitudes (as influenced by their traits and emotional arousal) can (passively) shape or even restrain leadership processes (e.g., Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). A good example of this is the recent work of Grant and his colleagues (2011) in which they demonstrated that employee proactivity and employee perceptions of receptivity moderate the relationship between leader extraversion and group performance such that when followers are more proactive leader extraversion is negatively rather than positively, related to group performance.

This new follower-centered approach triggered a series of theoretical extensions and empirical tests of the potential of followers to shape the leadership process. One of these lines of research argued that leadership is a social process or system and that leaders, as part of this social system, are subject to its influences (e.g., followers) (e.g., DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001; Lord et al., 1999). As we will discuss shortly, it is this emphasis on the social nature of leadership that makes social influence a logical framework for theorizing about the effects of followers on leaders. First, however, it is necessary to review the next step in the evolution of the literature on follower effects, followership.

2.3 Followership and leadership

It seems obvious (in hindsight) that followers should be more than the sum of their individual differences and attitudes. Followers behave, and their behaviors can have an effect on their leaders. In line with Shamir's (2007) perspective to followership and the definition of Carsten et al. (2010), “followership adopts the follower as the primary focus and explores how followership behaviors are related to organizational outcomes of interest (e.g., leadership, performance)” (p.543). By expanding our examination of followers to include how their behaviors shape (and are shaped by) leaders it becomes clear that the role of followers has been underestimated to date.

The emerging followership literature positions follower behaviors and reactions as a driver (as well as result of) of leader behaviors (e.g., Carsten et al., 2010; Collinson, 2006). Followership also differentiates among types of followers to argue that some followers may be more beneficial, constructive, and influential in the leadership process and as a result should differentially impact their leaders. The followership literature, however, is still in its early stages and empirical studies are few and far between. As such, in this section we will discuss the ongoing theoretical work on follower taxonomies, but will switch to the power, influence and upward feedback literatures to develop specific propositions of how and why followers can influence a leader's perceptions, attitudes and behaviors.

3.1 Search results

The electronic database search yielded a total of 50,941 titles and abstracts, with 16,277 titles and abstracts resulting from the search update. Following removal of duplicates in the updated search, 5898 titles and abstracts were screened using the inclusion criteria and 351 manuscripts were retrieved for full-text screening. After final selection using the inclusion criteria for this review, 76 studies (reported in 84 papers) were added to the 53 studies included in the original review (1985–2009). In cases where multiple manuscripts were published from a single study, we counted them as one study in our analysis. Therefore, 129 studies (53 original and 76 updated) were included. All studies were quantitative in design. See Table 1 for search results.

Table 1. Search strategy.

Database 1985–2017Search termsOriginal 2010 ReviewSearch UpdateTotal # titles & abstractsABI Informleadership AND352139491•

research (Subject)

evaluation (Subject)

measurement (Subject)

research (KW)

evaluation (KW)

measurement (KW)

research (KW)

evaluation (KW)

measurement (KW)

research (MP)

evaluate$ (MP)

measure$ (MP)

research (MP)

evaluate$ (MP)

measure$ (MP)

research (MP)

evaluate$ (MP)

measure$ (MP)

research (MP)

evaluate$ (MP)

measure$ (MP)

research (MP)

evaluate$ (MP)

measure$ (MP)

research (MP)

evaluate$ (MP)

measure$ (MP)

Note: For the updated search (2007–2017) the term nurs* was added as a search heading for each database in order to return only nursing relevant studies.

Of the 129 included studies, published between 1985 and 2017, 74 were conducted in North America (43 in the United States, 29 in Canada, 1 in Canada and the United States, and 1 in Canada and Australia), 24 in Europe, 11 in Asia, 8 in the Middle East, 4 in Australasia, 2 in Africa, and 6 had no stated country. See Table 2 for all characteristics of included studies.

Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.

Ref#Author(s), Journal, Year & CountrySampleMeasurement/InstrumentsScoringReliabilityValidityAnalysis1Al-Hussammi (2008), Euro J Sci Res, USAn = 55 RNs/ LPNs­- Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967)20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91NRPearson product-moment correlation coefficientsRR = 92%­- Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Meyer et al., 1993)23 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.85NRMultiple regression4 long term care facilities­- Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger et al., 1986)16 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.75NR­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 6S (Bass and Avolio, 1992)18 items, 5 pt scaleMean scoreNR2Avolio et al. (2004), J Org Behav, Singaporen = 502 nurses­- Modified Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X (Bass and Avolio, 1997)20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87 & 0.82NRAggregationRR = 80%­- Organizational Commitment (Cook and Wall, 1980)9 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87NRHLM1 hospital­- Psychological Empowerment (adapted from Jones’ self–efficacy scale, 1986, Ashforth’s Helplessness Scale 1989, Tymon, 1988, Hackman & Oldham’s autonomy scale, 1980).2 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.75 & 0.84NR3Boström et al. (2007), J Eval in Clin Practice, SwedenN = 132 NAs, ENs, RNs, & rehab professionals,­- Research Utilization Questionnaire (Champion and Leach, 1989; Pettengill et al., 1994; Humphris et al., 1999 NR) 5 subscales5 pt scaleα = 0.89NRChi-square, t-test, Fischer’s exact testRR = 67%­- Creative Climate Questionnaire: (author NR)50 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.77 & 0.91NRSpearman’s test Multiple7 elderly care unitslogistic regression4Boumans and Landeweerd (1993, 1994), J Adv Nurs & Heart Lung, Netherlands305 ICU nurses­- Leadership (Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (Stogdill, 1963)20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90 & 0.82NRANOVA256 general nurses­- Job Satisfaction (Algera, 1981; Boumans, 1990)42 itemsα = 0.80NRANCoVA16 hospitals­- Health Complaints (Organizational Stress Questionnaire (Reiche and Van Dijkhuizen, 1979; Reichert and Smeltzer, 1999; Algera, 1981)28 itemsα = 0.75NRFisher's Z­- Absenteeism (self report)Frequencyr = 0.75Piloted­- Job Significance (no title, Hackman and Oldham, 1975)11 items, sumα = 0.56NR5Boyle et al. (1999), Am J Crit Care, Country NR255 nurses­- Leadership (no title: (Kruse and Stogdill, 1973)Range 10–50, 12–60α = 0.83 & 0.92NRPearson r Multiple regression14 ICU's­- Job Satisfaction (no title, (Hinshaw et al., 1987; Price and Mueller, 1981)Range 11–66, 6–36α = 0.85 & 0.78NR­- Intent to Stay (no title: (Price and Mueller, 1986))Range: 4–20α = 0.87NR6Bycio et al. (1995), J Appl Psychol, Country NR1376 RNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-1 (MLQ-1, Bass, 1985)40 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.71–0.97No measures were reportedFactor Analysis RegressionMultiple hospitals­- Extra Effort, Satisfaction with Leader, Leader Effectiveness (MLQ -1 (Bass, 1985))9 itemsα = 0.79–0.91RR = 57%- Intent to Quit/Leave Profession (no title & author)3 itemsα = 0.87­- Organizational Commitment (Affective, Continuance, & Normative: (Allen and Meyer, 1990))24 itemsα = 0.73–0.867Casida and Pinto-Zipp (2008), Casida et al. (2012), Casida and Parker (2011), Nurs Econ, Res Theory Nurs Pract, J Nurs Manag, USA & Nurs Econ, USA37 NMs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, form 5X-short (Avolio and Bass, 2004)36 items, 5 pt scaleα = >0.90CFI=0.91, Goodness of Fit = 0.92Correlational278 staff nurses­- Nursing unit organizational culture (Denison’s Organizational Culture Survey (Denison, 2007))60 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87–0.92CFI = 0.91, Goodness of Fit = 0.99RR = 70%4 hospitals8Chen et al. (2005), Chen and Baron (2006), J Nurs Schol & J Nurs Educ, Taiwan286 nursing faculty members­ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X Chinese Version: (Shieh et al., 2001) 9 subscales36 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.64–0.88NRHierarchical multiple regression, t-test, one-way ANOVA bivariate correlationsRR = 73%­- Job Satisfaction (Minnesota Satisfaction questionnaire Chinese Version: (Lin, 2016))20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.80–0.91NR9Chiok Foong Loke (2001), J Nurs Manage, Singapore20 managers­- Leadership Practices Inventory: self & observer (Kouzes and Posner, 1995)30 items × 2, 5 pt scaleα = 0.81–0.91NRANOVARR = 100%­- Job-In-General scale (Smith et al., 1989)18 items, yes/no/?α = 0.91–0.95Convergent97 RNs­- Productivity (Productivity scale (McNeese-Smith, 1995)15 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90–0.93NRRegressionRR = 97%­ - Organizational Commitment scale (Porter et al., 1974)15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.82–0.93NR10Cummings (2004), Cummings et al. (2005), Can J Nurs Leadership & Nurs Res, Canada6526 RNs­- Resonant Leadership (Emotional Intelligence (Goleman et al., 2002)13 itemsNRNRStructural Equation Modeling (SEM)­- Hospital Restructuring (Alberta RN Survey (Giovannetti et al., 2002); also included Revised Nursing Work Index: (Aiken and Patrician, 2000) & Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1996))139 items; NWI-R 4 pt scale, MBI – 6 ptNRNRAll AB acute care hospitals­- Emotional Exhaustion (NWI-R) (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)Not reported­- Emotional Health (MBI (Maslach et al., 1996)6 pt scale­- Workgroup collaboration (NWI-R) (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)4 pt scale­- Job satisfaction (Alberta RN Survey (Giovannetti et al., 2002)4 pt scale4 pt scale11Dunham-Taylor (2000), J Nurs Admin, USA396 Nurse Executives (NE), & 1115 staff reporting to 360 NE­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X: (Bass, 1994)87 itemsα = 0.82–0.94ConstructPair-wise correlation­- Profile of Organizational Characteristics: (Likert, 1994)2 × 18 items, 8 pt scaleα = 0.90–0.96NR­- Staff Satisfaction, Work Group effectiveness, Extra Effort (no title & author)NRNRNR12Ferris (1985), J Appl Psychology, USA68 RNs & their supervisors­- Turnover (Leader-Member Exchange (LMX): (Graen, et al., 1982)5 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.83All measures NRCorrelation Within & Between Group Correlations­- Average Leadership Style (ALS) (Graen et al., 1982)Average MLX scoreNR13Gardulf et al. (2008), Nilsson Kajermo et al. (2008), Scand J Caring Sci & J Nurs Manage, Swedenn = 833 RNs & RNMs­- Work satisfaction: (Quality Work Competence Questionnaire (Arnetz et al., 1995)11 enhancement areas, 5 pt scaleα = 0.70–0.94NRStepwise multiple linear regressionRR = 51%­- Professional issues: (Huddinge University Hospital Model Questionnaire (author & year NR)34 items, only 21 usedNRNRMultiple, stepwise, linear & logistic regression analysis1 University hospital­- Barriers to research implementation: Barriers Scale (Funk et al., 1991) 4 subscales29 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.69–0.83NR­- Organizational & staff well-being: Quality Work Competence Scale (Arnetz and Arnetz, 1996; Arnetz, 1997, 2001; Thomsen et al., 1998)11 enhancement areas, 3–6 multipoint itemsα = 0.70–0.94NR­- Professional issues: (Huddinge University Hospital Model Questionnaire (Author, year NR)34 items, fixed response & 4 pt scaleNRNR14Garrett (1991), J New York State Nurs Assoc, USA188 RNs­- Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire-Form XII & Ideal Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire-Form (author NR)Mean scoreNRNRMultiple regressionRR = 62%­- Job Satisfaction (Job Descriptive Index: author NR)Mean scoreNRNRANOVA15Gil et al. (2005), J Managerial Psych, Spain318 healthcare professionals in 67 healthcare teams­- Leadership (Managerial Practices Survey (Yukl et al., 2002) 3 subscalesAggregate score, 5ptα = 0.66–0.96NRDescriptive StatsRR = 68.4%­- Team Satisfaction (Gladstein, 1984)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.85NRHierarchical Regressional­- Team Performance (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992)5 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.83NR16Ginsburg et al. (2005), Health Serv Res, Canadan = 244 nurses in clinical leadership roles baseline & follow up questionnaires­- Leadership (Soberman Ginsburg, 2003)9 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.84NREFA, ANOVA­- Patient Safety Culture (Singer et al., 2003) 3 sections same for pre & post test32 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.66–0.86NRt-test, Hierarchical regression17Hendel et al. (2005), J Nurs Manage, Israel54 Head Nurses from 5 hospitals­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X Short (Bass and Avolio, 1995b)36 items, 5 pt scaleα = NRNRDescriptives, Wilcoxon Rank Test, MANOVARR = 90%­- Conflict Management (Conflict Mode Instrument (Thomas and Kilmann, 1974) 5 subscalesForced Choice pairsα = 0.61–0.68PVRegression18Hernandez et al. (1988), Public Health Nurs, USA20 nursing work groups­- Social Psychological Processes -Organizational Climate, Supervisory & Peer Leadership & Group Processes (Survey of Organization (Likert, 1961) 4 indicesAll measures together totalled 36 items, 5 pt scalesα = 0.66–92All measures NRCorrelationalHealth Departments­19Holdnak et al. (1993), Healthc Manage Rev, USA256 nurses­- Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, XII (Stogdill, 1963)5 pt scaleα = 0.75–0.87NRANOVA3 hospitals­- Job Satisfaction (Job Description Index (Smith et al., 1969)NRα = 0.58–0.82NRHierarchical moderator regression20Houser (2003), Capuano et al. (2005), J Nurs Admin & Healthc Manage Rev, USAn = 1142 RNs­- Leadership Practices Inventory: (Kouzes and Posner, 1987)NRα = 0.69–0.85Construct & DiscriminantSEMn = 55 Nurse Managers­- Turnover (Raw turnover rate, accession rate & vacancy rate)Math equationNRNR6 Hospitals & 3 LTC Centers­- Staff expertise (RN’s rated according to Benner’s criteria by their manager (Benner et al., 1996))Math equationNRNR21Howell and Dorfman (1986), J Applied Behav Sci, USA140 professionals­- Leadership (modified form of path-goal theory (Schriesheim, 1978)Meanα = 0.69–0.90NRT-test108 non-prof­- Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Porter and Smith, 1970)Meanα = 0.92NRMultiple linear regressionSeveral hospitals­- Job Satisfaction (Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967)Meanα = 0.88NR22Kennerly (1989), J Nurs Admin, USA23 deans/ chairs­- Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII (Stogdill, 1963)10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90 & 0.78NRRegression, Pearson product correlation coefficients181 nurse faculty­- Index of Job Satisfaction (Brayfield and Rothe, 1951)18 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.85NR23Klakovich (1996), J Nurs Admin, USA113 RNs­- Leadership Achieving Styles Inventory-13 (Lipman-Bluman, 1991)45 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.81–0.91ConstructStepwise regression1 hospital­- Reciprocal Empowerment Instrument: (Klakovich, 1995)24 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.77–0.89Pilot StudyPower analysis­- Organizational Culture Inventory (Cooke and Lafferty, 1987)120 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.74–0.9224Krogstad et al. (2006), Human Resources for Health, Norwayn = 1066 nurses- Work Experiences (Work Research & Quality Improvement Questionnaire (Krogstad et al., 2002))5 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.851998 pilot studyLinear regressionn = 358 doctors- Local Leadership4 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.76n = 390 auxillaries- Top management3 items, 10 pt scaleα = 0.77- Competence3 items, 10 pt scaleα = 0.82- Work Organization2 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.74­- Professional Development25Larrabee et al. (2003), J Nurs Admin, USA90 RNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-5X (Bass and Avolio, 1995b)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.63–0.95ConstructANOVA1 hospital­- Intent to Leave (Price and Mueller, 1981, 1986)1 items, 5 pt scaleNRNRMultivariate regression­- Job Satisfaction (Work Quality Index (Whitley and Putzier, 1994))38 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.76–0.90Construct­- Empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995)12 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.86–0.96Construct26Laschinger et al. (1999), J Nurs Admin, Canada537 RNs­- Leader Empowering Behavior Scale (Conger and Kanungo, 1988)27 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.77–0.95All measures NRSEM2 hospitals­- Empowerment (Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (Kanter, 1977))37 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.80–0.88­- Formal Power (Job Activities Scale (Kanter 1977, 1993))12 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.69­- Informal Power (Organizational Relationship Scale (Kanter, 1977, 1993))20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.89­- Job Tension (Job Tension Index (Lyons, 1971))9 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.8127Leiter and Laschinger (2006), Laschinger and Leiter (2006), J Nurs Admin & Nurs Res, Canada8597 nurses­- Leadership (Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (Lake, 2002)28 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.84PVSEM2 provinces, ON & AB­- Burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory: Human Service Scale (Maslach et al., 2001) 3 subscales22 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.78–0.91PV28Lok and Crawford (2001), Lok et al. (2005), J Manage Psych & App Psych, Australia251 nurses­- Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (Stogdill, 1974)40 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.78–0.82NRCorrelationRR=63%­- Organizational Culture Index (Wallach, 1983)24 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.71–0.87NRMultiple regression analysis­- Organizational Commitment Questionnaire: (Mowday et al., 1979)15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.84–0.94NRDescriptive stats­- Job Satisfaction Survey (Mueller and McClosky, 1990)31 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.83NR29Manojlovich (2005a,b), J Nurs Admin, USA308 medical-surgical nurses­- Nursing Leadership (Manager’s Activities Scale (Laschinger, 2004))11 itemsα = 0.82–0.94NRt-testRR = 73%­- Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire II (Laschinger, 1996a,b) 4 subscales, (Job Activities Scale II), (Organizational Relationships Scale II, author & date NR)12, 3, 4 itemsα = 0.78–0.93Content & constructcorrelations path analysis30Marchionni and Ritchie (2008), J Nurs Manage, Canadan = 20 nurses­- Organizational Learning Survey (Goh and Richards, 1997)21 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.63NRFisher’s exact testRR = 25%­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio and Bass, 2004)45 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.65–0.92NR1–50 bed medical unit1–15 bed surgical unit31McDaniel and Wolf (1992), J Nurs Admin, USA1 Nurse Executive­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1987)76 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92PVT-test9 Admin­- Job Satisfaction (Work Satisfaction Scale (Hinshaw et al., 1987)) 5 subscales32 items, scaleα = 0.87ConstructPaired scoring46 RNs32McGillis Hall and Doran (2007), J Nurs Manage, Canadan = 1116 nurses­- Nurse staffing: Information provided by NMsNANANACorrelational co-efficients77 acute care med/surg units­- Patient complexity: Hospital recordsNANANAANOVA19 hospitals­- Care delivery models: Three variables used to describe type of care givenNANANAMultilevel hierarchical linear modelling­- Coordination of care (Shortell et al., 1991)5 itemsα = 0.80NR­- Job satisfaction: Job description index (Ironson et al., 1989)18 itemsα = 0.88NR­- Job stress: Stress in General Scale (Smith et al., 1992; Stanton et al., 2001)15 itemsα = 0.91–0.92NR­- Nursing role tension: Tension Index (Lyons, 1971)9 itemsα = NRNR­- Quality of care (Shortell et al., 1991)6 itemsα = 0.76NR­- Nursing leadership (Shortell et al., 1991)5 itemsα = 0.87Factor Analysis33McGuire and Kennerly (2006), Nurs Econ, USA63 nurse managers­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X, (Bass and Avolio, 2000) 12 subscales, 2 versions used leader & rater form45 items, 5 pt scalePreviously establishedPVPearson’s product-moment correlation500 RN’s­- Organizational Commitment (Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, (Mowday et al., 1979))15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.82–0.93Convergent, discriminant & predictiveRR not stated34McIntosh (1990), Work Stress, USA97 RNs & LPNs­- Supportive Leader Behavior (Caplan et al., 1975)4-items 5-pt scaleα = 0.89NRModerated Hierarchical Regression. Descriptive statistics­- Job satisfaction (Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Aldag et al., 1981))20 itemsα = 0.85NR­- Anxiety (State-Trait Personality Inventory, (Spielberger, 1980))10 itemsα = 79NR35McNeese-Smith (1995, 1996), Hosp & Health Serv Admin & J Nurs Admin, USASeattle sample only­- Leadership Practices Inventory: Self & Other (Posner and Kouzes, 1987, 1990)30 items × 2, 5 pt scaleα = 0.58–0.94CriterionANOVA41 managers (1/2 non nurses)­- Productivity scale (researcher developed)15 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90Face/PilotedConvergentRegression471 employees­- Job-in-General scale (Smith et al., 1989): subscale of JDI18 items, yes/no/?α = 0.882 hospitals­- Organizational Commitment (Porter et al., 1974)15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.92NR36McNeese-Smith (1995, 1999), J of Org Beh & J Nurs Admin, USALA Sample only­- Leadership Practices Inventory: Self & Other (Posner and Kouzes, 1987, 1990)30 items × 2, 5 pt scaleα = 0.58–0.94CriterionANOVA19 managers & 221 nurses­- Productivity scale (researcher developed)15 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90Face/PilotedRegression1 hospital­- Job-in-General scale (Smith et al., 1989): subscale of JDI18 items, yes/no/?α = 0.88Convergent­- Organizational Commitment (Porter et al., 1974)15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.92NR­- Motivation (Job Choice Exercise (JCE), (Stahl, 1986; Stahl and Harrell, 1982)30 items, scores regressed & equationα = 0.59–0.89Criterion/Construct37McNeese-Smith &Yang (2000), Hong Kong Nursing J, Shanghai & USAShanghai sample only­- Leadership Practices Inventory: Self & Other: (Posner and Kouzes, 1987, 1990)30 items × 2, 5 pt scaleα = 0.58–0.94CriterionANOVA48 head nurses, 292 nurses­- Productivity scale (researcher developed)15 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90Face/PilotedRegression8 hospitals­- Job-in-General scale (Smith et al., 1989) subscale of JDI)18 items, yes/no/?α = 0.88Convergent­- Organizational Commitment (Porter et al., 1974)15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.92NR38Medley and Larochelle (1995), Nurs Manage, USA122 staff nurses­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1995b)70 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.80–0.86ContentCorrelation, factor analysis4 hospitals­- Index of Work Satisfaction (Slavitt et al., 1986)44 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.82NR39Meyer-Bratt et al. (2000), Am J Crit Care, USA & Canada1973 RNs­- Leader Empowering Behaviours (Good and Nelson, 1973; Baggs et al., 1992)27 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.96NRANOVA65 peds acute care facilities­- Work Satisfaction Scale & Nursing Job Satisfaction Scale (Hinshaw and Atwood, 1985)32 + 23 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.83 & 0.86Multiple regression40Morrison et al. (1997), J Nurs Admin, Country NR275 nurses (licensed & unlicensed)­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (Bass and Avolio, 1995a) 4 subscales5pt scaleα = 0.67–0.93All measures NRANOVARR = 64%­- Psychological Empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995)4 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.72Hierarchical Multiple Regression­- Job Satisfaction (title NR: (Warr et al., 1979)Likert typeα = 0.90 & 0.7841Mosser and Walls (2002), South Online J Nurs Res, USA253 nursing faculty­- Leadership Orientations Instrument, Other (Boleman and Deal, 1991)32 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91–0.93Varimax rotationPearson Correlation60 schools­- Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire-Higher Education (Borrevik, 1972)42 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.68–0.93ANOVARR = 42%Tukey’s HSD test (post hoc)42Nielsen et al. (2008), J of Adv Nurs, Denmarkn = 447 staff­- Global Transformational Leadership Scale (Carless et al., 2000)7 items, 5 pt scaleNRNRIndependent sample t-testsRR = 81%­- Influence, meaningful work, involvement, job satisfaction, & well-beingNR except for job satisfaction (5 items, 4 pt scale)NRNRSEM­- Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (Kristensen et al., 2002, 2006)43Peiro et al. (1996), Work Stress, Country NR155 nurses­- Leadership: Supervisory Behaviour Questionnaire (Fleishman, 1957, 1953)6 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.64–0.72PVWithin & Between Group Analysis Correlation127 physicians­- Job Satisfaction Questionnaire for PHCT Professionals (Peiro et al., 1990)7 pt scaleα = 0.76–0.95NR28 Primary Healthcare Teams­- Workteam Climate (de Witte and de Cock, 1985)4 pt scaleα = 0.77–92NR­- Role Stress: Role Conflict (Rizzo et al., 1970)6 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.77–0.75Construct­- Role Clarity (Rizzo et al., 1970)7 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.90–0.92NR­- Job Related Tension (Rizzo et al., 1970)6 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.67–0.8744Prenkert and Ehnfors (1997), J Nurs Manage, Sweden23 head nurses & assistant head nurses­- Modified Multi-Leadership Questionnaire (Bass, 1985) 2 items removed & 3 items added renamed Leadership Nursing Effectiveness Questionnaire)84 items, 5 pt scaleNRNRCorrelations1 hospital­- Organizational Effectiveness = Nursing Recipients × Quality of Nursing CareEquation­ - Resources UsedNRNR45Searle-Leach (2005), J Nurs Admin, USANurse Executives n = 102, nurse managers n = 148­- Transformational Leadership Profile (Sashkin et al., 1992)50 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.63–0.88NRSpearman’s rank order correlation coefficientsRNs = 651­- Organizational Commitment Scale (Penley and Gould, 1988)15 items, 6 pt scale Sum & average scoreα = 0.78–0.82NRDescriptive stats46Sellgren et al. (2008), J Nurs Manage, Sweden77 Nurse managers­- Leadership behavior (‘Change, production, employee’ tool (Ekvall and Arvonen, 1991, 1994))30 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.86–0.94NRCorrelationsn = 426 staff­- Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Ekvall, no year)20 itemsα = 0.74–0.92NRDuncan’s post-hoc testRR = 55%­- Work climate (Creative Climate Questionnaire, (Ekvall and Arvonen, 1996))50 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.66–0.90NRAnalysis of variance1 university hospital47Shieh et al. (2001), J Nurs Educ, Taiwan233 nurse faculty­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5–45 (Bass and Avolio, 1995b)38-items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.71–0.94Content & ConstructHierarchical Multiple Regression21 nursing programs­ - Nursing Faculty Satisfaction Questionnaire modified (Martin, 1991)40 items, 5 pt scaleNRConcurrentChi-square­- * Note: all measures translated into Chinese48Stordeur et al. (2001), J Adv Nurs, Belgium625 RNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form-5X: (Bass and Avolio, 1991)70 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.68–0.90All measures NRMultiple Regression1 hospital­- Work Stressors (Nursing Stress Scale: (Gray-Toft and Anderson, 1985; Gray-Toft and Anderson, 1981a,b))34 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.47–0.77­- Role Conflict (House and Rizzo, 1972)3 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.82­- Role Ambiguity (House and Rizzo, 1972)3 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.95­- Emotional Exhaustion (Maslach Burnout Inventory: (Maslach and Jackson, 1981))9 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.8749Stordeur et al. (2000), Nurs Res, Belgium464 - nurses, head nurses & associate directors­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire-5X (Bass and Avolio, 1991)70 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.68–090All measures NRANOVA8 hospitals­- Perceived Unit Effectiveness (Shortell et al., 1989)10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.84Regression­- Extra Effort (MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1991)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.86­- Satisfaction with Leader (MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1991)2 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91­- * Note: all measures translated into French50Taunton et al. (1997), West J Nurs Res, USA95 Nurse managers & 248 RNs­- Ohio State University Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (Kruse and Stogdill, 1973) + 2 questions (Camman et al., 1983)NRα = 0.61–0.94 (all measures)All measures NRMultiple Regression(124 leavers & 124 stayers)­- Retention (3 indicators: turnover [resignation], unit separation [transfer] & retention)Proportion remaining >6 mPath Coefficients4 hospitals­- Stress (Hinshaw and Atwood, 1983,1985 adapted from Bailey and Claus, 1978; Claus and Bailey, 1977)NR­- Job satisfaction (2 of 8 scales from Hinshaw & Atwood’s job satisfaction questionnaire (Hinshaw and Atwood, 1985))NR­- Group cohesion (Hinshaw and Atwood, 1985)NR51Taunton et al. (1989a,b), J Nurs Admin, USA59 RNs­- Leadership Style (Michigan Organizational Questionnaire, no date)NRα = 0.70–93 across all study measuresFactor analysisCorrelations12 dieticians & social workers­- Retention – percentage of study period that participant remained on the job%Experience with measuresANOVA­- Job Satisfaction Index, (Price & Mueller, no date)NR-Duncan test (post hoc)­- Intent-to-Stay (Intent to Stay Index, (Price & Mueller, no date))NR52Wakefield-Fisher (1987), J Prof Nurs, USA215 Faculty­- Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire-XII: (House, 1971): 2 subscalesNRα = 0.88Content, ConstructRegression21 doctoral programs participated­- Scholarly Productivity (Scholarly Productivity Index: researcher developed) 3 sub-scales (publication activities, prepublication & research activity & editorial activities)NRα = 0.75Factor Analysis53Womack (1996), J Prof Nurs, USA106 Nursing Department Chairs­- Leadership Effectiveness & Adaptability Description-Self Instrument (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988)12 items, 4 pt scaleNRNRChi-square104 schools­- Scholarly Productivity Index: (Wakefield-Fisher, 1987), Researchers used the corrected version, now called SPIC (SPI Corrected)3 dimensions (see above)NRNRT-tests
Updated Review Articles54Abdelhafiz et al. (2016), J Nurs Manage, Jordann = 200 RNs­- The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, (Bass and Avolio, 1995)45 items, 5 pt scaleNRPVANOVA; t-test; Pearson’s correlation coefficient88.8% RR­- Job Satisfaction Questionnaire –author developed7 items, 3 pt scaleα = 0.819–0.871NR55AbuAlRub and Alghamdi (2012), J Nurs Manage, Saudi Arabian = 308 RNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire35 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87PVPearson’s regression; hierarchical regression analysis51.3% RR­- Bass and Avolio (2004)36 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.73PV­- Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1985)5 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.80PV­- McCain’s Intent to Stay Scale (McCloskey and McCain, 1987)56Allen-Gilliam et al. (2016), J Nurs Admin, USAn = 15 SCNs- Yukl’s Managerial Practices Survey (Yukl et al., 2002, 2009)48 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.75–0.93PVCronbach’s alpha, aggregation indices82 RNs­- Safety Assessment Scale (Agnew et al., 2013; 2014)10 items, 5 pt scale“satisfactory reliability”NR79% SCN response rate57Allen-Gilliam et al. (2016), JONA, USAN = 218 RNs/LPNs­- Nursing Work Index-Revised (NWI-R) (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)57 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.96Content, Criterion and ConstructA correlation matrix; Multiple linear regressionsRR = 24% to 65% (varied over the 5 years)­- Shared Governance Survey (Frith and Montgomery, 2006)39 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.95Content, Construct­- Index of Work Satisfaction (IWS)-1997 Revision (Stamps, 2007)44 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.91NR­- Work Practice Breakdown Survey (Kenward and Zhong, 2004)16 items, 0, 1 or >1NRContent, Construct­- Developing Evidence-Based Practice (Gerris et al., 2008)49 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.8758Alshahrani and Baig (2016), Coll Physicians Surg PakN = 94 licensed nurses­- Multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 2004)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.96Pilot testedANOVA with Post Hoc-Tukey HSDRR = 59%­- Job satisfaction survey (JSS) (Spector, 1985)39 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.81Pilot testedMultiple linear regression analysis59Andrews et al. (2012), Int J Nurs Stud, USAN = 16 supervisors and n = 179 RNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) (Bass and Avolio, 2004)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.74–0.96PVParametric statistics; Multivariate analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc testing; four-step hierarchical regression60Asiri et al. (2016), DMC Nursing, Saudi Arabian = 332 nurses­- The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), (Bass and Avolio, 2004)44 items, 5 pt scale,α = 0.94PVPearson correlation, stepwise regression; ANOVA, post-hoc analysisRR = 95%­- Psychological Empowerment Scale (Spreitzer, 1995)12 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.94NR­- Three-Component Model of Employee Commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997)18 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.79NR61Cheng et al. (2016), Pers Rev, AustraliaN = 201 registered nurses­- The Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ, Form 5X-short) (Bass and Avolio, 1995b)20 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.83 idealised influence (attributed), α = 0.75 idealised influence (behavior), α = 0.85 inspirational motivation, α = 0.80 intellectual stimulation, α = 0.76 individual considerationPVSEMRR = 28.4 %- Team climate inventory (Anderson and West, 1998)38 items, 7pt scaleα = 0.95 team vision, α = 0.88 task orientation, α = 0.92 participation safety, α = 0.91 support innovation, α = 0.89 interaction frequency, α = 0.75 and 0.77PV- Oldenburg burnout inventory (Demerouti et al., 2010)8 items, 5ptsα = 0.75 disengagement, α = 0.77 exhaustionPV- modified version of the patient satisfaction scale as adapted from (Bartram et al., 2012)1 scale, 2 subscales, Technical 4 items, 5 pt scale, Social 5 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.79 social, α = 0.61 technicalPV- The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1979)3 items, 7pt scaleα = 0.90PV62Choi et al. (2016), Human Resources for Health, Malaysian = 200 RNs­- Author developed survey including items adapted from:17 items, 5 pt scaleNRContent and Face validityDescriptive Statistics; Partial least squares SEM57.14% RR­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 2000)8 itemsα = 0.89­- Empowerment (Matthews et al., 2003)5 itemsα = 0.88­- Job Satisfaction (Warr et al., 1979)4 itemsα = 0.8063Cummings et al. (2008b, 2013), J Nurs Manag, Can Oncol Nurs J, CanadaN = 515­- Subset of 14 items from the Nursing Work Index-Revised (NWI-R) (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)14 items, 4 pt scaleNRPVPearsons chi-square test stepwise logistic regression; SEMRR = 31%­- Job features questionsNRPilot-tested64Dahinten et al. (2014), J Nurs Manag, CanadaN = 1067 nurses­- Conditions of Work Effectiveness (II) Scale (CWEQII) (Laschinger et al., 2001)19 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.88 intervention (i)PVMultiple regression analysis, Pearsons correlations, Descriptive statisticsRR = 11%α = 0.90 comparison (c)=23%α = 0.85 (i)­- Psychological Empowerment Scale (PES) (Spreitzer, 1995)5 pt scaleα = 0.85 (c)PV­- Leader Empowering Behaviors Scale (LEBS) (Hui, 1994)7 pt scaleα = 0.98 (both)PV­- Perceived Organisational Support Scale (POSS) (Rhoades and Eisenberg, 2002)8 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.90 (both)PV­- Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) affective commitment subscale (Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer et al., 1993).8 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.84 (i)PVα = 0.82 (c)65Dirik and Intepeler (2017), J Nurs Manag, TurkeyN = 350 nurses from three hospitals­- The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio et al., 2007)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.95Translated and Pilot-testedDescriptive statistic, hierarchical regression,­- Safety Climate Survey (Sexton et al., 2003)19 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.84Translated and Pilot-testedAnalysis and percentage of problematic responses (PPR)66Duffield et al. (2009, 2011), Collegian; J Clin Nurs, Australian = 2141 nurses from 91 wards in 21 hospitals- Nursing Work Index-Revised (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)49 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.74 autonomy α = 0.77 control over practice α = 0.83 nurse-physician relations α = 0.80 leadership α = 0.80 resource adequacyPVRegression analyses using hierarchical linear modelling (HLM); Beta weights calculatedRR = 80.9%- Nurse Survey (adapted from (Aiken et al., 2001; O’Brien-Pallas et al., 2004)29 items, 4 pt scaleNR67Ebrahimzade et al. (2015), Shiraz E Medical Journal, IranN = 207 nurses­- Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) (subscales: emotional exhaustion, deal with depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment within the profession) (Maslach et al., 1996)22 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.73, 0.81, 0.70PVIndependent t-tests; 1-way ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation analysis; Stepwise multiple regression analysis using beta coefficients.RR = 90%- Multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) (subscales: transformational, transactional, and laissez faire leadership styles) (Bass and Avolio, 1997)36 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.80, 0.76, and 0.95PV68Failla and Stichler (2008), J Nurs Admin, USAN = 92 (15 nurse managers and their direct report nursing staff)­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X) (Bass and Avolio, 1995)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.39–0.84Confirmatory factor analysis Construct validityDescriptive statistics; Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients; 1-way ANOVARR = 59%­- Leader formα = 0.61–0.84­- Rater form­- Index of Work Satisfaction Questionnaire-Part B (IWS-B) (Stamps, 2007)44 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.56–0.8869Fallatah and Laschinger (2016), J Res Nurs, CanadaN = 93 RNs­- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio et al., 2007)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92PVDescriptive statistics; mediation analysis (Baron and Kenny, 1986)RR=­- Revised Nursing Worklife Index (NWI-R) (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)6 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.79PV­- North Carolina Center for Nursing – Survey of Newly Licensed Nurses (Scott et al., 2008).4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.79PV70Farag and Anthony (2015), J PeriAnesthesia Nurs, USAn = 40 RNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 2004)36 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.62–0.95PVRegression analysis; correlation analysis59.7% RR­- Patient Safety Climate in Health care Organizations tool (Nieva and Sorra, 2003)20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.62–0.94NR71Friese and Himes-Ferris (2013), J Nurs Admin, USAn = 402 oncology nurses­- Revised Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (Lake, 2002; Friese, 2005)23 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87PVStudent’s t-test; chi-square logistic regression; CFI, RMSEA30%RR72Garbee and Killacky (2008), Int J Nurs Educ Scholars, USA782 nursing faculty: (RR = 40.4%; 316 responses)­- Index of Job Satisfaction (Brayfield and Rothe, 1951)18 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87NRPearson correlation; Multiple regression (stepwise)­- Mentoring Scale (Dreher and Ash, 1990)18 items, NRα = 0.95PV­- Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al., 1979)9 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.82–0.93PV­- Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (Stogdill, 1963)20 items, NRα = 0.76–0.80PV­- Intent to Stay (combined Price and Mueller, 1981; Yoder, 1995; Kosmoski and Calkin, 1986)6 items, NRα = 0.89NR73Giallonardo et al. (2010) J Nurs Manag, CanadaN = 170 RNs­- The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio et al., 2007)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.70–0.90PVDescriptive statistics; Pearson’s correlations; hierarchicalRR = 39%­- The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003)17 items, 7 pt scale“the alphas were acceptable except for the absorption subscale which was 0.60”multiple regression and mediation analysis (Baron and Kenny, 1986)- Part B of the Index of Work Satisfaction scale (IWS) (Stamps, 2007)44 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.8974Gillet et al. (2013), Int J Nurs Stud, FranceN = 343 nurses and auxiliary nurses­- Global Transformational Leadership scale (Carless et al., 2000)7 items, 7 pt scaleSatisfactory reliabilityConvergent and DiscriminantSEM; chi-square value (x2), theRR = 68.6%- Organizational Justice Scale (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993)14 items, 7 pt scaleadequate factorial structure and internal consistencyValiditynormed chi-square (x2/df), the Non-Normed Fit Index­- Quality of Work Life (QWL) Questionnaire (Elizur and Shye, 1990; Delmas et al., 2001)16 items, 7 pt scalePV(NNFI), CFI, IFI, RMSEA,- Modified Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9, Schaufeli et al., 2006a,b)9 items, 7 pt scalehigh internal reliability of the scaleConfirmatory factor analysesSRMR75Hayati et al. (2014), Springerplus, Irann = 240 nurses- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1997)20 items NRα = 0.81–0.94“validity results were significant and satisfactory”Descriptive statistics; inferential statistics(RR = NR)­- Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002)17 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.7376Hunt (2014), J Nurs Manag, USAn = 92 RNs- Satisfaction in Nursing Scale (Lynn et al., 2009)55 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.81–0.93PVPearson’s Product Moment Correlation analysis; multiple regression; Spearman’s Rank Correlation21 NMs- Leadership Practices inventory (Kouzes and Posner, 2008, 2012)30 itemsα = 0.73–0.92PV- Anticipated Turnover Scale (Hinshaw et al., 1987)12 itemsNRPV- Value of Patient Outcomes Scale (Hunt, 2012)8 items, 4 pt scaleNRPV77Jenkins and Stewart (2010), Healthc Manage Rev, USAn = 210 nurses­- Commitment to Serve (Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006)23 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.80PVMultivariate regression(RR = 73%)­- Role Inversion Behavior (Sherman, 2002)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.72NR­- Job Satisfaction from Work Climate Survey (Jackson Group Inc., 2007)2 items, 5 pt scaleα = NRNR78Kanste et al. (2009), Scand J Caring Sci, Finlandn = 660 nurses, public health nurses, head nurses (RR = 73%)­- Adapted Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (transformational) (Bass and Avolio, 1995; Kanste et al., 2007a,b)23 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.96Construct validityDescriptive statistics; chi-square, NFI, IFI, RMSEA, standardized regression, squared multiple correlations­- Willingness to exert extra effort3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92NR­- Satisfaction with the leader2 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92NR79Kanste et al. (2007a,b), J Nurs Manag, Finlandn = 601 nurses and nurse managers (RR = NR)­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1995)78 items, 5 pt scaleabove α = 0.70 for all measuresPVDescriptive statistics, Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, LMR analysis, two-way ANOVA and t-test­ - Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (Maslach et al., 1996)22 items, 7 pt scaleNR80Kodama et al. (2016), J Nurs Manag, JapanN = 396­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X–Short (MLQ; Avolio and Bass, 2004).36 itemsα = 0.80Face validity (all measures)Two-tailed significance tests; Logistic regression analysis; a chi square (v2) test multiple logisticRR = 53.8 nurses­- Transformational5 components with 20 itemsα = 0.73–0.87­- Transactional3 components, 12 itemsα = 072–0.85­- Laissez-faire1 component, 4 itemsα = 83­- Affective Commitment Scale (Meyer and Allen, 1991)8 items, 3 pt scaleα = 0.77­- Organisational Justice Questionnaire (Shibaoka et al., 2010)26 items. 4 pt scaleα = 0.70–0.9581Laschinger and Fida (2015), J Nurs Admin, Canadan = 723 RNs­- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.97PVComparative fit index; incremental fit index; standardized root mean residual­- Conditions of Work Effectiveness-II (Kanter, 1977)12 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.79 to 0.82Construct validity­- Items from Nursing Work Index Revised (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)6 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.80NR­- Camman’s measure of job satisfaction (Camman et al., 1983)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.77NR82Laschinger et al. (2015), Inter J Nurs Studies, CanadaN = 1009 New grad nurses­- The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008)16 items, 5 ptsα = 0.96PVDescriptive statistics and scale reliabilities;RR = 27%­- Areas of Worklife Scale (Leiter and Maslach, 2011)18 items, 5ptsα = 0.81PVLittle’s MCAR test­- Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy scale (Pisanti et al., 2008)9 items, 5ptsα = 0.83PVhybrid SEM approach;­- The Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey: emotional exhaustion and cynicism subscales (Maslach et al., 1996)10 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.82PVChi-square (x2), Chi-square ratio (x2/df), CFI, IFI, RMSEAα = 0.92­- Interpersonal strain at work (Borgogni et al., 2012)6 items, 6ptsα = 0.92PV­- General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg and Williams, 1988)12 items, 4 ptsα = 0.85PV83Laschinger et al. (2014), Nursing Economics, CanadaN = 1241 Nurses­- Resonant Leadership Scale (Cummings, 2006)10 item, 5 ptsα = 0.95PVDescriptive, inferential, and reliability analyses; SEMRR = 35%­- Global Empowerment Scale (Laschinger, 1996a,b)2 items, 5 ptsa = 0.84–0.88PV­- Workplace Incivility Scale (Cortina et al., 2001)7 items, 6ptsa = 0.89PV­- The Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (Schaufeli et al., 1996)7 items, 6ptsa = 0.82–0.94PV­- Four-item global measure of work satisfaction (Laschinger et al., 2001)4 items, 5pt scalea = 0.78–0.84)PV84Laschinger et al. (2013, 2012a,b), J Nurs Admin; J Nurs Manage; Inter J Nurs Stud, CanadaN = 615 RNs total­- The Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II (CWEQ-II) – measure structural empowerment (Laschinger et al., 2001)12 items, 5 pt scaleNN, EN α = 0.84, 0.83PVMulti- group path analysis using SEM; Means, standard deviations, range, Cronbach’s alpha and correlation coefficients342 New graduates (NN) RR = 37.7, and 273 Experienced nurses (EN)­- The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio et al., 2007)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.97, 0.95PVRR=48%­- The Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey (Schaufeli et al., 1996)10 items, 7 pt scaleno overall providedPV­- Cynicismα = 0.89, 0.85­- Emotional exhaustionα = 0.93, 0.92­- Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (Einarsen and Hoel, 2001)22 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.77–0.92NR­- Job satisfaction scale (Hackman and Oldham, 1975)4 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.82NR­- Turnover Intentions Scale (Kelloway et al., 1999)3 items, 5pt scaleα = 0.92NR85Laschinger et al. (2009), Laschinger and Finegan (2011), J Nurs Admin; Nurs Res, CanadaN = 3156 Staff nurses­- Leader-Member Exchange Multidimensional Measure (LMX-MDM) (Liden and Maslyn, 1998)12 item, 7pt scalea = 0.94Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysisMultilevel SEM; covariance, CFI, Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA, descriptive, inferential (Wilcoxon, Student t, and one-way ANOVA tests)RR = 40%­- Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II (Laschinger et al., 2001)19 items, 6pt scalea = 0.87NR­- Core self-evaluation scale (Judge et al., 2003)12items, 7pt scalea = 0.69PV­- Psychological Empowerment Scale (Spreitzer, 1995)12 item, 5pt scalea = 0.70–0.90PV­- Affective Commitment Scale (Meyer and Allen, 1993)6 items, 7pt scalea = 0.79PV­- Emotional Exhaustion and Cynicism subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (Schaufeli et al., 1996)10 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.93 emotional exhaustion, α = 0.94 cynicism­- Global measure of work satisfaction (Laschinger et al., 2001)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.8286Laschinger et al. (2012a,b), J Nurs Manag, CanadaN = 231 MMs­- Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Posner and Kouzes, 1988)30 items, 10pt scaleα = 0.72–0.85PVpath analysis within the AMOS SEMRR = 60.2% response rate­- Structural empowerment was measured using The Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire II (CWEQ-II; Laschinger et al., 2001)19 items, 5ptsα = 0.79–0.82PVN = 788 FLMs­- Shorter eight-item version of the original 36-item Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS; Rhoades and Eisenberg, 2002)8 items, 6 ptsα = 0.74–0.95Full scale PVRR = 53.9%­- Two items from the International Survey of Hospital Staffing and Organization of Patient Outcomes (Aiken et al., 2002)­- Perceived quality of nursing care1 item, 4 pt scaleNRNR­- Turnover intention1 item, 3 pt scaleNRNR87Lavoie-Tremblay et al. (2016), J Adv Nurs, CanadaN = 541­- Global Transformational Leadership scale (GTL; Carless et al., 2000)7 items, 5 pt scalea = 0.94NRlinear regressionRR = 20.8 Nurses­- Abusive leadership scale (Tepper, 2000)15 items, 5 pt scalea = 0.88NR­- Quality of care scale (Aiken et al., 2002)4 items, 4 pt scalea = 0.84NR­- Turnover intention-measured using single item adapted from (O’Driscoll and Beehr, 1994)2 items, 7 pt scaleNRNR88Lewis and Cunningham (2016), Nurs Res, USAn = 120 nurses (RR = NR)­- Transformational leadership (Rafferty and Griffin, 2004, 2006)18 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.97Internal, convergent, and discriminant validities (all measures)PROCESS analysis tool, descriptive statistics, multiple mediator analyses, and bivariate correlations­- Areas of Worklife Scale (Leiter and Maslach, 2002, 2003)29 items, 7 pt scale­- Maslach Burnout Inventory (Schaufeli et al., 1996)16 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.89­- Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2006a,b)17 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.8889Liang et al. (2016), J of Adv Nursing, TaiwanN = 414 nurses­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1997) – Chinese version (Lee and Hong, 2008)20 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.96PVDescriptive Statistics; SD2 hospitals­- Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) (Sexton et al. 2006) – Chinese Version (Lee et al., 2010)26 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.89PVConfirmatory factor analysis(RR = 91.6%)­- Emotional Labour Questionnaire (ELQ) (Wu, 2003)26 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.89NRSEM: x2, RMSEA, goodness of fit index, CFI, NFI and SRMSR­- Intention to Stay Scale (Wang et al., 2006)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.84NR90Lin et al. (2015), BMC Nursing, TaiwanN = 651­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1994)4 pt scaleα = 0.975Convergent ValidityPearson correlationsRR = 80.7­- Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ) (Karasek et al., 1998)22 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.721Convergent ValidityAnalysis of variance­- Job satisfaction scale from Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) (Cooper et al., 1988)12 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.939Convergent Validityexploratory factor analysis (EFA)­ - Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al., 1979)15 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.878NR­- General Health Questionnaire (Chinese Version) (Goldberg and Williams, 1988)12 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.81PV91Lucas et al. (2008), J Nurs Manag, CanadaN = 203 nurses (unspecified)­- Emotional Competence Inventory, Version 2 (ECI 2.0) (HayGroup, 2006)72 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.48–0.97NRDescriptive statistics, correlational analyses, moderated regression analysis(RR = 68%)­- The Conditions of Work Effectiveness-II (Laschinger et al., 2001)19 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.86PV92Ma et al. (2015), J Nurs Admin, USAN = 29742 RN­- Supportive nursing management scale adapted from the Practice Environment Scales of Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI) (Lake, 2002)5 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.79–0.88NRDescriptive statistics200 hospitals (41 states)­- Intent to leave and job satisfaction2 items, 6 pt scaleNRNRANOVA(RR – at least 50%)Three-level HLM models93Malik et al. (2016), Inter J Nurs Stud, IndiaN = 405 nurses + 81 supervisors­- Authentic Leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.973Convergent validityPath analysis43 hospitals­- Knowledge sharing behaviour (Lu et al., 2006)8 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.960Discriminant validityConfirmatory factor analysis(RR = 65%)­- Use of information technology (Saga and Zmud, 1993)7 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.934Fit indices­- Employee creativity (Oldham and Cummings, 1996)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.83894Malik and Dhar (2017) Pers Rev, IndiaN = 520 nurses + 163 supervisors­- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio and Chan, 2008)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.987Convergent validityPath analysis; confirmatory factor analysis; conventional fit indices42 facilities­- Psychological Capital (Luthans et al., 2007)24 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.989(RR = 58%)­- Autonomy (Park and Searcy, 2012)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.948­- Extra Role Behaviour (Eisenberger et al., 2010)8 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.97495Malloy and Penprase (2010), J Nurs Manag, Country NRN = 122 RN­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5· (Bass and Avolio, 2004)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.90PVPearsons correlation coefficient,(RR = 30.5%)­- Copenhagen Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (COSOQ) (Kristensen and Borg, 2000)144 itemsα = 0.59–0.87PVStatistical ANOVA post hoc Tukey96Manning (2016), J Nurs Admin, USAN = 441 RN 3 hospitals (RR = 31%)­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X Short Form (Bass and Avolio, 1995)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.76PVDescriptive­- Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003)17 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.71PVMultivariate analysis (multiple regression)97Mauno et al. (2016), J Adv Nurs, FinlandN = 3466 nurses­- Emotional Leadership (Zapf et al., 1999)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.61PV (all measures)Pearson’s correlations(RR = 21%)­- Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2002)6 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.93Hierarchical regression analysis­- Public Service Motivation (Kim et al., 2013)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87Explanation rates­- Global Transformational Leadership scale (Carless et al., 2000)7 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.94­- Work ethic feasibility1 item, 5 pt scale98McCutcheon et al. (2009), Nurs Leaders, Canadan = 717 RNs/RPNs­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 2000)36 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.94PVHLM; multiple regression analysisn = 680 patientsTransformational20 itemsα = 0.95n = 41 managersTransactional4 itemsNR(RR = 99%)Management by exception8 itemsα = 0.57Laissez-faire4 itemsNR- McCloskey-Mueller Satisfaction Scale (Mueller and McClosky, 1990)31 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92NR99McGilton et al. (2013), J Nurs Manag, Canadan = 155 regulated nurses­- Nurse Manager Ability, Leadership, and Support of Nurses subscale of the Revised Nursing Work Index (NWI-R) (Lake, 2002)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.84Face/content validityTwo-level, mixed-effects linear regression analysis(RR = 20–55%)1 item, 5 pt scaleNR­- Intent to stay2 subscalesNR­- McCloskey-Mueller Satisfaction Scale (Mueller and McClosky, 1990)­ - Emotional exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) (Maslach and Jackson, 1981)9 items, 7 pt scale“acceptable”Construct validity100Merrill (2015), J Nurs Admin, USAn = 466- Hospital Unit Safety Climate survey (Blegen et al., 2005)33 items, 5 pt scaleNRPVMultiple regressionRR = 29.5%- Multifactorial Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio and Bass, 2004)45 items, 4 pt scaleNRPVMultiple regression9 hospitals101Meyer et al. (2011), J Nurs Manag, CanadaN = 558 nurse + 31 managers, 4 hospitals, (RR = 33.6%)­- Leadership Practices Inventory (Posner and Kouzes, 1988)30 items, 10 pt scaleα = 0.98PVDescriptive statistics; ANOVA; Coefficient regression HLM102Meyer et al. (2014), Nurs Res, CanadaN = 754 teamwork (73,7% nurses) + 30 nurse managers­- Leadership Practices Inventory (Posner and Kouzes, 1993)30 items, 10 pt scaleα = 0.98PVDescriptive statistics; HLM−35%­- Relational Coordination Survey for General Health Care Settings (Gittell, 2004)7 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.89103Mills et al. (2017), J Res Nurs, AustraliaN = 161 RNs­- Nurse Self-Concept Questionnaire (NSCQ) (Cowin, 2001, 2002; Cowin and Hengstberger-Sims, 2006; Cowin et al., 2008)36 items, 8 pt scaleα = 0.79 to 0.91NROne-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc testsRR = 44%­- Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (PES-NWI) (Lake, 2002; Parker et al., 2010)30 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.80 to 0.89PV­- Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) (Campbell-Sills and Stein, 2007; Connor and Davidson, 2003)10 items, 5 pt scaleNRPV­- Nurse Retention Index (NRI) (Cowin, 2001, 2002)6 items, 8 pt scaleα = 0.93NR104Moneke and Umeh (2015), J Nurs Adm, USAN = 112 RN­- Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (Kouzes and Posner, 2002)30 items, 10 pt scaleα = 0.91PVPearson product-moment correlation(RR = 81.7%)- Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OQC) (Mowday et al., 1979)18 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.86PVMultiple regression techniques and analysis of variance (ANOVA)­- Job in General (JIG) questionnaire18 items, Y/N/U scaleα = 0.87NR105Negussie and Demissie (2013), Ethiop J Health Sci., EthiopiaN = 186­- Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss et al., 1967)18 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.96Face validity, pilot tested (all measures)Descripitive statistics; principal Component Analysis, Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient and Multiple Regression(RR = 94%)­- Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 2002)45 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.74106Nelson et al. (2014), Burnout Research, CanadaN = 406­- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (French adapted version) (Walumbwa et al., 2008)8 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.95Temporal separation between measuresLeast squares path analysis(RR = 10.7%–71.8%)­- Work Climate Scale (Roy, 1989)17 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.97Regression analyzes­- Psychological well-being at work (Gilbert et al., 2011, 2006)25 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.95Structural equations and the bootstrap approach107Neubert et al. (2016), Leaders Quart, USAN = 1485 nurses + 105 nurse managers­- Servant Leadership (Ehrhart, 2004)14 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.96PV (all measures)Multiple regression(RR = 38%)­- Helping behaviour (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.77SAS Proc Mixed­- Creative behaviour (Scott and Bruce, 1994)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.82Ordinary Least Squares (OLS)­- Organizational structure (Covin and Slevin, 1989)7 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.63PROCESS macro­- Items from Work Satisfaction Index (Stamps, 2007)1 item, 5 pt scaleNR­- Patient Satisfaction (Press-Ganey, 2018)9 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91108Pyc et al. (2017), Int J Stress Manage, USAN = 232 nurses + n = 24 supervisors­- Abusive Supervision Scale (Tepper, 2000)15 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.95Convergent and predictive validityDescriptives, internal reliability coefficients, intercorrelations(RR = NR)­- Authoritarian leadership style (Cheng et al., 2004)9 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.86­- Anxiety - subscale of the Emotional Strain Scale (Caplan et al., 1975).4 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.69­- Depression - subscale of the Emotional Strain Scale (Caplan et al., 1975)5 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.78­- Exhaustion- Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Jackson, 1981)5 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.90­- Physical Symptoms Inventory (Spector and Jex, 1998)18 items, 3 pt scaleα = 0.88­- Job satisfaction (Cammann et al., 1979)3 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.80­- Intention to quit (Spector et al., 1988)1 item, 5 pt scaleNR­- In-Role Job Performance Scale was used (Williams and Anderson, 1991)5 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.93109Read and Laschinger (2015), J Adv Nurs, CanadaTime 1: n = 342 RNs­ - Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008)16 items,5 pt scaleα = 0.95PV (all measures)Chi-square testTime 2: n = 191 matched usable RN returns­- Conditions of Work Effectiveness II (CWEQ-II) (Laschinger et al., 2001)12 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.80Structural equation modelling(RR = 48.2%; 55.8%)­- Areas of Worklife Scale, Community Subscale (Leiter and Maslach, 2003)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.81Fit statistics­- The Mental Health Inventory (Ware and Kosinski, 2000)5 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.86­- Job Satisfaction (Shaver and Lacey, 2003)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.82110Regan et al. (2016), J Nurs Manag, Canadan = 220 RNs- Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire – II (Laschinger et al., 2001)14 items, 5 pt scaleAll scales demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α >0.80).PVHierarchical multiple regression analysis13% RR- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio et al., 2012)16 items, 5 pt scalePV- Nursing Work Index Revised (Aiken and Patrician, 2000)6 items, 5 pt scale­- Interprofessional Collaboration Scale (Laschinger and Smith, 2013)4 items, 5 pt scale111Roberts-Turner et al. (2014), Pediatri Nurs, USAN = 935­- 3 subscales of the Healthcare Environment Survey (HES) – (Nelson, 2007; Persky and Bakkan, 2008):SEM; RMSEA, The Mardia multivariate skewness, kurtosis tests were applied to examine multivariate non-normality of data before analysisRR = 76.5%­- Distributive justice scale (from the Job Satisfaction Scale of (Price and Mueller, 1986))8 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.95–0.96NRSEM­- Autonomy scale from Index of Work Satisfaction (IWS) survey (Stamps and Piedmonte, 1986)8 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.74–0.84NR­- Job satisfaction (three items from Hackman and Lawler (1971) and two from Brayfield and Rothe (1951))5 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.84NR112Roche et al. (2015), J Nurs Stud, Canada and Australian = 4811 RNs­- Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index (Lake, 2002)31 items, 7 pt scaleα > 0.7PV40% RR113Savic et al. (2007), Healthc Manage Rev, Slovenian = 558 nurses (RR = 52%)­- Leadership Practices Inventory deriving prevalence of transformational leadership (TF) style, transactional leadership (TA) style and laissez-faire (LF) leadership (Kouzes and Posner, 2003)11 items, 5 pt scaleTF α = 0.92PVDescriptive statistics; reliability analysis, factor analysis, one-way ANOVA, paired samples test, bivariate correlations, and linear regression analysisn = 106 physicians (RR = 26%)TA α = 0.66n = 70 non-healthcare professional (RR = 26%)LF α = 0.80NR­- “Personal Involvement”4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.78114Shi et al. (2015), Inter J Nurs Pract, ChinaN = 378­- General Regulatory Focus Measure (GRFM) (Lockwood et al., 2002; Jia et al., 2012)18 items, 9 pt scaleα = 0.79 and 0.87PVPearson’s correlations, chi-square statistic (χ2), χ2/df, RMSEA, CFI, SRMRRR = 61%­- Validated Chinese version of the Transformational Leadership Inventory (TLI) (Podsakoff et al., 1990)22 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.89test–retest reliability, internal consistency reliability and construct validity­- Chinese version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey (MBI-GS) (Qiao and Schaufeli, 2011)9 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.84PV115Sili et al. (2014), Medicina del Lavoro, Italyn = 110 nurses (RR = 57%)- Positive Leadership- Nursing Organizational Health Questionnaire (Sili et al., 2010)5 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.79PV (all measures)Pearson’s R correlations;- Work Satisfaction: Nursing Organizational Health (Sili et al., 2010)10 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.86SEM: Chi square­- Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (Maslach et al., 1996)(χ2) and incremental indexing; CFI; RMSEA,­- Cynicism (detached)5 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.76SRMR- Emotional Exhaustion5 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.90116Simon et al. (2010), J Adv Nurs, Germanyn = 2119 RNs­- Leadership Quality4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91PV (all measures)Generalized linear mixed model approach; highest posterior density intervals, pseudo-R2 odds ratio.(RR = 38%–83% across 16 hospitals)- Intent to leave profession1 item, dichotomized (potential leavers/potential stayers)Reported as: ‘high consistency’­- Intent to leave organization5 items, dichotomized (potential leavers/potential stayers)117Sojane et al. (2016), Curationis, South African = 204 RNs- Practice Environment Scale of the Nurse Work Index (Lake, 2002):4 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.71PV (all measures)Spearman’s rank order correlation,RR = 33.3%- leadership scalet-test, Cronbach’s alpha and statistical significance9 hospitals- job satisfaction1 item, 4 pt scaleα = 0.7–0.8- intent to leave1 item, 2 pt scale (y/n)NR- Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al., 1996)9 items, 4 pt scaleNR118Suliman (2009), Nurs Admin Quart, Saudi ArabiaN = 31 nurse managers and to 118 staff nurses­ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass and Avolio, 1995)47 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.67–0.84Content validity established by principal component analysis.Descriptive statistics and inferential statistical methods (ANOVA, MANOVA, and t-test independent sample)RR = 79.4% and 30.2%­ Dichotomous question measuring the intention to continue at work1 item, yes/noNR119Tourangeau et al. (2014) Nurs Educ Today, Canada1328 nurse faculty: RNs RPNs or NPs­- Psychological Empowerment Scale – self-determination subscale (Spreitzer, 1995)3 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.92Confirmatory factor analysis (all measures)Simultaneous and stepwise multiple regression(RR = 49%; 650 responses)­- Job Routinization and Formalization scale – routinization subscale (Bacharach et al., 1990)3 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.80­- Resonant Leadership Scale (Cummings et al., 2005)10 items,5 pt scaleα = 0.96­- Perceived Organizational Support Scale (Eisenberger et al., 1986)9 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.93­- Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire — global empowerment subscale (Laschinger et al., 2001)2 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.83­- Physical Work Environment Scale (Developed by authors)7 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.82­- Work Group Relationships Scale (Riordan and Weatherly, 1999)11 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.97­- McCloskey/Mueller Satisfaction Scale — salary and benefits subscale (Mueller and McClosky, 1990)3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.78120Van der Heijden et al. (2017), Medicine, Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovakian = 39,894­- Quality of leadership: The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Kristensen and Borg, 2000)4 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87–0.92PV (all measures)SEM: Chi square, RMSEA; CFI/Tucker(RR = 51%)­- Nurse Well Being, manifested through:4 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.69–0.82Lewis Index TLI, and SRMR]Job Satisfaction: (COPSOQ)Positive affectivity: Positive & Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988)10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.68–0.077Satisfaction with salary3 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.70–0.84- Psychological distress, manifested through:Personal Burnout: COPSOQ6 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.84–0.91Negative affectivity: PANAS10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.79–0.91121Wade et al. (2002), J Adv Nurs, USAn = 731 RNs- Practice Environment Scale (Lake, 2002)31 items, 4 pt scaleNRPVDescriptive statistics, regression analysis, frequencies(RR = 34%)- Caring attributes of managers: Nyberg’s Caring Assesesment Scale (Nyberg, 1990)20 items, 4 pt scaleα = 0.97PV­ - Job Enjoyment Subscale (JES) of the Nursing Job Satisfaction Scale (Atwood and Hinshaw, 1980; Hinshaw et al., 1987)11 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.89PV122Wagner et al. (2013), Can J Nurs Res, Canadan = 148­- Modified Condition for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire II (Laschinger et al., 2001)19 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.78–0.81Confirmatory factor analysisSEM indices: Chi-square showed final model fit(RR = 31%)­- Psychological empowerment scale (Spreitzer, 1995)12 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.62–0.72Convergent/diverged validity­- SAW questionnaire (Kinjerski and Skrypnek, 2006)18 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.93Face/content validity­- Resonant Leadership (Estabrooks et al., 2009)10 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.95Face/content validity (correlations between variables above 0.5)­- Job satisfaction (Quinn and Shepard, 1974)4 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.72Face/content validity­- Organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 1993)6 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.74–0.85123Walumbwa et al. (2012), Leaders Quart, USATime 1: n = 338 nurses (RR = 82%)­- Ethical leadership scale (Brown et al., 2005)10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.94PVChi-square (χ2), comparative fit index (CFI), root-mean-square residual (RMR), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).Time 2: n = 316 nurses­- Group conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1992)10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.88PV(RR = 93%)­- Group voice behavior (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998)6 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.81NR3rd survey: n = 83 supervisors­- Group in-role performance (Williams and Anderson, 1991)7 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.70NR124Wang et al. (2012), J Adv Nurs, ChinaN = 238­- The Chinese version of the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI) (Chen and Baron, 2007)30 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91Content validity, pilot testingPearson’s Product–Moment Correlation CoefficientRR = 95.2%­- The Nurse Job Satisfaction Scale (NJSS) (Cao, 2000)62 item, 5 pt scaleα = 0.93Content validity, pilot testing125Weng et al. (2015), J Nurs Manag, Taiwann = 439 RNs­- Leadership assessment (Scandura and Williams, 2004; Sosik et al., 2004; Gowen et al., 2009)19 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92–0.93PV (all measures)HLM model analysis97.55% RR­- Patient safety climate scale (Katz-Navon et al., 2005; Naveh et al., 2005)28 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.91–0.94Kolmogorov–Smirnov test­- Innovation climate (Sarros et al., 2008; Dackert, 2010; Wong and He, 2003)9 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.87­- Nurse innovation behaviour (Weng et al., 2012; Chang and Liu, 2008)9 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.95126Wong et al. (2013, 2010), J Nurs Manag, J Adv Nurs, CanadaN = 280­- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio et al., 2007)16 items, 5 ptsα = 0.7–0.9NRreliability estimates and Pearson correlationsRR = 48%­- Trust in Management Scale (Mayer and Gavin, 2005)10 items, 5 ptsα = 0.76 to 0.82NRSobel test­- Areas of Worklife Scale (AWS) (Leiter and Maslach, 2003).29 items, 5 ptsα = 0.70 to 0.82NR­- Nursing Quality Indicators (American Nurses Association (ANA), 2000)4 items, 4ptsα = 0.75NR127Wong et al., (2010), J of Nurs Manag, CanadaN = 280­- Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Avolio et al., 2007)16 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.97Confirmatory factor analysisDescriptive statistics, reliability estimates and Pearsons correlationsNurses­- Personal identification scale developed by (Kark, 2001)10 items, 7pt scaleα = 0.96RR = 48%­- The Trust in Management Scale (Mayer and Gavin, 2005)10 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.83Grad Nurses­- Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) short version (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003)9 items, 6 pt scaleα = 0.90N = 342­- Helping and Voice Behaviours Scale –voice subscale (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998)6 items, 7 pt scaleα = 0.82–0.96RR = 37.7%­- International Survey of Hospital Staffing and Organization of Patient Outcomes (Aiken et al., 2001)1 items, 4 pt scaleNR128Yokoyama et al. (2016), J Clin Nurs, Japann = 898 nurses­- Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (Tsuno et al., 2010)22 items, 5 pt scalea = 0.93PVmultivariate logistic regression analysis78% RR­- Practice Environment Scale of Nursing Work Index (Ogata et al., 2008)31 items, 4 pt scalea = 0.73–0.84PV129Yoon et al. (2016), J Nurs Manag, Korean = 180 RNs- Confidence and Intent to Delegate Scale (Parsons, 1999)11 items, 10 pt scaleα = 0.83PVKolmogorov–Smirnov, Shapiro–Wilk, Spearman’s rho86% RR­- The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), (Bass and Avolio, 1997)25 items, 5 pt scaleα = 0.92

PV = Previously Validated.

NR = Not Reported.

3.2 Summary of quality review

Weaknesses in the 129 quantitative study designs related to sampling, design, and analysis (see Table 3). All 129 studies used correlational, non-experimental, or cross-sectional designs and were rated as moderate (scores = 5–9) or high quality (scores ≥ 10). However, these correlational designs limit interpretations of causality. Only 33 of the 129 included studies used probability sampling, partially due to the difficulty in using random sampling methods to study leadership in specific individuals or units. Many studies used correlational and regression analyses and 100 studies did not report the management of outliers. Only 65 studies addressed appropriateness of sample size and 95 of 129 addressed anonymity of respondents. Ninety-six of 129 studies used samples from more than one site. Effects or outcomes of leadership were most often self-reported (n = 110), rather than observed.

Table 3. Summary of Quality Assessment – 129 included quantitative studies.

CriteriaNo. of studiesYESNODesign: Prospective studies4584 Used probability sampling3396Sample: Appropriate/justified sample size6564 Sample drawn from more than one site9534 Anonymity protected9732 Response rate >60%5772Measurement: Reliable measure of leadership1236 Valid measure of leadership10920 aEffects (outcomes) were observed rather than self-reported19110 Internal consistency >70 when scale used11415 Theoretical model/framework used11217Statistical Analyses: Correlations analyzed when multiple effects studied10920 Management of outliers addressed29100

A strength of included studies was the pervasive use of theory to guide research (113 of 129 studies), with some authors integrating several established theories to guide their research. These leadership theories and frameworks most often applied included Bass (and Avolio)’s Transformational and Transactional Leadership (33 studies), and Full Range Leadership Model (4 studies), Avolio and Gardner’s Authentic Leadership (11 studies), Kanter’s Organizational Empowerment Theory (10 studies), Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices (6 studies), Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model (2 studies), Path Goal Theory (2 studies), Magnet Hospital Model (2 studies), and Consideration and Initiation (2 studies). Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) was used to frame the research design in 2 studies. All remaining leadership theories were used in single studies.

Twenty studies in this review employed higher level multivariate statistical procedures, such as hierarchical regression, and 22 studies specifically applied structural equation modeling. Of those using structural equation modeling, 18 studies were published within the last 10 years.

3.3 The outcomes of leadership

A total of 121 identified outcomes were grouped into six categories, 1) staff satisfaction with job factors, 2) staff relationships with work, 3)staff health & wellbeing, 4) relations among staff, 5) organizational environment factors and 6) productivity & effectiveness. See Table 4 for all outcomes sorted by category, relational leadership style (shaded), task-focused leadership (non-shaded), frequency, and significance of outcomes or effects. In studies examining multiple relational and/or task-focused leadership styles, outcomes are accounted for in each category in which they were reported in Table 4. For the following results section, we present categories, most frequently cited outcomes, and difference in outcomes. In text citation numbers for each outcome refers to study numbers in Table 2.

Table 4. Outcome differences between relationally focused (shaded) and task focused (non-shaded) leadership styles. Total: 121 outcomes in 129 studies.

Note: Numbers in each column = reference numbers of included studies from Table 2.

Shaded results = Relational leadership styles.

Non-shaded results = Task focused leadership styles.

Some studies examined multiple relational and/or task-focused styles with mixed results, and are accounted for in each category they were reported for.

Staff Satisfaction with work, job and their Leaders. Sixty-five studies reported 18 outcomes influenced by leadership style related to staff satisfaction with work, job and their leaders, which also included satisfaction with roles, policies and rewards. The most frequently examined outcome of leadership in this review was nursing job satisfaction (n = 57). Fifty-two of 57 studies reported highest job satisfaction associated with a variety of relational focused leadership styles, such as socio-emotional, consideration, authentic, inspirational, resonant and transformational leadership (4, 5, 7–10, 14, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38–40, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55, 58, 62, 63, 66, 68, 69, 73, 77, 80, 83–85, 90, 92, 98, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 122, 124, 126). In 4 studies, the task-focused style transactional leadership was associated with increased job satisfaction (54, 98, 105, 111). Sixteen studies reported that job satisfaction was significantly lower with task-focused forms of leadership, such as management by exception, instrumental, and laissez faire leadership (5, 7, 8, 10, 21, 25, 28, 32, 40, 47, 50, 54, 58, 105, 108, 117). Relational leadership styles were not significantly associated with job satisfaction in two studies (37, 42).

Significantly higher satisfaction with their leader was reported in 9 studies when leadership styles were authentic, charismatic, resonant, or transformational (6, 10, 11, 19, 43, 49, 78, 117, 126). Two studies examining consideration and initiating structures found equivocal results (19, 43). Management by exception (6), transactional and laissez faire (11, 58, 59, 117), and dissonant (10) leadership styles were associated with significantly lower satisfaction with their leader in 6 studies. The next most frequently examined outcomes included satisfaction with organizational work, work itself, and power, which were reported significantly higher with authentic, resonant, empowering, initiating structure and consideration styles of leadership (10). Results for remaining outcomes were equivocal or reported in a small number of studies.