University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

(USC Thesis Other)

Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Employee Motivation in Corporations That Experienced a Leadership Transition
Eric M. Weiss
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Eric M. Weiss 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Eric M. Weiss certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Cathy Krop
Heather Davis, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The transition of leadership is an occurrence in most companies, and its effect on
associate engagement is a factor that influences the growth or the demise of motivational
direction within the workplace. This study used social cognitive theory as a framework to
understand the drivers of and the conditions leading to the results and decisions that influence the
motivation of associates. Following a literature review, detailed semi-structured interviews were
conducted with eight manufacturing associates who ranged in age, gender, and ethnic
background. These interviews highlighted the perceptions, personal history, and relationship to
the diverse leadership styles that mentor growth or dismantle engagement at the workplace. The
study focuses on the effectiveness of these leadership styles on associate self-efficacy and the
relationship to collective and team efficacy in a manufacturing environment. The study also
concluded with a condensed set of recommendations for leadership transition examining
personal growth, development, and shaping the environment to facilitate engagement. These
recommendations included establishing goals, providing individuals the autonomy to make
decisions, and developing leaders conducive to self-efficacy in a team environment.

v
Dedication
To my family and in memory of my beloved mother, Elaine Sneider Weiss, and
grandfather, Bernie Sneider, who drive my inspiration and are my moral compass to do what is
right.

vi
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge everyone who supported me during this program. I express my
sincerest gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Heather Davis. As my dissertation chair, you provided
expert advice and encouragement throughout the dissertation research and writing process and in
support of my career activities. This research and dissertation were only possible, credible, and
complete with the guidance of Dr. Davis and the dissertation committee members Dr. Cathy
Krop and Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi. Their coaching, guidance, and direction motivated me to
continue down the path toward success. I would also like to thank the professors who mentally
supported me through the program, Dr. Eric Canny and Dr. Allison Muraszewski. Dr. Canny
provided advice and support during a difficult time and was supportive at a pivotal point in my
life.
To my wife, Mary Kay, and my children Ryne, Cooper, and Addison, I cannot thank you
enough for the inspiration and encouragement to continue down this enduring path of completing
my doctorate. I am sorry for the many hours this personal goal has taken me physically and
mentally away from you. Achieving this goal satisfied my self-actualization needs, which I
should have worked harder to become many years ago. A special thank you to my father, Emery
Weiss; his partner, Gail Kerwin; and my aunt, Toby Sneider Pollack; thank you for the support,
motivation, and guidance. Lastly, I could not have completed this challenging goal without the
great sport of golf, my one Zen place!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
Context and Background of the Problem.........................................................................................1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions...............................................................................3
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................................3
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................3
Description of Stakeholder Groups..................................................................................................5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................................7
Overview of Social Cognitive Theory .................................................................................7
Justification of Theory Related to the Problem of Practice .................................................8
Qualitative Methodology .................................................................................................................9
Literature Review.............................................................................................................................9
Employee Engagement ......................................................................................................11
Employee Motivation, Training, and Communications.....................................................12
Matching Leadership Styles to the Environment...............................................................15
Behaviors and Environments.............................................................................................17
Motivation Influences........................................................................................................20
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................22
Human Motivation Theory ................................................................................................24
Organizational Environment Influences............................................................................26
Cultural Setting Influences ................................................................................................27

viii
Literature Summary ...........................................................................................................28
Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Theory ........................................................................28
Definitions......................................................................................................................................30
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ...............................................................33
Research Setting.................................................................................................................34
The Researcher...................................................................................................................35
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................35
Participants.........................................................................................................................36
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................36
Data Collection Procedures……………………………...……………………………….37
Data Analysis ...………………………………………………………………………….38
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................39
Findings..........................................................................................................................................40
Participants Environments.................................................................................................41
Environmental Research Question.....................................................................................42
Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................................................59
Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................................60
Recommendations..............................................................................................................61
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................74
References......................................................................................................................................76
Appendix A: Interview Questions .................................................................................................92

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Stakeholders Group Core Responsibilities....................................................................... 6
Table 2: Interview Question Categories ....................................................................................... 37
Table 3: Interview Coding Parent/Child Coding Matrix .............................................................. 38
Table 4: Triadic Reciprocity of Social Cognitive Theory……………………………….……... 41
Table 5: Participant Summary Information .................................................................................. 42
Table 6: Separation of Leadership Styles ..................................................................................... 60
Table 7: Recommendations Based on Social Cognitive Theory .................................................. 62
Table A1: Interview Questions..................................................................................................... 92

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Three Facets of Motivational Performance ................................................................... 21
Figure 2: Demographics Table...................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3: Effects of Citizenship Related to Performance ............................................................. 50
Figure 4: The Relationship of Training and Self-Efficacy ........................................................... 65

1
Employee Motivation in Corporations That Experienced a Leadership Transition
Survival for many young U.S. organizations is complex, and the probability of success
decreases when they require a leadership transition. Historically, any change at a firm creates
concern in its corporate culture and affects engagement with its associates. As a leadership
transition occurs, the dynamics of employee engagement enter a state of uncertainty, and the
feeling of belonging in firms is 36% lower following a leadership transition (Huang et al., 2015).
This problem of practice addresses the decline of employee motivation in corporations during the
transition of leadership and its effect on shop-floor-level employees.
Context and Background of the Problem
Corporations, whether private, public, or not-for-profit, all have individual dynamics
related to the relationships with their team members. Thus, employee engagement and corporate
culture are a window into behaviors and synthesis between leadership and the team members
who drive a firm’s successes and failures. Vallejo (2009) described employee engagement and
corporate culture as key indicators of current and future success and of employees’ ability to
identify with leadership and hold continuity in developing a positive outcome. The importance of
employee engagement relates to an individual’s “positive work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Kahn, 1990, p. 74).
As engagement is how people express themselves physically, cognitively, and
emotionally (Kahn, 1990), individual and group motivation affects business outcomes. In all
industries and firms, employee engagement during a leadership transition aids in managing
internal and external changes. The distinction between public and private is central in for-profit
organizations in terms of their ability to receive bank funding because lenders view a transition
in leadership as a credit risk and inherently undesirable because there is a strategic change to the

2
company’s control model (Kaplan & Mikes, 2012). With a large percentage of companies being
private, the problem for many industries is maintaining an engaged workforce and understanding
who in the organization has the most impact on employee motivation.
According to Statista (2022), the estimated number of U.S. firms is 6,258,672, which
equates to 5.6 million private companies with 107.8 million employees. Bersin (2015) identified
that 79% of U.S. corporations have significant retention and engagement problems, while 25% of
all employees are disengaged and potentially become toxic. At the same time, only 17% of U.S.
workers are actively engaged in their current positions (Harter, 2022). Moreover, the current
disengagement level costs U.S. companies an annual productivity loss of $350 billion (Osborne
& Hammoud, 2017). With this significant loss, the work culture and motivation perspective of
108 million employees is vital for all private firms that may experience a transition in leadership.
According to Grote (2003), only 30% of all firms survive the first leadership transition and move
on to the next leadership level. With private firms’ low survival rates and associates’ high
disengagement rates, individual companies must understand their engagement level and develop
programs and action plans to maintain or improve associates’ attitudes.
This study examines Sneider, a pseudonym, a global manufacturing, privately held, and
generationally owned company operated out of the Midwest which focuses on the manufacturing
of household products. Sneider was chosen due to the organization’s performance problem
related to low employee motivation and the company’s inability to meet employee needs.
Sneider also experienced a significant transition causing the team to experience turnover; the
associates lost direction and structure, generating a knowledge demise among the ranks within
the organization. Consequently, these identified issues like employee frustration, role ambiguity,

3
stress, and low job satisfaction lead to their lowered engagement rates and higher turnover rates
(Harter, 2022).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This project aimed to understand the influences that contribute to a corporation’s
leadership in the transition of leaders and the effects on employee motivation. The interviews
focused on understanding the perspectives of front-line associates and team leaders on the shop
floor and their relationship to team and individual motivation. The analysis began by
systematically identifying interview questions and the potential sources of candidates and target
audiences who could inform the research questions based on their experiences and opinions. The
questions focused on the relation to people, behavior, and the environmental influences that
affect overall team success and corporate goals. The research focused on the following research
questions related to the social cognitive theoretical framework:
1. How do plant employees in manufacturing firms perceive the impact of leadership
transitions on employee motivation?
2. How did the behavior of others impact motivation during or after the leadership
transition?
Importance of the Study
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to solve this problem for several reasons. The financial success of U.S.
small to mid-size businesses relies on finding a solution to effectively transition leaders and
improve employee motivation. Leaders of people depend on others to accomplish business goals,
and they must be able to motivate, direct, and engage others (Papalexandris & Galanaki, 2009).
Without workforce motivation and engagement, a corporation’s short- and long-term success is

4
bleak due to the new dynamic of global competitiveness, rapid innovation, and continuous
change (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). These dynamics create a stressful environment for all and put
pressure on the team to do more, faster, and cleaner. According to Bersin (2015) identified that
66% of all workers feel overwhelmed and underappreciated in environments that lack culture
and motivation, generating employee retention concerns for HR leaders in 65% of U.S. firms.
To overcome retention concerns, a firm must have a leader who believes people have an
intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions: a servant leader (McClellan, 2007). In like
manner, employees also react well to a leader who motivates and influences people to have the
same vision: a transformational leader (Lan et al., 2019). Both servant and transformational
styles build employee trust and motivation, which creates a team atmosphere in the workplace.
However, a large portion of employees in the U.S. workforce have trouble accepting leadership
cues and struggle with the advancement of culture. These difficulties with change diminish
associates’ enthusiasm toward their jobs, contributing to a hostile workplace culture.
Leaders can affect positive outcomes of change when they drive the transition through
practical organizational skills that enable personal and corporate growth (Caulfield & Senger,
2017). Influential leaders enable followers by developing an understanding of the situation,
which creates a team environment and positive engagement. In the context of leader and follower
relationships, social cognitive theory (SCT) focuses on learning by observation of social
interactions and by participating in them (Bandura, 1989). Engagement is further broken down
into the leader-follower relationship, job attitudes, and the work performance between
individuals and teams (Epitropaki et al., 2013). Leaders and institutions that resist change
(Caulfield & Senger, 2017) need help understanding the governance mechanisms causing poor
communication, transparency, and potential conflicts (Umans et al., 2018). Leaders who

5
establish positive social identities through structure, values, norms, and culture remove barriers
to change (Caulfield & Senger, 2017) and, in turn, develop a positive relationship and employee
culture.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Multiple stakeholders contribute and have a vested interest in the achievement of the
organizational goals. Each group in the corporate structure must be able to communicate verbally
and visually to understand the direction of the business and the customer’s requirements. The
distribution of information out of the SIOP is critical to control the manufacturing process and to
establish capital requirements for near-term logistics to meet customer demand. However, this
study’s intent was to understand the status of employee environment, behavior, and the personnel
needs of the workforce.
The essential stakeholder groups are executive/senior leaders, and this study sought to
understand the temperature of their workforce, front-line team leaders, and their direct and
indirect (hourly) employees. This study focused on the front-line team that directly manufactures
products and must understand the relationships at the corporation’s different levels that drive
leadership transition. Table 1 provides high-level examples of core responsibilities by
stakeholder category.

6
Table 1
Stakeholders Group Core Responsibilities
Executive leadership Contributes by providing oversight for:
The corporation’s financial, human assets, and
tangible capital
SIOP
Acquisitions and mergers
Benefits and insurance
Governmental relations
Land and banking
Front-line supervisors Requirements for success:
Direct contact with front-line employees
Day-to-day decisions
Manufacturing oversight
Scheduling of logistics
Consumption of raw materials and assets
Product design
Customer interface
Employee safety
Direct and indirect associates Requirements:
Safety
Manufacturing of products
Repairs and preventative maintenance
Ideas and team building
Builders of culture
Product quality

7
Middle management and front-line leaders have direct contact with front-line employees,
and they can connect, influence, encourage, and create an environment where employees thrive.
Moreover, all leaders must create a servant climate that enables employees to be creative,
innovative, engaged, and feel safe in their working environment. Finally, employees are
responsible for their relationship with their employer and other employees, and they have a
choice as to whether to engage with the organization. Overall, the climate starts with the most
senior leadership, yet each group’s involvement builds a positive climate that enhances
motivation.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This qualitative study used SCT, specifically triadic reciprocity, to understand how
people, behavior, and environment in the workplace model employee engagement. A leadership
transition has many effects on the workforce, and using SCT allows for comparing, analyzing,
and evaluating them. This study examined the effects of leader behavior and the change in the
work environment in relation to employee motivation and the direct association with job
efficiencies through interviews with shop-floor personnel. The study sought to examine how
today’s team members look to be guided through leadership behavior and motivated by positive
influences and strategies.
Overview of Social Cognitive Theory
The SCT framework can be an active component in identifying and closing behavioral
gaps to understand the relationship between individual leaders and their effects on engagement.
The theory concentrates awareness around the triadic reciprocity system approach, which
examines action, inner personal factors in the form of cognitive, affective, and biological events
(Bandura, 1990), and environmental influences. These influences all operate interactively as

8
determinants of each other while evoking different reactions from their social environments by
their physical characteristics (Bandura, 1990), creating individual beliefs depending on their
roles and status. The theory also examines the individual’s self-efficacy and the relationship to
one’s environment and their ability to understand how to make effective decisions and function
with the appropriate actions (Bandura, 1986).
Justification of Theory Related to the Problem of Practice
Employee self-efficacy can either enhance or impair performance (Bandura, 1989),
resulting in the degradation of key performance indicators. Using SCT to understand the
individual and group motivational requirements provides a window into understanding team
needs while directly influencing the motivation level of associates surrounding a transition in
leadership. Triadic reciprocity is where personal factors, behavior, and environment all interact
to define the nature of the perspective (Bandura, 1986), which matches both the personal and
team agendas required for corporate success. When leadership changes, there is a potential need
to alter or adapt to a changing workplace environment. Additionally, the potential for stressors
can harm individual performance and, if not addressed early, will form a disjointed approach to
the company’s strategies. Bandura and Wood (1989) outlined that in order for corporations to
reach desired outcomes, decision-makers must effectively regulate the motivation and actions of
supervisors and associates. Social cognitive theory provides a method of grouping a wide array
of team information related to actions and compares it to the company’s desired outcomes and
collective goals while attempting to understand perceptions of team efficacy. As corporations
seek to improve engagement, the understanding of human behavior in comparison to the social
environment identifies opportunities to enhance performance.

9
Qualitative Methodology
This study used qualitative methodology to understand the objective measurement of
information employees used for decision making, both subjectively and objectively, focusing on
the change in leadership and its effects on motivation. Grounded theory methodology assists in
understanding social processes and social interactions in the workplace and how employees
interpret the environment (Dodgson, 2017). I conducted interviews with individuals who spent
considerable time in a manufacturing environment at a shop-floor level. I coded these interviews
using the constant comparison method, where I noted keywords or phrases as parent codes and
then refined them to child codes associated with the parent code. I used a literature review as a
source of empirical data to gain knowledge on the subject and related information to assist in
making decisions while gathering expert information.
Literature Review
This study examined employee motivation, the relation to engagement, and the effective
use of leadership styles through the lens of SCT. This literature review observes the effectiveness
of collective and self-efficacy from a triadic reciprocity perspective on mentoring, emotional
intelligence, training, and communication as it relates to the leaders’ transition and its effect on
team and individual motivation. The intent was to understand the effectiveness of organizational
performance and the impact on teams and individuals who work on the front line of
manufacturing.
The literature supports the need for employees to be motivated and aligned with the
organizational mission to provide goods and services that meet individual firms’ safety, quality,
delivery, and cost standards. The manufacturing of products in most industries is highly labor
intensive and requires human input to reach productivity goals and meet customer demand.

10
Employees consist of direct, indirect, and salaried labor who provide services to the company
and interact with customers. Leaders must balance employee relations, innovation of products,
and maximizing short-term profits for both current gains and providing a viable future for
corporations (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014). In addition, firms that focus on both customer service
and employee services, rather than a high focus on short-term gains, benefit in profitability due
to increased productivity through happy employees (Musgrove et al., 2014). Dedicated and
meaningful work enables employees to realize how valuable they are in the organization and
engages them toward success (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Motivated employees perform their
work because they understand the meaning and gain personal rewards, which creates an
environment where intrinsic motivation thrives (Breevaart et al., 2013).
According to Papalexandris and Galanaki (2009), the impact of senior leadership and the
style of those leaders has a propensity to engage the team with a vision, determination, and selfesteem that is contagious and drives positive engagement. The evidence highlights the need for
organizations and senior leaders to understand employee motivation at all levels of the
organization to develop a culture of learning and trust that will empower all employees to engage
in activities that promote productivity. In this study, engagement is viewed through the lens of
triadic reciprocal determinism, where human behavior is explained in a one-sided determinism
focusing on the characteristics of the person, behavior, and environment (Bandura, 1977).
Furthermore, this chapter examines McClellend’s human motivation theory (HMT) and
Bandura’s social learning theory (SLT) to determine the influences that may be contributing to
holes in stakeholder performance toward organizational goals. This study is centered on SCT as
the theoretical framework to discuss leaders’ interactions with the environment and how those
interactions influence their behavior, contribute to culture, and affect employee motivation.

11
Employee Engagement
Corporate industries’ survival depends on both maximizing profits and building a future
through fostering increased motivation and innovation. Engagement is the psychological need
that creates a sense of development or identity through intrinsic motivation that helps to develop
ownership or belonging among employees (La Guardia, 2009). Employee engagement matters to
the employee as well as the firm to create harmony, fairness, and profitability in the current
global economy. When the employee is motivated, he or she can act as an agent of the company,
where they exert a significant degree of positive control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions
(Schunk & Usher, 2019). Satisfied and motivated employees deliver a better customer
experience, which results in improved business outcomes and higher customer satisfaction
(Rožman & Tominc, 2022). Also, engagement is a point where employees are willing to commit
to the company both emotionally and rationally and provide their leadership by developing a
partnership (Karanges et al., 2015). Engagement also creates an environment where employees
are emotionally, physically, and cognitively charged in their daily work and are looking to better
the firm (Eldor & Harpaz, 2015).
Further, understanding the current engagement level increases the organization’s
longevity through financial success and betters the firm’s reputation, which enhances the
recruitment of future talent (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Within the current talent pool, where
potential employees examine more than just wages, talented individuals look at the broad scope
of benefits that companies offer, including culture and individualism. In today’s environment,
employees examine their options and can utilize worker’s rights laws and contractual agreement
provisions to impede the attainment of organizational goals and objectives (Osborne &
Hammoud, 2017). In making a career choice, educated and experienced talent can use contracts,

12
employment law, and, most importantly, company culture to identify corporations that offer a fit
to their long-term goals and career objectives.
Employee engagement and creating collective agencies are among the greatest challenges
to both leaders and firms in meeting the demands of today’s workplaces. The balance of
profitability through lean and standardized processes for short-term gains competes with the
individualism and the enhanced culture of firms (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). The leaderfollower relationship is one of the most important discussions for HR teams in today’s corporate
world (Choudhary et al., 2013). This creates a byproduct of leadership and improves
relationships with leaders who have direct involvement with the employees (Lowe, 2012).
However, the building of trust and relationships must be for more than just getting the maximum
output from employees. The focus must be to create a situational environment where a good
team is essential to the behavior or attitude of the entire firm. Corporate leaders must understand
that their greatest asset is their people, and they must invest in the team’s growth through
training and encouragement (Osborne & Hammoud, 2017).
Employee Motivation, Training, and Communications
Among the most critical motivational processes are goals and self-evaluations of
progress, outcome expectations, values, and self-efficacy (Schunk & Usher, 2019). According to
Schunk and Usher (2019), SCT motivation processes include goals and self-evaluation, outcome
expectations, values, social comparisons, and self-efficacy. Moreover, with improved
communications and leader sociability (Korzynski, 2013), behavior modification directly
develops a focus on employee motivation, which directly impacts commitment and performance.
With outcome expectations, individuals will find an internal source of motivation that allows
mentors and teachers to provide valued skills (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Empowerment can be

13
implemented through training and developmental activities and has an impact on performance
and, in turn, creates a situation where the employee exceeds expectations (Osborne & Hammoud,
2017).
Additionally, individuals are motivated to learn and perform through positive behaviors
with the desire to receive beneficial results and avoid negative consequences (Schunk & Usher,
2019), especially through internal communications from direct supervision, where employees
receive key information and can play a significant role in decision making (Karanges et al.,
2015). Senior leaders and supervisors can achieve optimal levels of engagement through
communication that helps to develop a link from corporate goals to the individual goals of the
employee (Karanges et al., 2015). The sharing and implementation of ideas from all team levels
generate a kinship within the organization, along with the potential for increased profits or
additional revenue.
Historically, workplace-based training has always been one-on-one or in a group setting
between teams or leadership to employees, but with COVID-19 and the changes in technology,
the method of delivery to the audience has become digital. According to Korzynski (2013), new
methods of communication are consistent with the globalization of the modern workforce, where
everyone is connected, and innovative employers are finding new ways of collaborating and
motivating their teams. The virtual world and the relatively new forms of communication have
altered the way people achieve their higher-level needs, such as belongingness, self-esteem, and
self-actualization, causing employers to adjust their method of delivery. The new generation of
employees uses social media to communicate in a dynamic, two-way manner, linking modern
tools to assist in problem-solving and exchanging of ideas (Korzynski, 2013). These electronic

14
modes of training have become a cognitive method that motivates actions and guides individual
growth.
The change in methods provides a strong sense of direction to remain task-oriented and
prepares employees to believe in their abilities and become analytic thinkers (Bandura, 1989).
However, the wrong portrayals in media forms used during training periods can exploit
advantageous comparison, rendering conduct counterintuitive to the activities (Zsolnai, 2016),
enhancing harmful moral standards and disruptive moral self-sanctions, causing potential
harmful activities (White et al., 2009). Additionally, Bandura (1989) explained that changes in
the mode can undermine previous efforts and the analytic thinking process, creating personal
deficiencies and chinks in self-efficacy. Yet, our instincts are to be social beings, and sociability
provides the opportunity to positively impact motivation, allowing employers to meet the higherlevel needs of their employees through multiple forms of connection.
Employees’ self-belief of personal efficacy directly influences their learning and selfmotivation. Bandura (1989) described that a high sense of efficacy positively guides
performance in learning through the cognitive rehearsal of good solutions inherent to
performance. Job satisfaction, job involvement, and employee voice are concepts that are
essentially just the behaviors associated with employee proactivity, knowledge, sharing,
creativity, and adaptivity (Ruck et al., 2017). Eldor and Harpaz (2016) suggested that continuous
change in the employment market indicates a shift in organizational views from the classical
employee-organizational relationship to a learning climate. An organization benefits and
enhances engagement through a climate where learning activities transfer knowledge to
empower and create a collective vision among the team (Marsick & Watkins, 2003, as cited in
Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). Providing a culture of learning affords employees the extrinsic

15
motivation to potentially advance and the intrinsic motivation of potential gain in belongingness,
self-esteem, and knowledge to assist in the advancement of the firm. Individual behavior is
inferred to be driven by cause, resulting in a guise of impulse (Bandura, 1977), which could be
different through the method of transmission or the impulse of reception. Together with a culture
of learning, a growth period adds improvements through vicarious learning, assisting in
facilitating actions. Per Bandura (1986), vicarious learning provides response facilitation,
inhibitions and disinhibition, and observational learning, which all serve to improve learning in
everyday life. Hence, the process of vicarious learning also creates a situation where the
observing agent believes that the actions will lead to desirable outcomes and assist in attaining
goals (Schunk & Usher, 2019).
Matching Leadership Styles to the Environment
In an environment where decision-makers must analyze and integrate a wide array of
information from diverse sources, the leadership style must produce results and develop team
dynamics. Per Fix and Sias (2006), the concepts of person-centered communications (PCC) and
leader-member relationship (LMX) describe the relationships between leader/supervisor and
their direct reports in relation to employee satisfaction. This concept directly relates to employee
engagement and the leadership style potential or differences between the leader and the culture at
the firm. The importance of PCC and LMX is the greater categorization of transformational,
servant, and authentic leadership in comparing styles and then the building of relationships and
communications with teams and dyadic subordinates. A leader’s ethicality is also directly related
to employee satisfaction in the overall beliefs of the firm’s implicit behavior and the employees’
perceptions of the leaders’ messages (Nichols & Erakovich, 2013). LMX enhances performance
and increases the confidence of subordinates, which, in turn, affects employee engagement and

16
role performance (Suharnomo & Kartika, 2018). Also, LMX allows for decision making
influence, tasks, and support through differential treatment for higher quality relationships (Fix
& Sias, 2006). However, the LMX style that lends itself to negative reverberation may lean
toward competitive and transactional leadership styles, which tend to steer away from employee
satisfaction.
At the grassroots level, where employee engagement is the most important aspect of
leadership, the PCC style contributes to positive feelings, seizes the morality of associates, and
lends well to a transition of leadership. “PCC refers to messages in which the higher-status party
(e.g., supervisor) encourages the lower-status party (e.g., employee) to reflect on the
complexities and contingencies in a given situation” (Fix & Sias, 2006, pg. 37). At times PCC
can be very transformational, yet at other times viewed as discouraging and criticizing but
associates seem to bode well when the leader is viewed as charismatic and warmhearted or
empathetic. One advantage of PCC is the use of shared decision making, which encourages
associates to be autonomous and empowered in dealing with a situation where negotiation may
be involved (Fix & Sias, 2006). However, PCC is closer in terms of definition to a style related
to servant leadership, which does not always reflect the personality of most leaders.
Per Choudhary et al. (2013), transformational leaders challenge the overall behavior and
thinking of followers in their organization and promote learning and innovation in an effort to
improve performance, while servant leaders pay more attention to the service of followers and
less to goal attainment. This is especially the case in private corporations with founders who tend
to be transformational in leadership style but also hold the responsibility to focus on the bottom
line, the growth of their company, and the correlation to their personal wealth. Transformational
leaders tend to promote an ethical and inspirational style of leadership through the development

17
of individuals (Choudhary et al., 2013). Most successful founding leaders are transformational
and would be classified as leading with much authenticity. Authentic leaders stimulate all levels
of associates and support interactions that create conversations in attempts to problem solve and
motivate while maintaining strong ethical behavior (Nichols & Erakovich, 2013).
In contrast, leaders may have more success with a servant style of leadership where the
leader focuses on ethical behavior and the concern for subordinates through the growth and
welfare of the team members. According to Choudhary et al. (2013), servant leadership can be
defined as “a leader’s motivation to guide, offer hope, and provide a caring experience by
establishing a quality relationship with the followers and subordinates” (p. 435). Servant leaders
believe that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As
such, the servant leader is deeply committed to the growth and learning of team members
(McClellan, 2007). The servant leader is usually most concerned with followers’ growth through
learning and meeting their demands while striving to attain the firm’s key performance indicators
(KPIs). However, the most vital characteristic of a servant leader is the ability to listen, which
provides servant leaders with the awareness and understanding of the critical problems that
underlie the challenges that followers face (McClellan, 2007). On the contrary, without formal
training or mentorship, most leaders fail due to their environment and the lack of on-the-job
training, where their leadership style is held to the preservation of their advancement at the
organization.
Behaviors and Environments
A senior leader must have industry knowledge and be able to generate a solution to
problems derived from cognitive events that hold functional value and create conceptual
structure or learning (Bandura, 1986). This study examined the effects of leadership transition

18
from the perspective and behavior of employees (past and present) and team leaders in the form
of information related to the employee’s history and opinions towards the growth and
development of their environment. In a private business, it is essential to understand service,
performance, and competitive advantage. Moreover, the leader will share knowledge and
actively seek to adjust behavior, values, and the organization’s environment (Chuang et al.,
2015). The triadic reciprocity of SCT outlines and provides an understanding of an individual
organizational climate, referring to team members’ perceptions of their work environment
(Chuang et al., 2015). Job performance of leaders and future leaders is directly related to the
environment, the behaviors of the individuals at the firm, and the relations built within the
organization.
Individuals’ job performance is based on their ability to take prior experiences and learn
from these events, then conceptualize future events by making judgements on handling different
circumstances. However, people must be taught the concepts of judging and dealing with their
environment (Bandura, 1986) to be effective in their positions and leadership roles. In relation to
circumstances surrounding the environment is the decision-making of leaders and potentially the
ethicality of the decisions and the effect on the team's performance. Organizations and leaders
must examine situational-related variables while understanding their decisions that influence
moral capacity (Schwartz, 2016). The situational awareness of the organization and the leader
related to his/her ethics enhances the organization's infrastructure (Schwartz, 2016), developing
an ethical effectiveness and communication link to associate performance. The distinction
between team performance and motivation can be tied to corporate or leadership ethics
perceptions. Lin et al., (2012) describe how team efficacy and individual motivation are

19
influenced by “corporate citizenship (economic, legal, and ethics) enhancing employee
motivation,” which indirectly influences team performance.
Humans have an innate drive for information and situational awareness (Bandura, 1986),
including the knowledge required to be proficient in job performance, tools such as job aids, and
the training to be successful. Knowledge is gained by organizing information through
experience, direct tuition, and proficient modeling (Bandura, 1986), which is further broken
down into four types: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002).
Factual knowledge is the basic understanding of the useful information required to complete the
task. Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of the elements; when combined, they form the
larger structure that enables them to function together. Procedural knowledge is how to complete
a task using the skills of inquiry, techniques, and procedures taught for a particular activity.
Metacognitive knowledge is the user’s basic understanding of the process and awareness, or their
consciousness, mental state, or ways they think and operate (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 214).
Knowledge is based on a learned event, drawn on to guide judgement using symbols and
cognitive thoughts from learned operations (Bandura, 1986) and relationships in the industry and
the firm’s environment.
While understanding employees’ motivation and how the transition of leadership affects
the team, there must be a gathering of factual knowledge. Factual knowledge is the basic
knowledge that leaders and managers must know and understand related to internal
communications, any underlying issues, and factors within the firm (Karanges et al., 2015).
Karanges et al. (2015) outlined the most common method of gathering data through employee
engagement surveys, which consist of multiple methods to extract information and perceptions
from the workforce. The survey of employee engagement provides information regarding

20
opportunities for improvement, development, and the maintenance of an optimal culture or the
building of the organization’s internal community.
Motivation Influences
Internal standards and self-perception affect an individual’s efficacy, how they motivate
themselves and others, and how they improve the firm and their behavior, especially when
inspiring others. Motivation is a defining source of energy that drives an individual or a team and
the feeling that one is fully performing a goal-directed activity (Bandura, 1989, as cited in Elliot
et al., 2018). Motivation also provides intensity and is a source of internal power that focuses the
team’s direction on the completion of a goal. According to Clark and Estes (2008), “motivation
is an area where tangible benefits are available to organizations even when there is no gap
between goals and current performance” (p. 79). Notably, two sources of motivation drive
individuals and teams: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Gagné et al. (2021) described intrinsic
motivation as something an individual does on his or her own for the sake of doing it, for
enjoyment or interest, and for the internal satisfaction of achieving the goal. In contrast, extrinsic
motivation is doing something for an instrumental reason, such as receiving an award or money
or not receiving a punishment (Gagné et al., 2021; Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016).
Motivation is the catalyst to employee engagement, which is central to all businesses
striving for improvement or sustaining success and the transitioning of leadership. During the
leader’s transition, his/her style provided motivation and trust, either intrinsic or extrinsic, for the
individuals at the firm. The incumbent’s leadership style has found the pulse of the company’s
culture and motivated the team.
Clark and Estes (2008) found that motivation is what drives individuals to either succeed
or not and break down motivation into three categories: active choice, persistence, and mental

21
effort. Active choice refers to when someone has made a choice or had a choice made for them
to pursue a goal or take an action on completing a task (e.g., install automation and eliminate
human assembly). Persistence is the desire to complete a task when multiple tasks interfere with
the most important task, yet there is still a supreme effort to complete this most important task.
Mental effort is the mental attainment invested in completing a goal with relation to the
individual’s confidence in completing the goal outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Three Facets of Motivational Performance
Note. From Turning Research Into Results: A Guide to Selecting the Right Performance
Solutions by R. E. Clark & F. Estes, 2008, p. 81. Information Age Publishing. Copyright 2008 by
Information Age Publishing.
Motivation would be considered a social need and falls between a psychological and selffulfillment need in Maslow’s hierarchy (Korzynski, 2013). As a social need, employees with the

22
leverage to make decisions create a form of individual acknowledgement of their abilities, which
in turn provides a motivation factor (Korzynski, 2013). As Clark and Estes (2008) noted, “the
emerging consensus finds that the root motive influencing all human behavior is a desire to be
effective in our lives” (p. 83). Tying directly into satisfied and motivated employees creates selfdriven employees, enhancing the firm’s results. Engagement and job satisfaction enhance
individuals’ motivation to exert greater effort in job performance, which, in turn, reduces
absenteeism and turnover (Rožman & Tominc, 2022). By motivating and engaging employees,
culture becomes impactful in meeting the corporate mission of providing a gracious style of
living, which positively impacts the customer experience and overall company performance.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is the capacity or personal conviction that the individual must perform the
required behavior to produce a particular result in a situation, activity, or domain (Bandura,
1997). The motivational influence of personal confidence is self-efficacy, while the willingness
to form a team relates to the group’s effectiveness and dynamics in making a judgement and
developing the group’s efficacy (Bandura 1997, as cited in Borgogni et al., 2010). Moreover,
self-efficacy as an individual strength contributes to team dynamics when the leader has a sense
of collective efficacy and focuses on team building (Bandura, 1986). Leaders who also use
experiences such as past practices as examples (Staples & Webster, 2007) strengthen collective
efficacy and individual self-efficacy while building teams. The mechanism of team building, and
the development of future leaders are based on self-efficacy, which “is expected to positively
relate to the individual’s perceptions of team effectiveness” (Staples & Webster, 2007, p. 67).
Besides team self-efficacy and the relationship to leadership, the emotional and
environmental relationship of employees and their ability to learn must also be measured to

23
identify opportunities for enhanced engagement. Per W. R. Carter et al. (2018), strong
conceptual parallels are found between employee engagement and self-efficacy, where they are
both categorized as individual-level motivational constructs that enhance performance.
Generally, teams and future leaders benefit from efficiency and effectiveness (C.-C. Lin & Peng,
2010) by promoting situational learning and personal growth. As such, self-efficacy is defined as
people’s judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute the action required to perform
(Schunk, 1991).
The tie between successful leaders and teams is based on efficacy within the group,
emotional intelligence, and the leader’s ability to motivate through transformational direction.
Fitzgerald and Schutte (2010) described a motivational leader as someone who provides a clear
vision and inspires team members to work toward a common goal while engaging employees
toward reaching their full potential. At the organizational level, the leader must influence others
to create a social condition that affects the culture and quality of the working conditions
(Bandura, 1977). In turn, changing the social environment and situational conditions creates a
reciprocal influence on individuals at the workplace.
Bandura (1977, as cited in Schunk, 1991) noted that people who have low self-efficacy for
performing certain tasks should avoid those tasks, while individuals who succeed when
performing a task hold a higher propensity in their personal abilities. The characteristics of an
individual's efficacy when performing specific tasks can be related to the gratification received,
which may affect the outcome. Bandura (1986, p.249) suggests that individuals who find tasks
difficult or dull can be supported by “infusing them with challenge” through self-development
and aspirational goals. The motivation received from completing these goals may boost interest
from overcoming the challenge and defeating the previous feelings of inaccuracies. To survey

24
the associate self-efficacy or personal attitudes that employees held must be understood using
employee engagement surveys to better understand the company’s culture because
“physiological and affective states, such as a very high level of arousal or negative mood, can
influence the perception of efficacy” (Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010, p. 497), which assists in
developing positive attitudes toward individual work. Engagement surveys help employers to
gauge and monitor motivation, work environment, leadership abilities, and opportunities to
improve the business structure and enhance the experience while providing data. Other methods,
such as expressive writing, assist in conceptualizing and expressing positive outcomes toward
work and the work environment (Fitzgerald & Schutte, 2010) while also categorizing the
experiences gained during the work activity (Bandura, 1986). Expressive writing and
engagement surveys help leaders encourage cognitive processing and construct a “coherent and
functional view of the world” (Bandura, 1986, p. 102) as they process their personal selfefficacy.
Human Motivation Theory
Human motivation theory (HMT) provides a method using human dominant motivators
to identify individuals’ motivating drivers, which, in turn, helps to examine individual
psychological needs. Also, motivation is central to complex problem-solving, which determines
the energization and direction of behavior where emotion and cognition interact (Güss et al.,
2017). Using HMT aids in complex problem-solving (Güss et al., 2017) as a teaching tool to
develop future leaders to identify motivating drivers (Arnoldas, n.d.) and a feedback method.
This method can help leaders provide praise and receive other feedback far more effectively to
understand individual motivation, along with assistance in assigning suitable tasks while keeping

25
the associate motivated (Arnoldas, n.d.). Also, HMT structures personal characteristics into three
dominant motivators: achievement, affiliation, and power.
According to Arnoldas (n.d.), achievement must have challenging goals, there must be a
willingness to take calculated risks in attempting these goals, and one must receive regular
feedback on their progress. Individuals who are affiliation-dominant like to be part of a team or
group and will follow the group but hate competition. Individuals who are power-dominant want
to control and influence others while enjoying competition, winning, and recognition. Highmotivational individuals are task-inherent and, in some cases, require extrinsic rewards to satisfy
their need to gain enjoyment (Gröpel et al., 2016), while others look to master a challenging task
and benefit from intrinsic rewards. However, these individuals with overly high motivation will
engage in a broad array of behaviors that may reinforce cognitions of dangerously high levels of
self-concept (Judge & Bono, 2001). Overly high or low motivation levels question the
individual’s neuroticism and the effects on work performance and job satisfaction. Leaders who
display neurotic behaviors, especially managers, influence dynamic capability development in an
organization (Junaid, 2017) and disrupt the growth process of prospective leaders.
All humans contain a dominant characteristic regardless of their gender, culture, or age,
which are considered the dominant motivator based on culture and life experiences (Arnoldas,
n.d.; Rybnicek et al., 2017). As work environments continue to change in the way leaders
interact with peers and associates, the understanding of individual dominant motivators assists in
motivating team members and building a cohesive environment. Human motivation theory
claims that employees are motivated when a predominant need activates and motivates their need
for dominant motivators, consequently experiencing a different stimulus (Rybnicek et al., 2017).

26
Organizational Environment Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) described the overarching term for organizational culture,
highlighting core values, mission statements, emotions, KPIs, and company history.
Comparatively, this paper examined the culture of leadership and how changes in senior and
middle leadership affect the culture and employee engagement of the firm. The study also
examines the relationship between self-efficacy and the transfer of organization training (Simosi,
2012) and the effect on culture-based relationships. Also, examining the governing body must
compare the relationship between current leadership and replacement leadership in relevance to
the psyche of the workforce in the form of motivation. Equally, a firm’s culture contains several
sources of bivalent attributes that highlight the unique, inherent feature of an organization that is
the source of both advantages and disadvantages (Tagiuri & Davis, 1996).
When evaluating an organization’s culture, the dynamics of a firm’s cultural models and
settings must be taken into consideration. Cultural models are mental structures or schemas and
are patterns of behavior that distinguish one culture from another, while cultural settings feature
particular and unique communities or businesses “whenever two or more people come together,
over time, to accomplish something” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). Organizational
culture refers to a system of shared meanings that create employees’ behaviors and develop the
work environment’s core values. Davis and Tagiuri (1996) demonstrated the relationship
between the cultural model and cultural setting through an overlapping effect of benefits and
disadvantages for the company, employees, and managers/directors of the organization
displaying individual differences.
Cultural settings most significantly influence the training culture and how newcomers
adjust to the firm’s environment, including the “critical role in the socialization and adjustment”

27
(Simosi, 2012, p. 93), which is just as important as understanding the firm’s processes and
financial acumen. Employee self-efficacy correlates to a learning culture where confidence is
built into employees’ knowledge and situational awareness. By training employees to react to the
environment, employees can self-regulate and plan actions to anticipate the consequences of
future events (Bandura, 1997). Organizations that emphasize training are investing in employee
knowledge and creating a culture of participation where efficacy and complex problem-solving
are encouraged.
Cultural Setting Influences
In a corporation where negative results are viewed as a downstream issue and not a larger
concern, leadership will continue to struggle with overall performance and will fail to improve
employee engagement. As global markets continue to change, any dynamic change to employee
engagement affects the assimilation and transformation of internal knowledge into additional
capacity (Kotlar et al., 2019). The firm’s absorptive capacity is its ability to identify, assimilate,
and transform based on upward or downward swings in the environment. Specifically, absorptive
capacity potentially creates a downward spiral with existing knowledge losses and openness
from employees, creating a change in scope and complexity (Kotlar et al., 2019).
Understanding the company’s ability to balance employee relations, create innovative
products, and maximize short-term profits ensures viable future options for the firm (Osborne &
Hammoud, 2017). Without improving employee motivation, the organization loses employee
loyalty and eventually creates a longevity issue for the organization and its profits. Leaders must
also support and commit to succession planning with senior and middle leaders, and at all levels,
to create bench strength and improve the organization’s culture.

28
Literature Summary
In summary, most industries’ manufacturing is highly labor intensive and requires human
input to reach productivity goals and meet customer demands. Leadership’s ability to motivate,
engage, and develop individuals is a driving influence in the success of teams and meeting
company goals and ambitions. Providing an autonomous workplace where servant, authentic,
and ethical leadership styles blend into transformational and charismatic leaders encourages
behavior that focuses on intrinsic goals. Teaching team members how to use procedural and
metacognitive knowledge facilitates goal achievement on the manufacturing shop floor. Human
motivation theory and SCT assist in understanding complex problem-solving and are valuable
methods to develop future leaders and identify motivating drivers. These theories can help
leaders provide praise and receive feedback far more effectively in understanding individual
motivation. As a leader, assigning suitable tasks while keeping the associates motivated
facilitates team cohesion and ultimately being productive in manufacturing products or servicing
a customer.
Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Theory
As a firm recognizes that change must and will happen and the leadership is aging or
looking to change direction, the organization’s survival depends on examining the effects of
change on employee motivation. As data are collected through open-ended questions, the lens of
observation is based on the triadic reciprocity of human behavior (Bandura, 1986). Bandura
developed the framework of SLT in 1977 to examine the human capacity for self-direction while
including external influences that affect behavior. Bandura then modified SLT in 1986 with the
premise that individuals choose the environments in which they are involved and are influenced
by the environment incidentally, reshaping behavior (Chuang et al., 2015). The SCT framework

29
is an active component in the effort to identify and close behavioral deficiencies. To understand
the relationship between individual leaders and their effects on engagement, the triadic
reciprocity system approach examines action, internal personal factors, and environmental
influences as interacting determinants (Bandura, 1990). Using the SCT framework,
organizational performance criteria are grouped into the person, behavior, and environmental
influences. This study used SCT as the conceptual framework for research and to demonstrate
and assist in identifying performance deficiencies by analyzing perceived employee motivation
and organizational culture issues.
Social cognitive theory explains that individuals are able to self-regulate their motivation
and actions to operate based on internal standards to evaluate their own performance (Bandura,
1986). Therefore, individuals define and achieve goals toward future success and personal
outcomes and develop a cognitive process by which a person evaluates his or her ability to
perform a certain task (Bandura, 1986). The transition of leadership cultivates the potential of
future leaders and influences what people can actually become, which is the basis of SCT or
develops predictive efficacy.
Korzynski (2013) outlined McClelland’s HMT, which implies that three motivational
facets driven by performance through achievement, power, and affiliation are all based on
primitive experiences from self-attributed motives and drive individuals to succeed. McClelland
et al. (1989) described the desire for achievement produced by motivation and considered the
internal desire to achieve. However, this desire does not always produce learning or
performance, creating a breakdown of how different levels of personal effort dictate overall
emotional effort to affect performance and ultimately affect employee engagement. Hence,
employee motivation forms a sense of identity development through intrinsic motivation, which

30
results in the outcomes of interest and engagement (Gagné et al., 2019; Osborne & Hammoud,
2017).
Most employees have an opinion on their leader’s knowledge and abilities, which either
motivates the employee to perform on the job or not. However, motivation is not without selfefficacy, and future leaders must be competent in their performance based on skills provided by
the mentor (Schunk & Usher, 2019). When a firm’s leader is a founder and especially a
charismatic leader, the employee has a mental picture of the right way to function in the
leadership role. The questions for the employee relate to the level to which the incumbent leader
drives motivation with the individual employee or with the team and the team’s collective
efficacy and beliefs toward the generational leader (Borgogni et al., 2010). The perception of
transitioning leadership contributes to the employees’ motivation, which magnifies the overall
engagement and can either improve or reduce performance.
The theoretical framework for this study uses SCT to identify why private businesses lose
momentum after a leadership transition and where these impacts on beliefs, behavior, and
environment affect employee motivation and the corporation’s culture. Long-term-oriented firms
are based on their ability to build trust within the ranks toward mutual gain for the firms and their
employees (Cesaroni et al., 2021). Without a plan to identify the right future leaders, the
corporation moves forward with a potential for asymmetric leadership that fails to meet the
objectives of the stakeholders.
Definitions
This section provides definitions of frequently used terms used throughout the research
and the dissertation.

31
Altruism: Voluntary actions that help another person with a work-related problem (Organ
& Konovsky, 1989).
Bivalent attributions: A unique, inherent feature of an organization that is the source of
both advantages and disadvantages to explain the dynamics of the family firm (Tagiuri & Davis,
1996).
Cognition: the tendency to engage in thinking and reflecting (Güss et al., 2017).
Conscientiousness: going well beyond the required levels of responsibility (Organ &
Konovsky, 1989).
Employee engagement: an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
state directed toward desired organizational outcomes (Shuck & Wollard, 2010).
Employee disengagement: The disconnection of individuals from their work roles to
protect themselves physically, mentally, and emotionally from real or perceived threats. (Shuck
& Wollard, 2010)
Explicit achievement motive is based on cognitive evaluations of the self and is part of the
individual’s self-concept (McClelland et al., 1989).
Gross domestic product (GDP): a monetary measure of the market value of all the final
goods and services produced in a specific time period by countries (Forbes, 2022).
Governance: the allocation of resources within a company and the resolution of conflicts
among the various stakeholders in organizations (Pindado & Requejo, 2014).
Implicit achievement motive: a stable, enduring motivational disposition to do things
well, which is based on, affects, and operates largely outside of a person’s awareness
(McClelland et al., 1989).

32
Lean manufacturing: a focus on changing the culture from old to new by way of
eliminating waste (non-value-added components or processes) and satisfying the customer
(Alefari et al., 2017).
Patriarchal leader: Gender bias for male leaders influenced by a masculinist
understanding of leadership, even in a setting that requires more feminine-linked nurturant traits
and said to be father-like in traits (Cousineau & Roth, 2012). It is also described as a leader with
transformational insight and usually the founder of a company (Huang et al., 2015; Lan et al.,
2019).
Sales, inventory, and operations planning (SIOP): Emphasis on inventory during the
process of planning and optimization of demand forecasting, used to optimize the manufacturing
process (Logility, 2022).
Self-efficacy: the cognitive process by which a person evaluates his or her ability to
perform a certain task (Bandura, 1986).
Servant leadership: based on the belief that people have an intrinsic value beyond their
tangible contributions as workers. As such, the servant leader is deeply committed to the growth
of each individual within his or her institution (McClellan, 2007).
Sportsmanship: tolerating the inevitable inconvenience and impositions of work without
complaining (Organ & Konovsky, 1989).
Transformational leadership: Motivation that influences people to have the same vision
to achieve, and how a leader leads and influences his or her subordinates to reach organizational
goals (Lan et al., 2019).

33
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The methodological approach used for this study was qualitative. A qualitative method
collects and analyzes semi-structured interviews, using convenience and network sampling to
develop comfort for the interviewees (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Per Osanloo and Grant (2016),
the theoretical framework provides a direction for developing a plan based on the research
problem that will best lay out the study’s variables. The framework guiding this study is the
SCT. This theory’s central component is the reciprocal interaction between the individual
influences (people), behavior, and environment, as well as social interaction affecting learning
and behavior (Bandura, 1986; Schunk & Usher, 2019). The aim was to clarify the organizational
goals, identify individual focus, the team, and individual efficacy, and examine the actual
performance level and the preferred performance related to the transition from one leader to
another. The elements were validated using interviews, literature reviews, and content analysis to
achieve the study’s objectives.
Using qualitative methodology, interviews consisted of open-ended questions to gather
data providing insight into the employee perception (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) of the effects
of the transition process. I asked individual questions to understand the relationships with triadic
reciprocity better and to gauge self and team efficacy surrounding the transition of leadership. In
addition, I sought to understand the leadership styles of new and previous supervisors and how
these styles enhance or degrade motivation. Using SCT and HMT as the theoretical framework
provided a lens into the effects of leadership style on shop-floor associates.
I reviewed interview questions with members of the dissertation committee and the chair,
who approved the line of questioning. I asked 15 open-ended questions during the interviews. I
analyzed these questions through open and axial codes, which aligned with behavior,

34
environment, and people influenced and which I broke down into parental and child codes. This
coding method provided workable silos to gain insight into situational issues’ direct cause and
effect.
Research Setting
I held interviews with eight individuals who were either currently working or had worked
in a manufacturing environment that underwent a leadership change. Interviewees work directly
for the Sneider Corp. in shop-floor-related positions. These interviews were held in person or on
a Microsoft Teams video conference call to assist in viewing the interviewee’s body language. I
held live interviews in a hotel conference room to provide a neutral and unpretentious
environment, where coffee, beverages, and snacks were provided. Interview questions were
designed to assist in data gathering to answer specific research questions related to engagement,
leadership styles, and leadership effectiveness.
Figure 2
Demographics Table
0 1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Age 20-29 Age 30-39 Age 40-49 Age 50-59
Participant Demograpics
Male Female Latinx Black White

35
The Researcher
I am a career operational leader in manufacturing environments, including the
automotive, aerospace, and consumer goods industries. I have led facilities in the Midwest, East
Coast, and multiple southern U.S. states, along with time spent in Mexico and China. I gathered
participants from my business contacts and chose them based on their work experiences and
willingness to participate. Interviewees were slightly proportioned males to females and from all
age groups and were equally weighted in different ethnicities. I spent a significant percentage of
my career working for the Sneider Corporation in a leadership role but left the company several
years prior to this study. During employment, I experienced several leadership changes and
witnessed the effects on the corporation and the employees at all levels. Keeping bias out of the
interview protocol, I used open-ended questions and ignored internal mental pictures of past
work history (Chenail, 2016). I purposely kept events from work history out of the questions and
did not lead interviewees to any events, practices, and procedures or make suggestions to lead
the interviewee toward a previous event. I used social conversations to relax and open a dialogue
and to influence the interviewees and not to provide answers based on what they thought I
wanted to hear.
Data Sources
The interviews consisted of 15 open-ended questions. I interpreted the participants’
answers through thematic analysis to identify important concepts in the transcripts (Rautenbach,
2023). To increase the flow of discussion, I used probing banter in interview dialogue to better
explain the meaning and to gain further elaboration from the respondent. I used parent and child
codes as a deductive breakdown of subjective information taken from the interviews and then
categorized them by triadic reciprocity headings.

36
Participants
I solicited business contacts (employees) from the Sneider company and other U.S.
manufacturing companies through an email request from a list of direct business contacts and
other second-hand candidates who met the criteria. Essentially, I chose the candidates based on
the possession of certain traits or qualities, also known as purposeful sampling (Koerber &
McMichael, 2008). I followed up positive replies with emails that contained specific questions to
validate a decisive match and to start a dialogue on timing and delivery method. Eight
individuals were a match and were available to be interviewed in a live or electronic manner and
held diverse characteristics of age, race, and gender.
Instrumentation
The interviews consisted of open-ended questions designed to follow the theoretical
framework of SCT. These questions were presented to front-line employees to gather data
following the format for the person, behavior, and environment-inspired questions (Bandura,
1977). The interviews examined the corporate mission and how the transition affected employee
motivation and the firm’s direction. I contacted the associates through business connections,
emails, and phone calls to capitalize on the intrinsic motivation created by telling their stories
and passing on personal knowledge. These interviews provided the qualitative data to understand
the participants’ experiences.
I organized the interviews as generally structured and standardized, where open-ended
questions are predetermined and prioritized (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), consistent from one
associate to another, but leaving room for follow-up questions and clarification as needed. The
interview protocol matrix in Table 2 identifies the relationship of each interview question

37
compared to the research question, background information, and the type of question, either
introductory, transition, key, or closing (Castillo-Montoya, 2016).
Table 2
Interview Question Categories
Research
Question 1
Research
Question 2
Type of
question
Interview Q1 Introductory
Interview Q2 X Transition
Interview Q3 X Key
Interview Q4 X Key
Interview Q5 X Key
Interview Q6 X Transition
Interview Q7 X Key
Interview Q8 X Key
Interview Q9 X Key
Interview Q10 X Key
Interview Q11 X Transition
Interview Q12 X Key
Interview Q13 X Key
Interview Q14 X Key
Interview Q15 X Closing
Data Collection Procedures
All interviews were in person or via electronic communications, requiring 45 to 60
minutes. I recorded and transcribed the interviews using Microsoft Teams, and a portable audio
recorder recorded a backup copy. Interviews were coded and classified by a corresponding
pattern of parent and child codes and documented in an Excel file. I used the groupings of parent
and child codes for quantifying subjective information about each participant’s experiences,
views, and opinions. The principal topics of the study are the parent codes of Leadership

38
Transition and Employee Engagement. I used child codes to categorize responses further and
identify individual interview questions.
Table 3
Interview Coding Parent/Child Coding Matrix
Parent
codes
Child codes
Leadership
transition
Communications Promotions Training Leadership
styles
Transition Team
building
Employee
engagement
Communications Mentoring People Environment Behavior
Data Analysis
I presented 15 open-ended questions to interviewees, providing a flow of dialogue
intending to express a manner that creates a therapeutic effect and sets the respondents at ease.
Chenail (2016) stated that this discovery-oriented manner of dialogue assists in facilitating the
experiences and opinions of the respondents, allowing the canned study-specific open-ended
questions to be conversational and release any limitations of the interviewee. The thematic
analysis of open codes identified and summarized important concepts in the interview data. I
used the codes conceptually to categorize responses based on the theoretical framework of SCT.
I used open coding to create a codebook based on responses to the questioning, taking a
deductive approach to the defined and predetermined codes (Rautenbach, 2023). With the
analysis of the individual codes, I also examined each response with a latent-level focus
(Rautenbach, 2023) to accept underlying meanings from each response, which does have an
element of interpretation.

39
Validity and Reliability
I considered each person’s multiple realities. The quality of the data must also be
evaluated through the lens of the researcher, who believes that the constructivism paradigm must
be considered during the evaluation of the data. Bogna et al. (2020) explained that the
constructivist view considers the knowledge, activities, and observations of the different
interviews, which identify each respondent’s subjective meanings and perspectives.
Constructivism also considers an individual’s knowledge as a social construct resulting from the
situations and interactions between individuals (Bogna et al., 2020). Additionally, situational
awareness of events, environments, and behavior ties into the perspectives of SCT. Also, while
analyzing the Sneider company and the related manufacturing associates interviewed, the
research lens views the environment as having subjective meanings and individual perspectives.
To test the data quality, method triangulation for in-depth individual interviews allows
for flexibility in responses (N. Carter et al., 2014). It also allows the researcher the flexibility to
hold stringent or wide-open interviews based on each interviewee’s responsiveness while
creating a bond-like environment where the respondent volunteers detailed information
(Kaplowitz, 2000). I selected the interviewees because of their background of being on the front
line of delivering a product and their ability to compare the data provided. However, I also used
data source triangulation to collect data from individuals of similar backgrounds (N. Carter et al.,
2014), like human resource and operational front-line leaders closely tied to products and people.
The interviewing of both front-line leaders and front-line workers provided a similar
environment but potentially different perspectives.

40
Findings
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the change in employee motivation in
corporations during and after the transition of leadership and the effect on the engagement of
shop-floor-level employees. This section presents the results regarding the associates and how
the leadership transition directly affects the team and individual motivation based on their
behavior, environment, and the person. The findings are based on the interviews of industry
personnel between the ages of 20 and 59, both genders, and contain White, Black, and Latino
ethnicities. The two research questions (RQs) align with SCT theoretical framework by Bandura
(1986), with RQ1 relating to the change in leadership and the effect on the work environment
and the influence on employee motivation. This RQ examines differences in the stability of
psychological functioning (Bandura, 1986) and how the change affects the conditions
surrounding the workforce’s skills cultivation. In contrast, RQ2 relates to the behavior of and
interactions with others based on the impact of observations and actions during and directly after
the transition in leadership. It also looks at assumptions, conceptions, and self-observations
related to personal actions and performance feedback by others, including previous and new
leadership.
This section presents the findings organized by RQ that reflect SCT and focus on the
triadic reciprocity framework. Subthemes provide additional information regarding the RQ
derived from the industry interviews. Pseudonyms are used for the participants, their employer,
and leadership to protect the integrity of the company and the participant’s identities. The
findings during the study take reference in Table 5 from Bandura (1986), triadic reciprocity of
SCT to categorize the people, behavior, and environmental influences surrounding the reactions
to interview questions by the respondents.

41
Table 4
References Bandura (1986), triadic reciprocity of social cognitive theory
Participants Environments
The work environment at the Sneider manufacturing site, which is based in Blackrock,
Texas, located near the state’s center, manufactures toilets, bathtubs, and other bathroom
fixtures. The manufacturing processes for these products require elevated temperatures to cure
and extrude plastics and ceramic raw materials into consumer goods. Based on the location and
manufacturing processes, the facilities’ average ambient temperature ranges from 85 to 110
degrees Fahrenheit, creating a demanding work environment. The Sneider site has a non-union
workforce with a significant dependence on a high school-educated mix of White, Latino, and
Black individuals. I chose the site based on a Southwest location, low tax base, and blue-collar
workforce dependent on manufacturing and ranching. The surrounding county lacks a degree-

42
bearing workforce, with only 19.4% holding a bachelor’s or higher degree versus the national
average of 35.0% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Table 4 provides the interviewees’ demographics,
roles, ages, and ethnicities. Table 4 also provides a spectrum of individuals who share similar job
functions: a direct front-line associate responsible for producing products, a direct team leader,
and an indirect associate or team leader responsible for moving products to and from the
production area. These individuals directly or indirectly manufacture products that supply the
firm’s customers.
Table 5
Participant Summary Information
Pseudonym Role Demographic
Philip Front-line team leader logistics and inventory W, M, 50–59
Lyndsey Front-line associate logistics and inventory W, F, 50–59
Michael Front-line team leader manufacturing B, M, 30–39
Newman Front-line manufacturing trainer L, M, 40–49
Walter Front-line associate manufacturing W, M, 50–59
Rose Front-line associate manufacturing W, F, 50–59
Selma Front-line associate manufacturing L, F, 20–29
Russell Front-line team leader manufacturing B, M, 50-29
Environmental Research Question
The first RQ pertained to how plant employees in manufacturing firms perceive the
impact of leadership transitions on employee motivation. The responses tie into the
environmental influence of Bandura’s (1986) SCT triadic reciprocity on the motivational effect
of employees in their workplace. The responses to interview questions #4, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12
reflect the environmental aspects of the respondents’ workplace based on their insights, opinions,
and biases toward their work environment. The following headings are categorized based on the

43
critical characteristics of the responses and their relationships and the effects on motivational
drivers of the individual agents.
Empathy and Charisma
Empathy and charisma are two leadership characteristics identified in servant and
transformational styles that directly influence the work environment and contribute to
engagement. Interview Question 7 (Q7) asked interviewees to explain their feelings related to a
glass ceiling and how not being a family member might affect their long-term employment
perspectives. Philip mentioned that the ceiling seems to move based on leadership trends, "In the
past, the hiring of women into supervisor and above positions wouldn't have happened. Women
leaders are better at managing the people on the business side." Besides ceiling and relationship,
the study examines leadership styles directly correlating to individual motivation and how these
feelings relate to the associate’s workplace environment. Interview Question 9 (Q9) asked them
to explain the differences between the founding owner and the current leader in terms of
charisma, empathy, and team building. Charismatic leaders inspire employee motivation by
using emotional intelligence to understand emotional needs and provide self-awareness (Biswas
& Rahman, 2021). These questions aimed to examine these attributes and how charisma inserts
an individual leader’s passion into the motivation and trust of subordinates. According to
Newman, charismatic leaders who bring sincerity, honesty, and autonomy tend to send a positive
message.
Only three interviewees provided lengthy initial answers to Q 9, which directly asked
them to discuss the differences in charism, empathy, and team building from their leaders.
During the interview with Rose, she struggled with the meanings of charisma and empathy and
the relationship to her work. After a further tell-me-more question, Rose correlated her

44
experiences at work with a life-changing event, “I was diagnosed with an illness recently, and
the leadership has been super empathetic and just very caring, and they went out of their way to
help me.” Price (2002) provided examples called echo and tell-me-more style of encouraging
respondents to continue with their account with indications of researcher interest like “tell me
more” or repeating their response. The back-and-forth banter increased the responses and drove
increased information based on the respondent’s feeling of pleasing the researcher. The answers
to Q9 provided further insight into leader empathy by giving positive and negative attributes
related to employee reactions. Perhaps that question could have been structured to enhance the
discussion on charisma better. Yet, charisma and empathy were identified as leading
characteristics in employees’ gravitating to positive feelings toward a leader.
According to all respondents, empathy has a different effect on individuals, varying by
demographics like age or generation. Russell stated that older individuals tend to have a stronger
work ethic and appreciate empathy, tying to a positive leadership trait and attaching honest and
sincere response that comes with caring for others, bringing family values. In contrast, the
younger generation views the trait as a weakness and uses a leader’s good intentions against
them to gain favorable results, adding a flavor of favoritism when others may receive a benefit
and not a situational emotion of being human. When discussing the young associates, Michael
stated, “I think that if we are too empathetic and we are too lenient and we allow people to get
away with too much right now, which is a detriment to the business.” The general statement was
that younger associates take advantage of leadership’s empathy and view it as a benefit only
when they are personally gaining from the leader’s emotion.

45
Autonomy
Autonomy is a characteristic of transformational leadership that works well with the
motivation of teams and supervisor-level associates, while at times, it disrupts a minor group of
individual associates who want to react to “just tell me what to do.” In the interview with Selma,
she describes her leadership as “they like to communicate to you, and you don’t know which
way to go. It would be easier if they just told me what to do.” Interview Question 10 (IQ10)
asked how the workforce reacts to the current leadership style and whether this style affects
motivation. During five of eight interviews, either “autonomy” was directly called out or the
respondent provided a statement reflecting autonomy. These responses had either a negative
tone, as Selma’s statement above, or a positive response, where the associate felt trusted and
valued. For example, Rose said, “If you prove that you’re able to perform, you’re allowed to
make decisions on area improvements.” The results were that autonomy builds trust and creates
engagement beyond any of the other transformational characteristics. When leaders provide
autonomy, associates’ effectiveness increases through real-time problem-solving, adding in place
new benchmarks, and creating a better understanding of the work environment (Pattnaik &
Sahoo, 2021). It is evident that change in leadership at times identifies that one level of
leadership was speaking a different language than associates. Responses to Q10 identified that
enabling the associates to make decisions defeated management’s need to micromanage and
limited its timely wrong direction.
Newman explained that empathy and servant leadership made the team feel optimistic
based on leadership supporting team decisions. If employees are trusted, positive interaction
develops high-performance teams and positively influences leading from the front. Walter ties
the autonomy provided by leadership through interactions between his new leadership and the

46
workforce to the building of high-performance teams. These interactions build and validate
performance, job satisfaction, commitment, and intrinsic motivation (Federici, 2013), essentially
building associate self-efficacy. Responses to associate autonomy identify the connection
between positive motivation and successful performance, leading to achieving KPIs and
developing team efficacy.
High-Performance Teams and Leading from the Front
Transformational leaders influence the performance of individuals, teams, and
organizations, including measures of extra-role performance, such as high-performance teams
(HPT) and leading from the front (LFF) team behavior. During a recent change at Newman’s
work area, “new leadership is allowing high performance teams to form which will empower the
team to take ownership of their work environment.” These transformational leaders focused on
training and formulating grassroots teams through self-guidance and continued support of HPT.
In the answers to Q12, six of eight participants commented that an adjustment to team building
identified that the change in tactics motivated and created a positive reinforcement of LFF,
which encouraged growth in engagement and team motivation. Rose said that the “formulation
of grassroots teams, which allows for growth within the workforce, created support for others
which are helping the team to improve team cohesion vastly.” HPTs bring teams and individuals
to use their intelligence to become more innovative and creative (Bass, 1999), which develops
higher self-esteem. Lyndsey identified that her new leadership needed to be more in touch with
the team, “there is no team building or intent to motivate the team, or by improving each
situation by understanding each person.” Lyndsey’s leadership went away from LFF and
neglected to understand that having a common goal was essential to the workforce’s psyche. In
Lyndsey’s situation, leadership needs to be in tune with their associates, decreasing the feelings

47
of positivity and importance. In my experience and the interview results, topic-centric teams
provide success and develop ownership in completing the task.
Communications
Lyndsey also identified that not being part of the process was enhanced by the lack of
communication from the new leadership, which needed to be more cohesive like the previous
team. Lyndsey states, “Communication is lacking from the current leadership, and when
discussions do happen, the leadership is very vague with a significant lack of detail.” The
connection to the company’s direction was maintained by previous leaders through transparency
to associates, leading to a situational understanding of events that changed with new
management. The connection between communication and support enhanced the feeling of
neglect by the team, which Clampitt and Downs (1993) identified as a development instrument
for building interpersonal relationships within teams. Responses to Q9 and Q12 touched on the
lack of communication, which, in turn, propagated poor engagement and trust between leaders
and associates, essentially building walls and rumor mills. Walter made a point of leadership
only listening to individual perspectives and not fact-checking these perspectives versus overall
data, which “created tension between the staff by only hearing an individual perspective.”
Walter’s response identifies a poor communication climate at the organization, which Clampitt
and Downs (1993) defined as a limited organizational integration. Organizational integration
revolves around the degree to which individuals receive information about the immediate work
environment (Clampitt & Downs, 1993).
Poor communication from the new leadership at Sneider impaired employee selfefficacy, contributed to an environment which chapped communication, and limited the
innovation and satisfaction of work. Philip also identified the lack of upward and downward flow

48
of information at Sneider: "There is little communication besides rumors, which was detrimental,
and employees didn't know what was going on." Like statements were identified as creating gaps
between leadership and floor supervision, fabricating a situation where the direction could have
been more precise. These unclear messages from leadership created an environment where
productivity declined, and blame shifted based on the source of information. Lyndsey’s answer
to Q7 was that the previous strong leaders at Sneider took time to listen and provide feedback to
associates in both group and individual settings. This type of servant communication directly
connected the team based on proving the truth, even when the truth was painful, building a bond
of “being in this together.”
Participants Behavior
The individual and team behavior at the Sneider Corporation and the respondents’
companies are influenced by the immediate internal and external consequences based on human
actions. These actions, which dictate the outcomes, are determined by the people guiding the
actions based on intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1986). Research Question Two
(RQ2) asks, “How did the behavior of others impact your motivation during or after the
leadership transition?” This question examines the influence of leadership on the shop-floor
associates’ behavior and how the actions affect motivation because behavior is related to
outcomes and experiences that happen over time (Bandura, 1986), and the outcomes of others
who are like the individual create positive or adverse motivators (Wood & Bandura, 1989). In
this study, the behavioral determinant of managerial decision making affects the individual’s
self-beliefs, personal goal setting, and quality of analytic thinking. The relationship between
managerial decision making and associates’ cognitive motivation ultimately affects individual
behavior and related actions.

49
Decision Making
Leaders and associates make decisions in the workplace to achieve success and to
complete the daily functions required to complete job activities. “Decisions are the behavior on
the basis of comparative information in order to achieve correspondence between conceptions
and their actions” (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p. 363). During the interviews, respondents did not
directly call out leader decision-making but identified that their decisions affect workplace
performance and team engagement. However, decision-making can be an example of opinion
based on the individual personality, experiences, and the timing of the action. Interviewee Rose
identified that the recent transition to her position was refreshing due to transparency and group
involvement in the decisions that affect the team, including the “overall development and team
progression.” This decision-making process helps to bridge relations versus the previous topdown decision-making. On the contrary, Walter provided an opposite response, “Decisions were
made based on everything was a crisis. This effect of the decisions affected the team negatively,
causing a great deal of turnover and was a negative driver to the business”. The consensus from
respondents was that either previous or new leadership made poor decisions, leading to
ineffectiveness and, ultimately, engagement issues. Adverse social conditions are created when
poor decisions are made without evaluating the full consequences (Bandura, 1986). In an
example from Lyndsey, Individuals were put into positions without experience in decision
making, creating situations where associates felt as though they were treated without dignity and
respect.
The communication of the decision in a manufacturing environment is just as important
as the decision when attempting to achieve gains and buy-in from the team. The decision and the
perception of its ethicality directly influence team efficacy. When the perception of the team is

50
that there may be an ethical impact on the company, the foundation of the team’s moral
principles is put into question (C.-P. Lin et al., 2012). The most common example from the
respondents was decisions related to promoting associates into leadership roles. There were
several examples where Sneider managers promoted individuals based on personal relationships
and not merit, questioning the company’s ethics. These promotions were always viewed as
directly related to the company’s ethics and not the manager making the promotion. The view of
the associates is that leadership ignores their managers’ actions, which creates an ethical conflict
in the associates’ perceptions. Figure 3 outlines how the ethics of the company’s decisions
develop a view of overall citizenship, directly influencing overall performance and productivity.
Figure 3
Effects of Citizenship Related to Performance
Note. From Corporate social responsibility and team performance: The mediating role of team
efficacy and team self-esteem by Lin, C.-P., Baruch, Y., & Shih, W.- C, 2012, Journal of
Business Ethics, 108(2), 167–180. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1068-6)
The remarks made during interviews were directly related to perceived ethical behavior
diminishing team member confidence and potentially leading to poor team performance. Several
of the respondents' remarks magnify the perception of ethical behavior, where Walter refers to
management ethics as "bullying" and states, "the effects of the leadership bullying associates put
the plant into a negative free fall." The correlation of ethical behavior influences the relationship
between decision-making, communications, and perceived ethics violations, which are
behavioral influences that lead to performance deficiencies. C.-P. Lin et al. (2012) found that

51
poor decision making inflates adverse organizational climate, which facilitates associates’
intrinsic motivation. As described by Philip, the transition of leadership styles that previously
engaged the workforce currently demotivates based on trust issues related to decisions made by
new leadership. Overall, decision-making and communication methods eventually affect
motivation and team performance, limiting the growth of the team and the team members.
Self-Efficacy
Servant leadership spotlights associated self-worth and the positive outcomes of
workplace performance influenced by the treatment of leadership toward their team members.
Associate beliefs in their capabilities to succeed or fail are influenced by positive or stressful
situations brought on by the behavior of others (Bandura, 1989), including feeling supported by
peers and supervisors. The interviewee’s self-efficacy changed based on the behavior of the new
or previous leadership and the support provided in terms of mentorship, building relationships,
and deploying a cohesive work environment. The consensus of the respondents identified that
self and team efficacy was directly connected to the treatment of respect and dignity toward team
members by leadership. In addition, the timing of the transition and the relationships built
affected the optics toward the less favorable leaders, and a mental vision based on dislike became
heightened.
The observations made by respondents in supervision roles pointed out that one of the
effects of new negative leadership created a higher turnover rate for all associates. Lyndsey
pointed out that “the new leaders did not understand how to speak to team members, creating a
hostile environment.” This perception of a tainted environment influenced efficacy by creating
situational doubt in the capabilities and commitment to pursue higher goals (Bandura, 1989) or
goals that benefit the team’s future opportunities (Bandura, 2000). In Lyndsey’s assessment, the

52
relationships being dismantled by the new leadership have influenced poor collective efficacy,
thereby stressing group function. Simply, this stress of collective efficacy is like a losing sports
team and the weakening of cohesiveness between team members based on poor coaching
(Carron et al., 2002).
From a positive perspective, highlighting mentoring from the new leadership provided a
“feeling of guidance and direction,” where Newman noted formal and informal support for
mentoring within teams-built group success. The mentoring of others enhances the cognitive
process of influencing performance and gaining personal efficacy over job tasks (Fitzgerald &
Schutte, 2010). The motivation that Newman received stimulated personal and professional
growth and provided implied improvement opportunities that he was blinded to prior to the
mentoring. Walter had a similar experience where new leadership influenced mentoring to help
grow his technical knowledge. The mentoring relationship enhanced Walter’s core technical
building blocks and encouraged the development of his skills through relationships (Jnah &
Robinson, 2015), which positively impacted his self-efficacy and desire to grow the team. There
were also several positive remarks that servant leaders acting as mentors helped to grow the
confidence of individuals and teams in Sneider’s previous leadership.
Motivation and Self-Reactive Influences
There is a distinct difference between the goals people set for themselves and those set by
a corporation. According to Bandura and Cervone (1986), motivation can be influenced by
feedback based on goals set by either an individual or others that hold an influence on the
“cognitive mechanism of motivation” (Bandura & Cervone, 1986, p. 92). Consequently, a leader
can significantly influence the motivation and, ultimately, associates’ performance. All
respondents had similar reactions to questions related to motivation; in each interview, the

53
answers went directly to career growth, and most discussed mentoring and feelings of personal
improvement. Except for Lyndsey, the interviewees gave answers to Qs 5 and 6 (regarding how
the current or past leadership motivated them personally to develop future company leaders and
which leadership style best describes them as leaders and mentors) that focused on individual
motivation and distractors based on leadership’s ability to show interest in providing growth
opportunities. Lyndsey was the only respondent who discussed self-evaluation that led to either
self-dissatisfaction or motivation, leading to an enhanced personal effort to achieve her goals.
It was clear that transformational leaders were involved at some point in each
respondent’s career, and their influence intensified the desire to set goals for career growth.
However, few respondents took actual actions to promote growth besides setting goals for
higher-level positions. All desired results from these goals were enhanced responsibility and
more significant compensation, yet actions were limited and seemed to decline once the mentor
or involved leader stepped aside. Philip was the only respondent who returned to college based
on the goals set between his transformational leader and him. However, once that leader left the
corporation, Philip stopped his college aspirations, and his motivation toward advancement
dwindled.
In five of eight interviews, the transition from transformational to transactional leader and
vice-versa was apparent in each respondent’s motivation and feedback, where the differences in
the level of communication were noticeable. Lyndsey speaks about the lack of communication
and a level of vagueness when discussing situational details. She mentions, “There is a push for
full automation with no focus on people issues or understanding how to speak to people. There is
even a larger gap with the off shifts where no communications create a large disconnect and
hostility.” Dissatisfaction or the ability to create motivation and communicate was evident in

54
each one’s actions and words. Each asserted that the most powerful motivational tools favorable
leaders granted were autonomy, faith in the associate’s decision-making, and the ability to
communicate objectives and tasks. Individual self-set goals and the creation of enduring
motivation are highly influenced by the perceived capabilities generated by the sense of support
from the leader, which reinforced Bandura and Cervone’s (1986) writings on self-reactive
influences.
Performance
The self-satisfaction and attainment of goals built by associate self-efficacy become
evident based on their views of actual performance, along with the achievement of company
KPIs. Several interview questions hinted at performance and outcomes based on the actions of
the associate and leader but did not directly call out performance. Probing questions prompted
the respondents to relate to performance outcomes or results. Moreover, two respondents did
credit HPTs as motivation for intrinsic and self-fulfilling work-based goals. Newman stated that
“the new leadership is allowing high performance teams to form which will empower the team to
take ownership of their work environment. The new leadership is also allowing time to train the
people and formulate grassroots teams, which allows for growth within the workforce. Support
has become available, and the team is vastly improving”. Likewise, the HPT positively motivates
building relationships to overcome specific performance-based goals. HPT intends to promote
and appreciate innovative ideas through bottom-up teams that share and nurture organizational
best practices (Bailey & Horvitz, 2010).
The use of HPT and grassroots teams is a new concept. According to Rose, leadership in
the past “told you what they wanted, and you completed the task or else.” The new leadership
empowers teams to set ideas and perform tasks; the concept of failing fast and then improving is

55
a new concept and leads to an intrinsic motivation to perform. Tuuli and Rowlinson (2009)
suggested that managers conducting power-sharing through teams provide a climate where
employees understand the situational conditions and feel empowered. In contrast, another
manager in the same environment tried extrinsic motivational techniques with the intent of
gaining performance through financial returns. Not to mention, the same manager coupled the
financial rewards with competition between associates attempting to gain productivity and make
a reduction in scrap items. However, this attempt created a toxic environment, backfired on the
manager when the performance was not achieved, and created negative feelings between
coworkers.
In a similar manufacturing environment, competition was a successful motivator when
used as an intrinsic motivator against a corporate competitor. Walter’s new leadership used a
competition strategy of “us versus the world.” Using other companies selling like product lines,
creating a high-performance environment and a means for “self-evaluative reactions creating a
personal incentive for performance” (Bandura, 1986, p. 241). This activity-induced performance
when the associate and team used self-determination (Bandura, 1986), structuring the work
environment where performance led to intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
This motivation was successful because the workforce felt the gratification of winning, and the
incremental sales turned into employee overtime, the hiring of new workers, and new
opportunities for the workforce’s advancement. The leadership publicized the success of
increased sales and new product lines with the need for additional manufacturing site expansions.
The publicity included local media and internal postings praising employees and making the
gains very personal. This tactic was very positive and well-received by the team, creating an
environment of both team and self-efficacy for the entire workforce.

56
Mentoring, Learning, and Training
Michael’s viewpoint on training was highly provocative, as he mentioned that previous
positive leadership used training as a motivational tool and a method to grow the team by
providing a feeling of importance. Past leadership also created a buy-in through the opportunity
for future career growth by offering inspirational training that taught leadership methodology. In
contrast, the new leadership uses training as a punishment by assigning web-based internal
training assignments for behavior or as a way of assigning corrective action. For example,
Michael, a team leader, has words with an employee for not performing. “The younger
generation of employee does not like being told what to do and calls the ethics hotline with a
story of harassment or discrimination.” The team leader’s manager chooses to assign online
training to check a box instead of using the opportunity to mentor Michael on ways to coach an
associate. Michael’s viewpoint is that “the training is punishment, and I must become educated
on diverse groups which is not related to the issue”. Which in turn, Michael is negatively
motivation from the assignment. Bandura (1977) would view Michael’s opinion as observed
consequences based on the manager exercising punitive power or authority to gain compliance
instead of benefiting from the training. The negative reinforcement of the assigned training is the
observed outcome for Michael, and other team leaders may view it as vicarious punishment.
The participants frequently mentioned new hires’ onboarding and early training as an
opportunity that leadership misses. They viewed transformational leaders as having more
concern and making better attempts to onboard correctly. Yet, the high fallout of new hires offers
little difference to the respondents. Positive engagement during onboarding and servant leaders’
portrayal of a family atmosphere motivates new hires. Also, the need for continued training for
front-line team leaders and associates is an ongoing frustration. Overwhelming demands on

57
front-line leaders and the need for more training to meet engineering, quality, and production
requirements develop into job dissatisfaction. Servant leaders were more likely to provide
additional training than transactional leaders, but the general feeling was that peer employees
applied post-onboarding training.
In developing leaders, respondents discussed mentoring when answering Q6 and multiple
other questions. Male respondents positively identified mentors, while females identified as
having no formal mentors or mediocre offering of guidance, especially when new to their
position if recently promoted. Selma and Lyndsey, when promoted into more demanding roles,
both found that females provided superficial support but no real mentoring. Selma said, “A past
female mentor was not helping her get an opportunity to move higher; she was only interested in
her ability to move higher.” Selma also had a male mentor “that would help figure things out and
guide me through problems when asked.” While Lyndsey said, “There has been almost zero
leadership mentoring; the management only mentors their favorites.” Also, their fellow female
employee would assist when asked but offered no direct help, while higher-level females were
helpful when the lower-level employee drove the relationship. Bandura (2000) might categorize
these relationships as contentious dualisms where the social structures are constraints imposed by
psychological behavior affecting personal interaction.
Feedback
Feedback can be a positive or a negative motivator. Motro et al. (2020) highlighted that
negative feedback can quickly cause an emotional event that drives poor performance and works
against an employee’s self-esteem. In a statement from Russell, he called out harmful
communications from corporate leadership that required alteration before further dissemination
to team members, “There is a disconnect between corp. and local leadership based on the

58
perspective of the corporate culture. Local leadership must spin the message to reach the team to
avoid speaking over or offending the local hourly team”. Six of eight respondents identified mass
communication, small group meetings, and individual one-on-one discussions that led to an
emotional connection in servant leadership styles. Respondents also identified a clear difference
in different leadership groups’ styles and sincerity and the relation to trust and overall team
performance. Moreover, the transition of different styles and feedback levels highly influenced
the workforce’s efficacy and individual feelings toward either new or past servant leaders.
Interview Question 2 (IQ2) regarding what organizational training programs are in place
that work toward transitioning managers into future leaders sought opinions on administration in
confidence when discussing corporate vision and mission statements to test the feelings toward
leadership’s communication and openness. When discussing feedback from transactional
leadership styles, statements of needing to be more specific with a significant lack of detail were
expected and did generate a lack of trust. Newman also discusses an “open-air environment”
where team members can freely discuss issues with servant leadership and a higher confidence
level with an open-door policy, boosting team efficacy. Open-door policies are key inherent
attributes of symmetrical communication, such as openness, listening, feedback, two-way
dialogue, participation, accountability, and supporting team and individual interaction (Men,
2014). As associates feel “open air” and autonomy, there is also a feeling of team empowerment
and growth opportunities, creating a positive work environment.
Feedback is gathered through a corporate analytic strategy designed to better gather
opinions instead of asking questions directly. The current trend of employee engagement surveys
makes sense in the theoretical environment of asking questions directly to the associates so they
can speak their minds. The issue is trust; the typical remark from respondents is that the

59
company knows who is answering the question and the potential for retribution. Problems
develop when direct or local leadership feels like they are targets from both associates and
outside leadership, where no matter how well they treat their team, individual opinions can be
very personal and potentially career-hindering. Respondents in supervision roles have witnessed
remarks directly from surveys, resulting in the termination of individuals without investigations
or facts. Engagement surveys intend to understand the collective efficacy of individual
perceptions and how this perception affects the group’s ability to perform job-related tasks
(Borgogni et al., 2010; Bandura, 1986). In contrast, the variables of thought-inducing questions
form into beliefs by associates that stir up feelings that can be negative toward leadership or the
organization. The act of surveying associates creates a form of both self-evaluating and
judgement of the corporation’s collective efficacy in either a positive or negative manner.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This quantitative study aims to investigate the effect on employee motivation after the
transition of leadership and how leadership styles influence the individuals on the front line of
manufacturing. Notably, to better understand the methods of motivation that influence individual
performance, the effect on productivity, and the relation to collective, team, and self-efficacy.
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1991) is the theoretical framework for this study to
examine the effects on motivation of front-line team members from the perspective of Bandura’s
triadic reciprocity, focusing on the person, environment, and behavior. The study takes an
example of human experiences and opinions to focus on self-efficacy related to facility
leadership and associates during a transition. To better understand the effects of transition and
the relationship to leadership style on individual team behavior, I interviewed eight participants
who ranged in age and ethnic background to explore the following RQs:

60
1. How do plant employees in manufacturing firms perceive the impact of leadership
transitions on employee motivation?
2. How did the behavior of others impact motivation during or after the leadership
transition?
Discussion of Findings
Through the research of literature and participant interviews, this study found that several
leadership methods motivate or demotivate front-line associates at manufacturing facilities. The
interview findings identify two broad classifications of leadership mentalities that define
methods related to attitudes and behaviors. Successful leaders use a combination of techniques to
engage their workforce, which could be fairly rolled up into transformational leadership
(Aboramadan & Kundi, 2020; Bass, 1999) with commonly used terms like servant, charismatic,
and authentic leadership. In contrast, transactional leadership styles, which are categorized as
managers and considered old styles with characteristics of being laissez-faire or contingent
reward (Bass, 1999), are less favorable with most of the respondents. Table 7 presents the
different characteristics that are commonly associated with the opposing parent styles of
leadership, affecting associate feelings that drive team efficacy.
Table 6
Separation of Leadership Styles
Transformational Transactional
Inspirational Laissez-faire
Set high standards Contingent reinforcement
Innovative Contingent reward
Charismatic Management-by-exception
Intelligent stimulation Negative feedback
Autonomy Disciplinary action
Support and development Passive aggressive

61
The findings directly address the problem of practice by identifying different leadership
styles and the potential effects of front-line associates’ psyche during a transition. The findings
reflect that in a transition time, individuals question their self-esteem and safety needs. If
leadership cannot provide a safe place, the team can also challenge physiological needs.
Importantly, environmental variables such as social support can indirectly influence behavior
relating to intrinsic interests and extrinsic recognition integrated through leadership change
influencing environmental and personal variables (Motl, 2007). The findings also identify how a
change into a transactional leadership group can quickly direct negative productivity and
collective efficacy trends. Consequently, a positive shift in a transformational leadership style
over a brief period will vastly improve team efficacy and facility productivity, leading toward
team members’ self-actualization.
Recommendations
Change is unavoidable, and the criticality of decision making relating to leadership
transition will affect the direction of any corporation. Without a sense of connection, leadership
and the workforce will find it difficult to meet individual demands, ultimately affecting
profitability. Hence, profitability and associate engagement are closely tied to the clarity of an
individual company’s social support related to both behavior and the social environment. The
recommendations are outlined through the lens of SCT and reciprocal determinism (Baranowski,
1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989) by categorizing processes from observations made through
interactions between behavior and the related environment. Table 8 outlines a list of key
recommendations to capture employee engagement surrounding a transition in leadership based
on SCT.

62
Table 7
Recommendations Based on Social Cognitive Theory
Key recommendations for employee engagement surrounding a leadership transition
Person: personal growth
Motivation and establishing goals to meet needs
Self-efficacy and developing competency by providing autonomy to team members
Behavior: developing leaders and behavior conducive to self-efficacy
Facilitating leadership behavior to meet collective efficacy
Influencing Individual and team characteristics
Environment: understanding and shaping the environment
Social environments within the business: opportunities and constraints
Institutional and physical environments influencing the team
Personal Growth
Except for physiological and safety needs, the desire to achieve career growth and selfactualization needs is a strong motivator for many individuals in their work lives and in
achieving personal goals. The drive for individuals to master a difficult task has the potential for
social implications and enhancing career growth, which becomes part of a person’s self-efficacy
(Hagger et al., 2020). As the associate moves towards self-actualization needs, the self-efficacy
becomes stronger in achieving greater work skills. Personal development in the workplace is
seldom driven directly by extrinsic motivators but is directly related to achievements in meeting
esteem and self-efficacy influencers. The common theme during the interviews was the desire to
advance the respondent’s career and take the next step in pursuing personal and work goals. Both
Philip and Lyndsey wanted their careers to take the next step, yet they had negative remarks
about their career advancement opportunities. Philip said, “The History of promotions of frontline leaders & supervisors comes from the shop floor, while upper management traditionally
comes from the outside. These management positions seem to be all from outside the US”.

63
Lyndsey said, “It is very much a buddy system; you have to work hard, but there is only an
opportunity if you’re a friend of someone in leadership. To excel, you must work hard, put a lot
into the job, and go above and beyond. This is not a great environment”. Rose was more
objective: “They do promote from within any time there is a position that becomes available, and
only go to the outside if needed.” Building team efficacy and organizational culture begins at the
individual level, where the opportunity for career growth excited the respondents. A factor
towards individual engagement was the potential to fulfill personal aspirations where intrinsic
motivators are achieved. However, the opportunity is small for positive steps toward
advancement, which, when not met, could lead to resentment toward the company and its
leaders.
Motivation and Establishing Goals to Meet Needs.
Developing team members builds bench strength for the company and contributes to the
motivation of individuals who work in all business functions. The combination of investing in
people and the “personal pledge of goal commitment creates motivational inducements leading
to self-evaluation and achieving valued goals” (Bandura, 1986, p. 477). For leaders, the benefit
of investing in training team members hastens the completion of business functions while adding
innovation, benefiting the customers, and helping to achieve internal goals. Further, training
team members increases self-efficacy and loyalty to the team and the individual who receives the
benefit.
Establishing training guidelines for positional functions and optional training protocol
develops individual training matrices that strengthen both personal portfolios and departmental
strengths. The availability of training programs and the individual freedom to gain further
training improves the associate’s feelings of autonomy while enhancing self-efficacy to better

64
perform work-related functions. Niati et al. (2021) described a relationship between training, job
performance, and career development, which enhances the associate’s motivation. For example,
by providing a Six Sigma Greenbelt program, engineers and trainees learn to gather data related
to problem-solving through statistical analysis. The understanding of repeatability in process
capability and the effects on manufacturing as the product drifts from nominal to the variation
between upper and lower limits. Schmidt (2010) explains that complex subject training for
associates improves motivation by strengthening employees’ beliefs in their abilities to perform
their jobs. Six Sigma training is a complex methodology that allows associates to interact with
their environment and form attitudes and perceptions about training or themselves. Not all
training must be complex, yet training is a method to raise industry awareness and enhance job
performance and motivation.
Employee training enhances individual intrinsic and team prosocial motivation,
especially team training. According to Hu and Linden (2015), training that involves teams
creates an environment where team members are concerned with self-advancement and the
opportunity to impact others within the team. Teams that train together as a unit create a bond,
highlighting the “value of collective prosocial motivation to team outcomes” (Hu & Linden,
2015, p. 1103). Essentially, Training and team development improve individual performance
while effectively providing motivation for teams and enhancing social characteristics (Ozkeser,
2019). In Figure 4, Niati et al. connected the relationship of employee training to motivation and,
ultimately, self-efficacy. Providing value-added training, either leadership, root cause analysis,
or generally related to the individual field, and by doing so, the company adds a feeling of job
autonomy and employee participation.

65
Figure 4
The Relationship of Training and Self-Efficacy
Note. From The effect of training on work performance and Career Development: The role of
motivation as intervening variable by D. R. Niati, Z. M. Siregar, & Y. Prayoga, 2021, Budapest
International Research and Critics Institute-Journal: Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2),
2385–2393. (https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v4i2.1940)
Developing value-added training procedures with growth matrices for individual
progression builds self-efficacy while growing development. It has strongly indicated low
attrition rates while enhancing overall innovation.
Self-Efficacy and Developing Competency by Providing Autonomy to Team Members.
Principal self-efficacy and job autonomy are positively related to job satisfaction and
building employee development skills that promote engaging behavior. To build future leaders
and engaged associates, leaders must provide autonomy to team members through relationships
where associates are encouraged to be analytic thinkers. Providing associates with the flexibility
to correlate past events with challenging problems enables them to predict future situations
(Bandura, 1989), also creating an enhancement to self-efficacy and personal ownership. A
transformational leader who works toward building problem-solving skills creates analytic
thinkers who feel comfortable making complex decisions. During the interviews, the respondents
felt that given autonomy to make choices, associates took ownership of their work and felt more

66
confident and rewarded in daily job tasks. In an example from Michael, “Given the right level of
autonomy, I feel trusted that I am a valuable person, and I don’t need someone looking over my
shoulder.”
When transitioning leaders, by providing a leader with a servant style that includes team
members with the perception that their influence makes a difference, they will construct
engaging situations. Given autonomy, cognitive motivation is built where associates “motivate
themselves and guide their actions anticipatorily through the exercise of forethought” (Bandura,
1989, p. 729). Servant leadership focuses on treating people with respect and dignity, justly
building a kinship with team members, and allowing associates to set goals for themselves and
plan workplace actions. As Newman responds to Q12, “When leadership allows a grassroots
team to assemble with associates, given a problem and the freedom to take on root causes and
corrective actions (RC&CA) analysis, then be allowed to implement change empowerment has
been given a chance to take over.” It is amazing to watch a grassroots team assembled with
associates, given a problem and the freedom to take on root causes and corrective actions
analysis, then be allowed to implement change. At this point, the kinship between team members
and leaders strengthens, and future modifications become more effortless. Consequently, when a
transition is successful, the perceived self-efficacy and team efficacy grows, and the team then
sets higher goals for themselves and becomes committed to group success.
When associates can work in self-directed teams, leaders provide the confidence that
these teams are working toward intrinsic goals. The measurement of perceived self-efficacy is
the contagious engagement that spreads throughout the work environment. In contrast, Russell
explained how past management was adversarial and provided no autonomy to team members,
which was the opposite of the new leaders. The result of past management was described as

67
associated with more stress and depression, which made tasks more challenging to complete.
However, the replacement servant leaders provided trust and confidence, persuading increased
efforts, and influencing the team’s analytic thinking. Teams and individuals who can succeed or
fail with the confidence that their leaders will support their actions will build aspirations to win
and commit to pursuing team goals.
Behavior – Developing Leaders and Behavior Conducive to Self-Efficacy
Behavior that produces effective self-efficacy is based on both vicarious experiences and
past performances related to either physical activity or feedback related to actions (Hagger et al.,
2020). Notably, transitions in leadership afflict associate and team behavior, and since these
events do occur, they require handling and preparation because change induces stress. According
to SCT, forming goals is a method to create conditions that help develop a desired behavior.
Goal setting focused on intrinsic motivation delivers positive outcome expectancies, which work
toward raising self-efficacy (Hagger et al., 2020). To boost leadership behavior an investment in
training and coaching at all levels is crucial to manufacturing performance. This investment must
start with senior leadership followed by front-line supervision and facility leadership when
boosting workforce collective and self-efficacy.
Successful transformational leaders have a high degree of emotional intelligence, where
these professionals have the vision for employees' needs and have the forethought to help others
reach their potential. Responses to IQ #9 highlighted that charismatic leaders have significant
emotional intelligence. Biswas and Rahman (2021) suggest that the emotional intelligence of
charismatic leaders drives employee motivation. When leaders understand their teams' physical
and verbal cues, they can have meaningful, crucial conversations with more significant impact.
These EI characteristics assist leaders in decision-making and benefit the team during problem-

68
solving activities. Fitzgerald and Schutte (2010) outline a characteristic of EI that provides a
foundation for transformational leaders, where EI focuses on people's perceptions when
evaluating and managing emotions and, most importantly, when making decisions. Using EI
skills connects the supervisor to behaviors influencing associates during the period. The training
of EI also develops noncognitive competencies, including motivation and self-efficacy (Hodzic
et al., 2018), which also reduces stress and helps build relationships.
As leaders of people are taught the skills to think through situations, they become
effective in understanding the emotions of others while regulating their own. They also become
apt for potential change and development. The traits of heightened EI in shop-floor leadership
were demonstrated as positive characteristics in favorable leaders during interviews. EI training
is a tool that all leaders would benefit from in their daily interactions with different behaviors.
Encouraging Leadership Behavior to Facilitate Collective Efficacy
During the leadership transition, especially when a transformational or servant leader is
brought in, the leader must differentiate between the group and individual dynamics of his or her
audience. The group’s behavior can be different than the individual’s, requiring sensitivity so the
followers do not feel favoritism, which will compromise the group’s outcomes. According to
Wang and Howell (2010), it is imperative that the leader must direct attention to the whole
group, resulting in a shared perception among followers. The primary function of the new leader
should be to focus on group effectiveness and collective efficacy, followed by group selfefficacy.
The first step toward winning the team’s confidence is to provide a clear perception that
the intention is to focus on group behavior by setting norms and outlining the team’s concerns.
Leader behavior during a transition must first be aimed at group goals, intending to develop

69
shared values and beliefs (Wang & Howell, 2010). Building these shared beliefs, the team opens
the capability to form collective efficacy in route to the execution of goal attainment. Three
initial team-focus topics for jump-starting a group transition are (a) emphasizing the team
identity, (b) communicating a team vision, and (c) starting team-building activities. Thus,
emphasizing the group in front of the individual is a first step, and the behavior of individuals is
always secondary to the team. Building the team’s collective efficacy displays the importance of
collaboration, communication, cohesion, and group climate. Once collective efficacy is achieved,
creativity and innovation in the workplace become common and part of the associates’
sociostructural practices (Bandura, 2000, as cited in Kim & Shin, 2015). Thus, the team will
begin to install a behavioral pattern where they cooperatively feed off of the group’s creativity.
The behavior of the leader that constructs a winning team is manipulating the emotional
arousal influences that force motivation, which positively predicts team creativity. According to
Bandura (1993), this motivation and collective behavior between associates and their leaders
could be referred to as “reciprocal causality” or building relationships that are bi-directional,
leading to teamwork. Leaders who believe in the group’s capabilities tend to achieve and surpass
goals while developing a kinship. The first step in achieving these qualities is the development of
front-line supervision and managers that could be considered bench strength for future upper
leadership positions. Therefore, the variables and norms contributing to a transformational leader
must be encouraged through training on processes, performance, EI, and group creativity.
Influencing Individual and Team Characteristics.
Team and individual behavior are based on the beliefs surrounding capabilities to control
the current situation, and with this control, how will the present event affect the lives of those
involved? Teams and associates with a high sense of efficacy visualize themselves as successful

70
and complete the task with high performance levels (Bandura, 1993). However, there is a
difference between having the skills and applying them to different or new situations. In
manufacturing, engineers develop processes to be repeatable and to hold a standard deviation
that is low or clusters around the mean, which means that every product should represent the
intent of the design from the first piece to the last. People are not always wired to repeat tasks in
the same fashion over and over again without thoughts, ambitions, and beliefs. Conversely, the
mixture of human thoughts and engineered standard processes creates confusion for the people
who try to succeed by using their creativity to recover from boredom.
The conundrum for leaders in manufacturing related to this boredom or appearance of not
trying is whether people have the skills to perform, choose to perform, or lack the efficacy to
perform. As a new and transformational leader, he or she must evaluate the situation and then
learn the short and long-term requirements to implement instruction and motivating strategies for
enhancing performance (Wang & Howell, 2010). If the leader is new to supervision, there must
be instruction on making complex decisions while fulfilling different task demands. These
leaders and related followers must also be mentored to understand their team members’
perceived self-efficacy, aspirations, and analytic thinking abilities through communications of
the importance of goals (Wang & Howell, 2010). Another difficulty for new leaders is that they
must assess their capabilities and motivation concerning the attainment of those whom they will
supervise and whether they can process the differences cognitively.
The mentoring and coaching of transformational leaders must be ongoing. Bandura
(1993) identified that “most human motivation is cognitively generated, and self-beliefs of
efficacy play a key role in the self-regulation of motivation” (p. 128). However, a leader can get
stuck or derailed if left to their thoughts without a sounding board. Good intentions can lead

71
astray without timely feedback from an objective coach who can reassure or provide a neutral
perspective. New leaders are often left to succeed or fail without guidance, which too often is the
latter. Executive coaching is the current trend in the C-Suite, but lower-level leaders are often
judged by expectation. These leaders fall under the expectancy-value theory, which is unjust
without the proper guidance (Kim & Shin, 2015). This lack of ability to motivate and develop
collective efficacy, which is a foundation for a team's performance, is the failure of leadership
creativity (Bandura, 1997). Transformational can quickly become transactional when a new
leader is left to their thoughts after failure. The addition of senior leader-neutral coaching for
new leaders helps avoid mistakes, recover from errors, and gain autonomy. Too often, new
supervisors come from the hourly associate ranks where these individuals are good associates but
have no experience in being a leader. These individuals are used to being told what to do and
have little experience making decisions. The guidance of a neutral coach that provides a
sounding board to assist in decision making and task management will help to grow abilities that
lead toward self-efficacy in the leadership of people.
Understanding and Shaping the Environment
Before corporations can make a change, they must understand the current temperature of
their operations. It is essential to take a self-less inventory of the current leadership and gain
added knowledge of styles from their front-line leadership to the CEO, and most importantly,
understand the perception of their team. An engagement survey is the most common and
effective way to gather information from large contingents and potentially a global workforce.
Leadership engagement surveys measure employee satisfaction and provide an employee voice
while rating senior managers’ receptiveness (Ruck et al., 2017). Surveys intend to provide
associates with the opportunity to provide upward feedback.

72
Social Environments Within the Business: Opportunities and Constraints.
In smaller companies, knowing your team and understanding team members’ families,
circle of friends, and social influences is the best method to become an authentic leader.
Engagement starts with team members feeling that their leaders care about them personally and
taking the time to recognize their situations. In larger companies or global corporations, this is a
difficult task. To achieve success in understanding social influences, leaders must provide the
tools and guidance (Baranowski, 1989) in emotional intelligence to gain organizational
effectiveness (Ruck et al., 2017) and to provide social support for their associates.
The complexity of organizational effectiveness is overlooked and should begin with a
communication matrix that establishes the dimensions of internal communication relating to
teams, project groups, line managers, and senior manager communications (Ruck et al., 2017).
The intention of modern communications should be to gather the voices of employees through
surveys, followed by one-on-one or small impromptu group discussions. This discussion must
come from the highest level to shop-floor associates face-to-face, not the “wizard in the magic
box” dictating his or her vision.
Creating dialogue is a crucial aspect of senior leadership communication where authentic
leaders are willing to listen, receive questions or complaints, and share appropriate information
truthfully and adequately. Engagement is built through positive social support, where the leader’s
behavior influences and provides an example of how to achieve personal and team goals.
Successful leaders have high emotional intelligence, understand their body language, and are
careful not to be tone-deaf when building team engagement. A positive message will influence
engagement and commitment, but a poor message or method can lead to disengagement.
Successful, authentic, and charismatic leaders deliver in a method tailored to their audience. For

73
example, when communicating with younger generations, talk with your brand, creating an
entity that speaks through media that is different from the retiring baby boomers (Neill, 2015).
Today’s workforce appreciates leaders who get out in front of their associates and make a
connection through a personal touch with authenticity. It is essential that the team understands
that the leader’s priorities lie with associates first over the shareholders and financial analysts.
The leader must make a connection!
Institutional and Physical Environments Influencing the Team.
Engagement starts with the physical surroundings of the workplace, the tools available,
and the ability for workers to be safe and innovative on their way to winning daily. Additionally,
the institutional environment sets the standards for communication, informed decision making,
and flexibility in processes and procedures (Özsomer et al., 1997), creating innovation and
standards as a guideline for associates. Team members live in the physical environments of their
workplace, and their comfort dictates their performance and happiness, prohibiting their
behavior. Essentially, associates who feel safe and have a clean, comfortable, and visually
inviting work environment achieve at a higher level (Baranowski, 1989) and feel that their
physiological and safety needs are being met.
Respondents felt a higher level of engagement when provided autonomy on projects
related to their current work environment. One example from the interviews is that associates
want their company to positively contribute to the global environment, being leaders in
sustainability and social causes, allowing associates to express themselves on issues. The
underlying desire was that the respondent wanted leadership and associates to work together to
provide a better situation on causes that bring kinship and trust to the workplace. The example of
improving the global environment through a recycling program benefits both the associate’s

74
moral compass and offers a business incentive to the company. Hence, the ability of associate to
lead programs that influences positive behaviors while changing psychological attitudes toward
their work environment (Young et al., 2015).
The environment created by a transformational leader and the physical surroundings
propagated by the organization provide associates with reassurances that their intrinsic
motivation will be rewarded with opportunities that build their self-efficacy. Also, when a leader
provides a climate that focuses on the transfer of training through work experiences, the
company’s core values become an institutional environment (Simosi, 2012). Training associates
and creating individual career roadmaps enhance associate engagement and build a rich culture
and a favorable institutional environment. As employer transitions leaders, the strategic
deployment of a transformational director focusing on teaching and career growth of team
members engages the workforce and influence reciprocity between the team and the
environment.
Conclusion
Today, manufacturing success is driven by an engaged workforce with an environment
that thrives on achieving cultural creativity inspired by associates’ intrinsic motivation.
Associates want to be led by champions who focus on being charismatic and transformational
with a passion for innovation and teamwork. Leaders are expected to motivate individual
employees and enhance team performance simultaneously while providing business results that
equal financial success and heighten employee engagement. Relationships between leaders and
associates struggle during change, which sometimes includes negative feedback, which affects
employee performance (Motro et al., 2020). The period during a transition can be increasingly
turbulent and does add stress and uncertainty for associates. By the same token, added stress by

75
respondents was apparent, especially when a transactional manager was involved. When
replaced by a servant leader with high self-efficacy and grit, associate tension ultimately
improves, as does the overall culture. In the workplace, most employees strive to view
themselves as a contributing member of the organization and want to be part of a winning team.
These associates want a leader who provides autonomy, the opportunity for advancement, and to
feel that their involvement in social and business interactions is valuable.
The desire to only have safety and physiological needs met is not enough; associates are
looking to meet esteem needs that include the dynamics related to the relationships with other
team members. Combining motivated associates with leaders who are transparent and authentic
at all levels creates a business culture that promotes the team’s collective and individual selfefficacy. Likewise, motivated associates are not afraid to take on complex problems and solve
these problems with data and through dynamic actions (Güss et al., 2017). When employees trust
and relate to leadership, the team’s success becomes based on intrinsic value, and the tangible
opportunities for individual reward become less critical. This alignment of values ultimately
improves the firm’s culture, enhancing financial performance and global prowess.
Without improvement in employee engagement, the organization loses employee loyalty
and eventually creates a longevity issue for the company and its profits. In summary, employee
higher level needs can be directly tied to the company culture, which can be viewed by
examining basic turnover rates and then matching to profitability. Using triadic reciprocity to
understand the problem statement provides optics into the communication methods, leader
empathy, disengagement, and the company’s ability to support global competitiveness.

76
References
Aboramadan, M., & Kundi, Y. M. (2020). Does transformational leadership better predict workrelated outcomes than transactional leadership in the NPO context? Evidence from Italy.
Voluntas, 31(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00278-7
Alefari, M., Salonitis, K., & Xu, Y. (2017). The role of leadership in implementing lean
manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 63, 756–761.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.03.169
Arnoldas, M. (n.d.). McClelland's human motivation theory: Discovering what drives your team.
MindTools. https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/human-motivation-theory.htm
Bailey, B. P., & Horvitz, E. (2010, April 10). What’s your idea? A case study of a grassroots
innovation pipeline within a large software company [Paper presentation]. SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, GA, United States.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753641
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy.
Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.729
Bandura, A. (1990). Some reflections on reflections. Psychological Inquiry, 1(1), 101–105.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0101_26
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L

77
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in
cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1),
92–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90028-2
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards
on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56(5), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.805
Baranowski, T. (1989). Reciprocal determinism at the stages of behavior change: An integration
of community, personal and behavioral perspectives. International Quarterly of
Community Health Education, 10(4), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.2190/NKBY-UVD6-
K542-1QVR
Bass, B. M. (1999). Current developments in transformational leadership: Research and
applications. The Psychologist Manager Journal, 3(1), 5–21.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0095852
Bersin, J. (2015, January 20). Why companies fail to engage today's workforce: The
overwhelmed employee. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/03/15/why-companies-fail-to-engagetodays-workforce-the-overwhelmed-employee/

78
Biswas, M., & Rahman, Md. S. (2021). Do the elements of emotional intelligence determine
charismatic leadership? Business Perspective Review, 3(1), 24–40.
https://doi.org/10.38157/business-perspective-review.v3i1.256
Bogna, R., Raineri, A., & Dell, G. (2020). Critical realism and constructivism: Merging research
paradigms for a deeper qualitative study. Qualitative Research in Organizations and
Management, 15(4), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/QROM-06-2019-1778
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2010). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051810379799
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2013).
Daily Transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138–157.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12041
Carron, B., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 20(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404102317200828
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of
triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547.
https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
Carter, W. R., Nesbit, P. L., Badham, R. J., Parker, S. K., & Sung, L.-K. (2018). The effects of
employee engagement and self-efficacy on job performance: A longitudinal field study.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(17), 2483–2502.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244096

79
Castillo-Montoya, M. (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol
refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337
Caulfield, J. L., & Senger, A. (2017). Perception is reality: change leadership and work
engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(7), 927–945.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2016-0166
Cesaroni, F. M., Diaz, G. D. C., & Sentuti, A. (2021). Family firms and innovation from founder
to successor. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 54–.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020054
Chenail, R. (2016). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing instrumentation and
researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 13(4).
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2009.2821
Choudhary, A., Akhtar, S. A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant
leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business
Ethics, 116(2), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1470-8
Chuang, H.-M., Lin, C.-Y., & Chen, Y.-S. (2015). Exploring the triple reciprocity nature of
organizational value cocreation behavior using multicriteria decision making analysis.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, Article 206312.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/206312
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication,
30(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369303000101

80
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub Inc.
Cousineau, L., & Roth, J. (2012). Pervasive patriarchal leadership ideology in seasonal
residential summer camp staff. Leadership, 8(4), 421–440.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715012444052
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approach. SAGE Publications.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what
they know. Ubiquity, 2000(August), 2. https://doi.org/10.1145/347634.348775
Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016). A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate
and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 37(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2037
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation:
Theory and application. The Guilford Press.
Epitropaki, S., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and
followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches
to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly,
24(6), 858–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005
Federici, R. A. (2013). Principals’ self-efficacy: relations with job autonomy, job satisfaction,
and contextual constraints. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(1), 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0102-5

81
Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing
self-efficacy. The Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 495–505.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039240
Fix, B., & Sias, P. M. (2006). Person-centered communication, leader-member exchange, and
employee job satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 35–44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17464090500535855
Forbes. (2022). America’s largest private companies 2021. https://www.forbes.com/largestprivate-companies/list/3/#tab:rank
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., Marwick, C., Brun de Pontet, S., & Wrosch, C. (2021). Family business succession:
What’s motivation got to do with it? Family Business Review, 34(2), 154–167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894486519894759
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
Minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gröpel, P., Wegner, M., & Schüler, J. (2016). Achievement motive and sport participation.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 93–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.08.007
Grote, J. (2003). Conflicting generations: A new theory of family business rivalry. Family
Business Review, 16(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2003.00113.x

82
Güss, C. D., Burger, M. L., & Dörner, D. (2017). The role of motivation in complex problem
solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 851.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00851
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N., & Lintunen, T. (Eds.). (2020). The
handbook of behavior change. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318
Harter, J. (2022, November 11). U.S. employee engagement slump continues. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/391922/employee-engagement-slump-continues.aspx
Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units.
Journal of Management, 40(7), 1899–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312445925
Hodzic, S., Scharfen, J., Ripoll, P., Holling, H., & Zenasni, F. (2018). How efficient are
emotional intelligence trainings: A meta-analysis. Emotion Review, 10(2), 138–148.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917708613
Huang, M., Li, P., Meschke, F., & Guthrie, J. P. (2015). Family firms, employee satisfaction, and
corporate performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 108–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.08.002
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial
motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4),
1102–1127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.1142
Jnah, A., & Robinson, C. B. (2015). Mentoring and self-efficacy: Implications for the neonatal
nurse practitioner workforce. Advances in Neonatal Care, 15(5), E3–E11.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000000227

83
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Junaid, M. R. (2017). Re-thinking neuroticism: Organizational learning to learning organization
(dynamic capability development). Organization Theory Review, 1(1), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.32350/OTR.0101.04
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.
Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287
Kaplan, R. S., & Mikes, A. (2012). Managing risks: A new framework. Harvard Business
Review, 90(6), 48–60.
Kaplowitz, M. D. (2000). Statistical analysis of sensitive topics in group and individual
interviews. Quality & Quantity, 34(4), 419–431.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004844425448
Karanges, J., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal
communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1),
129–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.003
Kim, M., & Shin, Y. (2015). Collective efficacy as a mediator between cooperative group norms
and group positive affect and team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,
32(3), 693–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9413-4
Koerber, A., & McMichael, L. (2008). Qualitative sampling methods: A primer for technical
communicators. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(4), 454–473.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908320362

84
Korzynski, P. (2013). Employee motivation in new working environment. International Journal
of Academic Research, 5(5), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.7813/2075-4124.2013/5-5/B.28
Kotlar, J., De Massis, A., Frattini, F., & Kammerlander, N. (2019). Motivation gaps and
implementation TRAPS: The paradoxical and time‐varying effects of family ownership
on FIRM absorptive capacity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(1), 2–25.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12503
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
La Guardia, J. G. (2009). Developing who I am: A self-determination theory approach to the
establishment of healthy identities. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 90–104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520902832350
Lan, T.-S., Chang, I.-H., Ma, T.-C., Zhang, L.-P., & Chuang, K.-C. (2019). Influences of
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and patriarchal leadership on job
satisfaction of Cram School faculty members. Sustainability, 11(12), Article 3465.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123465
Lazowski, R., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation Interventions in Education: A MetaAnalytic Review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
Lin, C.-C., & Peng, T.-K. (2010). From organizational citizenship behaviour to team
performance: The mediation of group cohesion and collective efficacy. Management and
Organization Review, 6(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00172.x

85
Lin, C.-P., Baruch, Y., & Shih, W.-C. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and team
performance: The mediating role of team efficacy and team self-esteem. Journal of
Business Ethics, 108(2), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1068-6
Logility. (2022). S&OP, SIOP, IBP, MIOE – A supply chain rose by any other name.
https://www.logility.com/blog/sop-siop-ibp-mioe-a-supply-chain-rose-by-any-othername/
Lowe, G. (2012). How employee engagement matters for hospital performance. Healthcare
Quarterly, 15(2), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2012.22915
McClellan, J. L. (2007). The advisor as servant: The theoretical and philosophical relevance of
servant leadership to academic advising. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 41–49.
https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-27.2.41
McClelland, D. C. (David C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit
motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
295X.96.4.690
Men, L. R. (2014). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Linking transformational
leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 26(3), 256–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908719
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Motl, R. W. (2007). Chapter 2: Theoretical models for understanding physical activity behavior
among children and adolescents - Social cognitive theory and self-determination theory.

86
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26(4), 350–357.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.26.4.350
Motro, D., Comer, D. R., & Lenaghan, J. A. (2020). Examining the effects of negative
performance feedback: The roles of sadness, feedback self-efficacy, and grit. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 36(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09689-1
Musgrove, C. F., Ellinger, A. E., & Ellinger, A. D. (2014). Examining the influence of strategic
profit emphases on employee engagement and service climate. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 26(3/4), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-08-2013-0057
Neill, M. S. (2015). Emerging issues in internal communications: Generational shifts, internal
social media & engagement. Public Relations Journal, 9(4).
http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/Vol9/No4/
Niati, D. R., Siregar, Z. M., & Prayoga, Y. (2021). The effect of training on work performance
and Career Development: The role of motivation as intervening variable. Budapest
International Research and Critics Institute-Journal: Humanities and Social Sciences,
4(2), 2385–2393. https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v4i2.1940
Nichols, T., & Erakovich, R. (2013). Authentic leadership and implicit theory: A normative form
of leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(2), 182–195.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731311321931
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157–164.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157
Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”

87
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12–
26.
Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the Workplace.
International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1).
https://doi.org/10.5590/IJAMT.2017.16.1.04
Ozkeser, B. (2019). Impact of training on employee motivation in Human Resources
Management. Procedia Computer Science, 158, 802–810.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.117
Özsomer, A., Calantone, R. J., & Di Bonetto, A. (1997). What makes firms more innovative? A
look at organizational and environmental factors. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 12(6), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858629710190259
Papalexandris, N., & Galanaki, E. (2009). Leadership’s impact on employee engagement:
Differences among entrepreneurs and professional CEOs. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 30(4), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730910961685
Pattnaik, S. C., & Sahoo, R. (2021). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship
behaviour: the role of job autonomy and supportive management. Management Research
News, 44(10), 1409–1426. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2020-0371
Pindado, J., & Requejo, I. (2014). Family business performance from a governance perspective:
A review of empirical research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(3),
279–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12040
Price, B. (2002). Laddered questions and qualitative data research interviews. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02086.x

88
Rautenbach, E. (2023, April 8). What is thematic analysis? Explainer + examples [Blog post].
Grad Coach. https://gradcoach.com/what-is-thematic-analysis/
Rožman, M., & Tominc, P. (2022). The importance of employees’ work satisfaction in family
enterprises: A case study of the post-transition economy. Journal for East European
Management Studies, 27(1), 130–156. https://doi.org/10.5771/0949-6181-2022-1-130
Ruck, K., Welch, M., & Menara, B. (2017). Employee voice: An antecedent to organizational
engagement? Public Relations Review, 43(5), 904–914.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.008
Rybnicek, B., Bergner, S., & Gutschelhofer, A. (2017). How individual needs influence
motivation effects: A neuroscientific study on McClelland’s need theory. Review of
Managerial Science, 13(2), 443–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0252-1
Schmidt, S. W. (2010). The Relationship between Job Training and Job Satisfaction: A Review
of Literature. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 1(2),
19–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/javet.2010040103
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-
4), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan
(Ed.) The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 10–26). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach. Journal of
Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8

89
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the
foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560
Simosi, M. (2012). The moderating role of self-efficacy in the organizational culture-training
transfer relationship. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 92–106.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00396.x
Soeters, J. L. (1999). Daniel Druckman, Jerome E. Singer, and Harold Van Cott (eds.):
Enhancing Organizational Performance. Organization Studies, 20(2), 351–354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840699202009
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2007). Exploring traditional and virtual team members’ “best
practices”: A social cognitive theory perspective. Small Group Research, 38(1), 60–97.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406296961
Statista. (2022). Projected number of firms in the United States from 2019 to 2026, by firm size.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/976726/projected-number-firms-united-states-firmsize/
Suharnomo, S., & Kartika, D. (2018). Leader-member exchange, job satisfaction, employee
engagement, and employee performance. Diponegoro International Journal of Business,
1(2), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.14710/dijb.1.2.2018.121-128
Tagiuri, R., & Davis, J. (1996). Bivalent attributes of the family firm. Family Business Review,
9(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1996.00199.x
Tuuli, M. M., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Empowerment in project teams: A multilevel
examination of the job performance implications. Construction Management and
Economics, 27(5), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190902729713

90
Umans, L., Lybaert, N., Steijvers, T., & Voordeckers, W. (2018). Succession planning in family
firms: Family governance practices, board of directors, and emotions. Small Business
Economics, 54(1), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0078-5
U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Census Bureau releases new educational attainment data.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/educational-attainment-data.html
Vallejo, M. C. (2009). The effects of commitment of non-family employees of family firms from
the perspective of stewardship theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 379–390.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9926-6
Wang, X., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134–1144.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020754
Waxman, O. B. (2023, September 1). The longest strike in U.S. history. Time.
https://time.com/6308684/longest-strike-us-history-kohler/
White, B., Bandura, A., & Bero, L. A. (2009). Moral Disengagement in the Corporate World.
Accountability in Research, 16(1), 41–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620802689847
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067
Young, W., Davis, M., McNeill, I. M., Malhotra, B., Russell, S., Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. W.
(2015). Changing behaviour: Successful environmental programmes in the workplace.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(8), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1836

91
Zsolnai, L. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves, by
Albert Bandura. New York: Macmillan, 2016. 544 pp. ISBN: 978-1-4641-6005-9.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(3), 426–429. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.37

92
Appendix A: Interview Questions
This study sought to answer two research questions:
1. How do plant employees in manufacturing firms perceive the impact of leadership
transitions on employee motivation?
2. How did the behavior of others impact motivation during or after the leadership
transition?
Table A1
Interview Questions
Question RQ Concept being measured
(from emerging
theoretical framework)
How does the current leadership compare to the
previous administration in confidence when
discussing corporate vision and mission statements
when speaking with employees?
RQ2 Assessment
(behavior)
What organizational training programs are in place
that work toward transitioning managers into future
leaders?
RQ2 Active engagement
(environment)
In what way does the organization provide an
environment for career opportunity and
inclusiveness for all associates?
RQ2 Active engagement
(environment)
Has nepotism within the organization been a concern,
and if so, has it interfered with the growth of
revenue, infrastructure, or profits? And have these
roadblocks been a factor in individual growth or
merit for you personally?
RQ2 Role-modeling
(environment)
In what way has the current or past leadership
motivated you personally to develop future leaders
of the company?
RQ2 Role-modeling
(person)
Please explain which leadership style best describes
you as a leader and a mentor.
RQ1 Assessment
(Behavior)
In your current situation with the current leadership,
please explain any feelings you might have related
to a glass ceiling and how not being a family
member might affect your long-term employment
perspective.
RQ1 Role-modeling
(environment)

93
Question RQ Concept being measured
(from emerging
theoretical framework)
Are your siblings involved in the daily business of the
company, and in what capacity?
RQ2 Active engagement
(person)
Please explain the differences between the founding
owner and the current leader in charisma, empathy,
and team building.
RQ1 Active engagement
(person)
How does the workforce react to the current
leadership style, and is this style affecting
productivity?
RQ1 Feedback
(environment)
When observing the corporation from the outside,
what is your opinion of the company culture?
Would you adjust the engagement to prepare the
firm for future endeavors?
RQ3 Feedback
(environment)
Based on your view, would you adjust the engagement
to prepare the firm for future endeavors?
RQ3 Feedback
(environment)
How has the change in leadership styles impacted any
social crisis within the organization (i.e.,
employee/leadership turnover or change in output)?
RQ2 Assessment
(behavior)
Would you be willing to provide history of the family
heritage and demographics?
RQ2 Feedback
(environment)
Please provide your view of the future direction of the
company and personal motivating factors.
RQ2 Feedback
(environment)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Reducing the environmental impact of mining - a promising practice study

PDF

Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions

PDF

Understanding teacher leadership styles in relation to student outcomes

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Post-incarceration challenges: examining barriers to reentry post-release

PDF

Leadership development in a multigenerational workforce: a qualitative study

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

The continuous failure of Continuous Improvement: the challenge of implementing Continuous Improvement in low income schools

PDF

Belonging in America: Black Muslim refugee women’s’ trials and triumphs in the workplace

PDF

Exploring the barriers that contribute to the underrepresentation of Black women in C-suite roles in corporate America

PDF

Facilitators for the advancement of Hispanic/Latinx employees in corporate security

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences in aligning learning to business performance results: a study of a promising practice

PDF

Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

PDF

Effective engagement of minority alumni: an innovation study

PDF

Keeping virtual team members engaged in their roles: an impossible task or a paramount necessity for an increasingly globalized world

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

Asset Metadata

Creator Weiss, Eric Mark (author)

Core Title Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 01/31/2024

Defense Date 11/03/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag associates,engagement,leadership,motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,transition.

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Davis, Heather (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email emweiss@usc.edu,ericmarkweiss23@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113817127

Unique identifier UC113817127

Identifier etd-WeissEricM-12650.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WeissEricM-12650

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Weiss, Eric Mark

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240131-usctheses-batch-1124 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu