Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises

Studies Management and Finance Economics, of Journal 0504-2644 (online): ISSN 0490,-2644 (print): ISSN 5202 November 11 Issue 80 Volume 8.317 Factor: Impact ,35-i11-10.47191/jefms/v8 DOI: Article 6974-7460 No: Page JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7460 Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. Rizky Mochamad Faculty of Economics, Doctoral Program in Management Universitas Prima Indonesia ABSTRACT: Leadership is one of the important components that directs an organization to gain competitiveness and achieve organizational goals. The purpose of this study is to analyze the role of work engagement and workforce agility as mediating factors in the influence of transformational leadership on performance. This study is a quantitative study and based on its purpose is an explanatory research type with a sample of 215 employees of PT PLN. The data analysis method used is SEM-PLS analysis. The results of the analysis show that transformational leadership has a positive effect on work engagement. transformational leadership has a positive effect on workforce agility, work engagement has a significant effect on individual performance, workforce agility has a positive effect on individual performance, work engagement mediates the effect of transformational leadership on individual performance, workforce agility mediates the effect of transformational leadership on individual performance. For the management of PT. PLN, increasing individual performance can be done by implementing a transformational leadership style in all lines so that work engagement can be maintained and ultimately be able to drive prime performance. KEYWORDS: Transformational leadership, Work engagement, work force agility, individual performance, SEM-PLS Analysis I. INTRODUCTION In today’s dynamic and rapidly evolving environment, organizations are required to continuously improve their performance to deliver the best services possible. Performance represents the measurable outcomes of an employee’s work within a specific period, benchmarked against predetermined standards, goals, or criteria. Effective performance not only reflects individual or team achievements but also embodies an organization’s ability to fulfill its mission in a lawful, ethical, and efficient manner. One of the key factors influencing organizational performance is leadership. Transformational leadership, in particular, has been widely recognized as a leadership style that inspires and motivates followers to transcend personal interests, aligning them toward collective goals and higher performance levels. However, existing studies reveal varying perspectives on how transformational leadership impacts employee performance, suggesting the presence of mediating factors such as organizational citizenship behavior, team cohesion, job satisfaction, innovative work behavior, and knowledge management. Building upon these insights, this study focuses on work engagement as a mediating variable that may explain the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance. Work engagement, defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption, reflects the degree to which employees are emotionally and cognitively invested in their roles. Furthermore, this research extends the model by introducing workforce agility as an additional mediating variable. Workforce agility employees’ ability to adapt quickly and positively to changes has become increasingly vital in ensuring organizational resilience amid business uncertainty. The research is conducted within the context of Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN), Indonesia’s state owned electricity company and the sole provider of electricity nationwide. Despite consistent growth in electricity sales, PLN continues to face performance challenges, as evidenced by numerous consumer complaints related to service disruptions and reliability issues. Addressing these challenges necessitates a deeper understanding of how leadership can enhance employee performance through psychological and behavioral mechanisms such as work engagement and workforce agility. This study, therefore, aims to examine the mediating roles of work engagement and workforce agility in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance within PLN. The findings are expected to contribute both theoretically and practically offering insights into leadership strategies that can foster a more adaptive, motivated, and high performing workforce in Indonesia’s public utility sector. Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7461 II. LITERATURE REVIEW Transformational leadership Transformational leadership is a leadership style that emphasizes the ability of leaders to inspire, motivate, and guide subordinates to go beyond personal interests in order to achieve organizational goals. According to Bass B. M. & Avolio B. J.,(1994), this leadership style consists of four main dimensions: idealized influence (leaders act as role models and gain trust), inspirational motivation (providing vision and enthusiasm), intellectual stimulation (encouraging innovation and creative thinking), and individualized consideration (attending to the needs and potential of subordinates). Transformational leaders foster trust, loyalty, and strong commitment among employees, which positively influence their motivation and performance (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Kinicki, 2021). Work Enggament Work engagement is a positive psychological state that reflects an individual’s full involvement in their work, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Employees with high work engagement display strong energy, enthusiasm, and deep immersion in their job activities (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). According to (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004)work engagement consists of three dimensions: vigor (high energy and mental resilience at work), dedication (a sense of pride, enthusiasm, and meaningfulness toward one’s job), and absorption (deep concentration and immersion in work to the point of difficulty detaching from it). High levels of work engagement enhance employee commitment, positive behavior, and performance, making it a crucial factor for organizational success (Bakker et al., 2008; Schaufeli, 2012). Workforce agility Workforce agility refers to the ability of employees to proactively adapt and respond to dynamic and unpredictable changes in the work environment (Alavi et al., 2014; Sherehiy & Karwowski, 2014). This concept reflects a combination of employees’ capabilities, attitudes, and behaviors in dealing with change (Muduli & Pandya, 2018). Agile employees possess a broad vision, a positive attitude toward learning and innovation, and comfort with change and new technologies (Plonka, 1997; Zhang & Sharifi, 2000). From a behavioral perspective, workforce agility consists of three main dimensions: proactivity (initiating actions to anticipate and address change), adaptability (the ability to adjust to new environments, roles, and technologies), and resilience (the capacity to remain effective under pressure and uncertainty). An agile workforce can maintain high performance amid challenges and transformation, making it a crucial factor for organizational success in an ever-changing business environment. Individual performance Individual performance refers to the results achieved by employees in carrying out their work based on specific criteria relevant to their job (Robbins & Judge, 2013). It represents the accomplishments and contributions made by individuals within the workplace. Performance involves maintaining planned efforts while striving for desired outcomes. Although performance evaluation is a core aspect of performance management (Cardy, 2004), individual performance is influenced by various organizational factors, including policies, practices, and structural design. According to the configurational approach in strategic human resource management, achieving organizational goals requires not just individual actions but an integrated pattern of HR activities that collectively enhance employee performance (Delery & Doty, 1996). III. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Transformational leadership plays a vital role in enhancing employee work engagement through inspiration, motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders encourage employees to think creatively, take initiative, and view problems from multiple perspectives, fostering a sense of ownership and meaningfulness toward their work. Emotional and psychological support from leaders also creates a safe and supportive work environment that promotes deeper engagement. Therefore, transformational leadership is assumed to have a positive effect on employee work engagement (Bass, 1985; Chua & Ayoko, 2021; Yasin Ghadi et al., 2013). Transformational leaders help organizations adapt to change by creating new visions, encouraging innovation, and enhancing employees’ abilities to deal with uncertainty. Through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and empowerment, leaders foster confidence and readiness among employees to face change. A participative and open work environment makes employees more agile, adaptive, and proactive in responding to organizational dynamics. Thus, transformational leadership is expected to have a positive effect on workforce agility (Muduli, 2017; Shafi et al., 2020). Employees with high work engagement tend to demonstrate better individual performance because they possess enthusiasm, dedication, and a willingness to go beyond formal job requirements. Work engagement encourages extra-role behaviors such as helping colleagues and contributing more to organizational goals. With strong energy and commitment, engaged employees not Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7462 only perform their duties effectively but also actively contribute to creating a productive work environment. Therefore, work engagement positively affects individual performance (Owens, 2016; Rich et al., 2010). Agile employees are capable of quickly adapting to changes in the business environment, showing proactive behaviors, and remaining resilient under pressure. These abilities make them more effective in completing tasks, fostering innovation, and maintaining productivity in dynamic conditions. Moreover, workforce agility which encompasses proactivity, adaptability, and resilience has been proven to enhance individual and organizational effectiveness. Hence, workforce agility positively influences individual performance (Cai et al., 2018; Sherehiy, 2008). Transformational leadership indirectly improves individual performance through increased work engagement. Leaders who provide meaningful goals, support, and adequate resources encourage employees to be more emotionally and cognitively involved in their work. This engagement drives employees to be more enthusiastic, initiative-oriented, and committed to achieving optimal results. Therefore, work engagement serves as a mediating variable linking transformational leadership and individual performance (Lai et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2009). Transformational leadership can also enhance individual performance through the strengthening of workforce agility. Leaders who promote learning, flexibility, and creativity develop agile employees who can face change and quickly adapt to work demands. Agile employees tend to be more innovative, productive, and efficient in completing their tasks, thereby improving overall performance. Consequently, workforce agility acts as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and individual performance (Alavi, 2016; Munteanu, 2020). Based on the previous description, further hypotheses can be developed in this study as follows: H1: Transformational leadership has a positive and significant effect on work engagement. H2: Transformational leadership has a positive and significant effect on workforce agility. H3: Work engagement has a positive and significant effect on individual performance. H4: Workforce agility has a positive and significant effect on individual performance. H5: Work engagement mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and individual performance. H6: Workforce agility mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and individual performance. The theoretical framework presented in Figure 1 Figure 1 : Theoretical Framework IV. RESEARCH METHODS This study employed a quantitative explanatory research design aimed at examining the causal relationships among transformational leadership, work engagement, workforce agility, and individual performance. The research sought to analyze how transformational leadership influences individual performance both directly and indirectly through the mediating effects of work engagement and workforce agility. The population in this study consisted of employees of PT PLN (Persero) North Sumatra Region. The sampling technique used was convenience sampling, where respondents were selected based on accessibility and their suitability with the research criteria (Sugiyono, 2021). According to (Hair, Hult, et al., 2014), the minimum sample size required for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) should be five to ten times the number of indicators. Since this study employed 53 indicators, the minimum sample size required was 265 respondents. Therefore, a total of 265 employees from PT PLN North Sumatra Region were included as the study sample. The study involved four main variables: transformational leadership as the independent variable, work engagement and workforce agility as mediating variables, and individual performance as the dependent variable. Transformational leadership was measured using the scale developed by Carless et al., (2000), consisting of seven dimensions: vision, staff development, supportive leadership, empowerment, innovative thinking, lead by example, and charisma. Individual performance was measured using the instrument adapted from Petermann and Zacher (2022), which includes Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7463 dimensions of quality, quantity, and timeliness. Work engagement was measured using the instrument from Mills et al. (2012) consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption dimensions, while workforce agility was measured using indicators from Cai et al. (2018), which include proactivity, adaptability, and resilience. All indicators were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This research utilized both primary and secondary data. Primary data were collected directly from respondents through an online questionnaire distributed via Google Form, while secondary data were obtained from company reports, organizational documents, and relevant literature. The questionnaire served as the main research instrument, and its quality was assessed through validity and reliability tests. Content and construct validity were examined using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), with a factor loading value of ≥ 0.5 as the threshold (Hair, Black, et al., 2014). Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability (CR), where values equal to or greater than 0.7 indicate acceptable reliability (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). The study was conducted at PT PLN (Persero) North Sumatra Region, located at Jl. KL Yos Sudarso No. 284, Medan, Indonesia, during the period of April to May 2025. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares–Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4.0 software. The analysis consisted of two stages: the outer model, which assessed indicator validity, reliability, and discriminant validity through Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability, and HTMT ratio; and the inner model, which evaluated path coefficients, R² values, and the significance of relationships using the bootstrapping technique. In addition, descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution were employed to describe respondent profiles and provide an overview of each research variable. V. FINDING AND DISCUSSION The results of the study begin with the presentation of the respondent profile which can be seen in the following table: Table 1. Profile of Participating Respondents Demographics Category Number of Consumers Percentage (%) Gender Male 103 47,9 Female 112 52,1 Age 18 - 25 Years 41 19,1 26 - 35 Years 71 33,0 36 - 45 Years 67 31,2 > 45 Years 36 16,7 Formal education Junior High School 7 3,3 High School 57 26,5 Diploma 13 6,0 Bachelor’s degree 102 47,4 Master’s degree 36 16,7 Marital Status Single 41 19,1 Married 170 79,1 Others 4 1,9 Years of Service < 5 Years 78 36,3 5-10 Years 64 29,8 11-15 Years 46 21,4 16-20 Years 16 7,4 > 20 years 11 5,1 Monthly Income < 5 million 114 53,02 5 million – 7 million 84 39,07 7 million – 10 million 9 4,19 > 10 million 8 3,72 Employment Status Permanent 150 69,8 Non-permanent 65 30,2 Total 215 100 Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7464 Based on table 1, it can be seen that the majority of the respondents in this study are female, totaling 112 people (52.1%). Most respondents are aged 36–45 years, totaling 67 people (31.2%), hold a Bachelor’s degree (S1) totaling 102 people (47.4%), and are married, totaling 170 people (79.1%). Furthermore, 78 respondents (36.3%) have a working period of less than 5 years, 114 respondents (53.0%) earn less than 5 million rupiahs per month, and 150 respondents (69.8%) have permanent employment status. Measurement Model Assessment Measurement Model Assessment (MMA) is useful for knowing the relationship between statement items and variables consisting of convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair, Black, et al., 2014). Tabel 2. The Results of Convergent Validity Valid Item Outer Loadings Cronbach's Alpha Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Individual performance 13 0.676 - 0.852 0,952 0,958 0,636 Transformational leadership 7 0.696 - 0.865 0,916 0,933 0,668 Work engagement 9 0.683 - 0.893 0,934 0,945 0,660 Workforce agility 14 0.604 - 0.846 0,930 0,938 0,525 The results of convergent validity analysis in Table 2 presents the results of the convergent validity test for each research construct, which include Individual Performance, Transformational Leadership, Work Engagement, and Workforce Agility. The table shows that all constructs meet the criteria for convergent validity, as indicated by the outer loading values exceeding 0.60. The Individual Performance construct consists of 13 valid items with outer loadings ranging from 0.676 to 0.852, a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.952, a Composite Reliability of 0.958, and an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.636. The Transformational Leadership construct has 7 valid items with outer loadings between 0.696 and 0.865, a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.916, a Composite Reliability of 0.933, and an AVE of 0.668. Furthermore, the Work Engagement construct comprises 9 valid items with outer loadings ranging from 0.683 to 0.893, a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.934, a Composite Reliability of 0.945, and an AVE of 0.660. Lastly, the Workforce Agility construct consists of 14 valid items with outer loadings between 0.604 and 0.846, a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.930, a Composite Reliability of 0.938, and an AVE of 0.525. These results indicate that all constructs demonstrate adequate reliability and validity, as the Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability values are above 0.70, and the AVE values mostly exceed the recommended threshold of 0.50. Overall, all variables have AVE values above 0.5 and Composite Reliability values exceeding 0.7, confirming that all research variables satisfy the criteria for convergent validity (Hair, Black, et al., 2014). Table 3. Results of Discriminant Validity-Fornell-Larcker Criterion Individual performance Transformational leadership Work engagement Workforce agility Individual performance 0,798 Transformational leadership 0,694 0,817 Work engagement 0,432 0,317 0,812 Workforce agility 0,560 0,522 0,190 0,724 The results of the discriminant validity test using the Fornell-Larcker criterion in Table 3 presents the results of the discriminant validity test using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. The discriminant validity is confirmed when the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct (represented by the diagonal values in bold) is greater than the correlations between that construct and other constructs. As shown in the table, the square roots of AVE for each variable are 0.798 for Individual Performance, 0.817 for Transformational Leadership, 0.812 for Work Engagement, and 0.724 for Workforce Agility. These values are higher than the corresponding inter-construct correlations in each column and row. For instance, the correlation between Individual Performance and Transformational Leadership is 0.694, which is lower than their respective AVE square roots (0.798 Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7465 and 0.817). Similarly, other correlations among constructs also show lower values than their diagonal counterparts. Therefore, these results indicate that all constructs fulfill the criteria for discriminant validity, suggesting that each construct is empirically distinct and measures a unique aspect within the research model. These findings confirm that the analysis satisfies the FornellLarcker criterion as expected (Hair, Black, et al., 2014). Table 4: The Results of Discriminant Validity -Cross Loadings Individual performance Transformational leadership Work engagement Workforce agility IP1 0,815 0,532 0,396 0,342 IP10 0,815 0,532 0,404 0,346 IP11 0,837 0,671 0,402 0,410 IP12 0,676 0,441 0,174 0,517 IP13 0,835 0,578 0,370 0,537 IP2 0,852 0,686 0,416 0,426 IP3 0,677 0,432 0,175 0,513 IP4 0,838 0,560 0,368 0,526 IP5 0,814 0,531 0,398 0,342 IP6 0,845 0,671 0,415 0,413 IP7 0,676 0,428 0,179 0,511 IP8 0,835 0,557 0,361 0,523 IP9 0,818 0,532 0,398 0,344 TL1 0,583 0,842 0,262 0,385 TL2 0,571 0,861 0,276 0,379 TL3 0,586 0,846 0,267 0,398 TL4 0,578 0,865 0,282 0,388 TL5 0,498 0,696 0,210 0,464 TL6 0,584 0,800 0,239 0,464 TL7 0,558 0,797 0,272 0,479 WA1 0,392 0,423 0,137 0,844 WA10 0,371 0,339 0,099 0,676 WA11 0,560 0,486 0,204 0,661 WA12 0,393 0,407 0,155 0,846 WA13 0,391 0,403 0,139 0,842 WA14 0,384 0,396 0,139 0,833 WA2 0,268 0,201 0,126 0,617 WA3 0,313 0,222 0,168 0,627 WA4 0,285 0,216 0,149 0,604 WA5 0,294 0,237 0,081 0,671 WA6 0,435 0,402 0,074 0,726 WA7 0,453 0,398 0,156 0,702 WA8 0,392 0,411 0,087 0,685 WA9 0,522 0,483 0,177 0,737 WE1 0,373 0,239 0,882 0,183 WE2 0,374 0,228 0,892 0,135 WE3 0,332 0,358 0,726 0,118 WE4 0,271 0,157 0,683 0,118 Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7466 WE5 0,396 0,248 0,893 0,204 WE6 0,392 0,238 0,885 0,202 WE7 0,366 0,224 0,888 0,134 WE8 0,356 0,354 0,731 0,144 WE9 0,254 0,213 0,686 0,134 Based on the results of the cross-loading test, all indicator outer loading values on their respective constructs are greater than their cross-loading values on other constructs. This finding indicates that each indicator is more strongly associated with its intended construct than with any other construct in the model. Therefore, it can be concluded that all constructs exhibit good discriminant validity. Furthermore, this result implies that each construct in the measurement model is empirically distinct, meaning that the indicators effectively measure the specific latent variable they are intended to represent. In other words, there is no significant overlap between constructs, and the indicators demonstrate adequate discriminant power. This strengthens the validity of the measurement model, confirming that the constructs are conceptually and statistically well differentiated, which supports the overall robustness and reliability of the research instrument. Table 5. The Results of Discriminant Validity-Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio Saturated Model Estimated Model SRMR 0,115 0,132 d_ULS 12,406 16,517 d_G 23,123 23,293 Chi-Square 12830,542 12905,398 NFI 0,338 0,334 Table 5 indicates the SRMR value obtained in this study is 0.132, which falls within the medium GoF (Goodness of Fit) category and is still considered acceptable. Therefore, it can be concluded that the model used in this study is appropriate and fits well with the empirical data. This conclusion is further supported by the d_ULS value greater than 2.000 and the d_G value greater than 0.900, both of which indicate that the model demonstrates a satisfactory level of fit with the observed data. Table 6. R Square R Square R Square Adjusted Category Individual performance 0,424 0,419 Moderate Work engagement 0,101 0,096 Weak Workforce agility 0,273 0,269 Weak Based on Table 6, the R-square value for the Individual Performance variable is 0.424, which means that 42.4% of the variance in Individual Performance is explained by Work Engagement and Workforce Agility. The R-square value for Work Engagement is 0.101, indicating that 10.1% of the variance in Work Engagement is influenced by Transformational Leadership. Meanwhile, the R-square value for Workforce Agility is 0.273, suggesting that 27.3% of the variance in Workforce Agility is explained by Transformational Leadership. These results show that the model has moderate explanatory power, particularly for the Individual Performance variable, which is classified as weak (Hair, Black, et al., 2014). Structural Model Assessment Structural Model Assessment (SMA) is conducted to evaluate the influence of one or more variables on other variables. The results of the SMA using the bootstrapping method are presented as follows: Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7467 Figure 2: Structural Model Assessment Table 7. The Results of Direct Relationship Original Sample (O) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P Values Hipotesis Transformational leadership -> Work engagement 0.317 3.636 0.000 H1 Accepted Transformational leadership -> Workforce agility 0.522 9.733 0.000 H2 Accepted Work engagement -> Individual performance 0.338 5.095 0.000 H3 Accepted Workforce agility -> Individual performance 0.496 9.212 0.000 H4 Accepted Based on Table 7, presents the results of hypothesis testing for the structural model. The results show that all proposed hypotheses (H1–H4) are accepted, as indicated by the T-statistics values greater than 1.96 and P-values less than 0.05. Specifically, Transformational Leadership has a significant positive effect on Work Engagement with an original sample value of 0.317, a Tstatistic of 3.636, and a P-value of 0.000, supporting H1. Furthermore, Transformational Leadership also has a significant positive influence on Workforce Agility with an original sample value of 0.522, a T-statistic of 9.733, and a P-value of 0.000, supporting H2. In addition, Work Engagement positively and significantly affects Individual Performance with an original sample value of 0.338, a T-statistic of 5.095, and a P-value of 0.000, confirming H3. Lastly, Workforce Agility shows a strong positive effect on Individual Performance with an original sample value of 0.496, a T-statistic of 9.212, and a P-value of 0.000, thus supporting H4. These findings indicate that all relationships hypothesized in the model are statistically significant, demonstrating that transformational leadership, work engagement, and workforce agility play crucial roles in enhancing individual performance. Table 8. The Results of the Indirect Influence Original Sample (O) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P Values Hipotesis Transformational leadership -> Work engagement -> Individual performance 0.107 2.331 0.020 H5 Accepted Transformational leadership -> Workforce agility -> Individual performance 0.259 5.835 0.000 H6 Accepted Transformational Leadership and the Dynamics of Engagement And Agility: A Study on Individual Performance in State-Owned Enterprises. JEFMS, Volume 08 Issue 11 November 2025 www.ijefm.co.in Page 7468 Table 8, The indirect effect of Transformational Leadership on Individual Performance through Work Engagement has a P-value of 0.020, which is less than 0.05. This indicates that Work Engagement mediates the relationship between Transformational Leadership and Individual Performance. Therefore, H5, which states that Work Engagement acts as a mediating variable in the influence of Transformational Leadership on Individual Performance, is supported. Similarly, the indirect effect of Transformational Leadership on Individual Performance through Workforce Agility has a P-value of 0.000, which is also less than 0.05. This means that Workforce Agility mediates the relationship between Transformational Leadership and Individual Performance. Hence, H6, which posits that Workforce Agility serves as a mediating variable in the effect of Transformational Leadership on Individual Performance, is supported. Overall, these findings demonstrate that both Work Engagement and Workforce Agility play significant mediating roles in enhancing the impact of transformational leadership on individual performance, highlighting the importance of employee motivation and adaptability in improving work outcomes. VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the research and discussion, it can be concluded that 1) transformational leadership has a positive effect on work engagement, indicating that leaders who are able to inspire, motivate, and support their subordinates can enhance employees’ emotional and psychological attachment to their work. Furthermore, 2) transformational leadership also has a positive effect on workforce agility, as leaders who encourage innovation and adaptability help employees become more agile in facing dynamic work environments. The study also found that 3) work engagement has a significant positive influence on individual performance, meaning that employees who are more engaged tend to be more dedicated, focused, and productive in achieving organizational goals. Similarly, 4) workforce agility positively affects individual performance, showing that employees with higher adaptability and responsiveness to change are more capable of maintaining high performance levels. In addition, the research reveals that 5) work engagement mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and individual performance, suggesting that leaders indirectly improve employee performance by fostering greater engagement. Likewise, 6) workforce agility also mediates the effect of transformational leadership on individual performance, indicating that transformational leaders contribute to better performance outcomes by enhancing employees’ agility and flexibility. Overall, these findings confirm that transformational leadership plays a vital role in improving individual performance, both directly and indirectly, through the development of engaged and agile employees. This highlights the importance of effective leadership in creating a motivated, adaptive, and high-performing workforce within PT. PLN. REFERENCES 1) Alavi, S. (2016). The role of transformational leadership in promoting organizational innovation through workforce agility. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 16(3), 1–10. 2) Alavi, S., Abd. Wahab, D., Muhamad, N., & Arbab Shirani, B. (2014). Organic structure and organisational learning as the main antecedents of workforce agility. International Journal of Production Research, 52(21), 6273–6295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.919420 3) Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. L. (2018). Work engagement: Current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4–11. 4) Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393649 5) Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press. 6) Bass B. M., & Avolio B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications. 7) Cai, Z., Liu, H., Huang, Q., & Liang, L. (2018). Developing organizational agility in product innovation. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(3), 874–896. 8) Cardy, R. L. (2004). Performance management: Concepts, skills and exercises. M.E. Sharpe. 9) Carless, S. A., Wearing, A. J., & Mann, L. (2000). A Short Measure of Transformational Leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14(3), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022991115523 10) Chua, J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2021). Employees’ self-determined motivation, transformational leadership and work engagement. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(2), 331–350. 11) Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management: Tests of Universalistic, Contingency, and Configurational Performance Predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802–835. https://doi.org/10.5465/256713