Deployment of Sustainable Development Framework …
141
(β = 0.34, p < 0.05, t = 5.27), whereas TG has got a negative but significant impact on
societal performance (SEP) (β = −0.19, p < 0.01). RG positively associated with SP
(β = 0.22, P < 0.05, t = 3.534) and SEP (β = 0.30, p < 0.05) respectively. As shown
in Table 3, the interaction effect between TG and TRN was positive and significant
SP (β = 0.12, p < 0.05). TG based governance has a strong positive effect on SP
when leadership impact is high. Transactional leadership impact is positively related
to social performance (β = 0.19, p < 0.01). This demonstrates that transactional
leadership moderated the relationship between contractual governance and social
performance.
The results show that the interaction between TG and TRN (β = −0.17, p < 0.01)
is significant and negatively associated (affects) with SEP. Transactional leadership
impact is negatively related to societal performance (SEP) (β = −0.11, p < 0.01). This
reveals that the association between contractual governance and societal performance
is negatively moderated by transactional leadership style. Findings also showed that
TG had a significant negative effect on SEP when transactional leadership effect is
high (β = −0.55, p < 0.01) but its effect was non-significant when leadership style
impact was low (β = −0.08, p > 0.01). A negative association between contractual
governance and societal performance diminished with the increase of transactional
leadership. The results suggest that social performance outcomes in South Asia are
more strongly related to transactional governance than relational governance. Firms
may feel more secure when a relationship is governed by the transactional approach.
However, findings show that transactional leadership is directly related to enhancing
social sustainability. The task-oriented nature of transactional leadership makes it
important to understand that managers of the firms should lead the relationship with
the partner with clear punishment and incentive system to foster the performance
(Locke et al. 2009). The results also illustrate that the role of the transactional leadership in improving the social performance increases in importance as high level
of social performance can only be achieved when transactional leadership is not
involved in the relational governance.
The interaction between RG and TNL is negatively related to the social performance (β = −0.13, p < 0.05), but not significantly related to the societal performance
(β = −0.04, p > 0.05). The results show that relational governance contributes to
Table 3 Relationships
between variables (direct
effect and interaction effect)
Structural path
Coef. (β) Level of
significance
Conclusion
TG → SP
0.34
p < 0.05
Supported
TG → SEP
−0.19
p < 0.01
Not supported
RG → SP
0.22
p < 0.05
Supported
RG → SEP
0.30
p < 0.05
Supported
Interaction TRN
x TG → SP
0.19
p < 0.01
Supported
Interaction TRN
x RG → SP
−0.13
p < 0.05
Not supported
141
(β = 0.34, p < 0.05, t = 5.27), whereas TG has got a negative but significant impact on
societal performance (SEP) (β = −0.19, p < 0.01). RG positively associated with SP
(β = 0.22, P < 0.05, t = 3.534) and SEP (β = 0.30, p < 0.05) respectively. As shown
in Table 3, the interaction effect between TG and TRN was positive and significant
SP (β = 0.12, p < 0.05). TG based governance has a strong positive effect on SP
when leadership impact is high. Transactional leadership impact is positively related
to social performance (β = 0.19, p < 0.01). This demonstrates that transactional
leadership moderated the relationship between contractual governance and social
performance.
The results show that the interaction between TG and TRN (β = −0.17, p < 0.01)
is significant and negatively associated (affects) with SEP. Transactional leadership
impact is negatively related to societal performance (SEP) (β = −0.11, p < 0.01). This
reveals that the association between contractual governance and societal performance
is negatively moderated by transactional leadership style. Findings also showed that
TG had a significant negative effect on SEP when transactional leadership effect is
high (β = −0.55, p < 0.01) but its effect was non-significant when leadership style
impact was low (β = −0.08, p > 0.01). A negative association between contractual
governance and societal performance diminished with the increase of transactional
leadership. The results suggest that social performance outcomes in South Asia are
more strongly related to transactional governance than relational governance. Firms
may feel more secure when a relationship is governed by the transactional approach.
However, findings show that transactional leadership is directly related to enhancing
social sustainability. The task-oriented nature of transactional leadership makes it
important to understand that managers of the firms should lead the relationship with
the partner with clear punishment and incentive system to foster the performance
(Locke et al. 2009). The results also illustrate that the role of the transactional leadership in improving the social performance increases in importance as high level
of social performance can only be achieved when transactional leadership is not
involved in the relational governance.
The interaction between RG and TNL is negatively related to the social performance (β = −0.13, p < 0.05), but not significantly related to the societal performance
(β = −0.04, p > 0.05). The results show that relational governance contributes to
Table 3 Relationships
between variables (direct
effect and interaction effect)
Structural path
Coef. (β) Level of
significance
Conclusion
TG → SP
0.34
p < 0.05
Supported
TG → SEP
−0.19
p < 0.01
Not supported
RG → SP
0.22
p < 0.05
Supported
RG → SEP
0.30
p < 0.05
Supported
Interaction TRN
x TG → SP
0.19
p < 0.01
Supported
Interaction TRN
x RG → SP
−0.13
p < 0.05
Not supported