Demands at work are among the factors that contribute to stress. According to Carr et al. (2011), the workplace is one of the main causes of stress. More work needs to be done, and stressors are intensifying. Many people’s lives revolve largely around their work, so the consequences of work stress are enormous (Sohail & Rehman, 2015). Each year, the number of employees who are stressed grows. Today’s workforce experiences more stress at work, and the stress levels are significantly higher than those of previous generations (Schroth, 2019). Employees have a wide variety of tasks and duties that must be fulfilled. Employees frequently encounter problems while performing duties, which can result in stress and working under pressure.
One of the most challenging circumstances that many people confront in the workplace is work stress (Darus et al., 2013). There are various factors that influence employees’ levels of work stress and contribute to it, which explains why they are facing a great deal of stress at work. According to The Malaysian Congress of the Union of Employees in the Public and Civil Services (CUEPACS), over 400,000 public servants have reported experiencing stress because of various circumstances (Bernama, 2019). This might have an adverse impact on their health and well-being, their ability to perform effectively, and eventually even interfere with the efficient functioning of national administrative systems.
In this study, we consider how work stress, which has an array of other detrimental effects on employees, might be caused by problems with transformational leadership style and job demands. With regards to the high prevalence of work stress in a previous review, the magnitude of work stress among Malaysian workers is clearly a concern (Kassim et al., 2018). How the leader acts in leading their team affects pressure in the workplace. Many organizations require leaders to manage job demands and resources so that their employees or followers stay healthy, motivated, and productive while avoiding stress. They accomplish this through managing job demands and resources and through their influence on personnel (Schaufeli, 2017).
We focused on transformational leadership due to the fact that a study conducted in Malaysia in the 1990s reported that Malaysia is known to be collectivistic in nature (Hofstede, 1994), which suggests that Malaysian leaders are more likely to emphasize maintaining supportive relationships rather than rewarding individual performance. Bass (1999) suggested that the transformational leadership style is more appropriate for collectivistic cultures than other styles of leadership. Furthermore, since New Public Management (NPM)[1] was implemented, leaders in public organizations have become more inclined to using transformational leadership, whereby leaders are more tolerant, motivated, open-minded, and visionary (Harb & Sidani, 2019). Moreover, there is an increasing amount of evidence supporting the importance of transformational leadership in the public sector, which impacts organizational learning and knowledge sharing (N. A. Khan & Khan, 2019), employee performance (R. Ahmad & Saad, 2020) and job satisfaction (Al-maaitah et al., 2021). Hence, this study is expected to contribute to the literature by empirically testing the relationship between transformational leadership and work stress among Malaysian public servants.
Understanding the relationship between transformational leadership and work stress is essential for improving performance, attracting talent, and fostering a whole government approach that aligns with the Government Transformation Program, an effort by the government of Malaysia to address seven key areas concerning the people of the country. Transformational leadership can enhance the performance-driven culture in the civil service and improve public service delivery by inspiring and motivating employees at all levels of government (Al Yahyaee & Mohamad, 2021; Ministry of Economy, 2021). Next, by strengthening the mechanism for the selection of key leaders and reducing work stress, transformational leadership can attract and retain top talent within government agencies (Ministry of Economy, 2021). Transforming public service through a whole government approach, as emphasized in the Twelfth Malaysia Plan, can optimize resources, improve project management, and enhance collaboration and coordination between different levels of government in Malaysia (World Bank Group, 2017). Studying transformational leadership in Malaysian government agencies aligns with national development goals, such as achieving prosperity, inclusivity, and sustainability in line with Prosperity Vision 2030 (World Bank Group, 2017).
An example of job demands that is commonly faced by employees in the public sector is that they have high workload (Babic et al., 2020). If the workload is unevenly distributed, it piles up. Consequently, job demands lead to public servants encountering situations where they must work overtime to finish all the tasks they are assigned. They have to work very fast to complete tasks within a specified period of time, which sometimes could be very stressful for most, if not all, of the public servants (Li et al., 2019). If employees feel that they do not have enough time to complete all their work tasks, this could lead to increased stress or pressure and subsequently affect employees’ work engagement and health if not properly managed and handled in the long term (Breaugh, 2021). Another problem in the public sector is red tape (Borst et al., 2019). For employees with lots of tasks and not enough time, red tape is probably the last thing they want to encounter. When work tasks are delayed due to excessive unnecessary rules and regulations, it results in employee stress, which eventually decreases their commitment to work (Rauf, 2020).
Due to the fact that it has an impact on both employee performance and welfare, work stress is becoming a significant concern for both individuals and organizations. Studies on work stress have placed a strong emphasis on recognizing the impacts of stress and the harm it poses to both employees and organizations (Cho et al., 2016). Previous research has been done on educational institutions, such as teachers, and bank employees, but few studies relate to work stress in the Malaysian public sector.
Additionally, numerous studies on work stress in the context of public servants have been conducted in a variety of nations, including Taiwan, China, South Korea, European countries, and the United States. However, there has been limited research and empirical evidence regarding public servants’ work stress in the Malaysian setting. For that reason, it is necessary to investigate work stress among the public servants in the Malaysian federal public sector, considering transformational leadership and job demands as contributing factors of work stress. The research objectives are as follows: (1) examining the effect of job demands on work stress, (2) examining the effect of transformational leadership on work stress, (3) examining whether transformational leadership mediates the relationship between job demands and work stress. To address the research gaps indicated above, the current study proposes a full mechanism incorporating transformational leadership, job demands, and work stress in public organizations.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Work Stress
Work stress can arise from a multitude of sources within the work environment. Job demands, including workload, time pressure, and task complexity, have consistently been associated with heightened stress levels among employees. Role ambiguity, characterized by unclear job expectations and responsibilities, can lead to uncertainty and anxiety. Furthermore, conflicts between individuals and unsatisfactory relationships with immediate superiors or colleagues play a substantial role in the occurrence of work stress inside organizations. Work-life balance challenges, driven by extended work hours and the intrusion of work into personal life, have also garnered attention in the literature as significant stressors. Work stress is a phenomenon characterized by adverse physical and emotional reactions experienced by employees when their abilities, assets, or needs do not align with the demands of their job (NIOSH, 2014).
The impact of work stress on an organization’s performance and productivity can be detrimental, leading to various negative outcomes such as substance abuse, turnover, burnout, health issues, and even premature death (Levecque et al., 2017). The stress experienced in the workplace often results in employee dissatisfaction, absenteeism, and high turnover rates, which in turn give rise to undesirable behavioral reactions, including alcoholism, smoking, unhealthy lifestyles, and sleep disturbances. Additionally, work stress can manifest as physiological symptoms such as headaches, excessive stress, and hypertension, as well as psychological effects like anxiety and depression (Yu et al., 2015).
Work-related stress remains a prevalent issue in organizations, resulting in diminished productivity, burnout, and various health concerns (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Factors contributing to employee stress often include high job demands, limited autonomy, and insufficient social support. According to Hobfoll’s (2012) conservation of resources theory, stress and burnout stem from the perception of resource losses following prolonged effort. Persistent stressors, particularly after significant personal investment, can lead to burnout by depleting vital resources. Furthermore, stagnant career advancement, heavy workloads, unstable interpersonal relationships with colleagues, and ineffective leadership by management are additional stress-inducing factors for employees (Pradoto et al., 2022). Therefore, implementing effective measures to manage work-related stress is imperative. Health issues resulting from stress can impair employees’ ability to concentrate and perform effectively, exacerbating job-related stress.
In the context of this study, work stress refers to a condition in which work-related duties and responsibilities, high expectations, and priorities set by employers, as well as leadership practices and workplace conflicts, escalate to a point where they become excessively burdensome and pervasive. As a result, they adversely affect the mental and physical well-being of employees, including civil servants.
Job Demands
According to the original job demands-resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001), an excessive daily workload could result in chronic overload, resulting in negative health consequences. In such cases, job pressures contribute to ongoing exhaustion, as well as potential physical health issues such as cardiovascular illnesses. Job-related resources, on the other hand, play a role in encouraging employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). These resources promote motivation and work engagement by meeting basic requirements and fostering a sense of significance (referred to as a rewarding state of energy, dedication, and focus) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).
In particular, the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) classifies all characteristics of a job into two main categories: job demands and job resources, each of which has its own distinct qualities and predictive value. Job demands are the elements of one’s job that necessitate exertion, such as disagreements, heavy workloads, and difficult responsibilities. Workload and complexity can be seen as difficult job demands that promote performance, whereas conflicts can be seen as impediments to meeting those expectations that reduce productivity. A job’s resources are the things that allow employees to deal with the challenges they face and achieve their goals.
Moreover, individuals who become aware of reduced job demands demonstrate enhanced capacity to effectively address potential team-related challenges that may give rise to conflict, such as instances of bias and coercion. According to a study conducted by Bakar and Salleh (2015), there is a correlation between job demands and both conflict and work-related stress. Positive performance feedback, social support, and skill variation are all examples of motivating employment features that give workers a sense of purpose while also satisfying demands for competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2013). Employees may experience stress as a result of the high mental exertion required to resolve problems in the workplace. Hence, the subsequent hypothesis is postulated:
H1: Job demands positively impact work stress.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership has garnered considerable attention within academic and organizational circles due to its perceived ability to enhance employee performance, organizational effectiveness, and overall job satisfaction (H. Khan et al., 2020). This leadership approach revolves around the idea of inspiring, motivating, and fostering deep commitment among team members, thereby creating a work environment that fosters creativity, innovation, and the attainment of organizational goals (Bass, 1999). Studies have consistently shown a correlation between leadership styles and levels of employee stress (Offord et al., 2016), underscoring the pivotal role leaders play in driving organizational success (Buchanan, 2015). Leaders are instrumental in shaping a company’s performance and cultivating optimism, especially during challenging periods of corporate and governmental efficiency (R. Ahmad et al., 2022).Transformational leadership emerges as a significant factor influencing levels of work-related stress (Offord et al., 2016). Thus, the second hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H2: Transformational leadership has a significant negative effect on work stress.
Mediating Effect
Followers frequently perceive leaders who demonstrate effective leadership practices as fair, impartial, and devoid of biased judgment (R. Ahmad & Saad, 2020). According to Breevaart and Bakker (2018), job demands may influence transformational leaders’ decisions and judgments when some employees with personal problems need support to cope with their tasks. Transformational leadership serves as a critical mediator between job demands and work stress by actively transforming how employees perceive and cope with workplace pressures. According to the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), transformational leadership mitigates work stress by providing essential psychological resources – including emotional support, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration – that help employees reframe challenging demands as opportunities for growth (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018). When leaders exhibit transformational behaviors, they create a buffer against stress by fostering perceptions of fairness (I. Ahmad et al., 2021) and enhancing employees’ coping capacity (Tafvelin et al., 2019). This mediating mechanism explains the process through which high job demands do not automatically lead to increased work stress – the transformational leader’s intervention fundamentally alters the stress trajectory.
Several studies have shown that social support (leadership behaviors) reduces the influence of occupational stress (Abbas et al., 2019). To meet their deadlines and duties, greater pressure is being placed on leaders to deliver their best work. As a result, leaders are more impacted by the difficulties and external resources that are accessible to them to complete the task (Ng et al., 2008).
This aligns with the job demands-resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), where transformational leadership functions as a psychosocial resource that buffers work stress by fostering resilience and reframing challenges as opportunities (Tafvelin et al., 2019). However, the mediating role of transformational leadership is contingent on demand intensity: excessive job demands may overwhelm leaders, limiting their capacity to provide support and inadvertently amplifying work stress (Dollard et al., 2012). Thus, while transformational leadership generally weakens the positive association between job demands and work stress, its effectiveness depends on leaders’ ability to maintain transformational practices under pressure. A study by Dollard et al. (2012) found that job demands are positively associated with leadership and work stress. This data is used to offer Hypothesis 3. All three hypotheses are shown graphically in Figure 1.
H3: Transformational leadership mediates the relationship between job demands and work stress.Top of Form
Methodology
Our study, conducted in 2022 in Putrajaya, Kuala Lumpur, focused on civil servants from 10 public-sector organizations. Using purposive sampling, 800 questionnaires were distributed to gather essential data not available from other sources. Specifically targeting civil servants from Grade 11 to Grade 44 to explore work stress, we employed purposive sampling to include participants providing the most relevant information. The reason this group was chosen for the study was because they are the support group, which ranks lower in their organizations and receives instructions from their superiors; they often encounter larger workloads to provide for and assist citizens.
Respondents were chosen based on specific criteria, avoiding the need for a sampling frame, allowing researchers to select the first available subjects meeting inclusion criteria. To ensure respondents met the research criteria of purposive sampling, screening was done based on two requirements outlined in the questionnaire’s cover letter: (a) Civil servants at the federal level and (b) Grade levels limited to Grade 11 to Grade 44
Since Smart PLS was utilized for data analysis, the sample size was determined by the analysis power, which was in turn determined by the model complexity (Hair et al., 2017). The maximum number of arrows pointing to an endogenous variable was used to measure model complexity (Halimi et al., 2022). Two arrows, representing the exogenous variable of the investigation, were drawn in the study model. Gefen et al. (2011) suggested that social science studies aim for 80% power and a medium impact size. The minimum sample size required to evaluate the research model in this study was 84, as determined by the table established by Green (1991), with two predictors in the model, and according to the requirements of Gefen et al. (2011). Thus, the 656 respondents met the minimum sample size requirements suggested by Hair et al. (2017).
Results
Respondents’ Demographics
This study employed purposive sampling to choose a total of 656 civil officials from the public sector, with job grades ranging from 11 to 44 as respondents. The respondents’ age was between 21 and 60 years old, while their education level varied from a Malaysian Education Certificate, which is given to students who finish their secondary education and is the lowest level required for a government job, to a master’s degree.
Instruments and Measurements
The questionnaire had 58 items in five sections. Section A included seven demographic profile items. Section B assessed transformational leadership using the 14-item Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) by Bass and Avolio (2004) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .840. Section C gauges job demands with 22 items from the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) by Kristensen and Borg (2003) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .770. Finally, Section D evaluates work stress using the 22 item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14) by Cohen et al. (1983) with a Cronbach’s alpha of .847. A 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) was used for Sections B, C, D.
Measurement model
Prior to evaluating the discriminant validity of a model, convergent validity must be examined (Ngah et al., 2020). Once the measuring model was constructed, the structural model was used to examine the research hypotheses.
Convergent validity
The assessment of convergent validity precedes the evaluation of discriminatory validity to determine the suitability of a model (Ngah et al., 2020). Following the establishment of the measurement model, the study hypotheses were examined using the structural model. According to the research conducted by Hair et al. (2017), it is suggested that the assessment of convergent validity should be carried out through the examination of factor loading, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability (CR). Table 1 presents the results indicating that the majority of factor loadings exceeded the threshold of .7, while a small number fell within the range of .4 to .7. The average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded .5, indicating satisfactory convergent validity for the constructs. Additionally, all composite reliability (CR) values surpassed .7, further supporting the constructs’ excellent convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The outcome of the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method was depicted in Figure 2.
Structural Model
It is imperative to ensure that the structural model exhibits no lateral collinearity concerns prior to conducting hypothesis testing. According to Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006), it is imperative to guarantee that the variance inflation factor (VIF) remains below the threshold of 3.3. The study did not encounter any collinearity concerns, as seen by the VIF values presented in Table 2, all of which were below the designated threshold value. The hypotheses were examined using a bootstrap methodology, specifically employing resolution resampling with a total of 5,000 iterations. This approach was employed to verify that the formulated hypotheses were statistically significant, as indicated by t- and p-values, and to establish bias-corrected confidence ranges. The findings provided empirical support for only one out of the three proposed hypotheses. The outcome of the bootstrapping process is illustrated in Figure 3.
Hypothesis Testing
We performed an analysis to assess the potential mediating link between job demands and work stress. In order to create a 95% confidence interval after accounting for bias, 5,000 bootstrap samples were taken. Positive and statistically significant results for job demands’ impact on work stress (β = 0.671, t = 27.769; lower limit [LL] = 0.620, upper limit [UL] = 0.716, p < .001) provide support for H1. However, there was a non-significant, negative correlation between transformational leadership and work stress (β = -0.053, t = 1.634; LL = -0.117, UL = 0.008, p = .102). Therefore, H2 was not supported. Transformational leadership did not have a mediating effect on the connection between job demands and work stress (β = 0.011, t = 1.490; LL = -0.002, UL = 0.029, p = .136). Accordingly, H3 is not supported.
Table 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the empirical evidence showing the direct correlations and the outcome of the mediation study.
Discussion
Our study involved a thorough investigation of the interconnectedness among the variables. The results of this study provide valuable insights into the complex dynamics within these organizations, offering substantial contributions to our knowledge of employee well-being and organizational efficiency.
The primary aim of this study was to examine the associations between job demands and work stress among civil employees employed in the Malaysian federal public sector. H1 stated that job demands had a positive effect on Malaysian civil servants’ work stress. The strong link between these two factors indicates that the characteristics and magnitude of job demands positively influence the stress levels of employees. This observation underscores the importance for public organizations to thoroughly assess and oversee job demands, with the aim of enhancing work procedures, optimizing resource allocation, and implementing a supportive structure that mitigates the adverse effects of high job demands. This result aligns with prior studies that have shown that job demands are linked with team conflict and work stress (Bakker & de Vries, 2021).
H2 posited in this study asserts that there is a negative relationship between transformational leadership and work stress among public employees in Malaysia. Surprisingly, the bootstrapping study revealed no significant correlation between transformational leadership and work stress. The present discovery contradicted other studies that found a beneficial association between transformational leadership and employee stress (Syed et al., 2018). In previous studies, transformational leadership was positively linked with employee competency, employee commitment, work engagement, and employee work performance for teams and individuals in nursing, hospitality, and food manufacturing industries, but was negatively linked with work stress (Manoppo, 2020), which was the direction of the relationship we found, although our results were not significant.
According to a study conducted by Luturlean et al. (2019), there was no discernible association between transformational leadership and work stress. Our study revealed that, for civil servants in Malaysia, transformational leadership was not substantial determinant of their stress levels. This observation can be attributed to the notion that job demands have a more pronounced impact on employees’ stress levels compared to the influence of their leaders. This contradicts Amin et al. (2018), who discovered that transformational leadership styles greatly enhance employee commitment to their organizations, resulting in improved job satisfaction and reduced stress in the banking sector.
We discovered that transformational leadership did not emerge as a noteworthy concern for civil servants. The likely explanation for this finding is that employees’ stress is caused by job demands rather than by their leaders. Therefore, H2 was not supported.
Furthermore, the third research objective in this study was to determine the mediation effect of transformational leadership on the relationships between job demands and work stress. H3 stated that transformational leadership mediates the relationship between job demands and Malaysian civil servants’ work stress. Based on the bootstrapping analysis result, it was found that transformational leadership did not have a significant effect on the relationship between job demands and civil servants’ work stress.
These findings suggest workload-related factors are more salient than leadership in predicting stress outcomes. This unforeseen result poses a challenge to the prevailing ideas regarding the direct influence of transformational leadership on work stress. Previous research supports the idea that transformational leadership improves employee work engagement as well as performance (Breevaart & Bakker, 2018). Although other studies have found that transformational leadership provides advantages in promoting motivation, creativity, and employee engagement, its direct impact on mitigating work stress and decreasing job demands may be limited within the framework of public organizations.
Research supports the idea that transformational leadership improves employee work engagement as well as performance (Bakker et al., 2023; Faupel & Süß, 2019). Amin et al. (2018) observed that the implementation of transformational leadership styles affects employees’ dedication to their respective organizations, leading to enhanced levels of job satisfaction and decreased levels of stress within the banking industry. Although we did not find this relationship, there may still be a role for transformational leadership to play in reducing work stress based on our results. When transformational leaders adopt a holistic viewpoint and provide individual attention, they can identify the needs of their subordinates on a personal level and may even employ one-on-one coaching and mentoring to reduce job demands and thereby reduce work stress.
Managerial Implications
As reported by the Congress of Unions of Employees in the Public and Civil Service of Malaysia (CUEPACS), an estimated 400,000 civil servants in Malaysia have been recognized as individuals who encounter work-related stress. We aimed to provide managerial recommendations about the impact of work stress on civil servants in federal agencies in Malaysia. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between transformational leadership, job demands, and work stress within the Malaysian public sector. Additionally, our study sought to assess the mediating effect of transformational leadership on this relationship.
Workplace satisfaction carries considerable importance within today’s challenging professional landscape. The outcomes of the study indicate that the implementation of certain program policies and practices could be advantageous to both the organization and its employees. Providing public sector leaders with training that teaches them to consider employees’ capabilities and assign work accordingly can enhance their ability to effectively lead and support their teams in managing work and reducing work stress.
For years, researchers and scholars have emphasized that a supportive transformational leadership style cultivates teamwork and empowers employees to unleash their potential, as it establishes a vital prerequisite for productive job performance and reduced work stress (Johari et al., 2019). Therefore, managers in the public sector must devise strategies to promote employee well-being, especially in the context of Malaysia’s Government Transformation Program, which was started in 2010 and under which meeting work targets has become the norm. Since performance targets are tied to rewards, such as promotions and performance awards, they can induce stress among employees (Pihl-Thingvad & Dahler-Larsen, 2014). Hence, establishing appropriate work targets through collaborative discussions between leaders and employees could help mitigate unnecessary.
Another recommendation is the implementation of work redesign and task allocation strategies. It is advisable for organizations to thoroughly analyze and assess their current job structures in order to find opportunities for optimizing job demands and achieving a more equitable distribution of tasks, which will likely reduce work stress. Evaluating the distribution of burdens, the difficulty of tasks, and the allocation of resources can contribute to achieving a more equitable work environment.
Conclusion
Our study offers substantial insights into the correlation between transformational leadership, job demands, and work stress within public organizations. Nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge and address several limitations that demand careful consideration. The current investigation utilized a cross-sectional research methodology, thus limiting our ability to establish causal relationships among the variables. In order to enhance comprehension of the temporal dynamics and causality of transformational leadership, job demands, and work stress, future investigations may consider utilizing longitudinal or experimental designs. The presence of common method bias and subjectivity in responses is a possible concern in this context. In order to strengthen the validity and reliability of future studies, it is recommended that researchers incorporate multi-source and objective measurements into their methodologies.
Building upon the findings of the study, several avenues for future research emerge that could further enrich our understanding of the intricate connections between transformational leadership, job demands, and work stress in public organizations. Investigating moderating factors, such as individual differences (e.g., personality traits) and contextual variables (e.g., organizational culture), could shed light on the conditions under which the relationships explored in this study may vary. In addition, researchers could delve into the development and assessment of intervention strategies aimed at mitigating work stress in public organizations through targeted improvements in transformational leadership behaviors and job design. The findings may not be applicable to senior officials or private sector personnel. We propose further investigations using more diverse populations.
New Public Management (NPM) was developed in the 1980s. It emerged in the United Kingdom and the United States as a reaction to economic challenges, applying private-sector managerial techniques to public services to improve efficiency and results.