Transformational leadership, engagement, performance survey

The influence of managers on employee engagement and performance is a common HR management topic in companies, hospitals and the public sector. This template uses the GTL of Carless, Wearing and Mann (2000) instead of the MLQ, which requires a license, the UWES-9 of Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006), and the in-role performance scale of Williams and Anderson (1991).

Research model

Suggested model, to be justified from your literature review (often based on the job demands-resources model): transformational leadership increases vigor, dedication and absorption at work; the three engagement dimensions and transformational leadership together increase job performance.

• Transformational Leadership → Vigor (positive)
• Transformational Leadership → Dedication (positive)
• Transformational Leadership → Absorption (positive)
• Vigor → In-Role Behavior (positive)
• Dedication → In-Role Behavior (positive)
• Absorption → In-Role Behavior (positive)
• Transformational Leadership → In-Role Behavior (positive)

Questionnaire items

Original English wording. Answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree … 5 = Strongly agree) unless the scale page says otherwise; (R) marks a reverse-coded item.

Transformational Leadership (TL) · Transformational leadership (GTL)

Code	Item
TL1	My manager communicates a clear and positive vision of the future
TL2	My manager treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages their development
TL3	My manager gives encouragement and recognition to staff
TL4	My manager fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members
TL5	My manager encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions
TL6	My manager is clear about his/her values and practices what he/she preaches
TL7	My leader instills pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent

Source: Carless, Wearing & Mann (2000). See Transformational leadership (GTL).

Vigor (VI) · Work engagement (UWES-9)

Code	Item
VI1	At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
VI2	At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
VI3	When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

Source: Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova (2006). See Work engagement (UWES-9).

Dedication (DE) · Work engagement (UWES-9)

Code	Item
DE1	I am enthusiastic about my job.
DE2	My job inspires me.
DE3	I am proud of the work that I do.

Source: Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova (2006). See Work engagement (UWES-9).

Absorption (AB) · Work engagement (UWES-9)

Code	Item
AB1	I feel happy when I am working intensely.
AB2	I am immersed in my work.
AB3	I get carried away when I'm working.

Source: Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova (2006). See Work engagement (UWES-9).

In-Role Behavior (IRB) · In-role performance scale

Code	Item
IRB1	Adequately completes assigned duties
IRB2	Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description
IRB3	Performs tasks that are expected of him
IRB4	Meets formal performance requirements of the job
IRB5	Engages in activities that will directly affect his performance evaluation
IRB6 (R)	Neglects aspects of the job he is obligated to perform
IRB7 (R)	Fails to perform essential duties

Source: Williams & Anderson (1991). See In-role performance scale.

Tips

• The original job performance scale is rated by managers; this template has employees rate themselves ('I ...'), so state clearly that it is self-rated performance and check for common method bias.
• UWES-9 uses a 0-6 frequency scale and GTL uses a 5-point frequency scale; keep the original scale of each instrument.
• The three UWES-9 dimensions are often very highly correlated; if HTMT exceeds the threshold, consider merging them into one engagement construct and explain this in Chapter 4.
• IRB6 and IRB7 are reverse-keyed items; reverse the scores before running reliability analysis.

Work out the minimum sample size for this model; once the data are in, clean the responses and run the survey data analysis for your results chapter.

Studies that used this model

• Thanh, Quang and Anh (2022). The relationship between leadership style and staff work engagement: An empirical analysis of the public sector in Vietnam. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 340. Sample: 378 department-level officials in the public sector; MLQ-5X, UWES-9 and task performance. Reliability: α 0.82-0.92 (Results section).
• Huynh Thi Xuan, Dao Huan, Nguyen Thi Dung and Pham Dinh (2025). How transformational leadership affects job performance among hospital employees: Does power distance matter?. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 23(2), 482–497. Sample: 341 hospital staff in the Mekong Delta; MLQ, UWES; PLS-SEM. Reliability: α and CR 0.841-0.930 (Table 3).
• Thanh and Quang (2022). Transformational, Transactional, Laissez-faire Leadership Styles and Employee Engagement: Evidence From Vietnam's Public Sector. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221094606. Sample: 325 provincial-level public sector leaders and civil servants. Reliability: .

Collecting responses

If your own network cannot reach the target respondents, you can pay for verified responses through Genius Data (referral link, we may earn a commission), paying only for approved responses.