4.6 Article

An examination of interaction between transformational leadership and hindrance and challenge stressors for nurses

期刊

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-023-05103-0

关键词

Work engagement; Transformational leadership; Challenge stressor; Hindrance stressor; Patient satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Building on existing models and theories, this study examines the interaction between transformational leadership and job stressors on nurses' work engagement. Results show that hindrance stressors and transformational leadership have a buffering effect, while challenge stressors and transformational leadership have a substitutive effect. Additionally, nurses' work engagement is directly linked to patient satisfaction.
Building on the job demands-resources model of work engagement, the challenge-hindrance stressor framework, and substitutive-for-leadership theory, we examine the interaction between transformational leadership and job stressors on nurses' work engagement. We distinguish between hindrance stressors and challenge stressors, and provide different theoretical underpinnings for their interaction with transformational leadership. We propose that hindrance stressors and transformational leadership interact in a buffering manner, while challenge stressors and transformational leadership interact in a substitutive manner. Furthermore, we propose a direct link between nurses' work engagement and patient satisfaction at the work-unit level. With a two-wave design, we used survey to collect data from 292 nurses and 522 patients from a general public hospital in China. We tested our hypothesized research model with hierarchical linear modelling. Results showed that workload demands, which was perceived as challenge stressors, substitute for the positive effect of transformational leadership on nurses' work engagement, and that engaged nurses make patients more satisfied. The theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据