INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1564

www.rsisinternational.org

Transformational Leadership Model and Corporate Performance

Mediated by Organizational Culture: Evidence from State-Owned

Enterprises in Emerging Economies

Dr. Gabriel Maibvisira.,

Dr. Orthodx Tefera.,

Dr. Tendai Chikweche

Midlands State University, Zimbabwe

University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa

Western Sydney University –Australia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.915EC00772

Received: 02 December 2025; Accepted: 08 December 2025; Published: 24 December 2025

ABSTRACT

This paper’s main objective is to determine whether transformational leadership model has an impact on the

performance of state-owned enterprises in emerging economies in view of the continued underperformances

by a majority of these enterprises due to a diverse contextual constraints. A positivism research paradigm and

cross-sectional research design were adopted and a Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5) was used to

collect data from the sampled 78 state-owned enterprises in Zimbabwe. The Logistics Regression and the

Ordinary Least Squares methods were used to analyse data. Charisma/Role Model, Contingent Rewards and

Individual Consideration traits of the Transformational Leadership model confirmed the paper’s hypothesis

that Transformational leadership model has a positive impact on the performance of SOEs. Therefore, practical

recommendations are that SOEs should adopt and institutionalize the transformational leadership traits such as

Charisma/Role Model, Contingent Rewards and Individual Consideration traits as these positively and

significantly impact on organizational outcomes which in turn can improve the performance and relevance of

SOEs. The research advances new insights on leadership in SOEs operating in a challenging environment

which can be extended to other African countries thereby extending research on SOEs’ contributions to other

emerging economies.

Keywords: Transformational leadership, corporate performance, state-owned enterprises, multi-factor

leadership, Privatised and commercialised corporates

INTRODUCTION

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2014), defines state-owned

enterprises (SOEs) as companies in which the government has major control as a result of full, majority or

significant minority ownership. SOEs, the world over, and African emerging economies in particular, are

critical for economic and infrastructure development since they act as enablers in the achievement of the

government’s social, economic and political goals (Chavunduka and Sikwila, 2015). Despite the national

strategic role played by SOEs, this sector remains under-researched (McManus, 2008) and characterised by

financial and service delivery underperformance due to seemingly ineffective leadership (Rondinelliu, 2008).

SOEs are owned and run by the state to enhance provision of essential services and raising revenue to meet the

state’s financial obligations. Moreover, African governments’ involvement with SOEs can be traced to

different economic epochs both during and after independence. This is common among newly independent

African countries that find themselves under pressure to deliver on social and economic promises associated

with independence (Balbuena, 2014). However, this is also complicated by the pressure exerted on the

countries to establish structural adjustment austerity measures by multi-lateral international organizations such

as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank of which privatization through commercialization of

SOEs is central to these reforms (Greer,2014; Florio and Fecher, 2011).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1565

www.rsisinternational.org

Although there are different schools of thought on the pros and cons of SOEs, this is beyond the scope of the

focus of this paper but it is important to highlight some of the key arguments for and against SOEs since these

can be related to the nature of leadership that is common in these enterprises. Advocates for SOEs argue that

these enterprises have benefits accruing from state connections, access to state resources and preferential

treatment as suppliers and buyers (Hillman et al., 2004; Li et al., 2012). This preferential treatment should

enable SOEs to gain competitive advantages and enhance their overall performance (Fan et al. 2014; Goldman

et al., 2009). However, critics of SOEs argue that the assumed benefit of political connections actually has a

negative impact on the performance of SOEs and overall value of the firms (Yuan, 2008; Boubakri, et al.,

2008). Nevertheless, this view is increasingly being challenged by some SOEs in China which have gone on to

become global leaders in their respective sectors both nationally and internationally (Jones and Zou, 2017).

A key negative impact which relates to leadership and is common in transition economies is the issue of moral

problems in management behaviour given the assumption that state ownership is associated with lower levels

of incentives but high levels of power although this varies with markets (Buck et al., 2008). Another common

criticism of SOEs especially in developing and transition economies is their orientation ‘towards maximizing

neither social welfare nor their financial performance but focus on government using them for other purposes

(Meyer-Sahling, 2006). For example, SOEs are used as mechanisms to achieve a number of vices such as

personal political gains through employment and provision of subsidies (Remmer, 2007). Over the years, the

debate on the contribution (or lack of it) of SOEs has been focused on the impact of privatisation on these

enterprises and again there are contestations on whether this is a panacea for the performance of SOEs

(Goldeng et al, 2008). This paper also covered this element by evaluating whether there has been some

application of transformational leadership in Zimbabwean SOEs that have gone through both

commercialisation and privatisation.

This paper’s main objective was to determine whether Transformational Leadership model has a positive and

significant impact on the performance of SOEs in African emerging economies. Thus, the paper hypothesized

that Transformational leadership model has a positive impact on the performance of SOEs in African

emerging economies. Zimbabwe’s 78 out of 107 SOEs which occupy strategic sectors of the economy with a

potential to provide approximately 40% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) if performing at their

optimum levels were used as the testing ground for this empirical paper. The contribution to the GDP by

Zimbabwe’s SOEs had dropped to shocking levels of 7.5% (Chiri, 2017) and another empirical study by

Bhoroma (2018) revealed that Zimbabwe’s 38 SOEs made a total loss of of $270 million in 2016. More so,

employment levels in SOEs dropped to 36171 in 2015 from 44000 in 2011 whilst contribution to GDP by

Zimbabwe’s SOEs sector has continued to drop during the period from 2012 to 2014 (World Bank, 2017).

Contrary to trends of poor performance by Zimbabwe’s SOEs due to seemingly ineffective leadership and

unethical business practices (Rusvingo, 2014), in other countries, such as China, SOEs contribute up to 80% of

the total value of the national stock market, whilst Russia’s SOEs contribute up to 62% and Brazil’s SOEs

contribute 38% (Jones and Zou, 2017).

LITERATURE REVIEW AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

This section conceptually reviews the transformational leadership model and the performance of state-owned

enterprises in order to set the context of paper’s investigation.

Conceptualization of organizational performance of state-owned enterprises

Organizational performance is a complex concept which refers to the non-financial and financial metrics of

corporate operations such as customer satisfaction, employee engagement, productivity, innovation,

environmental impact , product (Bozic & Poola, 2023); efficiency, total cycle time, throughput, error rate and

quality rate ( Twin, 2024) ; survival & growth, good fit with the environment and relevancy (Effy (2023);

return on investment, profitability, market share, leverage and debt to equity (Richard, Devinney, Yip and

Johnson,2009). For instance, according to Bozic & Poola (2023), organisational performance refers to how

well an organisation is achieving its objectives and goals while accomplishing its mission and deliver value to

its stakeholders. Thus, for effective results to be produced, it requires emotional engagement and empathy

from participants in terms of activities performed with the entire workforce to proffer solutions to matters that

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1566

www.rsisinternational.org

need urgent professional intervention (Contu: 2020). Similarly, the United Nations Conference for Trade and

Development (2018) defines organizational performance as the competence of a business entity to maintain

adequate liquidity threshold, increase market share, profit and satisfying customers for a period of time. It

measures the efficiency and effectiveness of a business sustainably compete in different business zones

without impassable difficulties (Abiona et al., 2021). Thus, organizational performance means the capability of

an entity to effectively and efficiently capitalise on the available resources to produce maximum output per

unity of resources (Keshani, 2020). Consequently, organizational performance has three main financial

performance categories which are profits (return on assets, return on investment), product market performance

(sales, market share) and shareholder return (total shareholder return, economic value added) (YuSheng &

Ibrahim, 2020).

Performance of SOEs can be measured using various indicators such as profitability and indicators for overall

social and economic impact such as the gross domestic product (GDP), employment, and the per capital

income (Truong, and Berry, 2014; Laurenceson and Chai, 2000; Liu, 2009; Xie et al., 2012). Additionally,

liquidity, efficiency, growth, service delivery, service quality, survival, market share, leverage and debt to

equity are also commonly used to measure performance of SOEs, (Richard et al, 2009). A common feature in

previous studies is the importance of evaluating organizational performance of SOEs as a key indicator for

their contribution. Hence, the focus on this indicator from the perspective of investigating the extent to which

transformational leadership has impacted on SOEs’ performance. Berkowitz et al., (2016) questions the

validity of using profitability alone as an indicator given the residual advantages that commercialized SOEs

often retain due to their long established connections across the economic systems they operate in. Other

scholars such as Du et al., (2018) have begun to expand the scope of evaluating SOEs’ performance beyond

evaluation of economic value although it still retains its role as a key indicator. In as far as livelihoods are

concerned, a key measurement of the impact of SOEs can be on evaluating the improvement and accessibility

of various social service-related products (Hvidman and Andersen, 2014).

There is recognition on the need for continued research on SOEs’ contributions to African economies given the

historical challenges of transitioning to being independent states and the subsequent economic reform

pressures from the IMF and World Bank. This is a gap that is supported by Simpson (2014) sought to be

addressed in this paper. There was a general acceleration of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) across

Sub-Saharan countries from the early 1980s to the present day where different versions of programmes were

being implemented by developing countries on the ‘recommendation of the IMF and World Bank. A key

component of these programmes has been the accelerated requirements for privatization and

commercialization of SOEs due to their poor performance and cost on the fiscus (Adams, 2011). Leadership

failure and inadequacies have been identified as major contributing factors to the poor performance of SOEs

and their inability to fully re-invent themselves in order to meet the obligations of these strategic enterprises

and general contribution to the economy (Farazmand, 2012; Zavattaro, 2013).

The focus of discussion on the role of SOEs in Sub-Saharan Africa has often been limited to the broad

question of whether privatization is the panacea for enhancing the contribution of these enterprises to the

diverse social and economic challenges faced by these countries. There are various established arguments on

the question of whether privatization of SOEs has a long term impact on the role of SOEs. Central to this

discourse is the notion that privatization leads to better cost efficiencies, corporate governance and profitability

(Li et al, 2012; Tian and Estrin, 2008). On the other hand, opponents of privatisation argue that the outcomes

have not always been positive. For example, there has been an increase of unemployment due to job losses and

cost of essential services has gone beyond the reach of many disadvantaged groups in the society (Birdsall and

Nellis, 2005). Moreover, focusing on ownership alone has its limitations since it does not address the broad

nature of complexities that emerge between enterprises and their wide stakeholders and environment. This

makes privatisation a limited intervention as evident from huge Chinese quasi SOEs that have evolved over

time to be profitable but do not necessarily meet other performance indicators such as good corporate

governance.

The structural adjustment programme that was implemented in Zimbabwe primarily neglected paying attention

to the need to focus on the impact of leadership and the related organizational resistance that often takes place

in SOEs during commercialisation or privatisation. This is an important gap which is also supported by

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1567

www.rsisinternational.org

Simpson (2014) and Engida, and Bardill, (2013) who reinforce the need for future studies to investigate

leadership models within SOEs in order to establish a more complete picture of the leadership challenges faced

by these entities in transforming from being a burden to the fiscus to being self-sustaining with a view to

recommending more effective leadership model(s).

Conceptualisation of transformational leadership model

Various scholars recognise the importance of leadership in the success of both public and private owned

enterprises (Hoption, et.al, 2013; Sy et al., 2013). This is why scholars and researchers continue to reinforce

the importance of continuously investigating the various manifestations of leadership in organisations inclusive

of SOEs (Markham, 2012).The transformational leadership model refers to a set of behaviours that propel

followers to go beyond the call of duty as organizational members’ self-interests give way to the interests of

the organization (Khan et al., 2020; Xu, et al., 2015). Aydin et al., (2013) posit that transformational leadership

is central to effective management of public enterprises such as SOEs. Braun et al., (2013) argue that the

complex and often turbulent context in which SOEs operate in makes transformational leadership a key

prerequisite for delivering meaningful transformation in SOEs. For instance, previous empirical studies in

Western countries have revealed that transformational leadership model has a positive effect on employee and

organizational performance (Aydogdu &Asikgil, 2011; Sardieh & PIlie 2012; Karamat, 2013). In addition,

transformational leaders are viewed as agents of change, role models and articulators of vision and creators of

enabling workplace environments (Khan and Nazwa, 2020; Northhouse, 2013).

Other researchers such as Mastrangelo et al., (2014) reinforce the role of transformational leadership in

facilitating implementation of new innovative strategies that can improve organizations’ overall strategic goals

and financial improvement. Transformational leadership is a component of values- based leadership which

emphasises the importance of leaders who focus on leading with purpose, a strong set of values, morals and

ethics that are effectively used to build effective organizations that achieve their goals, which is a key

challenge for SOEs. There is also a positive nexus between transformational leadership and overall enterprise

performance (Mastrangelo et al, 2014). Hence our motivations to position our investigation on the extent to

which SOEs in Zimbabwe have embraced transformational leadership as a basis for evaluating its impact on

SOEs performance.

Transformational leadership model’s major thrust is on implementing changes that improve both employees’

and organizational performance (Northouse, 2016). Warrick, (2011) cites clear vision, interpersonal skills,

mutual trust and creativity as some of the key competencies of a transformational leader. Similarly, a

transformational leader is viewed as a role model as he/she creates and sustains a corporate culture whose

values are adopted by other organizational members (Aydogdu and Asikgil, 2011). More so, transformational

leadership has emerged as one of the most popular and adaptive leadership approaches that results in

organizational excellence (Middleton, et al., 2015; Everett and Sitterding, 2011; Diaz-Saenz, 2011).

Empirical studies revealed that, of all the leadership approaches, transformational leadership had the most

impact on predictors of employee performance such as job satisfaction, effectiveness and organizational

citizenship behaviour. (Hunjra et al., 2010; Bushra et al.,2011; Farahani, 2011). Other studies such as Bano,

(2013); Tsigu and Rao, (2015); Zeb, (2015); Simola et al., (2010) and Yahaya and Ebrahim, (2016) reinforce

the important role of transformational leadership as a key a predictor of organizational effectiveness. Also, a

transformational leader’s approach tends to foster a culture of continuous learning, positive attitude towards

change and sustained commitment to organizational goals by all members (Nwabueze, 2011). Accordingly,

transformational leadership model has become one of the most popular leadership approaches (Northouse,

2016) and the most contemporary leadership paradigm premised on charismatic attributes of leadership (Long

et al., 2013, Judge and Piccolo, 2004; Bass and Riggio, 2006; 2010). Although there are varying views on

transformational leadership both advocates and critics of transformational leadership acknowledge its

overarching role since it is premised on continuous adaptation to both internal and external environments

(Cossin and Caballero, 2013). Ahmad et al (2014) and Sadeghi and Pilie (2012) note four critical attributes of

transformational leadership that were identified by Bass and Avolio (2000) namely inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, idealised influence and individualised consideration. The attributes are briefly

discussed below.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1568

www.rsisinternational.org

Idealised influence/charisma relates to the extent to which a leader is perceived as a source of inspiration and a

role model by his/her followers (Kelloway et al. (2012; Nielsen, Marrone and Slay 2010; Moss and Ritossa,

2007). The contributions of idealized influence to organizational performance is so immense, as it provides a

role model for ethical behavior, goes on to inculcate pride, as well as gaining esteem and reliance (Yukl and

Gardner, 2020). Transformational leaders can shake the trajectory of an individual’s professional and personal

life (Ray: 2020). Accordingly, (Bass et al, 2008) such a leader is adored, respected, trusted and followers are

willing to identify with their leader’s vision. Similarly, one other distinct attributes of a transformational

leader are the abilities to envision a brighter and desired future for the organisation by generating excitement

and commitment towards a common goal (Redziniak, 2016). Thus a transformational leader is able to align

members’ aspirations with those of the organisation thereby gaining acceptance and support of all members in

achieving Organizational goals (Avolio and Bass, 2004).

‘Individualized consideration,’ is the extent to which a leader follows up, acts on each team member’s needs,

in the process playing the role of a mentor, carefully listening to subscribers of this leadership style being

(Yukl and Gardner, 2020). Additionally, individualised consideration implies the extent to which a leader

provides support, inspiration and guidance to followers (Yukl, 2010). More so, the leader pays customised

attention to concerns of followers and empowers them to perform certain responsibilities thus helping

followers develop in various areas (Bass et al, 2003; Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Additionally, a

transformational leader creates an enabling work place environment and acts as a mentor to his/her followers

(Northhouse, 2013). As a result, a transformational leader earns trust and respect of followers necessary for

leader’s influence on members toward desired Organizational goals (Yukl, 2010).

Inspirational motivation refers to the extent to which a leader is able to come up with a shared vision that is

compelling and inspiring as perceived by followers (Ahmad et al, 2014; Van Vugt and Ahuja, 2010). Thus, a

leader needs to express his or her vision in a manner that excites and drives higher levels of performance (Ray:

2020). Likewise, such a leader is charismatic, enthusiastic, and optimistic and an effective communicator as

this positively contribute to the achievement of both individual and corporate goals (Hayati et al, 2014;

Redziniak, 2016). As a result, transformational leaders prove and encourage creativity within their followers

which in turn enhances organizational performance (Arif and Akram: 2018).Intellectual stimulation attribute

relates to self-reflective change of values and beliefs and refers to a leader with a strong bias towards

innovation, creativity, critical thinking as well as problem solving (Breaux, 2010). Thus such a leader also

encourages and motivates his/her followers to be innovative and creative in solving work-related problems and

increases their capacity to solve such problems. In addition, the leader creates an enabling workplace

environment that subsequently results in followers’ innovativeness and creativity as every member sees old

Organizational problems through new lenses (Moss and Ritossa, 2007).

Intellectual Stimulation dimension plays a very critical role in ensuring that transformational leadership

contributes to organizational performance (Xenikou: 2017; Buil et al: 2019). This dimension of

transformational leadership has been seen to enhance market share, firms’ capacity utilization and gaining

competitive advantage (Ma and Yang: 2020). A study by Koh et al (2019) established that intellectual

stimulation is highly influenced by transformational leadership, as the transformational leader guides and

supports effectively, self-motivation to be an effective and beneficial part of an organization’s performance

increases as well in form of capacity utilization. In this case, Bass and Riggio’s (2016) study revealed that the

intellectual stimulation of transformational leaders increases team members’ self-assurance to advance more

effective emotional and situational stability and resolve their problems by their selves.

Indeed, contingent reward is one of the attributes associated with transformational leaders and has been

defined as the ability of a leader to clearly articulate his/her expectations to followers and what they

(followers) will get in turn if they meet desired levels of performance (Wang et al, 2011). This approach to

leadership is said to be effective as it observes the inherent need for striking a balance between fulfilment of

employees’ and organizational goals.

From the reviewed empirical literature, we hypothesize that: Transformational Leadership model enhances

Corporate Performance of SOEs in developing countries.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1569

www.rsisinternational.org

Conceptualising the mediating role of organizational culture in the relationship between leadership and

corporate performance

The link between leadership and corporate performance cannot be fully conceptualised without determining

the mediating role of organisational culture since organisational culture interacts with leaders’ behaviours

(Schein, 2010). For the purposes of this paper, organizational culture has been taken to refer to a system of

shared meaning held by corporate members that distinguishes the organisation from other organisations

(Hofsted, et al. 2011) and strong beliefs about the manner in which tasks should be organised; the manner

managers should exercise authority; the way organisational members should be rewarded and controlled

(Hofstede et al., 2011). In spite of a sizeable number of studies (Schein, 2010) which support the view that

organisational culture and leadership are closely linked, there seems to be a limited number of empirical

studies that examine the mediating role of organisational culture in the relationship between leadership and

corporate performance(James et al., 2011). Studies have indicated existence of a positive relationship between

certain cultural orientations and corporate performance. For instance, an empirical study by Xenikou, 2017)

revealed that achievement and adaptive culture orientations directly and positively impacted on organisational

performance. Additionally, transformational and humanistic leadership approaches suggested an indirect but

positive effect on organisational performance via achievement culture orientation. Thus, the findings seem to

confirm the view that organisational culture moderates the effect of transformational leadership on

organisational performance. More so, studies have also shown that efficient and innovative organisations tend

to be associated with group values that encourage a culture of achievement, self-actualisation, participative

decision making, cooperation, social support and constructive interpersonal relations (Hofstede et al., 2011).

According to the three culture orientations studied by Xenikou & Simosi (2006), firstly, achievement culture

orientation had a direct positive effect on organisational performance. For this reason, work environments that

facilitate goal-setting, achievement of objectives and challenging performance standards tend to enhance

organisational performance. Secondly, adaptive culture orientation had a direct negative effect on

organisational performance. Consequently, the explanation of the negative effect of adaptive culture

orientation on performance can be two-fold; (i) organisational norms that enhance creativity and adaptability to

environmental fluctuations might reduce short-term financial performance as it takes organisational members a

bit long before they fully adjust to the new dispensation and (ii) adaptive orientation might be a better predictor

of long-term performance as it takes long and a lot of effort and commitment to align and coordinate

accomplishment performance goals. Thirdly, humanistic orientation showed a marginal significant negative

direct impact on organisational performance. This can be explained by the fact that social support and

conducive workplace environment might make employees focus on accomplishing personal goals at the

expense of organisational goals.

The results from the path analysis suggested that transformational leadership had an indirect positive impact on

performance via achievement orientation. Hence, this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the practice of

transformational leadership facilitates and sustains goal-driven behaviour as a result of the positive effects of

intellectual stimulation on the part of organisational members which in turn positively influences corporate

performance (Xenikou 2017). These results could imply that transformational leadership has potential to create

an achievement culture orientation among organizational members hence improved corporate performance.

From the reviewed empirical literature, we hypothesize that: Organizational Culture mediates in the

relationship between Transformational Leadership and Corporate Performance of SOEs in developing

countries.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A positivism research paradigm and cross-sectional research design were adopted in line with

recommendations for studies that are quantifiable (Saunders et al, 2012; Creswell, 2014) when studying human

behaviors (Phillips and Burbles, 2000). The target population of this study comprised all the 107 SOEs in

Zimbabwe from which a sample of 78 enterprises were used as a sample. Stratified cluster sampling was used

to select samples of study respondents drawn from 4 clusters namely First line managers [264], Middle

managers [264], Senior managers[264] (Questionnaire1) and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)/Managing

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1570

www.rsisinternational.org

Directors(MDs)/General Managers(GMs) [78] (Questionnaire 2). The Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) Sample

Size Determination Table which prescribes sample sizes for population sizes that range from 10 to 1 000 000

was used to determine representative samples from all the first 3 cluster of respondents (Questionnaire1) and

for (Questionnaire2) all the 78 heads of SOEs were considered. These sample sizes per cluster were based on

the Multi-Factor Leadership (MLQ5) scale that recommends a minimum response of between 3 and 24 ratters

per leader (Bass and Avolio, 2000). The adapted MLQ5 leader- ratter scale measures a wide range of

leadership attributes and has been used to determine the extent to which a leader exhibits transformational

attributes (Bass & Avolio, 1989). More so, the leadership measurement scale has been credited for reliability

with an internal consistence that ranges between 0.81 and 0.96. Likewise, Bass (2008) asserts that the scale

conforms to requirements for validity which ranges from 0.44 to 0.74. Despite criticisms of the MLQ5

regarding its discriminant validity and repeatability, this scale has proved the existence of a significant external

and construct validity, reliability, internal consistency and factor loadings by different ratters, sectors and

cultures (Muenjon & Armstrong, 2008). Also, the MLQ5 has been confirmed as a reliable predictor of leader’s

performance across a wide range of organisations.

A 5-point Likert scale with a total of 21 items on which respondents were asked to describe their immediate

superior's leadership attributes was used. The transformational leadership construct was measured using a 6

transformational leadership attribute scale, namely; Individual Consideration (4 items), Inspirational

Motivation (2 items), Intellectual Stimulation (3 items), Charisma (4 items), Interpersonal Support (3 items)

and Contingent Reward (5 items). For data analysis, the statistical package for the Social Science (SPSS)

software was used to analyse data. The estimation methodologies included; the Logistics Regression (applied

to the responses of Questionnaire 1) and the Ordinary Least Squares method (applied to the responses of

Questionnaire 2). The results of both the logistics regression model and the Ordinary Least Squares model

were used to examine the association between the dependent variable and the independent variables as a

necessary and sufficient condition for testing the research hypothesis. The Pearson correlation coefficient was

used to determine the strength of the relationship between variables.

The Logit Regression Model

The logit model is often used when the dependent variable is dichotomous and it provides an indication of the

adequacy of a set of predictor by assessing suitability and also provides an indication of the relative

importance of each predictor variables or interaction among predictor variables (Pallant, 2013). Precisely, the

term ‘logit’ itself refers to the natural logarithm of the odds (log odds) which indicates the probability of

falling into one of the two categories on some variable of interest (Chauke et al., 2013). Hence, in the current

paper, the logit model was employed to assess how well the independent variable such Transformational

Leadership and its attributes relate with the performance of SOEs in Zimbabwe.

Model 1 specification

Profitability, liquidity, growth, service delivery quality, efficiency, survival, leverage, debt to equity ratio and

market share are the variables that were used as indicators/measures of the organizational performance

construct (dependent variable).The transformational leadership construct (independent variable) comprised of

the following variables: individual consideration, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, charisma,

interpersonal support and contingent reward. Lastly, organisational culture orientations represented the

mediating variable. Therefore, the following conditions hold:



󰇛



󰇜

.. (1)

󰇛󰇜 .. (2)



󰇛



󰇜





 



 



  



 



 



  



 



…(3)

Where parameters



,



,



, …………



are slope coefficients to be estimated and



represents the stochastic

the error term. The errors (



) in expression 3.3 above are expected to follow a Logistic distribution with a

mean equivalent to zero and a variance equivalent to󰇛









󰇜.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1571

www.rsisinternational.org

Estimation background for the Logit model

Since the model specified in expression 3.3 above is of a binary nature motivated by unobserved latent

variables specification that is linearly related to some finite regressors and an error term.











󰆒

 



…………………………………………………………………………….… (4)

Where





is the dichotomous variable,



󰆒

is a vector of explanatory variables,  denotes the vector of

coefficients and



is a random disturbance terms that can follow either a normal distribution or a logistic

distribution. The observed dependent variable is determined by whether 





exceeds a threshold value:



























……………………………………………………………… (5)

In this case, the threshold is set to zero, but the choice of a threshold value is irrelevant, so long as a constant

term is included:



󰇛















󰇜



󰇛









󰇜



󰇛





󰆒







󰇜

  



󰇛





󰆒



󰇜

………… (6)

Where is 



the cumulative distribution function of . The Logit model specified in the current study can be

parametised as shown below.



󰇛















󰇜

  󰇧







󰆓





  





󰆓







󰇨







󰆓





  





󰆓







………. (7)

Given the log likelihood function of a binary model specification, the parameters estimates of the logit model

can be computed using the maximum likelihood method whose log- likelihood function is given by

󰇛



󰇜













 

󰇛





󰆒



󰇜









󰇛

  



󰇜







󰇛





󰆒



󰇜



…………………… (8)

In as much as the logit model above is concerned, each slope coefficient measures the change in the estimated

logit (log odds) for a unit change in the value of the given explanatory variable (holding other regressors

constant) and are often referred to as partial slope coefficients. Furthermore, a more meaningful interpretation

of the logit regression results is premised on the calculated odds ratios related to each explanatory variable in

the model, computed by taking the antilogarithms of the various slope coefficients of the estimated logit model

(









Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression

This paper employed the OLS method of a multiple regression nature to quantify the direct impact of

Transformational leadership on Organizational performance in Zimbabwean SOEs. The multiple regression

anlaysis employed in the current study is premised on the responses obtained from a small sample of highly

ranked individuals in Zimbabwean SOEs (CEOs/MDs/GMs), deemed to have better insight about the actual

performance of their respective organisations.

Model 2 Specification (Multiple Regression Analysis)

This multiple regression model relates a dependent variable to a constant and some finite number of

explanatory variables and a disturbance term as shown in expression 3.10 below.





 







 







 



……………….(1)

Where OP denotes the Organisational Performance, TL indicates the Transformational Leadership, EM

represents Empowerment, PF refers to the Policy Formulation, OC signifies the Organisational Challenges. In

the same vein, 



 







denotes the slope coefficients (betas) to be estimated whereas 



is the

stochastic error term which follows a normal distribution with a zero mean and a variance equal to 1.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1572

www.rsisinternational.org

Estimation Background for the OLS Model

The model provides an indication of the adequacy of a set of explanatory variables (such as Transformational

leadership) in explaining the dependent variable by assessing their suitability and relative importance of each

explanatory variable in the fitted model (Bazeley, 2007). The general form of the multiple regression model is

shown in expression (2) below.

















 …………………………………………………………………… (2)

Where Y is the dependent variable, 



is a constant,



is the slope coefficients of variable i while 



denotes

the i

explanatory variable and u is the disturbance or error term.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Hypothesis (H1) Testing

Table 1 below presents results of the Logit Regression Model Estimates (applied to the responses of

Questionnaire 1) that was employed to quantify the impact of transformational leadership on organisational

performance in Zimbabwe’s commercialised SOEs.

Table 1: LOGIT Regression Model Estimates

Variable

Traits

Notation

Parametization

Coefficient

p-value

Exp(B)

Transformational Leadership

Individual

consideration





0.936***

(0.226)

[0.026]

0.002

2.550

Inspirational

motivation





-0.377*

(0.224)

[2.846]

0.092

0.686

Intellectual stimulation

IS1





-0.352**

(0.205)

[2.933]

0.037

0.703

Charisma/Role model

CRM1





0.682**

(0.264)

[2.154]

0.042

1.978

Interpersonal support

IS2





-0.090

(0.170)

[0.278]

0.598

0.914

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1573

www.rsisinternational.org

Contingent reward





0.823***

(0.290)

[8.038]

0.005

2.277

Constant





0.318***

(0.093)

[11.678]

0.001

1.374

Note: superscripts ***, **, * denote statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance. An

estimated coefficient is statistically significant say at 1% if its probability value (p-value) or significance value

(sig.) is less than 0.01 while an estimate is deemed statistically significant at 5% if its p-value is less than 0.05

and the same conditions also hold in the case of 10% level of significance.

Source: Researchers’ analysis from field data (2019)

The results in Table 1 above show that the partial slope coefficient of the principal component of Individual

consideration (



= 0.936) in Logit model is positive and statistically significant at 5% significance level. This

implies that, holding other explanatory variables constant, an increase in Individual consideration will result in

an increase in the log odds of Organizational Performance of approxiamately 0.94. In other words, a one

percent increase in Individual Consideration is 2.55 times more likely to increase Organizational Performance.

However, the partial slope coefficient for the Inspirational motivation variable (



= -0.377) is negative, but

not statistically significant at 5% significance level. The results imply that there is insufficient evidence from a

statistical point of view to validate that an inverse relationship exists between Inspirational Motivation and the

log odds of Organizational performance. The results also confirmed that the partial slope coefficient of the

Intellectual stimulation variable (IS1) denoted by 



(= -0.352) is negative and statistically significant at 5%

percent level of significance. The results imply that an increase in Intellectual stimulation by a margin of 1%

will result in a decrease in the log odds of Organizational performance ceteris paribus. Against this

background, Intellectual stimulation is 0.703 times less likely to stimulate Organizational performance in

SOEs.

The partial slope coefficient of the Charisma/Role model variable (CRM1) symbolized by 



(= 0.682) is

positive and statistically significant at 5% level of significance. This empirical evidence indicates that, all

things being equal, an increase in the Charisma/Role model (CRM1) by 1% will lead to an increase in the log

odds of organizational performance of about 0.682 units. Precisely, improvements in the Charisma/Role model

attributes are 1.978 times more likely to stimulate organizational performance of SOEs.

The results displayed in Table 1 (above) show that the partial slope coefficient for Interpersonal Support (IS2)

eptomised by 



(= -0.090) is negative but not statistically significant at 5% significance level. The findings

indicated that there is no sufficient statistical evidence at 5% level, to validate an inverse relationship

Interpersonal support and the log odds of organizational performance of SOEs in the emerging economies.

The results of the current research also revealed that the partial slope coefficient of the Contingent Reward

(CR) variable (



= 0.823) is positive and statistically significant at 5% percent significance level. The results

suggets that a one percent increase in Contingent reward will trigger an increase in the log odds of

Organisational peformance by approximately 0.8 units if all the regressors in the logit regression model

remains unchanged. Furthermore, these results confirmed that a positive thrust in Contingent reward (CR) is

2.277 times more likely to increase Organisational performance of SOEs.

Additionally, the Ordinary Least Squares Regression model in Table 2 below was used to test the hypothesis

(H1) that Transformational leadership model has a positive impact on the performance of SOEs. The results

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1574

www.rsisinternational.org

also provide sufficient evidence of a positive and statistically significant impact at 5% level of significance to

confirm the paper’s hypothesis.

Table 2: Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results

Variable

Notation

Parametization

Dependent Variable: (Organisational Performance)

OP1 (Model 2A)

OP2 (Model 2B)

OP3 (Model 2C)

Coefficient

value

Coefficient

value

Coefficient

value

Transformational

leadership





0.407***

(0.098)

[4.141]

0.000

0.271**

(0.110)

[2.557]

0.012

0.259**

(0.148)

[1.746]

0.036

0.208**

0.382***

0.293**

Empowerment





(0.084)

[2.284]

0.018

(0.194)

[1.870]

0.017

(0.127)

[0.567]

0.573

Policy

formulation





-0.110

(0.086)

[-1.278]

0.206

0.100

(0.096)

[1.041]

0.302

-0.308**

(0.130)

[-2.370]

0.021

Organisational

Challenges





-0.728**

(0.106)

[-6.890]

0.000

-0.159*

(0.118)

[-1.347]

0.083

-0.028**

(0.160)

[-2.174]

0.043

Organisational

Culture

Orientations

OCO





0.391***

(0.093)

[4.210]

0.000

0.310**

(0.104)

[2.983]

0.004

0.212

(-0.140)

[1.509]

0.137

Constant





1.191**

(0.534)

[2.228]

0.030

-1.589

(0.598)

[-2.660]

0.010

0.311**

(0.807)

[0.386]

0.701

Note: superscripts ***, **, * denote statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance. An

estimated coefficient is statistically significant say at 1% if its probability value (p-value) or significance value

(sig.) is less than 0.01, while an estimate is deemed statistically significant at 5% if its p-value is less than 0.05

and the same conditions also hold in the case of 10% level of significance.

Source: Researchers’ analysis from field data (2019)

The intercept (



= 1.191) in the first regression model (Model 2A) is positive and statistically significant at

5% level of significance. This result implies that, holding all other explanatory variables in the model constant,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1575

www.rsisinternational.org

the average Organisational performance is positive and equivalent to 1.191 units. Therefore, the data

generating process for the first regression (Model 2A) model based on the results presented in Table 2 can be

stated as:

        ... (4.2)

Where: OP1 = First principal component of Organisational Performance

TL = Transformational Leadership

EM = Empowerment

PF = Policy Formulation

OC = Organisational Challenges

OCO = Organisational Culture Orientations

The estimated unstandardized beta coefficient for the Transformational leadership variable (



=0.407) in the

regression model (Model 2A) related to the first principal factor of Organisational performance (OP1) is

positive and statistically significant at 1% level of significance. The result confirmed that, holding all other

explanatory variables in the model constant, a one percent increase in Transformational leadership will results

in an increase in Organisational performance of approximately 0.41 units. The estimated slope coefficient for

same variable (Transformational leadership) in the regression model (Model 2B) related to the second

principal factor of Organisational performance (OP2) denoted by the parameter 



(=0.271) is also positive

and statistically significant at 5% level of significance. This result implies that Transformational leadership has

a positive impact on Oganisational performance of SOEs in emerging economies.

More precisely, a one percent increase in Transformational Leadership will yield a corresponding increase in

Corporate Performance of about 0.271 units ceteris paribus. Yet again, the slope coefficient of

Transformational Leadership variable (



= 0.259) in the regression model (Model 2C) related to the third and

final principal factor of Corporate Performance (OP3) is positive and statistically significant at 5% level of

significance. This validates that an increase in Transformational Leadership by one percent will trigger an

increase of 0.259 in Corporate Performance all things being equal. Overall, the findings of the current study

authenticated that Transformational Leadership has a significant positive impact on Corporate performance in

SOEs.

The results also revealed that Organisational Culture Orienntations have a positive mediating effect on the

relationship between Transformational Leadership and Corporate Peformance. This revelation implies that

improved in organizational culture orientations by a magnitude of 1% will yield an increase in the log odds of

organizational performance all things being equal.

CONCLUSIONS

There is sufficient evidence of a positive and statistically significant at 5% percent significance level as given

by results of the Logit Regression model in Table 1 with regard to the Charisma, Contingent Rewards and

Individual Consideration dimensions of the Transformational Leadership model and this is in line with

findings by Yukl and Gardner, (2020); Wang et al, (2011) and Yukl, (2010). Thus, this conclusion also

confirms the first hypothesis that: Transformational Leadership model enhances the Corporate Performance of

SOEs in the emerging economies.

Also, from the results of the Ordinary Least Squares Regression model, the transformational leadership has a

statistically significant positive impact on corporate performance. Therefore, the results to a larger extent,

affirmed hypothesis that Transformational leadership has a positive and statistically significant impact on

corporate performance in SOEs in the emerging economies. Again, this conclusion is supported by Aydin et

al., (2013); Khan and Nazwa, (2020); Northhouse (2013).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1576

www.rsisinternational.org

Additionally, improved organizational culture orientations have a potential of 1.232 times to have a postive

moderating effect on corporate performance in general and specifically in SOEs in the emerging economies.

This conclusion is also in harmony with the findings of studies by Xenikou, (2017) and Hofstede et al.(2011).

The practical implication of the conclusions of this paper is that the majority of state-owned enterprises in

emerging economies were not applying the transformational leadership model as evidenced by their poor

performance. Therefore, the application of the transformational leadership dimensions such as Charisma/Role

Model, Contingent Rewards and Individual Consideration could largely improve both financial and non-

financial performance of SOEs in emerging economies as revealed by results of the Logit Regression model in

Table 1.

Practical Implications

In light of the findings and conclusions of this paper, SOEs in African emerging economies should adopt and

implement the transformational leadership model, emphasizing more on the Charisma, Contingent Rewards

and Individual Consideration dimensions of the transformational leadership model. Adoption of these 3 key

dimensions has potential to generate excitement and commitment towards a common goal from organizational

members (Redziniak, 2016), predict the leader’s ability to strike a balance between follower’s expectations and

desired levels of performance (Wang et al, 2011) and predict the leader’s extent to which he/she is able to

adapt his/her approach to provide customised support, inspiration and guidance to followers (Yukl, 2010)

respectively.

Additionally, SOEs in the emerging economies should foster and sustain supportive and positive corporate

culture to improve organizational performance since the findings and conclusions of this paper imply that

supportive corporate culture positively mediates the effect of Transformational Leadership on Corporate

performance of SOEs in emerging economies.

REFERENCES

1. Abiona, B., Adasanya, D. A., Oyekanmi, S. T., and Ajayi, M. T., (2021). Deviant Behaviour of

Employees and Job Performance - Evidence From Selected Agricultural Research Institutes in Nigeria.

Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 69(2): 241–249.

2. Adams, S. (2011),” Privatization and national development: A case study of Ghana,” Public

Organization Review, Vol.11.3, pp.237-253.

3. Ahmad F., Tasawar A, Latif S., and Rasheed, A. (2014),” Impact of Transformational Leadership on

Employee Motivation in Telecommunication Sector,” Journal of Management Policies and

Practices,Vol. 2,pp.11-25.

4. Arif, S & Akram, A, (2018), Transformational Leadership and Organizational Performance,

University of Central Punjab.

5. Avolio B. J. and Bass, B. M. (2004), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and sampler set,

(3rd ed.) Mind Garden, Redwood City, CA.

6. Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, Ş. (2013),” The effect of school principals’ leadership styles on

teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction,” Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice,

Vol.13 No.2, pp.806-811

7. Aydogdu S. and Asikgil B. (2011),” An empirical study of the relationship among job satisfaction,

Organizational commitment and turnover intention,” International Review of Management and

Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.43-53.

8. Balbuena S. (2014), “State-owned enterprises in Southern Africa: A stocktaking of reforms and

challenges.” OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers.

9. Bass B. M. (2008), The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications,

(4th edn) Free Press, New York.

10. Bass B. M. and Avolio,B.J. (2000), MLQ, Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Sampler set:

Technical report, leader form, rater form, and scoring key for MLQ Form 5 x – short, Mind Garden

,Redwood City, CA.

11. Bass B. M. and Riggio R. E. (2006), Transformational Leadership (Second Edition), Routledge,CA.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1577

www.rsisinternational.org

12. Bass B. M. and Riggio R. E. (2010), The transformational model of leadership. In: G. R. Hickman

(Ed.), Leading organisations: Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, Sage,CA.

13. Bass B. M., Avoilio B. J., Jung, D. I. and Berson, Y. (2003),”Predicting unit performance by assessing

transformational and transactional leadership,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.88 No.(2),pp.207-

218.

14. Bazeley P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London: Sage.

15. Berkowitz, H. and Ma, N. (2016),” Recasting the Iron Rice Bowl: The Reform of China's State Owned

Enterprises”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 0.

16. Bhoroma., V (2018). Privatisation: A panacea to State enterprises decay. Newsday March 20, 2018

17. Birdsall ,N. and Nellis J. (2005),Reality check: the distributional impact of privatization in developing

countries, Center for Global Development, Washington DC.

18. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J.C. and Saffar W.(2008),”Political connections of newly privatized firms,”

Journal of Corporate Finance,Vol. 14 No.5 pp.654–673.

19. Bozic, V., & Poola, I. (2023). Measuring organizational perfomance. USA: Researchgate.

20. Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., and Frey, D. (2013),”Transformational leadership, job satisfaction,

and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust,” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.24,

pp.270-283.

21. Buck T., Liu X. and Skovoroda R. (2008),’'Top executive pay and firm performance in China',’Journal

of International Business Studies, Vol.39, pp.833-850.

22. Bushra F., Usman N. and Naveed N. (2011),” Effect of transformational leadership on employees’ job

satisfaction and Organizational commitment in banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan),” International

Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No.18, pp.261-267.

23. Chauke , P. K. Motlhatlhana, M. L. Pfumayaramba T. K. and Anim F. D. K. (2013). Factors

influencing access to credit: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Capricorn district of South

Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 8(7), pp. 582-585, 28 February, 2013 Available

online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2013.6700 ISSN 1991-637X

24. Chavunduka M. D. and Sikwila N. M. (2015),” Corporate governance in Zimbabwe: The ZIMCODE

and state- owned enterprises connection,” International Journal of Economics, Commerce and

Management, Vol.V.Issue 7,pp. 1-10.

25. Chiri M. (2017),”Parastatals Now Burden on Fiscus,” The Zimbabwe Independent 23 June, 2017.

26. Cossin D. and Caballero, J. (2013) Transformational leadership background Literature review, [online]

pp.5-24.

27. Contu, E.G, (2020), Organizational Performance - Theories and Practical Approaches; Study on

Students’ Perceptions, Curtin University, Bucharest, Romania.

28. Creswell, J. W. (2014), Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approach,

Thousand Oaks, Sage,CA.

29. Diaz-Saenz, H.R (2011), Transformational Leadership, The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, Thousand

Oaks,Sage, CA.

30. Du, F., Erkens, D. H., Young, S. M., and Tang, G. (2018),” How Adopting New Performance

Measures Affects Subjective Performance Evaluations: Evidence from EVA Adoption by Chinese

State-Owned Enterprises,” Accounting Review, Vol.93. No.1, pp.161–185

31. Effy. (2023).. Organizational Performance: How to Measure & Improve It. Retrieved from Effy:

https://www.effy.ai/blog/organizational-performance

32. Engida, T. G., and Bardill, J. (2013),’Reforms of the public sector in the light of the new public

management: A cases of Sub-Saharan Africa,’ Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research

Vol. 5. No.1, pp. 1-7,

33. Everett, L.Q and Sitterding, M.C. (2011) Transformational leadership required designing and

sustaining evidence-based practice: A system exemplary. Western Journal of Nursing Research.

Vol.33. No.3, pp.398-426

34. Fan J.P.H., Wong T.J., and Zhang T. (2014),” Politically Connected CEOs, Corporate Governance, and

the Post-IPO Performance of China's Partially Privatized Firms,” Journal of Applied Corporate

Finance, Vol.26 No.3: pp.85–95.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1578

www.rsisinternational.org

35. Farahani, M. Taghadosi, M. Behboudi (2011). An exploration of the relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of emotional

intelligence: Case study in Iran. International Business Research,Vol 4 No.4,pp.211-217.

36. Farazmand, A. (2012),” The future of public administration challenges and opportunities: A critical

perspective,” Administration and Society, Vol.44. No.4, pp.487-517.

37. Florio, M., and Fecher, F. (2011),”The future of public enterprises: Contributions to a new Discourse,’

Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics”, Vol.82 No.4 pp.361-373.

38. Goldeng, E., Grunfeld, L.A.,and Benito, G.R.G. (2008),” The performance differential between private

and state owned enterprises: the roles of ownership, management and market structure, “Journal of

Management Studies, Vol.45 No.7, pp.1244–73.

39. Greer, S. (2014),”Structural adjustment comes to Europe: Lessons for the Eurozone fromthe

conditionality debates,” Global Social Policy, Vol.14 No.1, pp.51-71.

40. Hayati, D. et al (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement in

government hospitals. A survey study. http://creativecommons.org/licenses[Accessed 10/06/16].

41. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in

Psychology and Culture, 2(1).https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

42. Hoption, C., Barling, J.,and Turner, N. (2013), “It's not you, it's me”: Transformational leadership and

self-deprecating humor,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol.34 No., pp.4-19.

43. Hunjra, A. I., Kashif-Ur-Rehman, Chani M.I, and Azam, S.M (2010),” Factors affecting job

satisfaction of fmployees in Pakistani banking sector,” African Journal of Business Management, Vol.

4 No.10, pp. 2157-2163.

44. Hvidman, U., and Andersen, S. C. (2014),”Impact of performance management in public and private

organizations,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol.24, pp.35-58

45. James, C.Sarros, B. K. and Cooper, J. C. (2011) "Leadership vision, organizational culture, and support

for innovation in not for profit and for profit oganizations.” Leadership & Organization Development

Journal.

46. Jones. L and Zou,Y (2017),” Rethinking the Role of State owned-Enterprises in China’s Rise”, New

Political Economy, Vol.22,No.6, pp.743-760

47. Judge, T. A, and Picollo R. F (2004),” Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A meta-analytic

test of their relative validity,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 89 No.5, pp.755-768.

48. Karamat, A. U. (2013),’ Impact of leadership on organizational performance, Unpublished doctoral

thesis, University of Applied Sciences, Finland.

49. Kashani, P. E., (2020). The effects of managers on organizational behaviours and functions, African

Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, Volume 9(1)

50. Kelloway, E.K., Turner, N., Barling, J. and Loughlin, C. (2012) Transformational leadership and

employee psychological wellbeing: The mediating role of employee trust in leadership. Work and

stress, Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, Vol.26 No.1, pp.39-

55.

51. Khan. H, Rehmat. M, But. T.H, Farooqi. S and Asim. J, (2020), Impact of transformational leadership

on work performance, burnout and social loafing: a mediation model, Future Business Journal.

52. Khan. Q and Nazwa. A, (2020), Transformational Leadership as the Predictor of Decision-Making

Styles: A Survey of Local Government District DI Khan Khyber, Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan

53. Koh, D, Lee, K, & Joshi, K, (2019), Transformational leadership and creativity: A meta-analytic

review and identification of an integrated model, Journal of Organizational Behavior

54. Krejcie, R.V., and Morgan, D.W. (1970),” Determining Sample Size for Research

Activities,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.30, pp.607-610

55. Laurenceson, J., and Chai, J. (2000),”The Economic Performance of China's State-owned Industrial

Enterprises,” Journal of Contemporary China,Vol 9,No.23, pp.21-39.

56. Li S, Xia J, Long CX, and Tan J. (2012),”Control Modes and Outcomes of Transformed State-Owned

Enterprises in China: An Empirical Test,” Management and Organization Review,Vol.8 No.2,pp.283–

309.

57. Liu, Y. (2009),”A Comparison of China's State-Owned Enterprises and Their Counterparts in the

United States: Performance and Regulatory Policy,” Public Administration Review, Vol.69. No.S1,

pp.447-466.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1579

www.rsisinternational.org

58. Long, C. S., Thean, L. Y., and Tan Kowang, T. O (2013),” The transformational leadership: A possible

TQM solution to increase job satisfaction?,” Life Science Journal, Vol.10 No.4, pp.1474-1484.

59. Markham, S. E. (2012),”The evolution of organizations and leadership from the ancient world to

modernity: A multilevel approach to organizational science and leadership (OSL),” The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol.23 No.6, pp.1134-1151.

60. Mastrangelo, A., Eddy, E. R., and Lorenzet, S. J. (2014),”The relationship between enduring leadership

and organizational performance,” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol.35 No.7,

pp.590-604.

61. Meyer-Sahling, J.H. (2006),”The Rise of the Partisan State? Parties, Patronage and the Ministerial

Bureaucracy in Hungary,” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics Vol.22, No.3, pp.

274–297.

62. Middleton, J., Harvey, S. and Esaki, N. (2015),” Transformational leadership and organizational

change: How do leaders approach trauma-informed organizational change twice? Families in Society,

Vol. 96 No. 3, pp.155-162.

63. Moss, S. A., and Ritossa, D.A. (2007),”The impact of goal orientation on the association between

leadership style and follower performance: Creativity and work attitudes,” Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, Vol.3 No.4, pp.433–456.

64. Muenjohn, N., and Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the Structural Validity of the MLQ, Capturing the

Leadership Factors of Transformational-Transactional Leadership. Contemporary Management

Research, 4(1), 3-14.

65. Nielsen R., Marrone J. A. and Slay H. S. (2010),” A new look at humility: Exploring the humility

concept and its role in socialised charismatic leadership,” Journal of Leadership &Management,

Vol.17, pp.33-43.

66. Northouse P. G. (2013), Leadership: Theory and Practice. 6th edition,: Sage Publishers, Los Angeles.

67. Northouse P. G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,

CA.

68. Nwabueze U. (2011),” Implementing TQM in health care: The critical leadership traits of

internationally dispersed technology units,” Strategic Management Journal, Vol 22 No.3, pp.331-343.

69. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (2014), Governance of SOEs in

Southern Africa. Organizational Studies, OECD.

70. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. New

York, USA: Open University Press.

71. Phillips D. C. and Burbules N. C. (2000). Post positivism and educational research. Rowman &

Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

72. Ray, M (2020): Transformational leadership: Inspirational Motivation, Leadership Expert, Hall of

Fame Speaker, Canada, And USA.

73. Redziniak, R. (2016). The transformational leader-Martin Luther King Jr. Uncategorised Pennsilvania

StateUniversity.

74. Remmer KL. (2007),”The Political Economy of Patronage: Expenditure Patterns in the Argentine

Provinces”, 1983–2003,’ Journal of Politics,Vol. 69 No.2,pp.363– 377.

75. Richard P. J., Devinney T. M., Yip G. S. and Johnson, G. (2009),’Measuring Organizational

performance: Towards methodological best practice,’ Journal of Management, Vol35 No.3, pp.718-

804.

76. Rondinelli D. (2008) Public enterprises: Unresolved challenges and new opportunities. Can public

enterprises contribute to development? A critical assessment and alternatives for management

Improvement. United Nations, New York.

77. Rusvingo S. L. (2014). The rot in the state-owned enterprises in Zimbabwe: A Cause for Great

Concern. Global Journal of Human-Social Science: F Political Science Vol.14 No. 7.

78. Sadeghi A. and Pilie Z. A. L (2012),” Transformational leadership and its predictive effects on

leadership effectiveness”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol.3No.7, pp.1-12.

79. Saunders M., Lewis P. and Thornhill A. (2012), Research methods for business students. 6th Edition,

Pearson Education Limited,Essex.

80. Schein E. H. (2010). Organisational culture and leadership. New York, NY: Wiley. Sciences, Volume

172, 27 January 2015.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XV November 2025 | Special Issue on Economics

Page 1580

www.rsisinternational.org

81. Simola S. K., Barling J. and Turner N. (2010),” Transformational leadership and leader moral

orientation: Contrasting an ethics of justice and an ethics of care,” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.21,

pp.179-188

82. Simpson, S. N. Y. (2014),” Boards and governance of state-owned enterprise,” Corporate Governance,

Vol.14, pp.238-251.

83. Sy, T., Choi, J. N., & Johnson, S. K. (2013),”Reciprocal interactions between group perceptions of

leader charisma and group mood through mood contagion,” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.24.No.

Pp.463-476.

84. Tian L, and Estrin S. (2008),”Retained state shareholding in Chinese PLCs: Does government

ownership always reduce corporate value?,” Journal of Comparative Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1: pp.74-

85. Truong, D., and Berry, B. (2014),”Public Enterprises and Economic Performance: An Examination of

Vietnamese State Owned Enterprises. Vol.74, No.10,

86. Twin, A. (2024, January 30). KPIs: What Are Key Performance Indicators? Types and Examples.

Retrieved from Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kpi.asp

87. Van Vugt, M. and Ahuja, A. (2010), Why some people lead, Why others follow and why it matters.

London: Profile Books.

88. Wang. G,. Oh. I.S, Courtright, S.H. and Colbert A.E (2011),”Transformational leadership and

performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research,”Group &

Organization Management, Vol.36 No.2, pp. 223-270.

89. Warrick D. D. (2011),“The urgent need for skilled transformational leaders: Integrating

transformational leadership and organisation development,” Journal of Leadership, Accountability, &

Ethics, Vol.8 No. 5,pp.11-26.

90. World Bank (2017), Zimbabwe economic update: The state in the economy, World Bank,

Washington,DC.

91. Xenikou A. (2017). "Transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward, and organisational

identification: The mediating effect of perceived innovation and goal culture orientations", Frontiers in

Psychology.

92. Xenikou, A, Simosi. M, (2006). Organizational culture and transformational leadership as predictors of

business unit performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 21 No. 6, 2006 pp. 566-579 q

Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683940610684409

93. Xu F., Caldwell C., Glasper K. and Guevara L. (2015), “Leadership roles and transformative duties

preliminary research,” Journal of Management Development, Vol.34,pp. 1061-1072.

94. Yahaya F. and Ebrahim,A. (2016). Leadership styles and Organizational commitment: Literature

review.https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JMD-01-2015-0004.

95. Yang. H and Ma. J, (202) How an Epidemic Outbreak Impacts Happiness: Factors that Worsen (vs.

Protect) Emotional Well-being during the Coronavirus Pandemic, Psychiatry Research.

96. Yuan QB. (2008). Public Governance, Political Connectedness and CEO Turnover: Evidence from

Chinese State-Owned Enterprises, Working Paper, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong

97. Yukl G. and Mahsud R. (2010),” Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential, “Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 62 No. 2pp.81-93.

98. Yukl, G.A & Gardner, W.L, (2020), Leadership in Organizations, 9th edition, State University of New

99. Yusheng, X., and Ibrahim, T., (2020). Financial and non-financial organizational performance

parameters, London: Oxford University Press.

100. Zavattaro, S. M. (2013),” Social media in public administration’s future a response to Farazmand,”

Administration and Society, Vol.45 No.2,, pp. 242-255.