2015
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12625
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of authentic leadership and empowerment on nurses’ relational social capital, mental health and job satisfaction over the first year of practice

Abstract: By creating structurally empowering work environments, authentic leaders foster relational social capital among new graduate nurses leading to positive health and retention outcomes.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
118
0
4

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(126 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
4
118
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Likewise, employees rating their leaders as transformational report more goal and role clarit y and more variety and autonomy, presumably because transformational leaders are better able to provide a clear vision and create challenging work tasks (Korek, Felfe, & Zaepernick-Rothe, 2010;Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008;Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Similar positive effects on work design have been reported for authentic and ethical leadership (e.g., Read & Laschinger, 2015), while other studies show that abusive leadership inhibits employees' expression of social support (Hauge, Skogstand & Einarsen, 2007) and that a laissez-faire leadership approach results in higher role ambiguity (Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014).…”
Section: Work Group Leadershipsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…Likewise, employees rating their leaders as transformational report more goal and role clarit y and more variety and autonomy, presumably because transformational leaders are better able to provide a clear vision and create challenging work tasks (Korek, Felfe, & Zaepernick-Rothe, 2010;Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008;Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Similar positive effects on work design have been reported for authentic and ethical leadership (e.g., Read & Laschinger, 2015), while other studies show that abusive leadership inhibits employees' expression of social support (Hauge, Skogstand & Einarsen, 2007) and that a laissez-faire leadership approach results in higher role ambiguity (Skogstad, Hetland, Glasø, & Einarsen, 2014).…”
Section: Work Group Leadershipsupporting
confidence: 50%
“…The styles/models/theories of leadership found in the selected materials were: transformational leadership (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(56)(57)(58) , cited in 20 papers; transactional leadership (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37) , in 11 papers; situational leadership (41)(42)(49)(50) , in four papers; servant leadership (45)(46)48) , in three papers; authentic leadership (51)(52)(53)(54)(55) , in five papers; quantum leadership (38) , in one paper; charismatic leadership (39) , in one paper; and clinical leadership (25,44) , in two papers. Three studies did not mention a specific style/model/theory …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…in general, four with nurses and nursing technicians and a few described investigations with a mix of nurses and other professionals. Nineteen instruments were identified to evaluate leadership: Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (five papers) (51)(52)(53)(54)(55) ; Charismatic Leadership Socialized Scale (one paper) (39) ; Clinical Leadership Survey (CLS) (one paper) (25) ; the Coaching tool (two papers) (41)(42) ; Scale of attitudes toward leadership styles (one paper) (33) ; the 360º tool (one paper) (40) ; Global Transformational Leadership Scale (three papers) (56)(57)(58) ; Grid Gerencial (one paper) (43) ; Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD) (two papers) (49)(50) ; LMX-Leader-member Exchange (two papers) (46)(47) ; Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) (six papers) (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26) ; Leadership Reward and Punishment Behavior Questionnaire (LRPQ) (one paper) (33) ; Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (eleven papers) (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37) ; Multisource Feedback Tool (MSF) (one paper) (44) ; the Quantum tool (one paper) (38) ; Servant Leadership Questionnaire (SLQ) (one paper) (48) ; Servant Leadership Survey (SLS) (two papers) …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In terms of definitions of key terms, for instance, the phrases 'early career professional', 'new graduate', 'graduate', 'newly qualified', 'novice', 'young', 'beginner' and 'newly licensed' are utilised to describe ECPs. Furthermore, there is limited consistency regarding length of time since graduation for ECP research participants, with some studies including practitioners with years of postqualification work experience varying from less than one (see, for instance, Pack 2015;and Read & Laschinger 2015), one (Jack & Donnellan 2010), two (Laschinger 2012), three (Laschinger et al 2016;Pfaff, Baxter, Jack & Ploeg 2014;Rudman & Gustavsson 2011;and Smith, Andrusyszy & Laschinger 2010), four (Huntington, Gilmour, Neville, Kellett & Turner 2012), five (Djukic, Kovner, Brewer, Fatehi & Greene 2014;Gray et al 2012;Hewitt, Lackey & Letvak 2013;and North, Leung & Lee 2013), and ten (Ulrich et al 2010), to up to fifteen (Clark, Smith & Uota 2013). Other researchers (see, for instance, Clendon & Walker 2012;and Flinkman, Laine, Leino-Kilpi, Hasselhorn & Salantera 2008) define ECPs as practitioners aged under 30 years.…”
Section: Scope Of the Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%