Intrapreneurial behaviour has become a vital factor in guiding the positive attitude of followers and innovative behaviour within the organisation (Peng & Kim, 2020). In this sense, the Authentic Leadership style (Walumbwa et al., 2008), by promoting transparency, integrity and emotional support, would stimulate these entrepreneurial behaviours by emphasising a positive psychological state and trust towards employees (Wei & He, 2022). However, recent studies warn that authentic leaders may cling rigidly to their values and beliefs, which, combined with the fact that this leadership style tends to favour team cohesion, could restrict the generation of new ideas and risk-taking among subordinates, creating an environment in which they feel greater conformity with the status quo (González-Cánovas et al., 2024). From the perspective of social identity theory, strong identification with a leader perceived as prototypical can reinforce normative conformity and reduce creative deviation, which would help explain the potential negative effects of AL on discretionary behaviours such as IB (González-Cánovas et al., 2024). For all these reasons, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1a: Authentic Leadership (AL) negatively influences employees’ Intrapreneurial Behaviour (IB).

On the other hand, Transformational Leadership (TL) has been one of the models most closely associated with organisational change by promoting innovation through inspiration, stimulating critical thinking and providing individualised support (Farahnak et al., 2020). These leaders create organisational conditions that encourage workers to actively engage in initiatives that go beyond their usual duties, such as intrapreneurial behaviour (Boukamcha, 2019).

From the perspective of social cognitive theory and the personal resources approach, TL contributes to increasing employees’ self-efficacy, sense of purpose, and willingness to take risks, all of which are closely linked to IB (Luthans et al., 2021). Authors such as Moriano et al. (2014) affirm the existence of a positive and significant relationship between TL and IB. In this regard, we propose:

H1b: Transformational Leadership (TL) positively influences the Intrapreneurial Behaviour (IB) of employees.

The relationship between IB and leadership style may be mediated by other personal resources developed by the individual. In this regard, Psychological Capital has established itself as one of the most robust frameworks for predicting innovative and creative behaviour (Luthans et al., 2007). Unlike other more stable traits, factors such as self-efficacy, optimism and hope can be strongly influenced by a leader’s behaviour (Luthans et al., 2021). This makes it a suitable model for capturing the psychological mechanisms through which leadership styles influence IB.

According to Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is defined as a person’s perception of their own ability to act effectively in different situations. Several studies have demonstrated the positive influence of L on the perception of self-efficacy by promoting environments of authenticity, support, and transparency (Gelaidan et al., 2024; Mohammad et al., 2023). In the same vein, experts argue that transformational leaders can also contribute to the development of their followers’ self-confidence by providing them with support and positive reinforcement in the face of uncertainty (Nolzen, 2018).

In line with social cognitive theory, greater self-efficacy increases the likelihood that workers will take on challenges, persevere in the face of obstacles, and explore new ways of performing their work, which are core behaviours in IB (Bandura, 1997).

Self-efficacy has also been analysed as a mediator of the association between different types of leadership and intrapreneurial and innovative behaviours (Lei et al., 2021). Therefore, we formulate:

H2a: Self-efficacy (SE) mediates the relationship between AL and IB among employees.

H2b: Self-efficacy (SE) mediates the relationship between TL and employees’ IB.

Another potential mediating variable between leadership and IB would be optimism.

Authentic leaders are perceived by their followers as confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character, which is often conveyed to their followers (Kleynhans et al., 2022).

Optimism is commonly defined as a person’s ability to attribute positivity to events that have occurred (Saleem et al., 2022). People with an optimistic attitude do not remain focused on past events, but concentrate on making their present more efficient, exploring new options, adopting a realistic perspective, and maintaining a flexible mindset (Amankwaa et al., 2021). On the other hand, transformational leaders inspire optimism in their employees by using intense emotions to motivate them to adopt positive thinking, thereby encouraging the generation of new ideas and the construction of a promising vision (Le et al., 2018). From a psychological capital perspective, optimism helps employees interpret situations of change as opportunities rather than threats, which encourages experimentation and proactive initiatives (Luthans et al., 2021).

Given that optimism facilitates the ability to face challenges and generate innovative solutions (Youssef & Luthans, 2007), we propose:

H3a: Optimism (OP) mediates the relationship between employees’ AL and IB.

H3b: Optimism (OP) mediates the relationship between employees’ TL and IB.

Snyder’s (2000) research argues that mentoring and constant interactions with optimistic leaders can inspire hope among followers, as leaders with high levels of optimism, such as authentic leaders, are considered credible sources of energy and motivation. According to Saleem et al. (2022), hope is defined as an individual’s motivational disposition to achieve a specific goal. Regarding the link between transformational leadership and hope, Le & Lei (2018) point out that these types of leaders can strengthen employee confidence through both transparency and credibility. This, in turn, contributes to increasing workers’ hope by enhancing their decision-making capacity and their determination to achieve the proposed goals (Avolio et al., 2004). Authors such as Jun et al. (2024) verified the positive influence of TL on employees’ perception of hope. Within the framework of psychological capital, hope is related to the ability to generate alternative routes to goals and persevere in them, which is especially relevant when employees must explore and implement new ideas in their workplace (Youssef & Luthans, 2007).

Hope has also been analysed as a factor that mediates the relationship between both types of leadership and positive employee behaviour, since it influences employees’ hope of achieving established goals (Avolio et al., 2004) and can lead them to develop more innovative solutions and find new ways to address challenges and opportunities (Zhou & George, 2001). Therefore, we propose the following sub-hypotheses:

H4a: Hope (HO) mediates the relationship between AL and IB among employees.

H4b: Hope (HO) mediates the relationship between employees’ TL and IB.

On the other hand, according to social identity theory, leaders tend to influence employee behaviour by modifying their cognitive, emotional and psychological states by becoming reference points for the ingroup and giving meaning to organisational membership (Wang et al., 2021). Thus, leaders who show a marked prosocial orientation are those who tend to care about the well-being of their workers, supporting them through various resources. This positive exchange between leaders and employees can encourage employees to feel more valued and more connected and emotionally dependent on their organisation (Wu et al., 2020). As a result, their emotional commitment to the organisation will be strengthened, significantly impacting their attitudes and behaviours in the workplace and encouraging innovative work behaviours (Zhu et al., 2019).

Fadhel et al. (2019) described affective commitment as the emotional connection of employees. Transformational leaders, thanks to their influence, ability to motivate and stimulate individuals, can encourage employees to put aside their personal interests in order to achieve team goals, while deeply understanding their leaders strengthens their affective commitment (Clifton, 2019).

Furthermore, social identity theory indicates that psychological factors related to individual perception, such as workers’ affective commitment, can play a key role as mediating variables in the relationship between leadership and employee behaviour (Wang et al., 2021). Authors such as Phomane and Douglas (2021) demonstrated that affective commitment has a mediating effect between transformational leadership and innovative employee behaviour, as Ribeiro et al. (2020) also concluded, stating that affective commitment mediated between authentic leadership and innovative and creative behaviours. Therefore, we propose that:

H5a: Affective commitment (AC) mediates the relationship between employees’ AL and IB.

H5b: Affective commitment (AC) mediates the relationship between employees’ TL and IB.

In order to test the hypotheses put forward, we conducted a study using several standardised questionnaires on a sample of employees from five food companies in the retail sector in southern Spain, a country whose economy is characterised by a high weighting of the service and retail sectors, where service quality and continuous adaptation to customer preferences are critical to competitiveness.

A total of 501 questionnaires were distributed, obtaining responses from 295 employees (58.28%). Of these, three questionnaires were excluded from the research (0.59%) for various reasons, such as incomplete data or the selection of multiple answers for a single item, resulting in a final sample of 292 employees. The age range was between 18 and 65 years, with an average of 37.5 years. On the other hand, the length of service of the employees in the company ranged from one to more than 20 years, with a predominance of people with a length of service in the company of between 1 and 3 years. Finally, in terms of gender distribution, there was a slight predominance of women (53.46% women vs. 46.54% men).

Participation was voluntary and anonymous. Data confidentiality was guaranteed, and employees were informed of the exclusively academic purpose of the study. The questionnaires were administered online during a period enabled by the participating companies.

In relation to the measurement instruments used, we employed the following standardised questionnaires.

To measure Authentic Leadership (AL), we used the Spanish adaptation by Moriano et al. (2011) of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) by Avolio & Gardner (2005). This scale consists of 16 items distributed across four dimensions: self-awareness, transparency in relationships, balanced processing, and internalised morality. Responses were collected on a Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The scale demonstrated strong reliability, as evidenced by both Cronbach’s alpha (α = .957) and McDonald’s omega coefficients (ω = .969).

To measure Transformational Leadership (TL), we used the 16 TL items from the MLQ-5X (short form) questionnaire by Bass and Avolio (1995), adapted into Spanish by Alonso et al. (2010). This subscale consists of four dimensions: idealised influence (attribution), idealised influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Responses were collected on a Likert scale from 0 (never) to 5 (always). The scale showed good reliability across both Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients (α = .968; ω = .968).

To measure the level of Affective Commitment (AC) we used the affective dimension of the Organisational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) by Meyer and Allen (1997) adapted into Spanish by Arciniega and González (2006). The scale consists of seven items that reflect an individual’s degree of identification and positive feelings towards an organisation. Responses were collected on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Internal consistency indices indicated adequate reliability for this scale (α = .907, ω = .911).

On the other hand, to measure the variables Hope (HO), Optimism (OP) and Self-efficacy (SE), we used the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (OREA) by Meseguer-de Pedro et al. (2017). On this scale, each factor consists of three items. Responses were collected on a Likert scale from 1 (totally uncertain) to 4 (totally certain). The scale demonstrated acceptable Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega reliability indices across all three dimensions: Hope (α = .731, ω = .761), Optimism (α = .788, ω = .789), and Self-Efficacy (α = .773, ω = .723).

Finally, to measure the Intrapreneurial Behaviour (IB) variable, we used the Intrapreneurial Behaviour Scale developed by Stull and Singh (2005), adapted into Spanish by Moriano et al. (2009). This scale consists of seven items distributed across two dimensions: Innovation and Risk Taking. All items were evaluated on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The reliability indices for this scale were favourable, with both Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega indicating good internal consistency (α = .847, ω = .847).

To analyse the data collected, we will use the SPSS statistical package (Version 25) for measures of central tendency and dispersion, as well as the Smart PLS statistical package (Version 4) to analyse the interconnection of the items with their respective constructs, ensuring reliability and discriminant validity.

Finally, we applied partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to determine the explained variance and the relationships between the endogenous variables, which allowed us to estimate the mean explained variance, the effect size and the significance of each of the relationships that make up the proposed models (Hwang et al., 2020). PLS-SEM was chosen because of its suitability for predictive models with multiple mediators and its ability to work with moderate sample sizes, following the methodological recommendations of Henseler et al. (2015). In addition, we verified the existence of common method bias (CMB), which is common in research using the PLS-SEM method derived from the measurement technique. This phenomenon can occur in research that uses only a single data collection method, as is the case here with the use of Likert scales to measure dependent and independent variables (Kock et al., 2021). Authors such as Schwarz et al. (2017) state that this bias must be taken into account, as its variability can have a significant influence on constructs, distorting results, and compromising their validity. To mitigate the bias of the common method, measures such as anonymity, psychological separation between scales through differentiated instructions, and the absence of correct or incorrect answers were incorporated.

The results of our study have shown that both types of leadership have very similar results on the variables studied, which contributes to fuelling the debate in the literature surrounding the differentiation between AL and TL. In line with the conclusions of Banks et al. (2016), we cannot affirm that there is a real differentiation between the two types of leadership, at least in the context and under the conditions studied here. AL and TL have shown very similar predictive power, which leads us to consider a possible conceptual and functional overlap or superimposition that calls into question the need to maintain them as distinct models. Anderson & Sun (2017) also stated that another reason for this overlap is that the measurement scales may not be sufficiently differentiated, which would require the development of more precise tools.

For all these reasons, our research aligns with this critical line of thinking, which considers that the importance of authentic leadership as a separate theory has been overestimated, viewing it in many cases as merely an ethical reformulation of the term and one that has been shown to have the same results in practice as transformational leadership. Here, we cannot categorically state that they are the same, but we can conclude that in the context of the service sector in Spain, no differentiation has been demonstrated in the intrapreneurial behaviours of employees with the mediating variables analysed and, therefore, there are indications that they could be.

This research has some limitations that should be taken into account. Firstly, the size and type of sample used may not facilitate the generalisation of the results, despite the use of statistical measurement techniques (PLSPredict) that have attempted to minimise this effect. Therefore, further research in other sectors or regions is recommended to verify the findings obtained.

A second limitation relates to the research design, as the data were obtained at a specific point in time. This methodological characteristic opens up the possibility of phenomena such as reverse causality, endogeneity and the influence of uncontrolled external variables (González-Cánovas et al., 2024). Therefore, it is recommended that other longitudinal studies be carried out to capture these possible temporal fluctuations and analyse their possible positive and negative effects.

Finally, in terms of future research, an integrative model of both types of leadership could be proposed, or it could be verified whether both types of leadership, despite obtaining similar results in the behaviour of their followers, operate through different psychological mechanisms, or further investigation could be carried out into why, in certain contexts, these types of leadership can limit the innovative behaviour of employees.