nearly an organization approached this ideal bureaucratic characteristic, the more efficient it was. The
more specialized, formalized, standardized, and centralized, the better.
,WZDVQRWXQWLOWKH ¶VWR ¶VGXULQJWKHLQIDPRXVVWXGLHVDWWKH+DZWKRUQHSODQWRI:HVWHUQ
Electric, that it became evident that workers are not isolated machines, but social animals, and should
be treated as such. Shortly after the Hawthorne studies, researchers began taking a critical look at the
QRWLRQ WKDW D ³KDSS\ ZRUNHU LV D SURGXFWLYH ZRUNHU ́ (Taris & Schreurs, 2009). The satisfaction-
performance relationship, also known WKHμ+RO\*UDLO¶RI,QGXVWULDODQG2UJDQL]DWLRQDO3V\FKRORJ\
(Landy, 1989) has been the subject of hundreds of studies, and a number of meta-analyses have
summarized the results of these studies (Bowling, 2007; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Judge et al.,
2001; Petty et al., 1984). New impetus for research on the role of job satisfaction in job performance
has been provided by a review by Judge et al. (2001). Whereas Iaffaldano and Muchinsky's (1985)
highly influential meta-analysis led to the conclusion that job satisfaction is hardly related to job
performance (average corrected correlation = .17), Judge et al.'s (2001) meta-analysis revealed a
substantial relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (average corrected correlation =
.30).
Among factors that may affect VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction, leadership is considered to play a central
role. Many of the studies conducted in different countries showed a positive relationship between the
leadership behavior of the supervisor and VXERUGLQDWH¶job satisfaction (Berson & Linton, 2005; Chiok
Foong Loke, 2001; Dunham-Taylor, 2000; Seo et al., 2004; Stordeur et al., 2000; Vance & Larson,
2002). In particular, a positive relationship has been found between transformational leadership and
VXERUGLQDWH¶ job satisfaction (Avolio & Bass, 1988; Bass et al., 1987; Conger & Kanungo, 1988;
Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Studies revealed that transformational leadership styles functioned better than
other types of leadership (transactional and laissez-faire) in terms of subordinate¶ MRE VDWLVIDFWLRQ
(Bass & Avolio, 1990; Dvir et al., 2002; Waldman et al., 2001).
Introducing the concept of transformational leadership, Burns (1978) stDWHG ³WKH HVVHQFH RI WKH
leader¶s SRZHULV>«@WKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKWKH\FDQVDWLVI\± or appear to satisfy ± specific needs and
engage the IXOO SRWHQWLDO RI WKH IROORZHU ́(p.4). In a similar vein, Bass (1990b) described the
IXOILOOPHQW RI IROORZHUV¶ HPRWLRQDO QHHGV DV D FHQWUDO DVSHFW RI WUDQVIRUPational leadership.
Transformational leaders go beyond social exchange and involve higher psychological needs
including needs for competence and affection. By appreciating and addressing these needs, they
develop the potential of their followers and foster their commitment to and effort for the collective.