2016-7
The Effect of Supervisors’ Transformational Leadership on Subordinates’
Psychological Empowerment and Work-Life Balance

Saki Kishino Mitsutoshi Hirano

The Effect of Supervisors’ Transformational Leadership on Subordinates’ Psychological
Empowerment and Work-Life Balancei

Saki Kishino,
Kobe University
Graduate School of Business Administration

Mitsutoshi Hirano,
Kobe University
Graduate School of Business Administration

Abstract
Research in Japan, as elsewhere, has turned to work-life balance as
indicating not only the conflict between work and family, but also “a relationship where
work and family mutually interact for quality improvements.” Such research, based on
the novel concepts of positive spillover, enrichment, and facilitation, contemplates cases
in which skills acquired at work are applied in the family, and feelings of significanceand fulfillment fostered at work are transmitted to the family. This paper’s research
considers significance and fulfillment at work as psychological empowerment; thisresearch inquires as to whether 1) the transformational leadership of a businesssuperior, or below as “supervisor,” affects subordinates’ work-life balance; and whether
2) psychological empowerment has mediated effects that link transformational
leadership with said work-life balance. An investigation was made via questionnaire,
and it was found that a supervisor’s recognition increases the meaning, i.e., the feelingof significance, of subordinates’ work, and this has positive effects on the realization of awork-life balance. It is asserted that the transformational leadership of a workplacesupervisor and psychological empowerment are powerful concepts that have positiveeffects on employees’ work-life balance.

Keywords: transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, work-life balance11. Introduction
1.1 Background regarding the “work-life balance” concept
The term “work-life balance” (WLB) was increasingly promoted in theJapanese commercial world, starting in approximately 2005. WLB became a buzzword
in greater Japanese society with the Japan Cabinet Office’s 2007 publication of the“White Paper on Gender Equality” (Cabinet Office, Gender Equality Bureau, 2007),
which included a chapter on “Successful Women and Work-life Balance.” This had asubstantial impact. Article 2 of the Basic Act for a Gender Equal Society, a Japanese law,
defines “Formation of a Gender-Equal Society” as the “formation of a society in which
both men and women, as equal members of society, are given opportunities to freely
participate in activities in any fields of society and thereby equally enjoy political,
economic, social, and cultural benefits, as well as share responsibilities.” The Cabinet
Office's Gender Equality Bureau defines WLB as “a state in which both men and womenat each stage of their lives can develop their work, family life, community lives, andself-development, as well as other various activities, while maintaining a balance inaccordance with their wishes.” Thus, the concept of WLB achievement in Japan isstrongly linked with the realization of a gender-equal society.
Japan’s waning labor force, due to a declining birthrate and progressively
aging society, provides a backdrop to society’s search for gender equality. Accordingly, an
indispensable need exists to promote broader gender equality, such as through theacceptance of increased flexibility and diversity in working styles, and especially for
women. The realization of WLB is a strategy aimed at the achievement of these goals.
WLB targets solutions for the multiple problems that arise when working people must
balance their work and non-work lives; simultaneously, it seeks to change the working
styles of regular company employees, who are currently bound by enforced obedience toorganizational constraints, including overtime work, the changing of residence, transfer
to another workplace, etc.
The WLB issue originates with how and where to divide life and work. “Life”
in a broad definition has four domains: work, family, social, and personal life (Watanabe,2010). This means that “life” is a concept within WLB that comprises domains otherthan work life. Balancing family life with work is especially pertinent among these fourdomains when observing the current state of Japanese society, in which the burdens ofhousework and raising children are centered on women.

21.2 Work-family conflicts
A review of academic research focused on family life among life domains otherthan work finds that there has been active research since the 1980s regarding thetheme of work-family conflict (WFC) in psychology, sociology, and business studies, andespecially in the United States. WFC signifies that when one attempts to achieve
success in one’s role either at work or at family life, then one is unable to fulfill the otherrole. Known in psychology as a type of “role conflict,” WFC has been analyzed regarding
its determinant attributes and effects on stress, from the perspectives of the role conflict
theory. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985), pioneers in WFC research, summarized WFC ascomprised of three aspects: time, strain, and behavior.
The “time” aspect of conflict is produced when the amount of time used tofulfill a role in one life domain (i.e., work/family) hinders performance of the rolerequirements in another life domain (i.e., family/work). Conflict based on “strain” occurs
when roles at work and family become stress factors, and can evoke strain symptoms,
such as tension, anxiety, depression, apathy, and frustration. “Behavior”-based conflictrefers to the instance in which specific behavioral patterns expected of one role cannot
be fulfilled with those expected of the other role.
Previous WLB research has focused on a search for factors that mitigate WFC,
the effects of policies intended to support a work, housework, and child-rearing balance(for example, maternity leave systems, shorter working days, etc.), and the merits anddemerits of WLB for companies (Dex & Scheibl, 2000).

1.3 Novels concepts regarding the work-life relationshipThe first decade of the 2000s involved a shift in much of American research,from this “conflict between work and family” to a novel view that work and family can
combine for mutual quality improvement (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Fujimoto, 2011).
Poelmans, Stepanova, and Masuda (2008) presented concepts to describe the positive
relationships between work and family: “positive spillover,” or when the moods, skills,
values, etc., flow between respective roles, which increases the overall quality of life;“work-family enrichment,” in which the experiences in one role lead to an improved
quality of experiences in the other role; and “work-family facilitation,” in which the3resources gained in connection with one role have synergistic effects, so as to facilitate
easier execution of the other role.
These concepts, which focus on the complementary nature of each of the workand family domains, share these analytical standpoints: 1) they consider the individual
as a single unit for analysis; 2) they are divided into two vectors, one “from work to life,”
and the other “from life to work”; and 3) they analyze the activities and characteristics
of each domain from instrumental and affective aspects (Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, &Kacmar, 2007). Instrumental aspects involve skills and abilities acquired in one life
domain (i.e., work/family) being applied in another life domain (i.e., family/work).
Affective aspects involve feelings (of happiness, fulfillment, etc.) in one life domain (i.e.,
work/family) being transferred to in another life domain (i.e., family/work).
The emergence of this concept, whereby experiences at work and family
mutually synergize to improve the quality of each, was linked to companies
incorporating employees’ family lives within their scope, and in companies finding
greater significance in their engagements to support the realization of their employees’
WLB. It was also indicated that informal support within individual employees’
workplaces was essential for WLB realization. Much research especially focused on theeffects of WLB on supervisors’ workplace behavior, and employees’ perceptions of thisbehavior (e.g., Allen, 2001; Hammer, Kossek, Zimmerman, & Daniels, 2007).

1.4 Leadership of supervisors and work-life balance
Research focused on a supervisor’s behavior and the WLB of subordinates in
the workplace has indicated the importance of family-supportive supervisory behaviors(FSSB). FSSB is a concept devised by Hammer et al. (2007), and is comprised of four
behavioral characteristics for supervisors: 1) emotional support, 2) instrumental
support, 3) role model, and 4) creative work-family management. Their framework
promotes FSSB by formal directives and policies specifying organizational support offamilies, or by an organizational culture of informal family support; these can be linked,
in turn, with subordinates’ perception that supervisors are supportive of families,
increasing work-family enrichment. Research employing Hammer et al.’s (2007)
conceptual model has verified that when subordinates perceive that a supervisor
exhibits supportive behavior, then the subordinates’ WLB is realizable. This series ofprevious research has demonstrated that when a supervisor displays supportive4

behavior towards subordinates’ WLB, this positively affects those subordinates’
realization of WLB.
What is sought, however, is not only the support of a supervisor for
subordinates’ WLB, but also the supervisor’s assistance in finding meaning in theirwork, and in the supervisor’s inspiring greater work efforts in their subordinates. If thecultivation of skills and positive feelings in the work domain are extended to positive
life effects outside of work, then leadership by the supervisor, whereby he or she strives
to arrange for fulfillment in subordinates’ work, should also lead to the realization of
WLB.
Managerial behavior that provides goals and targets for subordinates andpromotes their proactive behavior has been called “transformational leadership.” This isdefined as leadership whereby the leader provides intellectual stimulation to followers,
is aware of their individual differences, strives to enhance followers’ strengths, andpromotes a greater commitment in followers to achieve their targets and goals (Bass,
1985; Ono, 2011). When a supervisor has adopted transformational leadership behavior,
subordinates demonstrate more proactive attitudes and behavior towards their work
(Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004). Thus, a supervisor’s transformational leadershipincreases subordinates’ sense of fulfillment in their work, leading to the realization of
WLB.
The present study, therefore, is an examination of the effects on subordinates’
WLB of the transformational leadership of supervisors. Further, psychologicalempowerment is used as a proxy variable for subordinates’ ease of working and sense offulfillment, for an exploratory investigation as to whether psychological empowerment
mediates the relationship between the realization of subordinates’ WLB andtransformational leadership.

2. Review of prior research
2.1 Transformational leadership and work-life balance
Transformational leadership is comprised of four elements: idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration (Bass, 1985; Avolio et al., 2004). A Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
has been used in a variety of verification research studies to measure these four
elements of transformational leadership. However, Wang and Howell (2010) pointed out

5that no distinction had been made in prior research on transformational leadership
between leadership behavior vis-à-vis individuals, and leadership behavior vis-à-vis
groups. Transformational leadership focused on individuals aims to develop the
potential capabilities of individual followers, strengthen their abilities and skills, andboost their feelings of self-efficacy and self-respect. When the leader is interested infollowers as individuals, he or she impacts these followers by understanding theirrespective abilities, skills, and needs, and by providing individual coaching andmentoring.

Meanwhile,group-focusedtransformational

leadership

aims

to

communicate the importance of group goals, deepen shared values and beliefs, andinspire bonds of unity in the group directed towards the accomplishment of group goals.
The target is the group as a whole, with the leader performing the same behaviors fordifferent members within the group, and with all group members sharing the same
perceptions of this leadership behavior.
Wang and Howell (2010) further indicated that the scale used fortransformational leadership was a comprehensive scale, and was also one that made no
distinction between individuals and groups. Thus, our research uses a scale fortransformational leadership at the personal, or individual scale, to verify leadership’s
effects on individuals’ realization of WLB. Transformational leadership vis-à-vis
individuals are comprised of four elements: 1) communicating high expectations, 2)follower development, 3) intellectual stimulation, and 4) personal recognition (Wang &Howell, 2010).
“Communicating

highexpectations”

involvesaleader’s

expressing

expectations for excellence, quality, high-level performance, etc., in followers. “Follower
development” is behavior that expands followers’ skills and abilities. This means raisingfollowers’ capabilities through the leader’s individual consideration of each follower.
“Intellectual stimulation” indicates the promotion of creativity among followers, bystimulating them to rethink shared preconceptions, observing problems from new
angles, and challenging work by using methods that differ from the ordinary. “Personal
recognition” involves the leader’s praising followers when they have improved their
behavior or performance, or when they have achieved their goals.
Shimai (2011) states that, from a positive psychology perspective,
transformational leadership increases feelings of self-efficacy and followers’ motivation.
Furthermore, when a supervisor demonstrates transformational leadership behavior,

6the attitude and behavior of subordinates changes, resulting in self-driven, proactive
engagements in their work (Avolio et al., 2004). Subordinates also find meaning, or
significance, in their own work, with the leader supporting their drive to pursue thatmeaning, and also recognizing their achievement of each goal. This cycle fosters feelingsof fulfillment in subordinates’ work. It is thought that, in addition to these feelings ofwork fulfillment, the positive work experiences that follow these feelings aretransferred to life outside of work, which leads to the realization of WLB.
Nevertheless, limited research has hitherto focused on the relationships
between transformational leadership and WLB. The research of Hammond, Cleveland,
O'Neill, Stawski, and Tate (2015) has solely verified the direct effects oftransformational leadership on work-to-family conflict and work-to-family enrichment.
Hammond et al. (2015) verified that three resources, or personal resources (positive
emotions), social resources (support by management for work and family), and work
resources (autonomy), impacted the relationships between transformational leadershipand the conflict and enrichment flowing from transformational leadership to work and,
subsequently, to family. Their study clarified that the relationship between
transformational leadership and work-to-family conflict was affected by all three
resources,

while

the

relationshipbetweentransformational

leadershipandwork-to-family enrichment was affected by both personal and social resources.
Hammond et al. (2015) stated the importance of understanding the potential
impact of transformational leadership on employees’ work and family management, andthat further research must be accumulated regarding these points. The present study oftransformational leadership includes not only “work-to-life,” but also “life-to-work”
vectors. Thus, it may be possible to add novel findings regarding the relationships
between transformational leadership and WLB.

2.2 Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment
When a supervisor has transformational leadership behavior, subordinates
demonstrate, as described above, an attitude of spontaneously or proactively engaging
in their work (Avolio et al., 2004). Subordinates also find meaning or significance intheir work; they obtain support from their leader necessary to pursue that meaning,
and the leader’s approval whenever they achieve a goal. This cycle, which originateswith the supervisor’s transformational leadership, improves employees’ sense of7

fulfillment derived from their work.
The present study focuses on psychological empowerment as a variable that
illustrates this sense of fulfillment. Psychological empowerment reflects an individual’sorientation towards his or her work duties, called intrinsic task motivation, which iscomprised of four perceptions: 1) sense of meaningfulness, 2) sense of competence, 3)
sense of self-determination, and 4) impact (Spreitzer, 1995).
The “sense of meaningfulness” refers to one’s work goals, and the individual’svalue perceptions of their goals, determined through a linkage with the individual’s
ideals and standards. The sense of meaningfulness is heightened if there is a matchamong the demands of one’s work duties and one’s beliefs or convictions and values. The“sense of competence” is the confidence an individual has in their own abilities, andrepresents feelings of self-efficacy and mastery. “Impact” is the extent to which theindividual has an impact on the results of work strategies, control, and operations. The“sense of self-determination” is a person’s sense that he or she has a choice in initiating
and adjusting their behavior, and refers to work schedules, standards, and methods.
The cognition of these four aspects of psychological empowerment represents
the individual’s active desires and impressions or feelings toward their work duties.
They are also components of psychological empowerment, and are interlinked (Spreitzer,
1995).
An increase in psychological empowerment enables a sense of confidence in
one’s work, such that an individual feels that they can impact the organization (Avolio
et al., 2004). Such feelings can likely be expressed as a sense of fulfillment in one’s work.
Thus, the effect that transformational leadership has on subordinates’ realization of
WLB can be explained as follows: a supervisor’s transformational leadership promotes
inspiration in one’s work, and increases subordinates’ psychological empowerment. The
positive experiences promoted by this psychological empowerment impact subordinates’
realization of WLB.

3. Analysis framework and hypotheses
A supervisor’s transformational leadership behavior enables subordinates tofind meaning in their work. Subordinates that pursue that meaning are supported bytheir leader, and are recognized by the leader when they achieve that goal.
Subordinates, from this cycle, obtain a sense of fulfillment from their work. These8positive feelings within the workplace are transferred to life outside of work; namely,
this is thought to be linked to the realization of WLB due to positive spillover.
Transformational leadership is also thought to be a mechanism that increases
subordinates’ empowerment, which leads to their realization of WLB.
This study, based on the above, intended to verify the two hypotheses noted
below:

Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has positive effects on the subordinates’
realization of WLB.
Hypothesis 2: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between
transformational leadership and the subordinates’ realization of WLB.

An analysis was performed following the framework described below, as noted
in Figure 1.
Analysis procedures included the following four items: First, as a prerequisite
for examining the mediating effects, an investigation was conducted to ascertain
whether transformational leadership affected subordinates’ realization of WLB. Second,
to investigate the relationship between mediating and independent variables, anexamination was conducted regarding the relationship between psychologicalempowerment and transformational leadership. Third, an examination was conducted
regarding whether psychological empowerment impacted the subordinates’ realizationof WLB. Fourth, to investigate mediated effects, an examination was performed of amodel incorporating transformational leadership as the independent variable, andpsychological empowerment as the mediating variable.

94. Analysis methods
4.1 Survey method and data
A quantitative analysis was performed, based on data obtained from aquestionnaire survey in this study. Taking the form of joint research between theauthors and the Labor Association of Prefecture “A,” with the objective of promoting the
success of young, female workers, the survey was performed in October 2015. It
targeted small- and mid-sized companies in Prefecture “A,” and 1,314 questionnaires
were recovered. However, this report uses a sample of male and female full-timeworkers, aged 39 years and younger, or 995 people. Questions were regarding thesurveyed persons’ individual circumstances, with the exception of demographic
statistical information, such as age, sex, etc.; responses were submitted using a 5-point
Likert scale: 1) Does not apply at all; 2) Does not apply; 3) Neutral; 4) Applies; 5)Strongly applies.
The questionnaire respondents were 421 women and 574 men. The mean age
was 29.56 years old. Work types were as follows: office work, 251 people; planning, 39
people; technical, 206 people; sales, 186 people; production technology, 122 people;
service technicians, 67 people; and others, 124 people. Of the respondents, 317 had a
spouse, and there were 678 with no spouse. Respondents with children totaled 217, andrespondents without children totaled 778. The mean overtime work was 19.71 hours.

4.2 Scales
An exploratory/explanatory factor analysis was performed to determine eachof the scales used for analysis—WLB realization, transformational leadership, andempowerment—and scales were comprised according to the analysis results.
The scale used to measure WLB was comprised of four items. One factor was
extracted from these four items, which is labeled the “WLB realization rate” (α = 0.889),
as noted in Table 1. Composite variables obtained from simple arithmetic means wereused for the analysis.

10Table1. Expratory factor analysis of Work-Life Balance（maximum likelihood method, promax rotation）
Factor loadingsⅠ

I can play a role both in work and non-work life.

.836

I can play active roles both in work a d non-work life.

.834

I can balance my time both in work and non-work life.

.828

I am satisfied with both work and non-work life.

.773
contribution=66.98%

The transformational leadership scale was comprised of 18 items, conductedin Japanese, and referenced questions from the work of Wang et al. (2010). Questions
included the following: 5 items concerning the demonstration of high expectations, 5
items concerning follower education/development, 4 items concerning intellectual
stimulation, and 4 items regarding “personal recognition.” It was hypothesized that four
factors would be obtained, but after repeating the factor analysis, two factors different
from the hypothesis were extracted, as a result. The first factor extracted, Factor 1, was“behavior of the supervisor that inspired subordinates in their work.” The second factor
extracted, Factor 2, was “Recognition and trust of the supervisor regarding the work ofsubordinates.” Factor 1, regarding the questions that comprised these factors, wascalled “work-related development” (α = 0.953), and Factor 2 was called “personal
recognition” (α = 0.915). Composite variables obtained from simple arithmetic means foreach item were used for the analysis, as noted in Table 2.

11

The empowerment scale was comprised of 12 items that were translated toJapanese from the questions in the work of Spreitzer (1995). Questions included three
items concerning each of the following: meaning, competence, self-determination, andimpact. Factor analysis results extracted the four factors hypothesized a priori, namely,“self-determination” (α = 0.846), “competence” (α = 0.885), “impact” (α = 0.929) and“meaning” (α = 0.932). Composite variables obtained from simple arithmetic means foreach item were used for the analysis, as noted in Table 3.

12

Table3. Expratory factor analysis of Empowerment（maximum likelihood method, promax rotation）
Factor loadings
ⅠⅡⅢ

I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.

.867

-.059

-.060

.032

I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job.

.740

.098

.028

-.010

I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.

.628

.120

.139

-.010

I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities.

-.002

.955

-.036

.001

I am confident about my ability to do my job.

-.085

.952

.026

.030

I have mastered the skills necessary for my job.

.178

.594

-.002

-.033

I have a great deal of control over what happens in my department .

-.065

-.031

.976

-.021

I have significant influence over what happens in my department.

-.023

-.009

.945

.029

My impact on what happens in my department is large.

.117

.042

.774

-.008

My job activities are personally meaningful to me.

-.002

-.018

-.002

.970

The work I do is meaningful to me.

-.025

-.009

.021

.956

The work I do is very important to me.

.050

.036

-.022

.787

Ⅰ

Ⅱ

Ⅲ

Ⅳ

ー

.689

.630

.280

Factor correlations

ー

Ⅳ

.456

.327

ー

.225
ー

“Age,” “sex (female dummy),” “work type,” 1 “existence/non-existence of spouse(existence of spouse dummy),” “existence/non-existence of a child (existence of a childdummy),” and “overtime work hours” were used as control variables. Many previous
research studies cite overtime work hours as a factor that compromise WLB (e.g., Milkie& Peltola, 1999). As the aim of the present research is to discover variables that have an
impact on WLB aside from the length of working hours, overtime hours was the control
variable used in the analysis. Table 4 illustrates the correlation analysis results for thechief variables used in the analyses.

1 With “other work types” as a reference group, office work dummy, planning dummy, sales dummy, engineer
dummy, production technology dummy, and service technician dummy were used as control variables.

13

5. Analysis results
A multiple regression analysis was performed upon verifying the hypothesis,
according to the four analysis procedures described above. The analysis results for eachof the procedures are discussed below, and are displayed in Table 5.
First, an examination was performed in Model 1 regarding the effects on the
WLB realization rate regarding a transformational leadership’s “work-related
development” and “personal recognition.” The results of Model 1 demonstrate that“work-related development” did not affect the WLB realization rate. Meanwhile,“personal recognition” had significant positive effects on the WLB realization rate, at
1% significance. Hypothesis 1 was partially supported by these results, and thesupervisor’s transformational leadership did impact WLB realization.
Second,toexaminetherelationships

betweenmediatingvariables(parameters) and independent variables, an analysis was conducted for Models 2
through 5 to determine the relationships between any of the four dimensions of
meanings of empowerment, competence, self-determination, and impact.
“Meaning” is used as an independent variable in Model 2, and an analysis of
this model demonstrated that both “work-related development” and “personal
recognition” had significant positive effects on meaning.
“Competence” is used as an independent variable in Model 3, and an analysis
this model demonstrated that while “work-related development” had significant
negative effects on competence, “personal recognition” had significant positive effects.
“Self-determination” is used as an independent variable in Model 4, and ananalysis of Model 4 demonstrated that while “work-related development” hadsignificant negative effects on self-determination, “personal recognition” had significant
positive effects.
“Impact” is used as an independent variable in Model 5, and an analysis of
this model demonstrated that while “work-related development” had significant
negative effects on impact, “personal recognition” had significant positive effects.
The

secondprocedure

notes

a

relationshipbetween

psychologicalempowerment and transformational leadership. Regarding transformational leadership,“work-related development” had significant positive effects on the meaning dimensionof psychological empowerment, while “work-related development” had significant
negative effects on the psychological empowerment dimensions of competence,14

self-determination, and impact. “Personal recognition” also had significant positiveeffects on all dimensions of empowerment in transformational leadership.
Third, Model 6 examined the effects of psychological empowerment towards
the WLB realization rate. The “realization rate of WLB” is used as an independent
variable to examine the respective effects of the four dimensions of psychologicalempowerment. The analysis of Model 6 demonstrates that “meaning” had significant
positive effects, at 1% significance, on the WLB realization rate. The two dimensions of“self-determination” and “impact” also had significant positive effects on the realization
rate of WLB, at 10% significance each.
Fourth, Model 7 examined the mediated effects (parameters) of psychologicalempowerment within the relationship between the WLB realization rate andtransformational leadership. The Model 7 analysis indicated that the “meaning” ofpsychological empowerment introduced as a mediated variable (parameter) had
significant positive effects on the WLB realization, at 1% significance. “Impact” also hadmeaningful positive effects on the WLB realization rate, at 10% significance.
Additionally, among transformational leadership aspects, “personal recognition” hadsignificant positive effects on the WLB realization rate, at 10% significance. Hypothesis
2 was partially supported by these results; namely, it was clarified thattransformational leadership has an impact on the realization rate of WLB, as partiallymediated by psychological empowerment.

15

Table5. Hierachical regression results: Transformational leadership, Empowerment, WLB realization<Independent variable><Dependent variable>model1model2model3model4model5model6model7WLB realization

empowerment(meaning)

empowerment(competence)

empowerment(self-determination)

empowerment(impact)

WLB realization

WLB realization

β

β

β

β

β

β

β

age

-.040

.100**.194**.207**.243**-.114**-.097**

female dummy

-.047

.006

-.058

-.095**-.103**

-.032

-.034

office work dummy

.039

.012

-.017

.039

-.009

.031

.034

planning dummy

.047

.082*

.032

.019

.054

.020

.023

engineer dummy

.015

.063

.032

.002

-.044

.005

.001
.006

sales dummy

.011

.022

-.003

.047

-.055

.018

production technology dummy.019-.093*

-.006

.024

.031

.036

.038

service technician dummy.016.095**

.051

.063†

.053

-.019

-.015

existence of spouse dummy.108**

.031

.040

.033

.009

.101**.096*

existence of a child dummy

-.004

.036

.035

-.016

.050

-.018

-.015

-.343**

.033

-.021

.023

.083**-.360**-.355**.029.178**-.238**-.243**-.147**.022.196**.206**.359**.390**.361**.090†

overtime work hours<transformational leadership>
work-related development
personal recognition<empowerment>
meaning.264**.228**

competence

.042

.043

self-determination

.069†

.068†

impact

.067†

N

995

995

R2

.174

adj. R2.163
15.878**

F-statistics

.047

995

995

995

995

995

.184

.118

.127

.171

.234

.244

.173

.107

.115

.160

.222

.230

16.960**10.137**10.935**15.544**19.957**18.513**

suppositions:1)†p<.100; *p<.05; **p<.01

6. DiscussionThisresearch

posited

three

that

supervisors’transformational leadership would promote inspiration towards work, and heighten
subordinates’ psychological empowerment; 2) positive work experiences that heighten
psychological empowerment would be transmitted to life outside of work; and 3) such anenvironment would have positive effects toward the realization of WLB. These wereformed into two hypotheses; namely, Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership would
have positive effects on subordinates’ realization of WLB; and Hypothesis 2:
Psychological empowerment would mediate the relationship between transformational
leadership and subordinates’ realization of WLB.
This study’s analysis results regarding the relationship between supervisors’transformational leadership and subordinates’ psychological empowerment can begenerally summarized as follows: Among the aspects of a supervisor’s transformational
leadership, “personal recognition” had positive impacts on the sub-dimensions of
psychological empowerment, or meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact.
Further, the WLB realization rate is heightened when mediated by meaning andself-determination. “Work-related development,” another aspect of transformational

16

leadership, had a positive effect only toward meaning, and a negative effect toward
competence, self-determination, and impact. It could be said that in this sense,
Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were partially supported.
Psychological empowerment becomes gradually formed over one’s career byincorporating the elements of meaning in work and impact on society. This is a conceptthat reflects not only how an individual views their work, but also a sense of theirvalues. Thus, the researcher should be able to consider fulfillment in work aspects—one
side of the realization of WLB—as a proxy variable. The supervisor, to cultivate
work-related fulfillment, must provide thrilling work experiences for subordinates tomake them aware of the social significance of their work, integrate organizational goals
with subordinates’ individual beliefs and values, and display leadership behavior thatwill make work seem rewarding. This kind of managerial behavior corresponds to theconcept of “work-related development,” as discussed in the research.
Meanwhile, in the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, differences in thequality of social exchange relationships between the leader and subordinates arethought to define the behaviors and attitudes of both leaders and members. Specifically,a leader will have a high-quality relationship that involves special considerations andtrust with subordinates that the leader likes or favors, whereas with subordinates thatthe leader does not particularly like or favor, the leader has indifferent or dispassionate
relationships, limited to the worksite. Research exists that has verified that differencesin LMX quality brought about by transformational leadership heightens psychologicalempowerment (e.g., Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000). Wakabayashi, Minami, and Sano
(1980) found that vertical dyad linkages, or exchanges of high role expectations between
supervisors and subordinates, the expansion of discretionary leeway, etc., spur
subordinates’

careerdevelopment.

The“personal

recognition”

aspectoftransformational leadership used in the present study signifies positive feedback from asupervisor for goal attainment and work quality improvements, etc. One may also
consider such “personal recognition” as an aspect of LMX. Thus, this study’s results,
which indicate that “personal recognition” raises psychological empowerment insubordinates, is consistent with the findings of prior research.
However, this study’s survey results illustrated that another sub-dimension oftransformation leadership, “work-related development,” had positive effects only onmeaning, with negative effects on competence, self-determination, and impact. These17

results indicate that when a leader helps subordinates develop their work skills, this islinked with those subordinates finding meaning in their work. However, suchwork-related development can simultaneously lead to subordinates’ loss of a sense offulfillment toward their work. Meanwhile, the “personal recognition” sub-dimension oftransformational

leadership

had

positive

effectsonmeaning,competence,

self-determination, and impact. These results suggest that to foster subordinates’
feelings of work fulfillment, it is indispensable that the leader displays appreciation of
the subordinates’ work while assisting them in work-related development. Not all work
is rewarding to subordinates, and no matter how much the supervisor may encourage
subordinates’ work, if the work does not match their skills and abilities, or if this work
involves following predetermined procedures, it will be difficult for subordinates to findsatisfaction in that work. It is thought that in such cases, the supervisor’s rolesupervisor is to supplement a sense of fulfillment in that work through demonstrating
recognition and approval. The supervisor’s recognition, in this manner, is indispensable
to the realization of a work-life balance.

7. Summary and conclusions
This study concludes the following: “Positive supervisory recognition
increases subordinates’ psychological empowerment, which then works to raise the
WLB realization rate.” We would like to close this paper with some brief comments
regarding the academic and practical implications of this conclusion.
Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, and Grzywacz (2006) divided the contents ofwork-family enrichment (WFE) into two vectored directions, “from work to family,” and“from family to work,” and found four aspects: affect, development, capital, andefficiency. The enrichment of “from work to family” notes “affect” as its first aspect,which notes that the good feelings or mood fostered from work-related experiences leads
to improved relationships within the family. The second aspect, development, occurs
when the skills, abilities, and behaviors cultivated through work improve family
relationships. The third aspect, capital, involves the resources garnered through work
(stability,

confidence,

sense

of

achievement,etc.)

fostering

improvedfamilyrelationships. The enrichment of “from family to work” shares the same aspects of affectand development, while the third is efficiency, and not capital. Namely, such concepts as
the ability to concentrate, and the elimination of wasteful time required to fulfill home18

and family duties, are linked with making the individual a better employee.
Additionally, prior WFE research has included verification studies of various
promotional (effective) factors; these include factors related to individual personality,
for example, positive effect, self-efficacy, or work identity; and factors related toenvironmental resources, such as satisfying job duties, growth opportunities, support ofcolleagues and supervisors, a work climate supportive of families, the renown inherent
in one’s job, etc. However, insufficient theoretical underpinnings have accumulated forthe mechanisms that engender such relationships (Wayne et al., 2007).
The “transfer of positive experience” is one explanatory principle of theenrichment effect (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006); this is a mechanism whereby vitality
obtained from experience in one domain is transferred to responsibilities in anotherdomain, which then generates new experiences and results. Incorporating the concept of
psychological empowerment from this study can provide reinforcement of thisprinciple’s explanatory power. Namely, the gist of the “capital” aspect, or the positive
feelings regarding one’s competence and the meaningfulness of one’s work, is concretely
captured in the concept of psychological empowerment. This point is the theoretical
implication of this study.
One practical implication of this study is that material has been provided forcounterarguments to policies that minimize the problem of WLB realization byconsidering only the reduction of working hours. The inclusion of human resourcesmanagement issues within the scope of WLB-related decisions serves to increase
working persons’ “autonomy” (Morita, 2013). A core issue in the WLB concept, in otherwords, is determining where and how to set boundaries, to find where the two work andlife systems best interface. Recognizing the autonomous nature of work and life beyond
these properly established boundaries is essential to securing the freedom so perturbed
when one’s top priority must be work. The realization of WLB means not only reduced
working hours, but also the granting of freedom to work as long as one needs.
Psychological empowerment as used in this study is a concept that includes“self-determination,” or autonomy toward one’s work. Increasing psychologicalempowerment would also be likely to increase one’s autonomy in determining where to
set time boundaries that divide work and life. This study has the practical implicationof having again verified that the security of a sense of fulfillment in one’s work is a key
aspect in the realization of WLB.

19

References

Allen, T. D. 2001. Family-supportive work environments: the role of organizational

perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(3): 414-435.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. 2004. Transformational leadership andorganizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment andmoderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8):951-968.

Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free
Press.

Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Wayne, J. H, and Grzywacz, J. G. 2006. Measuring thepositive side of the work-family interface: development and validation of a work-familyenrichment scale, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 131-164.

Dex, S., & Scheibl, F. 2000. Business performance and family-friendly policies. Journalof general management, 25(4): 22-37.
Fujimoto, T. 2011. Waku raifu baransu [Work-life Balance]. Japanese Association of
Admitistrative Science (Eds), Handbook of Administrative Science, 417-423. Tokyo:
Chuokeizai-sha Inc.

Fujimoto, T. 2014. Shigoto to shitekiseikatsu no pojiteibu na kankeisei [Positive
relationships between professional and personal life]. Japanese Journal of Labour

Studies, 653: 117-118.

Gender Equality Bureau 2007. Danjo kyodo sankaku hakusho [White paper on genderequality] Japanese Cabinet Office.

Greenhaus, J.H. & Beutell, N.J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles.

Academy of Management Review, 10(1): 76-88.

20

Greenhaus, J. H. & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory ofwork-family. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 72-92.

Guest, D. E. 2002. Perspectives on the study of work-life balance. Social Science

Information, 41(2): 255-279.
Grzywacz, J. G., & Bass, B. L. 2003. Work, family, and mental health: Testing different
models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1): 248-261.

Gutek, B. A., Searle, S., & Klepa, L. 1991. Rational versus gender role explanations forwork-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4): 560-568.

Hammer, L. B., Kossek, E. E., Zimmerman, K., & Daniels, R. 2007. Clarifying theconstruct of family-supportive supervisory behaviors (FSSB): A multilevel perspective.

Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 6: 165-204.
Hammond, M., Cleveland, J. N., O'Neill, J. W., Stawski, R. S., & Jones Tate, A. 2015.
Mediators of transformational leadership and the work-family relationship. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 30(4): 454-469.
Hanson, G. C., Hammer, L. B., & Colton, C. L. 2006. Development and validation of amultidimensional scale of perceived work-family positive spillover. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3): 249-265.
Kishino, S. & Hirano, M. 2016. Joshikodo ga buka no waku raifu baransu ni oyobosu
eikyo [The influence of supervisor behaviors on work life balance of the subordinates].

Journal of Economic & Business administration, 213(2): 45-61.
Liden, R.C., Wayne,S.J., and Sparrowe, R.T. 2000. An examination of the mediating roleof psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, inter-personal
relationships, and work outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 407-416.

21

Milkie, M. A. & Peltola, P. 1999. Playing all the roles: Gender and the work-familybalancing act. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2): 476-490.

Morita, M. 2013. Kyokai kettei no jiritsusei to waku raifu baransu [Boundary autonomy
and work-life balance]. Journal of Economic & Business administration, 208(1): 1-19.

Ono, Y. 2011. Kotenteki rida to neo rida [Classical leader and neo leader]. Japanese
Association of Admitistrative Science (Eds), Handbook of Administrative Science,
271-276. Tokyo: Chuokeizai-sha Inc.

Poelmans, S., Stepanova, O., & Masuda, A. 2008. Positive spillover between personal
and professional life: Definitions, antecedents, consequences, and strategies. Handbookof Work-Family Integration: Research, Theory, and Best Practices, 141-156. San Diego:
Academic Press.

Sato, H. & Takeishi, E. 2010. Shokuba no waku raifu baransu [Work-life balance in theworkplace]. Tokyo: Nikkei Publishing Inc.

Shimai, T. 2011. Pojiteibu shinrigaku [Positive psychology]. Japanese Association of
Admitistrative Science (Eds), Handbook of Administrative Science, 298-304. Tokyo:
Chuokeizai-sha Inc.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological Empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5): 1442-1465.

Takeishi, E. 2011. Hataraku hito no waku raifu baransu o jitsugen surutame no kigyo・
shokuba no kadai [Corporate and workplace challenges for work-life balance]. RIETI

Discussion Paper Series 11-J-029.
Wang, X.-H., & Howell, J. M. 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1134-1144.

22

Watanabe, S. 2010. HRM kenkyu no kanten kara mita waku raifu baransu [On thework-life balance from the viewpoint of HRM study]. Japanese Journal of Labour Studies,
599: 32-40.

Wayne, J.H., Grzywacz, J.G., Carlson, D.S. and Kacmar, K.M. 2007. Work-family
facilitation: A theoretical explanation and model of primary antecedents andconsequences, Human Resource Management Review, 17: 63-76.

iThis research is conducted based on Kishino & Hirano(2016), which investigated theinfluence of supervisors’ behavior on subordinates’ work-life balance, by using Japaneseengineering company data. We make a further investigation into employees who work insmall- and mid-sized companies in Prefecture “A”.

[2016.3.29 1219]

23