The issue of the relationship between leaders and employees has always been a focal point of concern for organizational managers and academics. The development of an organization is dependent on the efforts of both leaders and employees, and each needs to play his or her role well. Peter F. Drucker has said that leaders are crucial to the success or failure of an organization, especially in a time of great turmoil and economic change. As a leader, it is important to uphold a sense of mission, to use the "Art of War", to use the "Harmony of Men", to assess the situation and to continuously lead team members in the pursuit and achievement of organizational goals. As Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" emphasizes, leaders should respond to the "opportune time", examine the "geographic advantage" and make use of the "unity of all ranks". "Unity of all ranks" is not only a historical necessity of the changing times, but also a special requirement in the current context of great turmoil and change. In addition, another key factor for organizational success is employees, of which employee performance has been a long-standing interest of researchers, due to the fact that employee performance as an organizational output variable is not only an important measure of organizational health, but also an important indicator of leadership effectiveness. Numerous studies have found that leadership style affects the work climate and work morale of the entire organization and plays an important role in performance (He Li, Ling Wenquan, 2010; Hu Haijun, Weng Qingxiong, and Cao Weilin, 2015 Xu Yan, and Li Chaoping, 2019).Therefore, how to use leadership theory to improve employee performance has also increasingly attracted extensive attention from many domestic and international scholars (Koene,Vogelaar, Soeters, 2002,Walumbwa, Wu, Orwa, 2008, Zhang Shuhua, Liu Zhaoyan, 2016; Wang Zhen, Long Yufan and Peng Jian, 2019).

Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership style is a unique habitual way of behavior based on the effective summary and in-depth research and analysis of long-term practice and experience (Schein, 2014).It is not a specific leadership behavior, but refers to the synthesis of a series of leadership behaviors that provide support for a particular function and that change with the leadership situation (Eagly & Chaiken, 2007).So far, the representative leadership style theories in the West have been developed in three stages: leadership trait theory, behavioral model theory, and power change theory, respectively. The main leadership styles are transformational leadership, ethical leadership, charismatic leadership, inclusive leadership, and transactional leadership.

The most representative study of transformational leadership is Bass. Bass (1985) argued that transformational leaders have a very strong sense of intrinsic value and conceptual system, and they stimulate their subordinates' higher-level needs such as responsibility and honor by making them aware of the importance of the tasks they undertake, so that they can put more effort into the team or organizational interests and ultimately achieve performance that exceeds expectations. He pointed out that a distinguishing characteristic of transformational leaders from other types of leaders is their demonstrated ability and efforts in providing constructive feedback to employees, through which feedback and the leader's own modeling and coaching provide additional opportunities for employee development and growth.

Although foreign scholars have made certain research results on transformational leadership, due to the differences in countries, leaders are influenced by the cultural background of their countries, so the concept and composition of leadership may also differ in different countries, and leaders have different degrees of influence on employees depending on their leadership styles (Hofstede, 1993; Hofstede, 2001).therefore, transformational leadership styles have attracted extensive attention and research from scholars in China. Using an open-ended questionnaire to survey leaders and employees with traditional Chinese cultural backgrounds, Li Chaoping and Kan Shi (2005) found eight categories of behaviors of transformational leaders in China and formed the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Later, after two rounds of questionnaire collection, it was finally determined that the meaning of transformational leadership in China not only includes Bass' view, but also considers transformational leaders as moral role models or exemplars of their subordinates who lead their employees by example and by virtue, caring not only for their work but also for their lives. The study of Chen Yongxia et al. (2006) argues that transformational leadership style mainly reflects the good influence of the leader's behavior on employees, where the leader's behavior is the inspiration and the good influence on employees (e.g., employees will trust the leader more in their hearts, respect the leader, and take the leader as a role model at work) refers to the charisma of the leader .In summary, transformational leaders will use the organization's vision and strategic goals to motivate employees to achieve a higher level of self-worth, use their leadership charisma to influence employees, care about the work and life of employees, encourage employees to sacrifice their personal interests in order to achieve organizational interests, focus on interaction and communication with employees, give employees the necessary support and help, and ultimately make employees strive for the realization of organizational goals and objectives.

The dimensions and measurement of transformational leadership Scholars in China and abroad have been digging deeper and expanding the concept of transformational leadership, while on the other hand, they have been dividing the structure of transformational leadership and designing questionnaires for transformational leadership by means of interviews or open-ended questionnaires. Bass and Avolio classify four dimensions of transformational leadership, which are: Idealized Influence, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration, and Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational Motivation (Bass and Avolio, 1996; Bass and Avolio, 1990).This four-dimensional structure has been widely accepted by researchers and supported by empirical studies, and the development of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) has also been shown to have good reliability and validity. The four dimensions are as follows: Idealized Influence refers to the leader's personal qualities and performance that make subordinates follow him/her willingly and become a role model for them to follow; Intellectual stimulation refers to the leader's ability to stimulate the imagination and thinking of employees, encouraging them to keep up with the times and to use new and efficient methods to solve problems in their work in order to accomplish their tasks.

Individualized Consideration means that the leader cares about the work and life of employees, understands their working ability, and cares about their career development and achievement needs; Inspirational Motivation means that the transformational leader takes the initiative to describe the organization's development prospects and development blueprint to subordinates, convincing them to believe in the development potential of the organization and to be willing to undertake challenging work for the realization of organizational goals. Subsequently, domestic and international scholars have mostly built on Bass and Avolio's findings when studying the structural division of transformational leadership. Podsakoff et al. (1990) also built on Bass et al.'s work by dividing transformational leadership into six dimensions, namely, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, raising high performance expectations, promoting collaboration, articulating vision, and modeling by example, for a total of six dimensions, and developed a scale for measuring transformational leadership.Rafferty and Griffin (2004) classified transformational leadership into intellectual stimulation, personal recognition, vision, contagious communication, and supportive leadership, but only the dimensions were classified without developing a corresponding scale [18]. Based on the Chinese cultural context, Li Chaoping and Shi Kan (2005) collected three rounds of questionnaires and finally confirmed that transformational leadership consists of four dimensions, namely, moral exemplification, leadership charisma, visionary motivation, and individualized consideration .Among them, there are two dimensions that differ from Bass (1996) ,Li Chaoping and Kan Shi (2005) individualized consideration contains more content, Bass et al.'s individualized consideration refers to transformational leaders who only care about employees' work and career development future, while Li Chaoping and Kan Shi (2005) personalized care also emphasizes that transformational leaders not only care about employees' work, but also care about The personalized care of Li Chaoping and Kan Shi (2005) also emphasizes that transformational leaders care not only about employees' work but also about employees' lives and family relationships. They believe that the moral quality of leaders has a great influence on the behavior of their subordinates because, unlike the class-based characteristics of the West, China is a humanistic society and the traditional Chinese moral culture is deeply rooted in people's hearts, thus adding the dimension of moral exemplarity. In addition to delineating the dimensions of transformational leadership, Li Chaoping and Kan Shi (2005) also developed the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ), which contains 26 questions and was proved by factor analysis to have a good level of reliability and validity and to be consistent with the Chinese condition.

Employee Performance

The concept of employee performance Employee performance, the individual dimension of performance research. In terms of connotation, there are three main perspectives: the outcome performance perspective, the behavioral performance perspective and the competency value performance perspective. These views consider employee performance as the result of completing a task, as a behavior in the process of completing a task, and as the value that employee attributes and competencies bring to the organization, respectively. For example, Bernardin (1995) and others argue that performance should be defined as the results of work because they are most closely related to the organization's strategic goals, customer satisfaction and the money invested.Campbell (1990) argues that performance is behavioral and should be separated from outcomes because outcomes are influenced by systemic factors.Hoga and Sheltonl (1998) argue that performance is a random variable of personality and that although skills, competencies and personality traits represent performance at the same time, skills and competencies are explicit while personality traits are implicit Each of the three perspectives takes a different view of performance and all have had a significant impact on the development of performance theory. In general, all three perspectives have valid points; skills and employee traits are the basis of work behavior, behavior is the means by which performance is produced, and outcomes are a visual representation of the contribution of work to the organization. The now generally accepted view, which defines performance as a unity of behavior and outcomes, was proposed by Borman and Motowidlo (1997) Borman and Motowidlo (1997) classified employee performance as task performance and contextual performance. Task performance is defined as behavior that is prescribed by the organization or related to organizational goals; contextual performance is defined as behavior that is spontaneously demonstrated by employees, such as organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment and performance behavior that is not related to specific organizational goals

Sikandar Ali Qalati et.al. (2022) conducted a study on the effectiveness of leadership in small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) by examining the impact of organizational citizenship behavior and transformational leadership on employee engagement and performance. The study involved 405 employees from Pakistani SMEs, using the social bond theory to examine how leadership can increase productivity and company sustainability. Jawaria Nasir et.al. (2022) investigated the link between transformative leadership, organizational innovation, psychological problems like stress and pressures, and employee imagination and performance. The study used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze the effects of obstacle and challenge stresses, organizational innovation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity on employee performance. The findings showed that challenge stressors, transformational leadership, and employee creativity significantly affected employee performance.Reetika Chaudhary et.al. (2022) conducted a comprehensive literature review to enhance understanding of the connection between transformational leadership style and employee involvement, as well as the mediating effect of culture and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). After reviewing 34 articles, the researchers highlighted the importance of further research into the interactions between these variables in the aviation industry and other sectors.

In conclusion, these studies provide valuable insights into the factors affecting employee performance in SMEs, the relationship between leadership and employee engagement, and the mediating influence of culture and OCB interactions. By incorporating these findings into future research, organizations can better understand and improve employee engagement and performance in today's competitive business environment. Wang Jiatong et.al. (2022) conducted a study on the impact of transformational leadership on job performance and emotional commitment to a company, using data from 845 hotel workers in China. The study found that transformational leadership positively impacted emotional organizational commitment and work performance, with employee involvement playing a role in the relationship between these factors.

Stefanie Faupel et.al. (2020) also explored how transformational leadership influences employees' responses to organizational change. They used structural equation modeling to analyze the relationship between job engagement and the expected effects of change (valence). The results revealed that work engagement and valence act as middlemen between transformational leadership and employee behavior during transition. Transformational leadership makes workers more interested in their jobs and open to the positive effects of change, improving their behavior in a way that supports the change.

Debajani Sahoo et.al. (2020) based their research on transformational leadership theory, which suggests that leaders inspire employees to put in additional effort and believe their leadership is effective. The type of organization, whether public or private, plays a significant role in determining these relationships. The study found that transformational leadership appears to have a favorable correlation with both the additional effort put forth by employees and the successful performance of the leader.

Objective of Study

The main objective of the present study is to evaluate the impact of this study on Impact of Transformational Leadership on Employees’ Performance at ICICI Bank in Rajasthan are as follows

1. To study the role of Transformational Leadership on the performance of employees working in Banking Sector with Special Reference to ICICI Bank of Rajasthan.
2. To study the relationship between Individual components of Transformational leadership with individual components of performance of employees.
3. 2A. to study the relationship between Idealized Influence & related factors of Performance of employees.
4. 2.B. To study the relationship between Inspirational motivation & related factors of performance of employees.
5. 2.C. To study the relationship between Intellectual Stimulation & related factors of performance of employees.
6. 2.D. To study the relationship between Individualized Consideration & related factors of performance of employees.
7. To construct a model on transformational leadership with special reference to banking sector on four Pillars of Transformational Leadership.

Hypotheses

Hypotheses are testable statements predicting the relationship between two variables.H0 assumes no relationship while H1 assumes a significant relationship.

Hypothesis-1

H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership & Performance of Employees. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership & Performance of Employees.

Case A:

 H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Idealized Influence & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

• H1:There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Idealized Influence & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.

Case B:

• H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Inspirational Motivation & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.
• H1:There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Inspirational Motivation & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.

Case C:

• H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Intellectual Stimulation & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.
• H1:There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Intellectual Stimulation & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.

Case D:

• H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Individualized Consideration & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.
• H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Individualized Consideration & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.

Hypothesis-2

• H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance.
• H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance.

Case A

• H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Organized Mind.
• H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Organized Mind.

Case B

• H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance Measured by Repertoire.
• H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance Measured by Repertoire.

Case C:

• H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Conscientiousness.
• H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Conscientiousness.

Case D:

• H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Agreeableness.
• H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Agreeableness

An analysis was conducted using a quantitative method to collect primary data from 500 individuals. These individuals were employees and managers from ICICI Bank offices in Rajasthan. Jaipur, Jodhpur, and Udaipur are the three cities in Rajasthan with the most bank branches, thus researchers there utilized stratified random sampling to gather data from those areas. Papers published in scholarly journals, annual reports on micro, small, and medium-sized businesses, books, magazines, websites, and other online resources made up the secondary data. Studying previously collected data is known as secondary data.

In order to get statistical information, the data will be processed using software such as SPSS. Assembling and analyzing data requires the use of data display tools and statistical approaches. By making use of these methods, researchers are better able to convey their results and derive useful implications from their results. Tables, graphs, visualizations, and charts (such as pie charts, line graphs, and bar charts) are some of the most utilized techniques for presenting data. If data is complicated, these graphics can make it simpler and easier to understand. Descriptional statistics (mean, median, mode), inferential statistics (t-tests, ANOVA, regression analysis), and a plethora of other ways comprise statistical techniques.

The measurement instruments for this study consist of a questionnaire designed to assess Transformational Leadership and employee performance across four dimensions: Organized Mind, Repertoire, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. Both Transformational Leadership and employee performance will be rated on a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).The questionnaire will be distributed to all branch heads in ICICI Bank through links sent to their respective email addresses. The approximate time for collecting responses will be four weeks, allowing sufficient time for participants to complete the questionnaire and ensuring a robust dataset for analysis.

Structure of Questionnaire

Questionnaire has been designed in English language for getting the response. Through Google form, online response has been collected. Questionnaire was divided in three sections.

A short introduction outlining the study's goals, reiterating the importance of participants' privacy, and asking for their informed consent will precede the interview questions The first section will gather demographic data such as age, gender, education level, years of experience, and job role. This information will provide context for analyzing responses. The measurement instruments for this study consist of a questionnaire designed to assess Transformational Leadership and employee performance across four dimensions: Organized Mind, Repertoire, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness. Both Transformational Leadership and employee performance will be rated on a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Statistical Techniques for Analysis

The data collected for statistical information will be processed through software like SPSS for test and results. The overall perception about the Impact of advertisement on the consumer preference for Impact of Transformational Leadership on Employees’ Performance at ICICI Bank in Rajasthan is examined with the help of Mean Rank, and One-way ANOVA,

Demography Analysis

Percentage Analysis

Gender of the Respondent

Fig: 1 Gender of the Respondent

There are 312 males, constituting 62% of the total sample, while there are 188 females, making up 38% of the total sample of 500 individuals. It is clear that there is a significant gender disparity in this distribution, since males make up a greater share of the sample than females do. Such disparities in gender representation within a dataset can be indicative of various societal, cultural, or organizational factors that may influence participation rates or access to opportunities.

Age of the Respondent

Fig: 2 Age of the Respondent

There are five distinct age groups based on the data from the 500-person sample. Here is the breakdown: The sample age distribution is as follows: 19% are under the age of 25, 20% are between the ages of 26 and 35, 20% are in the 36–45 age bracket, 24% are between the ages of 46 and 59, and 17% are older than 60. It is clear from the distribution that the sample is representative of a wide range of ages.

Marital status of the Respondent

Fig: 3 Marital status of the Respondent

The marital status of the sample of 500 individuals is categorized into two groups. Specifically, 63% of the sample is married, while 37% are unmarried. This distribution highlights a predominant representation of married individuals within the sample.

Educational qualification of the Respondent

Fig: 4 Educational qualification of the Respondent

The educational qualifications of the sample of 500 individuals are distributed across several categories. Specifically, 7% of the sample holds a high school diploma, 50% have a bachelor's degree, 40% possess a master's degree, and 2% hold a PhD. There are no respondents categorized under "Others specify" in this dataset. This breakdown illustrates a diverse representation of educational qualifications within the sample. Understanding the educational background of participants is crucial for researchers to contextualize their findings and assess potential influences on various outcomes or behaviors under study.

Work Experience of the Respondent

Fig: 5 Work Experience of the Respondent

The work experience among a sample of 500 individuals, there appears to be inconsistencies in the frequency percentages, as the percentages exceed 100% for some categories. Assuming the total number of individuals is correctly stated as 500, these inconsistencies may be due to errors in data entry or calculation. Nevertheless, the breakdown shows that 39% of the sample has 0 to 2 years of work experience, 80% have 3 to 5 years, 100% have 6 to 10 years, and 141% have 11 years or more of work experience.

Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis-1

H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership & Performance of Employees.

H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership & Performance of Employees.

The descriptive statistics provide insight into the central tendency and variability of each variable. The mean represents the average score for each variable, indicating the typical level of each component or characteristic within the sample. For instance, Idealized Influence (II) has a mean score of 4.119, suggesting that, on average, respondents rated this component relatively high. The standard deviation measures the dispersion of scores around the mean, indicating the extent of variability within the sample.

A higher standard deviation implies greater variability in responses. For example, Conscientiousness (CON) has a standard deviation of 0.5797, indicating that responses varied more widely compared to other variables. Overall, these descriptive statistics offer a summary of the distribution of scores for each variable, providing a basis for further analysis and interpretation of their relationships with employee performance.

The correlation analysis reveals significant relationships between various components of Transformational Leadership and employee performance. Notably, several components exhibit strong positive correlations with performance, indicating their importance in influencing employee effectiveness.

For instance, Idealized Influence (II), Organized Mind (OM), Repertoire (REP), Conscientiousness (CON), and Agreeableness (AGE) demonstrate substantial correlations ranging from 0.435 to 0.893, all statistically significant at the 0.01 level. These findings suggest that these aspects of Transformational Leadership are positively associated with employee performance, supporting the alternative hypothesis (H1) that there is a positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership and performance of employees.

The correlation matrix reveals the relationships between the individual components of Transformational Leadership (II, IM, IS, IC, OM, REP, CON, AGE) and the Performance of Employees. Several significant correlations emerge, indicating associations between these variables. Notably, CON (Conscientiousness) demonstrates the strongest correlation with Performance of Employees (r = 0.893, p < 0.01), followed by REP (Repertoire) (r = 0.578, p < 0.01) and II (Idealized Influence) (r = 0.545, p < 0.01). These findings support the alternative hypothesis (H1) suggesting a positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership and employee performance. Specifically, traits such as conscientiousness, having a versatile repertoire, and embodying idealized influence seem to be particularly influential in enhancing employee performance, as evidenced by their strong correlations. These results justify further exploration of how specific leadership qualities impact employee performance in organizational settings.

Case A:

H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Idealized Influence & performance of employees working in Banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Idealized Influence & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

The model summary provides an overview of the regression analysis conducted. The model's overall fit is represented by R (correlation coefficient) and R Square (coefficient of determination), which indicate the strength of the relationship between the predictor variables and the outcome variable. In this case, the R value is 0.911, indicating a strong positive correlation, and the R Square value is 0.830, suggesting that approximately 83% of the variance in the outcome variable can be explained by the predictor variables.

The Adjusted R Square is 0.828, which adjusts the R Square value to account for the number of predictor variables in the model, providing a more accurate reflection of the model's goodness of fit. The Standard Error of the Estimate (Std. Error of the Estimate) is a measure of the accuracy of the prediction made by the regression model. In this case, it is 0.2316. The Change Statistics section provides information about the change in R Square and the associated F statistic, which tests the significance of the overall regression model. The R Square Change value of 0.830 indicates the change in the proportion of variance explained by adding the predictor variables to the model. The F Change statistic of 602.493 with associated degrees of freedom (df1 = 4, df2 = 495) tests whether this change in R Square is significant. The p-value associated with the F Change statistic (Sig. F Change) is less than 0.001, indicating that the overall regression model is statistically significant.

The results of the analysis of variance for the regression model. It shows that the regression model accounts for a significant amount of variance in the outcome variable, as indicated by the Regression Sum of Squares of 129.216 and a highly significant F statistic of 602.493 with 4 and 495 degrees of freedom (df). The associated p-value (Sig.) is less than 0.001, suggesting that the regression model is statistically significant. This indicates that the predictor variables collectively have a significant impact on the outcome variable. The Residual Sum of Squares, which represents the unexplained variance in the model, is 26.540. Overall, the ANOVA results support the hypothesis that there is a positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership and the performance of employees.

The relationship between the predictor variables (OM, REP, CON, and AGE) and the outcome variable. Each coefficient represents the change in the outcome variable for a one-unit change in the predictor variable, holding all other variables constant. The intercept (Constant) is not significant (t = -0.368, p = 0.713), indicating that when all predictor variables are zero, the outcome variable is not significantly different from zero.

The coefficient for OM (Organized Mind) is not significant (t = -0.003, p = 0.997), suggesting that Organized Mind does not have a significant impact on the outcome variable.

The coefficients for REP (Repertoire) and CON (Conscientiousness) are significant (p < 0.001), with standardized coefficients of 0.202 and 0.792, respectively. This indicates that Repertoire and Conscientiousness have a positive and significant impact on the outcome variable.

The coefficient for AGE (Agreeableness) is not significant (t = 0.437, p = 0.662), suggesting that Agreeableness does not have a significant impact on the outcome variable.

The coefficients table provides insights into which predictor variables have a significant influence on the outcome variable, supporting the hypothesis of a positive relationship between the individual components of Transformational Leadership and the performance of employees.

Case B:

H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Inspirational Motivation & performance of employees working in Banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Inspirational Motivation & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

The regression sum of squares (SS) is 61.839, indicating the amount of variance in the dependent variable explained by the predictors included in the model. The degrees of freedom (df) for the regression model is 4, corresponding to the number of predictors in the model. The mean square (MS) for the regression is 15.460, which is obtained by dividing the regression SS by its degrees of freedom. The F-statistic is 164.384, which represents the ratio of the explained variance to the unexplained variance. This F-statistic tests whether the regression model as a whole is significant in predicting the outcome variable. The significance level (Sig.) is denoted by p-value associated with the F-statistic. In this case, the p-value is < 0.001 (indicated by .000b), suggesting that the regression model is statistically significant.

The residual sum of squares represents the unexplained variance in the dependent variable after accounting for the predictors included in the model. Its value is 46.553. The degrees of freedom for the residuals are 495, which is calculated as the total number of observations minus the number of predictors in the model. The mean square for the residuals is 0.094, obtained by dividing the residual SS by its degrees of freedom. The total sum of squares represents the total variance in the dependent variable. Its value is 108.391, which is the sum of the regression SS and the residual SS. The total degrees of freedom are 499, which is calculated as the total number of observations minus 1. ANOVA table indicates that the regression model is statistically significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that the predictors included in the model collectively explain a significant amount of variance in the dependent variable.

Case C:

H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Intellectual Stimulation & performance of employees working in banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Intellectual Stimulation & performance of employees working in Banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

The correlation coefficient (R) measures the strength and direction of the linear relationship between the predictor variables and the outcome variable. In this model, R is 0.228, indicating a weak positive correlation. The coefficient of determination (R Square) represents the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variables. Here, R Square is 0.052, suggesting that only about 5.2% of the variance in the dependent variable is accounted for by the predictors included in the model. The adjusted R Square adjusts the R Square value for the number of predictors in the model. It penalizes the inclusion of unnecessary predictors and provides a more accurate estimate of the model's explanatory power. In this model, the adjusted R Square is 0.045. This value represents the standard deviation of the residuals, which are the differences between the observed and predicted values of the dependent variable. It indicates the average distance between the observed data points and the regression line. Here, the standard error of the estimate is 0.6733. The Durbin-Watson statistic tests for the presence of autocorrelation in the residuals. It ranges from 0 to 4, with values around 2 indicating no significant autocorrelation. In this model, the Durbin-Watson statistic is 1.238, suggesting a possible positive autocorrelation. However, interpretation of this statistic may vary depending on the specific context and assumptions of the regression model. The model's R Square value indicates that the predictors included in the model have limited explanatory power in predicting the dependent variable, and the low adjusted R Square suggests that the model may not be adequately capturing the variability in the data. Additionally, the Durbin-Watson statistic indicates a potential issue with autocorrelation in the residuals, which may need further investigation.

The regression sum of squares (SSR) measures the variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the regression model. In this model, the SSR is 12.349. The residual sum of squares (SSE) quantifies the variability in the dependent variable that is not explained by the regression model. It represents the variability that is attributed to random error or factors not included in the model. Here, the SSE is 224.370. The total sum of squares (SST) is the sum of the regression and residual sums of squares. It represents the total variability in the dependent variable. In this model, the SST is 236.719. Degrees of freedom represent the number of independent pieces of information available to estimate a parameter or test a hypothesis. In the regression context, df for the regression model is the number of predictors (k) plus one for the intercept, and df for the residual is the total sample size minus the number of predictors minus one. Mean square is the sum of squares divided by the degrees of freedom. It represents the average variability within each group. For the regression, the mean square is 3.087, and for the residual, it is 0.453. The F-statistic is the ratio of the mean square for the regression to the mean square for the residual. It tests whether there is a significant difference between the variability explained by the model and the variability not explained by the model. In this model, the F-value is 6.811. The significance value (p-value) associated with the F-statistic indicates the probability of obtaining the observed F-value if the null hypothesis (that all regression coefficients are equal to zero) is true. In this case, the p-value is less than 0.001, suggesting that the regression model is statistically significant. The regression model is a statistically significant predictor of the dependent variable, as the p-value is less than the conventional significance level of 0.05.

Case D:

H0: There is no relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Individualized Consideration & performance of employees working in Banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan.

H1: There is positive significant relationship between the individual components of Transformational leadership measured by Individualized Consideration & performance of employees working in Banking sector with special reference to ICICI Bank in Rajasthan. 

The regression sum of squares (SSR) measures the variability in the dependent variable that is explained by the regression model. In this model, the SSR is 3.304. The residual sum of squares (SSE) quantifies the variability in the dependent variable that is not explained by the regression model. It represents the variability attributed to random error or factors not included in the model. Here, the SSE is 109.418. The total sum of squares (SST) is the sum of the regression and residual sums of squares. It represents the total variability in the dependent variable. In this model, the SST is 112.722. Degrees of freedom represent the number of independent pieces of information available to estimate a parameter or test a hypothesis. In the regression context, df for the regression model is the number of predictors (k) plus one for the intercept, and df for the residual is the total sample size minus the number of predictors minus one. Mean square is the sum of squares divided by the degrees of freedom. It represents the average variability within each group. For the regression, the mean square is 0.826, and for the residual, it is 0.221. The F-statistic is the ratio of the mean square for the regression to the mean square for the residual. It tests whether there is a significant difference between the variability explained by the model and the variability not explained by the model. In this model, the F-value is 3.736. The significance value (p-value) associated with the F-statistic indicates the probability of obtaining the observed F-value if the null hypothesis (that all regression coefficients are equal to zero) is true. In this case, the p-value is less than 0.05, suggesting that the regression model is statistically significant. The regression model is statistically significant in predicting the dependent variable, as the p-value is less than the conventional significance level of 0.05.

Hypothesis-2

H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance. 

The descriptive statistics provide insights into the central tendency and variability of the variables. The mean values indicate the average scores for each variable: PTL (Pillars of Transformational Leadership) has a mean of 4.004, OM (Organized Mind) has a mean of 4.135, REP (Repertoire) has a mean of 4.111, CON (Conscientiousness) has a mean of 4.204, and AGE (Agreeableness) has a mean of 4.043. These values suggest that, on average, respondents perceive relatively high levels of each construct. The standard deviation reflects the dispersion of scores around the mean: PTL has a standard deviation of 0.8040, OM has a standard deviation of 0.4893, REP has a standard deviation of 0.5153, CON has a standard deviation of 0.5797, and AGE has a standard deviation of 0.4523. Overall, the data indicate moderate to low variability in the responses across the variables.

The model summary presents the key statistics for the regression model. The R-value indicates the correlation coefficient between the predictors and the outcome variable, with a value of 0.557, suggesting a moderately strong positive relationship. The R-square value of 0.310 indicates that approximately 31% of the variance in the outcome variable is explained by the predictors included in the model. The adjusted R-square, which considers the number of predictors and sample size, is 0.305, indicating a slightly lower value due to the model's complexity. The standard error of the estimate reflects the average distance that the observed values fall from the regression line, with a value of 0.6705 in this case. The change statistics provide information about the increase in R-square and associated F-change statistic, showing the model's improvement over the null model. The F-change value of 55.643 with associated degrees of freedom (4, 495) and significance value (Sig. F Change) of .000 indicates that the model's improvement is statistically significant.

The relationships between the predictor variables (OM, REP, CON, AGE) and the outcome variable. The unstandardized coefficients represent the change in the outcome variable for a one-unit change in the predictor variable, holding all other variables constant. For the constant term, the value is -.210, indicating that when all predictor variables are zero, the expected value of the outcome variable is -.210 The coefficient for OM (Organized Mind) is .252, indicating that for each one-unit increase in Organized Mind, the outcome variable is expected to increase by .252 units, holding all other variables constant.

The coefficient for REP (Repertoire) is .116, suggesting that for each one-unit increase in Repertoire; the outcome variable is expected to increase by .116 units, holding all other variables constant. The coefficient for CON (Conscientiousness) is .539, indicating that for each one-unit increase in Conscientiousness, the outcome variable is expected to increase by .539 units, holding all other variables constant. The coefficient for AGE (Agreeableness) is .106, suggesting that for each one-unit increase in Agreeableness, the outcome variable is expected to increase by .106 units, holding all other variables constant.

The t-values associated with each coefficient test whether the coefficients are significantly different from zero, with a significance level (Sig.) of .05. In this case, the coefficients for OM and CON are statistically significant (p < .05), while the coefficients for REP and AGE are not statistically significant (p > .05). The 95% confidence intervals provide a range of values within which the true population coefficients are likely to fall.

Case A

H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Organized Mind. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Organized Mind. 

The one-sample statistics provide descriptive information about the variables PTL (Pillars of Transformational Leadership) and OM (Organized Mind). For PTL, the mean score is 4.004, with a standard deviation of .8040 and a standard error mean of .0360. This suggests that, on average, respondents rated the Pillars of Transformational Leadership at a level slightly above 4, with some variability in responses. Regarding OM, the mean score is 4.135, with a smaller standard deviation of .4893 and a standard error mean of .0219. This indicates that, on average, respondents rated their Organized Mind slightly higher than 4, with less variability in responses compared to PTL.

The one-sample test results show that for both PTL (Pillars of Transformational Leadership) and OM (Organized Mind), the t-values are significantly different from zero, with p-values of .000. This indicates that both variables have mean scores significantly different from zero. For PTL, the mean difference is 4.0041, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 3.933 to 4.075. Similarly, for OM, the mean difference is 4.1350, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 4.092 to 4.178. These results suggest that respondents rated both the Pillars of Transformational Leadership and their Organized Mind significantly above zero on average, with high confidence.

Case B

H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance Measured by Repertoire. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance Measured by Repertoire. 

The t-test results for PTL (Pillars of Transformational Leadership) and REP (Repertoire), both variables show a significant relationship with employees' performance, as measured by the Repertoire. The p-values for both tests are reported as .000, indicating that the observed mean differences are highly unlikely to have occurred by chance. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and accept the alternative hypothesis (H1), concluding that there is indeed a positive significant relationship between Transformational Leadership and employees' performance, as measured by their Repertoire.

The results of the t-tests for PTL (Pillars of Transformational Leadership) and REP (Repertoire) show significant differences from zero, with p-values of .000 for both variables. For PTL, the mean difference is 4.0041, and the 95% confidence interval for the difference ranges from 3.933 to 4.075. Similarly, for REP, the mean difference is 4.1110, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 4.066 to 4.156. These results suggest that respondents rated both the Pillars of Transformational Leadership and their Repertoire significantly above zero on average, with high confidence.

Case C:

H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Conscientiousness.

H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Conscientiousness.

The chi-square tests conducted show statistically significant results, indicating a relationship between the variables being studied.

Symmetric Measures

The Pearson Chi-Square value is 1894.319 with 765 degrees of freedom, resulting in a p-value of .000, suggesting a significant association between the variables. Similarly, the Likelihood Ratio yielded a value of 892.441 with the same degrees of freedom and a p-value of .001, also indicating significance. Additionally, the Linear-by-Linear Association test produced a value of 136.352 with 1 degree of freedom and a p-value of .000, further supporting the existence of a relationship between the variables. Overall, these results provide strong evidence of association between the variables under investigation.

The symmetric measures calculated for the interval-by-interval and ordinal-by-ordinal associations demonstrate significant correlations between the variables. For the interval-by-interval association, Pearson's R coefficient is 0.523 with an asymptotic standardized error of 0.033. The approximate t-value is 13.684, resulting in a highly significant p-value of 0.000. This suggests a strong linear relationship between the variables measured on an interval scale. Similarly, for the ordinal-by-ordinal association, the Spearman correlation coefficient is 0.570, with an asymptotic standardized error of 0.033. The approximate t-value is 15.483, again resulting in a highly significant p-value of 0.000. These findings indicate a significant monotonic relationship between the variables measured on an ordinal scale. With 500 valid cases, these results provide robust evidence of the associations between the variables.

Case D:

H0: There is no relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Agreeableness. 

H1: There is positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership & individual components of Employees Performance measured by Agreeableness.

The model summary indicates that in the analyzed model, the predictor variables account for 14.5% of the variance observed in the dependent variable. The adjusted R-square, which considers the number of predictors and sample size, is 14.3%. The R value, which represents the correlation coefficient between the observed and predicted values, is 0.380. The standard error of the estimate, which reflects the average distance between the observed and predicted values, is 0.7443. Overall, while the predictors provide some explanatory power, a substantial portion of the variance remains unexplained by the model.

The ANOVA results indicate that the regression model is statistically significant (F(1, 498) = 84.251, p < 0.001). This suggests that the predictor variable(s) included in the model significantly explain variability in the dependent variable. The regression model accounts for a substantial portion of the variance in the dependent variable, as evidenced by the large F-value and small p-value. The results of the ANOVA test indicate that the regression model, which examines the relationship between Transformation Leadership and individual components of Employees Performance measured by Agreeableness, is statistically significant (F(1, 498) = 84.251, p < .000). This suggests that the predictor variable (Transformation Leadership) significantly explains a portion of the variance observed in the dependent variable (Agreeableness). Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis (H0) and conclude that there is a positive significant relationship between Transformation Leadership and individual components of Employees Performance measured by Agreeableness.

The study emphasizes the need for leaders to combine transformational and transactional qualities, adapt to various situations, and continuously learn to achieve positive outcomes for employees and the organization. managers' perceptions of leadership styles and their impact on team commitment in the banking sector, highlighting the benefits of transformational leadership. the critical role of adaptive leadership in the banking sector, highlighting the effectiveness of transformational leadership in fostering commitment and satisfaction among team members. By understanding and implementing diverse leadership styles, managers can enhance team dynamics and organizational performance. The findings advocate for comprehensive leadership development programs that equip managers with the skills to adapt their leadership approaches, ultimately driving positive outcomes for both employees and the organization.

The findings stress the importance of adapting leadership styles to team needs and considering demographic factors. Effective leadership development programs are essential for fostering adaptive leadership, enhancing employee commitment, and achieving organizational success.

1. Bass B M, Avolio B J. Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond. Journal of European industrial training, 1990,14(5):21-27.
2. Bass B M, Avolio B J. Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 1996.
3. Bass B M. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan, 1985.
4. Carless S A. Assessing the discriminant validity of transformational leader behaviour as measured by the MLQ 1. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 1998, 71(4): 353-358.
5. Chen Yongxia, Jia Liangding, Li Chaoping, Song Jiwen, Zhang Junjun. Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and employee organizational commitment: an empirical study in the Chinese context. Management World, 2006 (1): 96-105+144.
6. Ernani Hadiyati , Allis Martan Waskito , Sugeng Mulyono(2023)“Effects Of Transformational Leadership And Work Environment Towards Employee Performance Moderated By Motivation” Www.Ijbmi.Org || Volume 12 Issue, 5 May 2023
7. Evelyn Gan, Mung Ling Voon“(2021) The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On Job Satisfaction And Employee Turnover Intentions: A Conceptual Review” DOI Https ://Doi .Org/10.1 051/Shsconf/ 202 1124 08005, Volume 124 (2021) , 15 November 2021
8. HaemiKim , Jinyoung Im , Yeon Ho Shin (2021 ) “The Impact Of Transformational Leadership And Commitment To Change On Restaurant Employees’ Quality Of Work Life During A Crisis “Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Jhtm.2021.07.010 , Volume 48, September 2021,
9. He Li, Ling Wenyi. The role of leadership style on employee job performance: the impact of organizational identity and job engagement. Enterprise Economics, 2010 (11): 65-68.
10. Hofstede G. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1993, 7(1): 81-94.
11. Hofstede G. Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of cross cultural management, 2001, 1(1): 11-17.
12. Hu Haijun, Weng Qingxiong, Cao Weilin. A study on the relationship between charismatic leadership and organizational performance based on meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 2015,12 (2): 223-230.
13. Koene B A S, Vogelaar A L W, Soeters J L. Leadership effects on organizational climate and financial performance: Local leadership effect in chain organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 2002, 13(3): 193- 215.
14. Li Chaoping, Shi Kan. The Structure and Measurement of Transformational Leadership. Journal of Psychology, 2005 (6): 97-105.
15. Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Moorman R H, et al. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1990, 1(2): 107-142.
16. Rafferty A E, Griffin M A. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The leadership quarterly, 2004, 15(3): 329-354.
17. Raquel Escortell , Asier Baquero, Beatriz Delgado , Len Tiu Wright “The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On The Job Satisfaction Of Internal Employees And Outsourced Workers “Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/23311975.2020.183746, 23 Oct 2020
18. Ratna Indriasari, Marisa Permatasari, Otti Ilham Khair, Achmad Yusufsusi, Ahmad Luthfi (2023) “The Impact Of Transformational Leadership On Employee Performance: An Intermediary Function Of Organizational Commitment And Job Satisfaction” DOI: 10.30984/KIJMS.V4i1.580, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2023
19. Schein S. The ecological world views and post-conventional action logics of global sustainability leaders. Fielding Graduate University, 2014. [9] Eagly A H, Chaiken S. The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social cognition, 2007, 25(5): 582-602.
20. Walumbwa F O, Wu C, Orwa B. Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The leadership quarterly, 2008, 19(3): 251-265.
21. Wang Zhen, Long Yufan, Peng Jian. The Negative Effects of Positive Leadership: Research Topics, Analytical Perspectives, and Theoretical Mechanisms. Progress in Psychological Science, 2019,27 (6): 1123-1140.
22. Wei Huimin, Long Lirong. A study on the effects of cognitive and emotional trust, power distance, and institutional control on leadership empowerment behavior. Journal of Management Engineering, 2011,25 (1): 10-17.
23. Xu Yan, Li Chaoping. The application of tracking research in organizational behavior. Progress in Psychological Science, 2019, 27 (4): 600-610.
24. Zhang Shuhua, Liu Zhaoyan. Meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational identity and turnover intention. Journal of Psychology, 2016,48 (12): 1561-1573.