• No results found

What behaviours help young managers to lead : the moderating role of directive and empowering leadership behaviour on the indirect relationship between leader age and leader effectiveness through leader legitimacy

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "What behaviours help young managers to lead : the moderating role of directive and empowering leadership behaviour on the indirect relationship between leader age and leader effectiveness through leader legitimacy"

Copied!
65
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

!

!!!

!

What!behaviours!help!young!

managers!to!lead?!

The!moderating!role!of!directive!and!empowering!leadership!behaviour!on!

the!indirect!relationship!between!leader!age!and!leader!effectiveness!

through!leader!legitimacy!

! ! ! ! ! ! Student:(Imke!Sanders! Student(number:(10872884! MSc.:(Business!Administration!8!Leadership!&!Management! Institution:(University!of!Amsterdam! First(supervisor:(mw.!dr.!C.K.!Buengeler!

Final!version!

Amsterdam,!January!27

th

!2017

!!!

(2)

Table(of(contents(

1!Introduction………6! 2!Theoretical!background!and!Hypothesis………..9! 2.1!Leader!Effectiveness………..……….……….9! 2.2!Leader!Legitimacy!and!Leader!Effectiveness………..………...12! 2.3!Leader!Legitimacy!and!Leader!Age………..………..……..13! 2.4!The!Moderating!Role!of!Directive!and!Empowering!Leadership!Behaviour..14! 3!Method………..………..………21! 3.1

!

Procedure………..………..………21! 3.2!Sample………..………..………21! 3.3!Measures………..………..………..22! 4!Data!Analysis………..………..………..25! 4.1!Data!Preparation………..………..……….25! 4.2!Reliability!test!………..………..………..26! 4.3!Normality!tests………..………..……….…26! 5!Results………..………..……….29!! 5.1!Preliminary!Analyses………..………..………29! 5.2!Hypothesis!testing………..………..………..…31! 6!Discussion………..………..……….44! 6.1!Theoretical!implications………..………...45! 6.2

!

Strengths,!limitations,!and!future!research!suggestions……….47! 6.3.!Practical!implications………..………..……..50! 7!Conclusion………..………..………51! ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………..………..………52! References………..………..……….53! Appendix!A:!cover!letter………..………..………...60!

(3)

Appendix!B:!survey!scales………..………..………62!

List(of(figures(

Figure!1,!Research!model………9! Figure!2,!Conceptualization!of!leader!effectiveness………10! Figure!3,!Operationalization!of!leader!effectiveness………...………11!

List(of(Tables(

Table!1,!Values,!standard!errors!and!Z8scores!for!skewness!and!kurtosis!………..27! Table!2,!Transformation!and!Z8scores!for!skewness!after!transformation………..29! Table!3,!Descriptive!statistics………...………30! Table!4,!Results!of!the!mediation!analysis!………...35! Table!5,!Results!of!hierarchical!regression!analyses!for!mediation!model...………....36! Table!6,!Results!of!hierarchical!regression!analyses!for!moderated8mediation!model!...40! Table!7,!Results!of!the!moderated!mediation!analysis………...42! Table!8,!Results!of!the!moderated8mediation!analysis!(2)………...42! !

(

!

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(4)

!!

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

!

(

STATEMENT(OF(ORIGINALITY(

This! document! is! written! by! Imke! Sanders! who! declares! to! take! full! responsibility!for!the!contents!of!this!document.!!

I!declare!that!the!text!and!the!work!presented!in!this!document!is!original!and! that!no!sources!other! than! those!mentioned!in!the!text!and! its!references!have! been!used!in!creating!it.!!

The!Faculty!of!Economics!and!Business!is!responsible!solely!for!the!supervision! of!completion!of!the!work,!not!for!the!contents.!!

(5)

ABSTRACT(

This!paper!examines!the!whether!younger!leaders!have!a!harder!time!to!be!perceived!as! a!legitimate!leader!and!are!consequently!evaluated!less!effective.!Moreover,!this!study! aims! to! shed! light! on! what! leadership! behaviours! can! be! (dis)advantageous! strategies! for! younger! leaders! and! can! therefore! help! to! compensate! or! aggravate! the! problems! associated! with! their! age.! More! specifically,! the! moderating! role! of! directive! and! empowering! leadership! behaviour! is! analysed.! The! data! was! gathered! by! means! of! dyadic! (leader8follower)! survey! study! (n! =! 81).! The! findings! show! support! for! the! proposition! that! younger! leaders! are! evaluated! less! favourably! (compared! to! older! leaders)! as! a! result! of! lowered! legitimacy! perceptions! of! followers.! Furthermore,! this! research!found!that!especially!younger!leaders!could!benefit!from!showing!empowering! leadership! behaviour! in! order! to! attain! leader! legitimacy! and,! consequently,! be! evaluated! more! effective.! These! findings! support! the! notion! that! to! understand! the! circumstances! under! which! leaders! are! evaluated! more! favourably,! the! interplay! between!leaders’!traits!and!behaviours!should!be!considered.!!

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(6)

1.(INTRODUCTION(

Leadership!is!a!two8way,!interactive!process!(Burns,!1978;!Hollander,!1992;!Uhl8 Bien,!Riggio,!Lowe,!&!Carsten,!2014);!on!the!one!hand,!leadership!needs!to!be!claimed!by! the! leader.! On! the! other! hand,! leadership! needs! to! be! granted! by! others! (DeRue! &! Ashford,! 2010).! In! other! words,! in! order! to! legitimize! leadership! and! to! effectively! influence! subordinates,! leaders! need! to! be! accepted,! respected! and! approved! by! their! followers! (French! &! Raven,! 1959;! Hollander,! 1992;! Howell! &! Shamir,! 2005;! Kearney,! 2008).!!

A!characteristic!that!has!been!found!to!impede!the!process!of!being!affirmed!as!a! leader!is!leader!age!(Buengeler,!Homan,!&!Voelpel,!2016).!Inherited!in!many!cultures!is! the! belief! that! higher! competence! comes! with! older! age! (Ridgeway,! 2003).! Therefore,! older! leaders! are! associated! with! more! status! (Kearney,! 2008).! Implicit! Leadership! Theory! helps! explain! this! effect! (Lord,! De! Vader,! &! Alliger,! 1986).! According! to! this! theory,! people! form! implicit! ideas! about! the! traits! and! characteristics! that! represent! their!ideal!leader.!When!a!person!fits!the!leader!prototype,!he!or!she!is!more!likely!to!be! perceived!as!an!effective!leader!(Lord!et!al.,!1986).!Being!younger!is!not!in!line!with!the! prototype!of!an!ideal!leader!(Junker!&!Van!Dick,!2014).!As!such,!younger!leaders!might! have!a!harder!time!to!be!accepted!as!a!leader!(Buengeler!et!al.,!2016)!and!perceived!as!a! legitimate!leader.!!

Hence,! younger! leaders! may! be! forced! to! compensate! for! the! problems! associated! with! younger! age! in! order! to! attain! follower’s! acceptance! and! legitimacy! (Buengeler!et!al.,!2016;!Ridgeway,!2003).!Specific!leadership!behaviours!can!help!them! in! this! regard! (Buengeler! et! al.,! 2016),! yet! very! little! is! known! about! the! specific! behaviours! that! are! effective! for! younger! leaders! (Zacher,! Clark,! Anderson,! &!Ayoko,! 2015).!!

(7)

perceived&as&less&effective?”!and!“What&are&(in)effective&behaviours&for&young&leaders&that& aggregate&or&compensate&the&problems&associated&with&their&age?”!

To! examine! the! research! question! which! behavioural! leadership! strategies! can! help! younger! leaders! in! order! to! attain! leader! legitimacy,! two! distinct! and! opposing! leadership! behaviours! –! directive! and! empowering! leadership! behaviour! 8! were! included!in!this!research.!!

Meta8analysis!revealed!that!controlling!and!directive!behaviours!are!not!deemed! acceptable! for! non8prototypical! leaders! (e.g.,! women;! Eagly,! Mahkijani,! &! Klonsky,! 1992).! Although! it! will! help! leaders! to! assert! into! the! leadership! role! because! it! emphasizes!their!position!(Sauer,!2011),!the!effort!of!non8prototypical!leaders!to!stress! authority! will! stimulate! resistance! and! dislike! (e.g.,! women;! Carli,! 1990;! Rudman! &! Glick,!1999;!Ridgeway,!2001).!Building!on!this!line!of!reasoning,!I!propose!that!directive! leadership!behaviour,!concerned!with!instructing!subordinates!what!and!how!objectives! are! to! be! achieved! (Pearce,! Sims,! Cox,! Ball,! Schnell,! Smith,! &! Trevino,! 2003),! will! help! younger! leaders! claim! leadership,! but! leadership! will! not! be! granted.! As! such,! subordinates! have! lower! legitimacy! perceptions! of! younger! leaders! and! they! will! therefore!not!be!able!to!effectively!influence!them.!!

On! the! contrary,! Buengeler! et! al.! (2016)! suggested! that! leadership! behaviours! that!intend!to!create!mutual!influence!relations!could!enhance!the!chance!to!successfully! claim!and!be!granted!leadership.!Mutuality!is!a!two8way!influence!process!based!on!the! interpersonal! relationship! between! the! leader! and! its! followers.! Both! sides! give! and! receive!something,!thereby!accepting!the!role!as!leader!or!follower!(Hollander,!2012).!A! behaviour! that! relies! on! mutual! influence! relations! is! empowering! leadership.! Empowering!leadership!is!a!behaviour!where!leaders!delegate!authority!to!subordinates! and! empowers! them! through! motivational! and! developmental! support! (Amundsen! &! Martinsen,!2014).!The!delegation!authority!allows!subordinates!to!make!decisions!and!

(8)

exert!influence,!relying!on!their!effort,!commitment!and!proactivity!in!return.!By!doing! so,!subordinates!accept!the!leader!and!legitimize!their!authority.!!

Gaining! a! better! understanding! how! certain! leadership! behaviours! in! combination!with!leaders’!age!determine!leader!effectiveness!is!crucial!considering!the! fact! that! the! past! decades! western! countries! experienced! an! exceptional! increase! in! human!life!expectancy,!as!well!as!in!prolonged!working!age!(Burger,!Baudisch,!&!Vaupel,! 2012).! Although! the! average! age! in! organisations! increases! (Hedge! &! Borman,! 2012),! the! young! entry! age! upon! which! leaders! get! appointed! leadership! position! is! still! unchanged.! As! a! consequence,! the! diversity! of! leader! age! within! organisations! grows! (Jackson,! May,! &! Whitney,! 1995).! As! such,! gaining! more! knowledge! about! the! effectiveness! of! leader! behaviours! in! combination! with! leader! age! is! important.! This! study!addresses!this!issue!by!making!the!following!contributions.!!

First,! even! though! significant! research! has! been! done! on! the! relationship! between!leader!characteristics!and!leader!effectiveness!(for!a!review!see!Judge,!Piccolo,! &! Ilies,! 2004),! our! understanding! on! the! role! of! age! in! leadership! outcomes! has! remained!fairly!limited!(Walter!&!Scheibe,!2013;!Yukl,!1999).!As!age!is!a!characteristic! that! is! extremely! noticeable! and! cannot! be! suppressed! and! because! people! make! assumptions!about!leaders!based!on!age!characteristics!(e.g.,!status!and!prototypicality;! Ridgeway,!2003),!it!is!important!to!improve!our!knowledge!about!this!relationship.!!

Second,!this!paper!includes!an!important!mediating!variable,!leader!legitimacy,! in!the!relationship!between!leader!age!and!leader!effectiveness.!Thereby,!this!research! responds! to! recent! calls! in! the! emergent! literature! on! younger! leaders! to! study! underlying!mechanisms!of!this!relationship!(Buengeler!et!al.,!2016).!!Zooming!in!on!this! construct! helps! to! gain! a! better! understanding! on! what! challenges! young! leaders! face! when!having!a!managerial!position.!It!shows!that!in!order!to!be!perceived!as!an!effective! leader,!they!have!to!be!perceived!as!a!legitimate!leader.!!

(9)

Third,!knowledge!on!the!interplay!between!leader!age!and!leadership!behaviour! is!limited!(Zacher!et!al.,!2015).!However,!certain!leadership!behaviours!have!been!found! more!helpful!for!some!leaders!than!for!others!(Sauer,!2011).!Therefore,!I!answer!to!the! call!of!Buengeler!et!al.!(2016)!to!find!behaviours!that!are!(in)effective!for!young!leaders.! Hence,!one!of!the!most!important!contributions!of!this!paper!is!to!not!only!investigate! the!rationale!behind!the!relationship!of!leader!age!and!leader!effectiveness,!but!also!the! attempt!to!find!behaviours!that!can!be!used!by!non8prototypical!leaders!to!help!them!be! perceived! as! more! effective.! Studying! the! effects! of! directive! and! empowering! leadership! behaviour! could! generate! useful! insights! into! the! terms! under! which! divergent!leadership!behaviour,!presumably,!has!positive!and!negative!effect!on!leader! outcomes.!! Figure!1.!Conceptual!Research!Model!

(

2.(THEORETICAL(BACKGROUND(AND(HYPOTHESES(

! 2.1(Leader(Effectiveness( Before!going!into!more!detail!on!the!hypothesized!relationships!described!in!the! conceptual!model!(Figure!1),!first!the!leadership!effectiveness!construct!is!described.!! Researchers!often!use!different!definitions!of!leader!effectiveness!(Avolio,!Sosik,!

!

!

Leader!Age

!

LegitimacyLeader!

!

Leader!Effectiveness

!

LeadershipDirective!

!

Empowering!Leadership

(10)

Jung,! &! Berson,! 2003);! therefore,! this! study! elaborates! on! a! comprehensive! definition! proposed! by! Cohen! and! Baily! (1997).! They! conceptualized! leader! effectiveness! along! three!dimensions!(see!Figure!2):!(1)!Performance!effectiveness!in!terms!of!quantity!and! output,!(2)!follower’s!attitudes,!and!(3)!behavioural!outcomes.!!

Followers’! perceptions! play! a! significant! part! in! the! leadership! process! (Den! Hartog,! &! Koopman,! 2001).! Thus,! to! determine! leader! effectiveness! this! study! focuses! on!follower!evaluations.!The!two!latter!dimensions,!follower’s!attitudes!and!behavioural! outcomes,!are!based!on!follower!evaluations!and!are!particularly!likely!to!be!influenced! by! leaders! because! leaders! are! in! a! powerful! position! where! they! are! able! to! effect! followers’! attitudes! and! behaviours! (Bass! &! Stogdill,! 1990).! In! other! words,! leaders’! traits! and! behaviours! can! directly! influence! the! perceptions! that! followers! have! of! leaders!but!they!do!not!directly!affect!objective!measures!of!leader!effectiveness!such!as! quality! and! quantity! outcomes! (Judge,! Bono,! Ilies,! &! Gerhardt,! 2002).! Therefore,! this! study!focuses!on!follower’s!attitude!and!behaviours.!!

Figure!2.!Conceptualization!of!leader!effectiveness! !

More! specifically,! leader! effectiveness! is,! in! this! paper,! operationalized! as! (a)! turnover! intention,! (b)! affective! commitment,! (c)! well! being,! and! (d)! satisfaction! with! the!leader.!These!outcomes!relate!to!leader!effectiveness!because!they!show!the!extent! to!which!leaders!can!positively!influence!followers.!Turnover&intention!was!included!as! an! indicator! of! leader! effectiveness! because! it! was! found! to! be! the! best! predictor! of! turnover! (Michaels! &! Spector,! 1982);! leaving! an! organisation! might! be! the! most! rigorous! behaviour! an! employee! can! show! when! rejecting! a! leader! (Porter! &! Steers,!

!

!

Performance!Effectiveness

!

Follower’s!Attitude

!

Behavioural!Outcomes

(11)

1973).! Affective& commitment! exemplifies! an! employee’s! emotional! attachment! to! the! organization!and!implies!of!the!decision!whether!to!stay!with!the!organisation!(Meyer!&! Allen,!1991).!If!leaders!do!well!they!can!create!strong!feelings!of!attachment!wit!their! employees.! Moreover,! leaders! can! have! great! influence! on! employees’! feelings! of! well& being&and&satisfaction&with&the&leader.&When!employees!have!a!positive!attitude!toward! their!leader,!they!are!more!likely!to!allow!leaders!to!assert!influence!over!them!(Liu,!Siu,! &!Shi,!2010).!!

According! to! Yukl! (2010),! it! is! better! to! include! various! indicators! of! leader! effectiveness! as! people! have! different! values! and! ideas! of! an! effective! leader! and,! therefore,!evaluate!leaders!differently.!As!presented!in!Figure!3,!I!chose!to!include!the! above8mentioned! indicators! of! leader! effectiveness! because! they! illuminate! different! facets.! Turnover! intention! highlights! the! behavioural! indicator! of! leadership! effectiveness.! Conversely,! affective! commitment,! well! being,! and! satisfaction! with! the! leader!highlight!followers’!attitudes!as!an!indicator!of!leader!effectiveness.!Furthermore,! as!DeRue,!Nahrgang,!Wellman,!and!Humphrey!(2011)!noted,!leader!effectiveness!can!be! differentiated!along!various!“targets!of!evaluation”.!Targets!of!evaluation!refers!to!who! or! what! is! evaluated! (leader,! follower,! group,! or! organisation).! In! the! case! of! turnover! intention! and! well! being,! followers!are!the!target!of!the!evaluation.! In! terms! of! affective! commitment,! organisations!are!the!focus!of!evaluation,! and! for! satisfaction! with! the! leader,! leaders! are! the! target! of! the! evaluation.! By!highlighting!various!facets,!I!was!able! to! test! my! hypotheses! across! a! diverse!

! !

Behavioural!Outcomes

!

Turnover! Intention ToE:!Follower

!

! !

Follower’s!Attitude

!

Affective! Commitment ToE:!Organisational

!

!

Well!Being ToE:!Follower

!

!

Satisfaction!with!the! Leader ToE:!Leader

!

(12)

set!of!important!indicators!of!leader!effectiveness.! !

2.2(Leader(Legitimacy(and(Leader(Effectiveness(

The! question! “what! makes! an! effective! leader?”! is! still! a! very! popular! topic! of! current!scholars.!However,!fully!understanding!this!comprehensive!construct!remains!a! challenge! (Hollander,! 1992).! In! “traditional”! leadership! literature,! those! who! had! the! hierarchical!position!in!an!organisation!were!considered!the!legitimate!leaders!(see!Uhl8 Bien!et!al.,!2014).!However,!later!scholars!challenged!this!line!of!reasoning.!!

For! instance,! following! the! argumentation! of! Bedeian! and! Hunt! (2006),! just! having! the! right! position! in! the! hierarchy! does! not! necessarily! mean! that! someone! is! also!a!leader;!some!people!are!not!seen!as!leaders!while!holding!a!managerial!position! and!some!people!are!seen!as!leaders!while!not!having!formal!authority.!!

This!reasoning!is!in!line!with!the!social!interactionism!point!of!view!put!forward! by!DeRue!and!Ashford!(2010).!They!stated!that!leadership!should!be!defined!as!a!social! and! mutual! influence! process! where! leader! and! follower! identities! are! established! through! “claiming”! and! “granting”.! Although! leaders! formally! have! the! position! in! the! hierarchy!to!influence!subordinates,!they!still!have!to!claim!and!be!granted!leadership!to! legitimize!their!authority.!

Hence,!whether!leaders!are!perceived!as!leaders!is!more!a!two8way,!interactive! process!(Uhl8Bien!et!al.,!2014);!leaders!need!to!be!accepted,!respected,!and!approved!by! their! followers! to! legitimize! their! position! and! to! effectively! influence! their! followers! (French!&!Raven,!1959;!Hollander,!1992;!Howell!&!Shamir,!2005;!Kearney,!2008).!This! relational!process!can!also!be!defined!as!leader!legitimacy!(Hollander,!1992).!

! Ben8Yoav,! Hollander,! and! Carnevale! (1983)! showed! that! leader! legitimacy! is! formed! by! followers’! perceptions! of! a! leader.! As! such,! followers! support! and!evaluate!leaders!more!positively!when!they!believe!that!the!leaders!obtained!their!

(13)

legitimacy! experience! more! resistance! and! less! support! to! their! leadership! (Bass! &! Stogdill,!1990;!French,!Morrison,!&!Levinger,!1960)!and!find!it,!therefore,!more!difficult! to! influence! their! subordinates! (House,! Javidan,! Hanges! &! Dorfman,! 2002).! Hence,! follower’s! perceptions! of! a! leader’s! legitimacy! ! influences! the! evaluations! they! make! about!their!effectiveness.!!

! Implicit! leadership! Theory! (Lord! et! al.,! 1986)! helps! understand! how! leaders! attain! legitimacy.! This! theory! builds! on! the! notion! that! a! leader’s! afforded! power! and! status! are! determined! by! the! followers’! perceptions! (Lord! &! Maher,! 2002)! and! states! that! whether! a! person! is! perceived! as! a! legitimate! leader! depends! on! the! degree! to! which!the!person’s!characteristics,!traits,!and!qualities!fit!into!followers’!perceptions!of! what!makes!a!leader!(Lord!et!al.,!1986).!In!other!words,!people!have!certain!(implicit)! ideas! of! how! a! leader! should! look! like! and! act.! Followers! use! these! ideas! and! assumptions!to!make!evaluations!about!leaders!and!their!behaviours.!In!this!cognitive! process,! followers! decide! whether! the! observed! characteristics! of! the! leader! fit! their! implicit!prototype!of!a!leader.!The!better!the!fit!between!a!person’s!characteristics!and! behaviours! and! a! follower’s! prototype! of! a! leader,! the! more! likely! that! person! is! evaluated!as!a!legitimate!leader!(Lord!et!al.,!1986;!Lord!&!Maher,!2002).!!

Implicit!Leadership!Theory!finds!its!origin!in!status!research!(French!&!Raven,! 1959).!!French!and!Raven!(1959)!stated!that!power,!status,!and!leadership!are!concepts! that! go! hand! in! hand;! in! order! to! successfully! influence! followers,! leaders! need! to! legitimately! obtain! leader! status! through! the! acceptance! and! support! of! their! subordinates.!!

!

2.3(Leader(Legitimacy(and(Leader(Age(

Leader! age! might! interfere! in! the! process! of! attaining! leader! legitimacy! (Buengeler! et! al.,! 2016;! Kearney,! 2008).! In! most! cultures,! higher! age! is! seen! as! an! acceptable! reason! to! occupy! a! managerial! position! (Ridgeway,! 2003).! Higher! age! is!

(14)

generally!linked!to!more!knowledge,!more!job8related!experience!(Avolio,!Waldman,!&! Mc! Daniel,! 1990),! higher! competence,! wisdom,! life! experience,! successful! careers,! and! more! status! (e.g.,! Kearny,! 2008;! Lawrence,! 1988;! Nishii! &! Mayer,! 2009;! Staudinger! &! Gluck,! 2011).! Therefore,! older! leaders,! compared! to! younger! leaders,! better! fit! the! prototype! of! an! effective! leader.! As! younger! leaders! do! not! match! the! prototype! of! an! effective!leader,!they!are!less!likely!to!be!associated!with!higher!status!and!to!be!granted! leadership!(Ridgeway,!2003).!As!such,!they!will!experience!less!support!and!lower!level! of!legitimacy!perceptions!from!their!followers!(Hollander,!2012).!!

Building! on! the! Implicit! Leadership! Theory! (Lord! et! al.,! 1986)! and! power! and! status!research!(French!&!Raven,!1959),!I!argue!that!younger!leaders,!because!of!their! non8prototypical! leader! characteristics! and! lowered! status,! are! perceived! as! less! legitimate! than! older! leaders! and! are! consequently! evaluated! less! effective! by! their! followers.!Hence,!the!following!is!hypothesized:!

!

Hypothesis& 1:! The! negative! effects! of! being! a! younger! leader! on! leader! effectiveness!will!be!mediated!by!leader!legitimacy!!

!

2.4(The(Moderating(Role(of(Directive(and(Empowering(Leadership(Behaviour!

In! the! previous! section,! the! effect! of! leader! age! on! legitimacy! and! the! effect! of! legitimacy!on!leader!effectiveness!have!been!described.!In!this!section,!it!is!argued!how! this!relation!can!be!moderated!by!leadership!behaviour.!!

Scholars!have!increasingly!recognized!the!importance!of!leadership!behaviours! in! the! evaluation! of! leader! effectiveness! (Yukl,! 2010).! However,! where! a! certain! leadership! behaviour! might! be! suitable! for! one! leader,! it! might! not! be! suitable! for! another.!For!instance,!Eagly!and!Johannessen8Schmidt!(2007)!found!that!incongruence! between! leader! characteristics! and! certain! leader! behaviour! negatively! influences!

(15)

characteristics! and! behaviours,! and! the! extent! to! which! they! together! match! others’! leadership! prototype! determine! a! leader’s! success”! (Implications,! para! 3).! ! More! specifically,! Sauer! (2011)! showed! that! the! status! of! a! leader! influences! followers’! responses!toward!certain!leadership!styles.!Therefore,!there!can!be!argued!that!certain! leadership! behaviours! can! be! beneficial! for! younger! leaders! and! some! leadership! behaviours!can!be!detrimental!for!younger!leaders.!!

!

2.4.1.!Directive!Leadership!–!What!behaviour!not!to!use!

Directive! leadership! has! been! conceptualized! as! a! behaviour! that! provides! subordinates! with! a! clear! direction! and! actively! manages! and! assigns! tasks! that! guide! them!towards!goals!in!line!with!the!leader’s!vision!(Fiedler,!1989;!Stogdill,!1974;!Sagie,! 1997).!Directive!leadership!includes!“direction,!command,!assigned!goals,!intimidation,! and! reprimand”! (Pearce! et! al.,! 2003,! p.! 275).! With! a! directive! leadership! style,! the! decision8making!power!is!centralized!and!is!in!the!hands!of!the!formal,!hierarchal!leader! (Pearce!et.!al,!2003).!!!

Leaders! low! in! status! cannot! rely! on! their! personal! attributes! to! claim! and! be! granted! leadership! (Ridgeway,! 2001).! However,! to! make! up! for! their! lowered! status,! these! leaders! could! benefit! from! behaviours,! such! as! directive! leadership! behaviours,! that! emphasize! their! positions! as! leaders! and! help! them! assert! their! leadership! role! (Sauer,!2011).!As!younger!leaders!are!less!likely!to!be!awarded!status!because!of!their! lower!age!(Ridgeway,!2003),!one!could!argue!that!it!is!good!for!younger!leaders!to!use! directive!leadership!behaviours!as!well.!However,!a!leader!can!assert!him8!or!herself!in! the! leader! role,! thereby! claiming! leadership,! but! followers! still! need! to! grant! leaders! leadership!in!order!to!be!perceived!as!a!legitimate!leader.!As!discussed!below,!several! studies!support!this!notion.!!

Studies!have!shown!that!followers!perceive!a!dominant!leadership!style!exerted! by! female! leaders,! who! are! also! deemed! non8prototypical,! as! inappropriate! (e.g.,!

(16)

women;! Eagly,! Mahkijani,! &! Klonsky,! 1992;! Ridgeway,! 2001).! According! to! the! role8 congruity! theory! by! Eagly! and! Karau! (2002),! people! develop! expectations! for! the! behaviours!they!believe!appropriate!for!people!with!certain!roles!and!characteristics.!By! behaving! in! directive! ways,! non8prototypical! leaders! may! fulfil! the! expectations! regarding! leadership;! however,! they! violate! agreements! on! behaviours! deemed! appropriate!for!non8prototypical!leaders!(Eagly!et!al.,!1992;!Eagly!&!Johansen8Schmidt,! 2007).!In!line,!non8prototypical!leaders!who!present!their!ideas!in!a!directive!style!are! disliked! and! perceived! as! untrustworthy! (e.g.,! women;! Carli,! 1990;! Rudman! &! Glick,! 1999).!Therefore,!I!propose!that!younger!leaders!who!attempt!to!claim!leadership!in!a! way! not! deemed! appropriate,! such! as! directive! leadership! behaviour,! encounter! resistance!and!will!less!likely!be!accepted!as!leaders.!As!such,!leadership!is!not!granted! to!younger!leaders.!

To! conclude,! by! behaving! in! directive! ways,! leaders! emphasise! their! formal! positions! as! leaders.! Although! this! can! help! younger! leaders! to! claim! leadership,! followers! still! might! not! grant! leadership! as! directive! behaviours! are! deemed! to! be! inappropriate! for! non8prototypical! leaders! and! will,! therefore,! reduce! legitimacy! perceptions.! Hence,! directive! leadership! behaviour! strengthens! the! negative! effects! of! younger!age!on!leader!legitimacy!and!is!therefore!expected!to!negatively!influence!the! indirect!relation!between!leader!age!and!leader!effectiveness.!As!a!result,!the!following! hypothesis!is!formulated:!

&

Hypothesis& 2:( The! mediated! relationship! between! younger! leader! age! and! leader! effectiveness!via!leader!legitimacy!is!moderated!by!directive!leadership!behaviour! such! that! it! is! more! negative! when! directive! leadership! behaviour! is! high! rather! than!low.!

(17)

2.4.2!Empowering!Leadership!–!What!behaviour!to!use! Empowering!leadership!has!long!been!conceptualized!as!the!process!of!shared! power!and!influence!with!subordinates!(Kanter,!1993).!Empowering!leaders!give!their! subordinates!responsibilities!and!authorize!them!so!that!the!decision8making!power!can! be!delegated!to!lower!levels!of!the!organisation.!However,!this!definition!is!incomplete;! power!sharing!is!only!a!subdimension!of!empowerment!(e.g.,!Conger!&!Kanungo!1988;! Spreitzer,!2008).!To!empower!subordinates,!more!is!needed!than!just!sharing!authority! and!resources!(Conger!&!Kanungo,!1988).!Empowering!leadership!goes!beyond!power! sharing!in!that!it!also!contains!a!motivational!and!enabling!aspect!(Srivastava,!Bartol,!&! Locke,!2006).!!

Amundsen! and! Martinsen! (2014)! offered! a! more! holistic! conceptualization! of! empowering! leadership.! They! argued! that! empowering! leaders! influence! their! subordinates’!autonomy!via!three!processes:!Power!sharing,!motivational!support,!and! development! support.! Each! of! these! influential! processes! include! several! leadership! behaviours.! The! first! influence! process,! power& sharing,! can! be! seen! as! the! basic! conception!of!empowering!leadership.!Empowering!leaders!increase!their!subordinates’! responsibilities!by!delegating!power,!and!enabling!them!to!make!decisions!on!their!own.! However,! subordinates! need! information! to! make! effective! decisions.! Therefore,! delegation! and! coordination! and! information! sharing& are! considered! important! behaviours! in! the! power! sharing! process.! The! second! influential! process,! motivational& support,&refers!to!the!way!leaders!are!able!to!motivate!their!followers!to!go!beyond!their! day8to8day! activities.! Empowering! leaders! encourages! initiative! and! goal! focus,! enhances!self8efficacy!beliefs!and!act!inspiring.!The!third!influence!process,!development& support,&includes!leader!behaviours!that!cultivate!subordinates’!skills!and!competences! so!they!are!capable!of!acting!autonomously!and!making!autonomous!decisions.!On!the! one!hand,!subordinates!are!expected!to!learn!and!develop!through!empowering!leaders! “leading!by!example”!(i.e.,!modeling).!On!the!other!hand,!subordinates!are!expected!to!

(18)

learn!and!develop!through!active!teaching,!coaching,!encouragement,!and!instruction!of! leaders!who!empower!subordinates!(i.e.,!guidance).!

& Thus,! an! important! role! of! empowering! leaders! is! not! only! to! involve! subordinates!and!give!them!the!opportunity!to!be!autonomous!but!also!to!add!value!by! acting! as! a! facilitator! via! giving! support! and! guidance! to! subordinates! (Amundsen! &! Martinsen,!2014).!

Mutual! influence! relations! are! helpful! for! leaders! to! claim! and! be! granted! leadership!(Buengeler!et!al.,!2016;!Hollander,!1980;!Keltner,!Van!Kleef,!Chen,!&!Kraus,! 2008).! In! empowering! leadership,! mutuality! expresses! itself! in! various! ways.! First,! empowering!leadership!relies!on!the!concept!of!power!sharing!as!a!means!of!influence! (Hollander,! 2012).! A! leader! responds! to! a! subordinate’s! high! performance! through! delegation!of!authority!and!responsibility!to!the!subordinate.!In!return,!followers!have! the!chance!to!participate,!influence,!and!even!make!decisions!on!their!own!(Hollander,! 2012;!Hollander!&!Offerman,!1990).!Second,!giving!compliments!and!rewards,!as!part!of! motivational! support,! is! a! social! exchange! process! in! which! subordinates! give! their! future!efforts!in!return!(Buengeler!et!al.,!2016).!Third,!developmental!support!involves!a! process! in! which! leaders! provide! resources,! knowledge,! and! effort! in! exchange! for! followers’! willingness! to! learn! (Hollander! &! Offerman,! 1990),! greater! sense! of! self8 efficacy,! and! subsequently,! their! increased! competence! (Bandura,! 1994).! Hence,! empowering!leadership!behaviours!rely!on!the!notion!of!mutuality,!as!it!involves!two8 way! influence! processes! in! which! both! sides! give! and! receive! something! (Hollander,! 2012).!

(

According! to! Buengeler! et! al.,! (2016),! there! are! two! different! means! of! mutual! influence! relationsips! where! leaders! can! rely! on,! positional! and! personal! influence.! Positional! influence! is! derived! from! a! person’s! position! in! the! hierarchy;! personal! influence!originates!from!a!person’s!characteristics!(Yukl,!2010).!!

(19)

When! using! positional! influence,! leaders! emphasize! their! position! to! gain! compliance!to!their!leadership!(Yukl!&!Falbe,!1991).!This!form!of!influence!has!shown!to! be!especially!useful!for!younger!leaders!compared!to!older!leaders!as!it!does!not!rely!on! status8related!characteristics!(Buengeler!et!al.,!2016).!Although!directive!leadership!is!a! behaviour!that!relies!on!positional!influence,!it!was!found!to!be!inappropriate!for!non8 prototypical! leaders! to! use! (Eagly! et! al.,! 1992).! Therefore,! I! assume! that! behaviours! relying! on! a! leader’s! position! are! effective! for! young! leaders! to! claim! and! be! granted! leadership,!provided!that!these!behaviours!are!in!a!non8directive!manner.!

When!using!personal!influence,!leaders!rely!on!their!personal!characteristics!to!gain! compliance!to!their!leadership.!Examples!of!personal!influence!sources!are:!knowledge,! expertise,! charisma,! and! persuasiveness! (Yukl! &! Falbe,! 1991).! Empirical! studies! show! that! personal! influence! is! more! important! than! positional! influence! as! mean! of! leader! influence!(Yukl!&!Falbe,!1991;!Yukl!&!Tracey,!1992).!Yet,!appreciation!and!recognition! are!important!prerequisites!for!relying!on!personal!influence.!As!younger!leaders!lack! status,!they!cannot!always!rely!on!this!form!of!influence!(Buengeler!et!al.,!2016).!!

I! argue! that! by! partly! relying! on! personal! influence,! young! leaders! can! acquire! followers’! approval! and! commitment.! By! relying! on! non8directive! forms! of! positional! influence,! young! leaders! can! obtain! status! as! a! leader,! which! is! needed! for! younger! leaders! to! rely! on! personal! influence.! Through! the! combination! of! personal! and! positional!power,!the!strong!points!of!one!power!source!can!make!up!for!the!downsides! of!the!other!power!source!and!vice!versa.!This!way,!power!bases’!strengths!come!to!full! fruition.!!

Various elements of empowering leadership behaviour rely on positional influence and can therefore help younger leaders attain status of a leader. First, empowerment of subordinates does not mean that leaders let their subordinates be (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). When delegating authority, subordinates are in charge of how they carry out their tasks, but empowering leaders mark the boundaries within which the empowered subordinates can work

(20)

(Blanchard, 2010). By doing so, these leaders give subordinates direction and guidance. As a coordinator, empowering leaders draw their behaviours from positional influence. Second, an empowering leader also has a motivational role. According to Bandura (1994), an important mean to motivate and develop self-efficacy beliefs is giving positive emotional support, such as giving compliments and rewards. Giving compliments and rewards is a social exchange process in which subordinates give their future efforts in return (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Leaders are the ones who are in the position to give those rewards, thereby relying on their positions as leaders (Buengeler et al., 2016). Buengeler et al. (2016) showed that contingent reward is an effective behaviour, especially for younger leaders to claim and be granted leadership. Third, the leader’s developmental role enables followers to cope with their new responsibilities and tasks. Using “teaching, guidance, encouraging, and coaching” (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; p. 490) are convenient ways to give subordinates a sense of empowerment. To have the competency and the access to resources that help followers learn and develop emphasises a person’s managerial position. As Hollander and Offerman (1990) stated, information and access are the keys to power.

To!conclude,!empowering!leadership!is!especially!effective!for!younger!leaders,! compared!to!older!leaders,!to!attain!legitimacy!as!leaders.!The!combination!of!personal! and!positional!influence!as!the!source!of!mutual!influence!relations!helps!these!leaders! to!claim!and!to!be!granted!leadership.!!As!such,!higher!levels!of!leader!legitimacy!will!be! achieved!which!in!turn!has!a!positive!influence!on!leader!effectiveness.!This!leads!to!the! following!hypothesis:!! Hypothesis&3:(The!mediated!relationship!between!younger!leader!age!and!leader! effectiveness! via! leader! legitimacy! is! moderated! by! empowering! leadership! behaviour!such!that!it!is!less!negative!when!empowering!leadership!behaviour!is! high!rather!than!low!

(21)

3.(METHOD(

3.1(Procedure(

To! test! the! hypotheses! in! the! proposed! research! model,! an! explanatory! study! was! carried! out! using! a! quantitative! research! method.! Two! self8administered! surveys! were! used! to! examine! the! relationships! between! the! variables! as! described! in! the! hypotheses.!The!two!surveys!are!dyadic!and!were!distributed!online!to!managers!and! subordinates;! one! survey! was! specifically! created! for! managers! and! the! other! survey! was! specifically! created! for! subordinates.! Either! the! manager! or! the! subordinate! selected! his! or! her! counter! partner;! the! managers! asked! one! of! their! subordinates! complete!in!the!survey,!and!the!subordinates!asked!their!manager!to!fill!in!the!survey.!In! order!to!link!the!surveys,!self8created!matching!codes!were!used.!

A! pre8test! was! performed! to! make! sure! that! the! procedure! and! content! of! the! survey! is! clear! and! understandable.! A! sample! group! was! sent! an! email! containing! a! cover!letter!and!a!survey.!This!cover!letter!clarified!the!purpose!of!the!study,!explained! what!was!expected!of!the!respondents,!and!included!supplementary!information!on!the! study’s!confidentiality.!!

!

3.2(Sample( (

The! population! for! this! study! were! leaders! and! followers! in! the! Dutch! labour! market.! The! respondents! were! selected! using! the! alumni! database! of! ORMIT,! an! organization! specialized! in! leader! development.! Therefore,! the! study! was! carried! out! using! non8 probability! heterogeneous! sampling.! However,! because! the! response! rate! was! low,! a! non8probability! convenience! sample! was! used.! Thus,! potential! respondents! were! contacted!via!email,!Facebook!and!LinkedIn.!!

In!total,!113!leaders!and!110!followers!completed!the!questionnaires.!However,! 23! leaders! only! answered! 50%! or! less! of! the! survey! questions,! and! 16! followers! only!

(22)

answered! 45%! or! less! of! the! questions.! Those! respondents! were! removed! from! the! dataset,! because! answers! to! the! remaining,! unanswered! questions! were! necessary! to! accurately!analyse!the!data.!Based!on!the!matching!codes,!both!leader!and!follower!data! sets! were! merged! into! one! overall! data! set.! In! total,! 18! leaders! or! followers! were! excluded! from! data! analysis! because! they! did! not! form! a! complete! dyad,! leaving! a! dataset! of! 83! complete! dyads.! Furthermore,! in! one! case,! a! dyad! used! the! same! (self8 selected)!code!as!another!dyad.!Those!cases!had!to!be!removed!from!the!dataset!since!it! was! impossible! to! link! them! to! their! unique! counterpart.! A! total! of! 81! dyads! was! represented!in!the!sample.!!

Regarding! the! sample’s! demographics,! 31%! of! the! follower! respondents! were! male! and! the! average! age! of! the! employees! was! 37! years! (SD! =! 12.43).! The! oldest! follower! was! 65! years! and! the! youngest! was! 20! years.! Furthermore,! their! average! organizational! tenure! was! 6.8! years! (SD&=! 7.2).! Of! all! leaders,! 47%! was! male,! and! the! leaders!had!an!average!age!of!40.6!years!(SD!=!9.4).!The!oldest!leader!was!66!years!and! the!youngest!was!23!years.!Moreover,!their!organizational!tenure!was!nine!years!(SD&=! 8.1)!and!their!average!tenure!as!managers!was!8.6!years!(SD!=!7.3).!On!average,!leaders! supervised!their!followers!for!18.6!months!(SD!=!19.7).! ! 3.3(Measures(

All! scales! were! adopted! from! English,! validated! studies,! found! in! respected! journals!(see!Appendix!A!for!an!overview).!The!surveys!were!administered!in!Dutch!and! translated! using! a! translation8back8translation! procedure! (Brislin,! 1980).! Also,! the! thesis!supervisor!checked!the!accuracy!and!appropriateness!of!the!translation.!

&

Leader&Age&&

(23)

!

Leader&Effectiveness&

Turnover&Intention&was!assessed!with!a!three8item!scale!by!Colarelli!(1984).!On!a! response! scale! from! 1! (strongly& disagree)& to! 5! (strongly& agree),! respondents! were! for! example! asked! to! indicate! if! they! frequently! thought! of! quitting! their! jobs! and! if! they! were! planning! to! search! for! new! job! during! the! next! 12! months.! One! item! is! counter! indicative.!!

Affective& Commitment& was! measured! using! the! eight! items! of! the! affective! commitment! scale! adopted! by!Allen! and! Meyer! (1990).!Four! of! the! eight! items! are! counter!indicative.!Sample!statements!include!“I!would!be!very!happy!to!spend!the!rest! of! my! career! with! this! organization”! and! “I! do! not! feel! 'emotionally! attached'! to! this! organization”(R).!The!response!format!ranged!from!1!(strongly&disagree)!to!7!(strongly& agree).!!

Well&Being!was!measured!using!a!five!item8scale!from!Veit,!and!Ware!(1983).!For! instance,! on! a! response! scale! from! 1! (never)! to! 7! (always)! respondents! indicated! the! frequency!of!the!following!emotions:!“Happy”,!“Nervous”,!and!“Sad”.!!

Satisfaction&with&the&leader!was!measured!using!a!three!item8scale!developed!by! Hackman!and!Oldham!(1980).!Employees!were!asked!to!what!degree!they!agreed!with! the! proposed! statements.! Sample! statements! include! “I! am! satisfied! with! the! overall! quality! of! supervision! I! receive! in! my! work”! and! “I! am! satisfied! with! the! amount! of! support!and!guidance!I!receive!from!my!supervisor”.!The!response!format!ranged!from! 1!(strongly&disagree)!to!7!(strongly&agree).!! & Leader&Legitimacy&was!measured!using!the!four8item!scale!developed!and!validated!by! Choi!and!Mai8Dalton!(1999).!Sample!items!include!“I!want!my!supervisor!to!continue!to! be!my!leader”!and!“I!accept!my!supervisor!as!a!leader”.!Responses!to!these!four!items! were!evaluated!on!a!58point!Likert!scale!ranging!from!1!(strongly&disagree)!to!5!(strongly&

(24)

agree).!One!item!was!counter!indicative.!!! &

Leadership&Behaviour&

Empowering&Leadership&behaviour&was!measured!using!a!128item!scale!adopted! from!Ahearne,!Mathieu!and!Rapp!(2005).!On!a!response!scale!from!1!(strongly&disagree)! to! 5! (strongly& agree),! respondents! indicated! the! extent! to! which! they! felt! that! their! manager:! “makes! many! decisions! together! with! me”! and! “believes! that! I! can! handle! demanding!tasks”.!!

Directive&Leadership&behaviour&was! measured! using! a! four8item! scale! by!Zhang! and!Bartol!(2010).!Employees!rated!the!extent!to!which!they!agree!with!the!statements.! Sample! items! include:! “My! manager! lets! me! know! what! is! expected! of! me”! and! “establishes!my!performance!goals”.!Responses!were!evaluated!on!a!58point!likert!scale! from!1!(strongly&disagree)!to!5!(strongly&agree).!!

!

Control&variables!!

Follower! age! was! controlled! for! because! prior! research! has! shown! that! followers’!perceptions!of!leader!legitimacy!and!effectiveness!depend!on!the!differences! between!leader!and!follower!age!(Kearney,!2008).!Moreover,!leader!and!follower!gender! were!included!as!control!variables!because!status8related!characteristics!other!than!age,! such!as!gender,!could!have!a!significant!effects!on!leader!outcomes.!Eagly!et!al.!(1992)! found! that! gender! is! a! prototypical! leader! characteristic! as! well;! more! specifically,! female! leaders! are! evaluated! less! favourably! than! man.! Furthermore,! Douglas! (2012)! showed!that!a!followers’!gender!has!significant!interacting!effects!on!leader!behaviour! and!leader!effectiveness.!!

(

(

(25)

4.(DATA(ANALYSIS

!

The!data!was!analysed!using!IBM’s!Statistical!Package!for!Social!Sciences!(SPSS)! version! 22.! As! elaborated! on! below,! several! steps! were! taken! in! order! to! prepare! the! data!for!analyses.!!!

!

4.1(Data(Preparation(((

First,! counter8indicative! items! and! dummy! variables! were! recoded.! The! scales! leader! legitimacy,! turnover! intention,! affective! commitment,! and! well8being! contained! counter8indicative! items.! Second,! the! data! was! checked! for! potential! outliers.! To! discover!the!potential!outliers,!Z8scores!of!the!variables!were!computed.!Scores!outside! the!range!of!81.96!to!1.96!were!considered!outliers,!as!it!is!a!probability!of!less!than!0.01! to!be!outside!this!range!(Field,!2013).!One!outlier!was!detected;!empowering!leadership! had!an!extremely!low!score.!To!determine!the!impact!of!the!outlier!on!the!normality!of! the! distribution,! the! Kolmogorov8Smirnov! and! the! Shapiro8Wilk! tests! were! executed,! both!with!and!without!the!outlier.!The!output!of!the!Kolmogorov8Smirnov!test!showed! two! differences! between! the! datasets! including8! and! excluding! the! outlier.! With! the! outlier!none!of!the!scales!were!normally!distributed.!However,!excluding!the!outlier,!the! scale! affective! commitment! (D(80)! =! .10,! p! =! .05)! and! empowering! leadership! were! (D(80)!=!.10,!p!=!.06)!non8significant!and!therefore!normally!distributed.!In!the!Shapiro8 Wilk!test,!the!scale!affective!commitment!remained!non8significant!(respectively,!W(81)! =!.98,!p&=!.18;!W(80)!=!.98,!p&=!.23).!

Despite! the! chance! that! this! outlier! could! have! a! misleading! impact! on! the! statistics,! it! could! not! be! excluded! from! further! analysis! just! because! it!was! an! outlier! (Field,!2013).!The!graphs!show!that!the!outlier!of!empowering!leadership!is!still!close!to! the! diagonal.! Therefore,! the! outlier! does! not! cause! assumptions! that! otherwise! would! not! be! there.! Furthermore,! after! checking! the! dataset! manually! and! the! descriptive! output!no!unusual!or!unexpected!values!were!found.!Also,!all!the!values!were!within!the!

(26)

range!of!possible!values!and!the!missing!values!were!identified!accordingly.!Moreover,! empowering!leadership!behaviour!was!measured!using!a!Likert!scale.!Thus,!it!is!unlikely! that! the! outlier! is! a! result! of! inaccurately! entered! data.! Hence,! the! outlier! was! not! removed!from!the!dataset,!meaning!the!total!dataset!remained!N=81.1! ! 4.2.(Reliability(test( To!ensure!the!internal!consistency!of!the!measurements,!scale!reliabilities!were! computed!for!all!constructs.!A!Cronbach’s!Alpha!of!0.70!was!used!as!a!convention!rule! for!all!scales!(Field,!2013).!As!shown!in!Table!3,!all!the!variable!scales!show!sufficient!or! high!reliability.!Also!the!corrected!item8total!correlation!indicates!a!good!correlation!of! the! individual! items! with! the! overall! score! of! the! scale! (all! above! 0.30).! For! the! scale! affective!commitment,!the!greatest!increase!in!alpha!would!come!from!deleting!item!1,! but! removing! this! item! could! increase! the! Cronbach’s! Alpha! by! only! .011! (α! =! .798).! Moreover,! deleting! item! 3! of! the! scale! satisfaction! with! the! leader! would! mean! an! increase!of!.045!(α!=!.871),!however!only!two!items!on!the!scale!would!remain.!Hence,! because!no!substantial!improvements!could!be!made!by!deleting!an!item!that!justified! the!loss!of!data!and!because!scale!reliabilities!were!satisfactory,!all!items!were!retained.!! !

4.3(Normality(tests((

The! sample! data! was! tested! for! normality! as! it! is! an! assumption! of! regression! (Field,!2013).!Since!integrate!multiple!methods!are!best!to!assess!the!normality!of!the! sample! distribution,! graphs! were! created! and! numerical! and! significance! tests! were! performed.!

First,! histograms! and! Q8Q! plots! were! used! to! gain! an! overall! understanding! of! the! distribution! and! to! make! general! interpretations.! According! to! the! histograms,! directive! leadership! and! well8being! are! slightly! skewed! to! the! right;! empowering!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(27)

leadership,!legitimacy!and!satisfaction!with!the!leader!are!more!heavily!skewed!to!the! right;!turnover!intention!is!slightly!skewed!to!the!left.!Only!affective!commitment!seems! to!have!a!normal!distribution.!! Second,!skewness!and!kurtosis!statistics!were!used!to!evaluate!the!distribution! numerically.!Table!1!shows!the!values!concerning!skewness!and!kurtosis.!The!Z8scores! were!calculated!by!dividing!skewness!and!kurtosis!by!their!standard!errors.! A!normal! distribution! occurs! when! the! skewness! and! kurtosis! are! close! to! zero.! When! the! Z8 scores!are!outside!the!range!81.96!to!1.96!Skewness!and!kurtosis!can!be!assumed!(Field,! 2013).!!

!

The! results! indicate! that! all! scales! have! a! moderate! to! substantial! skewness,! except! for! the! scale! affective! commitment.! Among! the! skewed! scales,! only! turnover! intention! is! (moderately)! positively! skewed.! Directive! leadership! behaviour! and! well8

Variable Skewness SkewnessSE. skewnessZ0score. Kurtosis kurtosisSE. kurtosisZ0score. Turnover( Intention 0.826 0.267 3.094 0.185 0.529 0.35 Affective( Commitment ,0.448 0.267 ,1.678 ,0.126 0.529 ,0.238 Well(Being ,0.62 0.267 ,2.322 ,0.15 0.529 ,0.284 Satisfaction with the(leader ,1.308 0.267 ,4.899 1.442 0.529 2.726 Directive( Leadership( Behaviour ,0.708 0.267 ,2.652 0.914 0.529 1.728 Empowering( Leadership( Behaviour ,1.016 0.267 ,3.805 1.046 0.529 1.977 Legitimacy ,1.194 0.267 ,4.472 0,981 0.529 1.854 Table.1..Values,.standard.errors.and.Z0scores.for.skewness.and.kurtosis

(28)

being! are! both! moderately,! negatively! skewed.! The! scales! empowering! leadership,! leader! legitimacy! and! satisfaction! with! the! leader! are! substantially! negatively! skewed.! According! to! Field! (2013),! negative! values! of! skewness! indicate! higher! scores! on! the! right!side!of!the!distribution.!!

Moreover,! both! well8being! and! affective! commitment! have! a! negative! kurtosis,! meaning! flatter! and! light8tailed! distributions.! Directive! leadership,! empowering! leadership! and! leader! legitimacy! all! have! substantially! positive! kurtosis,! indicating! pointy!and!heavy8tailed!distributions.!The!more!skewness!and!kurtosis,!the!more!likely! the!distribution!is!abnormal.!!

!Finally,! normality! was! tested! using! two! significance! tests.! The! Kolmogorov8 Smirnov!test!and!the!Shapiro8Wilk!test.!These!tests!were!used!to!compare!scores!in!the! sample!to!a!normally!distributed!set!with!the!same!mean!and!standard!deviation!(Field,! 2013).! The! Kolmogorov8Smirnov! test! indicates! that! none! of! the! variables! were! significant!and!therefore,!were!unlikely!to!be!normally!distributed:!directive!leadership! D!=!.124,!p!<!.01;!empowering!leadership!D!=!.112,!p!<!.05;!leader!legitimacy!D!=!.174,!p!<! .01;! affective! commitment! D! =! .100,! p! <! .05;! satisfaction! with! leader! D! =! .188,! p! <! .00;! well8being!D!=!.135,&p&<!.01;!turnover!intention!D!=!.183,!p!<!.01.!Based!on!the!Shapiro8 Wilk! test! however,! which! has! more! power! to! identify! differences! from! normality,! affective! commitment! (W! =! .978,! p&=! .18)! was! non8significant,! and! therefore! normally! distributed.!!

The! aforementioned! analyses! imply! non8normality! for! all! the! variables! except! for! affective! commitment.! Therefore,! all! skewed! variables! were! transformed! to! normalize!the!distribution.!Depending!on!the!degree!of!the!skewness,!either!the!function! ‘sqrt’! or! ‘log10’! was! used! to! transform! the! variable;! see! Table! 2.! After! transformation,! the! Kolmogorov8Smirnov! test! indicated! a! normal! distribution! only! for! empowering! leadership! behaviour! (D! =! .055,! p! =! .20)! and! the! Shapiro8Wilk! test! indicated! a! normal!

(29)

distribution!for!empowering!leadership!behaviour!(W&=&.983,!p&=!.35)!and!well8being!(W& =&.972,!p&=!.07).!!

Also,!to!be!cautious,!the!hypotheses!was!tested!using!“bootstraps”!in!addition!to! the! regression.! Bootstrapping! is! a! method! of! calculating! statistical! parameters! by! randomly! drawing! repeated! samples! from! the! main! sample.! Contrary! to! regression,! bootstrapping! does! not! make! assumptions! about! the! distribution! of! the! sample! (e.g.,! normality;! Field,! 2013).! As! the! distribution! of! the! sample! data! is! still! non8normal! for! almost!all!studied!variables!even!after!transformation,!the!untransformed!data!is!used! to!test!the!hypotheses.2!! ! !

5.(RESULTS

( 5.1(Preliminary(Analyses(

Table! 3! presents! the! means,! standard! deviations! (SD),! and! correlations! of! the! studied! variables.! Because! the! Pearson! r! correlation! assumes! normal! distribution,! a! non8parametric! test! is! used.! Of! the! non8parametric! tests,! the! Kendall’s! Tau! is! used!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2!When!running!the!main!analyses!again!with!the!transformed!variables!that!were!normally!

distributed,!the!significance!and!direction!of!findings!remained!constant.!

Table(2.(Transformation(and(ZTscores(for(skewness(after(transformation(

Variable( Transformation( Skewness( SE(

Skewness( Skewness(ZTscore( Turnover&Intention& √Χ! .395! .267! 1.479! Well&Being& √(Κ8Χ)! .308! .267! 81.154! Satisfaction&with&Leader& Log10(Κ8Χ)! .232! .267! 8.869! Directive&LB& √(Κ8Χ)! .168! .267! 8.629! Empowering&LB& Log10(Κ8Χ)! .235! .267! 8.880! Legitimacy& Log10(Κ8Χ)! .347! .267! 81.401!

(30)

rather! than! Spearman! rank! correlation! test! as! it! is! more! suitable! for! smaller! samples! (Field,!2013).!

Leader!age!was!positively!correlated!with!leader!legitimacy!(τ&=!.19,!p!=!.02)!and! follower! age! (τ& =! .22,! p! =! .01),! but! not! with! any! of! the! leadership! behaviours.! Furthermore,! where! directive! leadership! did! not! find! any! significant! relations,! empowering! leadership! was! positively! related! leader! legitimacy! (τ& =! .41,! p! <! .01),! turnover!intention!(τ!=!8.23,!p!=!.01),!affective!commitment!(τ!=!.35,!p!<!.01),!well!being! (τ&=!0.23,!p&<!.01),!and!satisfaction!with!the!leader!(τ&=!0.47,!p!<!.01).!Moreover,!leader! legitimacy! was! related! to! all! four! leader! effectiveness! indicators! as! well;! turnover! intention!(τ!=!8.40,!p!<!.01),!affective!commitment!(τ!=!.30,!p!<!.01),!well!being!(τ&=!0.18,!p! =!.03),!and!satisfaction!with!the!leader!(τ!=!.56,!p!<!.1).!!

(

(

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1.#Follower#age 36.9 12.4 N/A 2.#Follower# gender 0.31 0.46 0.04 N/A 3.#Leader#gender 0.47 0.5 0 0.02 N/A 4.#Leader#age 40.6 9.44 .22** 0.5 0.02 N/A 5.#Directive# Leadership 3.49 0.76 C0.09 0.08 C0.11 C0.03 C0.76 6.#Empowering# Leadership 3.77 0.64 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.03 C0.88 7.#Leader# legitimacy 4.17 0.83 0 0.12 C0.08 .19* 0.09 .41** C0.87 8.#Turnover# intention 2.12 0.92 C.16* 0.03 C0.09 C0.15 C0.03 C.23** C.40** C0.81 9.#Affective# commitment 4.65 0.95 .24** .21* 0.08 0.12 C0.05 .35** .30** C.43** C0.78 10.#Well#being 5.41 0.69 .21** 0.17 0.07 0.04 C0.03 .23** .18* C.24** .24** C0.76 11.#Satisfaction# with#leader 5.3 1.28 0.07 .25* C0.06 0.11 0.03 .47** .56** .35** .31** .37** C0.82 Table73.7Descriptive7statistics

Note:&N #=#81#dyads..#Cronbach’s& α #is#reported#on#the#diagonal.#

(31)

(

5.2(Hypothesis(testing(

First,! hierarchical! regression! analyses! were! conducted! following! Baron! and! Kenny’s!(1986)!“causal!steps”!approach.!For!these!analyses,!all!variables,!except!for!the! dependent!variables!and!dummy!variables,!were!standardized!before!entering!them!in! the! analyses! (Aiken! &! West,! 1991).! To! test! for! mediation,! a! Sobel! test! was! conducted.! Second,! bootstrapping! analyses! were! conducted! using! an! extension! to! SPSS:! Process! (Hayes,! 2012).! Conclusions! about! the! hypotheses! are! based! on! the! bootstrapping! analyses!as!the!sample!data!is!non8normally!distributed.!

!

5.2.1&The&mediating&effect&of&leader&legitimacy&in&the&relationship&between&leader&

age&and&leader&effectiveness&

Hypothesis! 1! proposed! that! the! negative! effects! of! being! a! younger! leader! on! leader! effectiveness! will! be! mediated! by! lowered! leader! legitimacy.! The! regression! results!are!presented!in!Table!5.!!

According! to! Baron! and! Kenny’s! (1986)! causal! step! approach,! four! conditions! need!to!be!met!to!determine!mediation:!1)!the!independent!variable!must!relate!to!the! mediator;! 2)! the! independent! must! relate! to! the! dependent! variable;! 3)! the! mediator! must!relate!to!the!dependent!variable;!and!4)!the!strength!of!the!relationship!between! the!independent!and!the!dependent!variable!must!decline!or!be!non8significant!after!the! mediator!is!added.!

Firstly,!the!indicators!of!leader!effectiveness!were!used!as!dependent!variables! in! the! regression! analysis.! In! the! first! step! of! the! regression! analysis,! the! control! variables!were!entered:!leader!gender,!follower!gender!and!follower!age.!In!the!second! step,! the! predictor! of! the! model,! leader! age,! was! added.! As! shown! in! Table! 5,! the! introduction!of!the!predictor!variable,!leader!age,!did!not!explain!a!significant!amount!of! additional! variance! in! turnover! intention! (ΔR2! =! 0.03,! p! =! n.s.),! affective! commitment!

(32)

(ΔR2!=!0.01,!p!=!n.s.),!well!being!(ΔR2!=!0.00,!p!=!n.s.),!and!in!satisfaction!with!leader!(ΔR2! =! 0.02,! p! =! n.s.).! Together,! the! control! variables! and! the! main! variable! leader! age! explained! 11%! of! the! variance! in! turnover! intention,! 19%! of! the! variance! in! affective! commitment,!13%!of!the!variance!in!well!being,!and!7%!of!the!variance!in!satisfaction! with! leader.! The! mediator,! leader! legitimacy,! was! entered! in! step! 3.! Adding! the! mediating!variable!leader!legitimacy!to!the!regression!equation!explained!a!significant! amount! of! additional! variance! in! turnover& intention! (ΔR2! =! 0.22,! p! <! .001),! affective& commitment!(ΔR2!=!0.17,!p!<!.001),!well&being!(ΔR2!=!0.08,!p!<!.01),!and!in!satisfaction& with&the&leader&(ΔR2!=!0.59,!p!<!.001).!Together,!the!control!variables,!main!effect!and!the! mediator! explained! 33%! of! the! variance! in! turnover&intention,! 36%! of! the! variance! in! affective& commitment,! 21%! of! the! variance! in! well& being,! and! 66%! of! the! variance! in! satisfaction&with&the&leader;!all!at!a!statistically!significant!level!(respectively,!F!=!7.35;!p! <!.001;!F!=!8.47,!p&<!.001;!F!=!3.91,!p!<!.01;!F!=!28.70,!p!<!.001).!!

Secondly,!the!mediator!leader!legitimacy!was!analysed!as!a!dependent!variable.! Again,! in! the! first! step! the! control! variables! were! entered! and! explained! 2%! of! the! variance!in!the!model.!Entering!the!predictor!leader!age!added!a!significant!amount!of! explained!variance!of!9%.!Thus,!together!the!control!variables!and!leader!age!explained! 11%!of!the!variance!in!the!model!(F!=!2.25,!p!=!ns).!!

As!presented!in!Table!5,!after!controlling!for!follower!age,!follower!gender!and! leader!gender,!leader!age!was!positively!related!to!leader!legitimacy!(β!=!.31,!p!<!0.01).! Therefore,! condition! one! of! Baron! and! Kenny’s! (1986)! causal! step! approach! is! supported.! The! regression! coefficients! in! step! 2! demonstrate! that! leader! age! is! not! related!to!turnover!intention!(β!=!8.17,!p!=!ns),!affective!commitment!(β!=!.11,!p!=!ns),! well!being!(β!=!.01,!p!=!ns),!and!satisfaction!with!the!leader!(β!=!.15,!p!=!ns).!Thus,!no! significant! relation! between! leader! age! and! leader! effectiveness! was! found;! condition! two!is!not!supported.!The!results!in!step!3!show!that!leader!legitimacy!was!significantly!

(33)

commitment!(β!=!.44,!p!<!.001),!well!being!(β!=!.29,!p!<!.05),!and!satisfaction!with!the! leader!(β!=!0.81,!p!<!.001),!thus,!supporting!condition!three.!Further,!results!show!that,! after! entering! the! mediator! leader! legitimacy,! the! effects! of! leader! age! on! turnover! intention! (β! =! 8.02,! ns),! affective! commitment! (β! =! 8.03,! ns),& and! satisfaction! with! the! leader!(β!=8.10,!ns)!became!weaker.!The!effects!of!leader!age!on!well!being!(β!=!8.08,!ns)! became!stronger.!Nevertheless,!all!effects!remained!non8significant.!

According! to! Baron! and! Kenny! (1986)! we! can! only! speak! of! a! mediated! relationship! when! all! four! conditions! are! met.! However,! other! researchers! found! potential!problems!with!this!approach!as!is!tends!to!miss!some!true!mediation!effects.! For!instance,!Zhao,!Lynch,!and!Chen!(2010)!show!that!relation!(a&x&b)!is!most!critical!in! determining!a!mediated!relationship!and!that!there!is!no!need!for!a!significant!effect!of!X! on!Y!(c).!Hence,!to!further!evaluate!the!significance!of!leader!legitimacy!as!a!mediator,!a! Sobel!(1982)!test!was!conducted!using!a!95%!confidence!interval.!Results!demonstrate! that!the!indirect!effect!through!leader!legitimacy!for!turnover!intention!(z&=!82.38,!p!<! .05),!affective!commitment!(z!=!2.32,!p!<!.05),!and!satisfaction!with!the!leader!(z&=!2.64,!p! <!.05)!was!significant.!However,!the!mediating!effect!of!leader!legitimacy!for!well!being! was!not!significant!(z&=!1.91,!p!=!.06).!!

Preacher! and! Hayes! (2004)! made! a! strong! case! when! reconsidering! older! approaches!such!as!the!Baron!and!Kenny’s!(1986)!“causal!steps”!approach!and!the!Sobel! test! (Sobel,! 1982).! They! replaced! these! methods! of! testing! mediation! by! the! more! powerful! “bootstrap”! test.! The! bootstrap! test! randomly! draws! repeated! samples! from! the!sample!data!and!is!especially!useful!for!samples!where!normality!assumptions!might! be!violated!(Preacher,!Rucker,!and!Hayes,!2007).!!

When! conducting! the! bootstrap! analysis,! a! 95%! confidence! interval! was! used! with!5000!bootstrap!resamples.!Again!leader!and!follower!gender!and!follower!age!were! controlled!for.!If!the!value!between!the!upper8!and!lower!bound!does!not!include!zero,! the! relationship! is! significant! (Hayes,! 2012).! As! shown! in! Table! 4,! the! results! of!

(34)

bootstrapping! analysis! (using! model! 4)! indicate! that! all! four! mediating! relations! were! statistically! significant.! The! relationship! between! leader! age! and! leader! legitimacy! is! both!significant!and!positive!(B&=&.03,!p!<!.01).!Meaning,!being!a!younger!leader!leads!to! lower! leader! legitimacy! perceptions.! Additionally,! the! negative! relationship! between! leader!legitimacy!and!turnover!intention!is!significant!(B&=&8.55,!p!<!.001).!Furthermore,! the!relationship!between!leader!legitimacy!and!affective!commitment!(B&=&.50,!p!<!.001),! well! being! (B& =& .24,! p! <! .01),! and! satisfaction! with! the! leader! (B& =& 1.24,! p! <! .001)! ! is! significant! and! positive.! In! other! words,! higher! legitimacy! leads! to! lower! levels! of! turnover! intention! and! to! higher! levels! of! affective! commitment,! well! being,! and! satisfaction! with! the! leader.! Hence,! there! is! support! for! hypothesis! 1:! “The& negative& effects& of& being& a& younger& leader& on& leader& effectiveness& will& be& mediated& by& leader& legitimacy”.!

(35)

! Table(4.(Results(of(the(mediation(analysis( Mediator!variable!model:!Leader!Legitimacy! Predictor( B! SE! t! p! Constant! 3.16! .55! 5.72! .000! Leader!Age! .03! .01! 2.71! .008! Follower!Age! 8.01! .01! 81.35! .181! Follower!Gender! .20! .19! 1.04! .301! Leader!Gender! .01! .18! .06! .955! Dependent!variable!model:!Turnover!Intention! Predictor( B! SE! t! p! Constant! 5.39! .64! 8.45! .000! Leader!Legitimacy!! 8.55! .11! 84.94! .000! Leader!Age! 8.00! .01! 8.17! .868! Follower!Age! 8.02! .01! 82.55! .013! Follower!Gender! .20! .19! 1.03! .306! Leader!Gender! 8.32! .17! 81.83! .071! Dependent!variable!model:!Affective!Commitment! Predictor( B! SE! t! p! Constant! .81! .64! 1.26! .211! Leader!Legitimacy!! .50! .11! 4.47! .000! Leader!Age! 8.00! .01! 8.25! .803! Follower!Age! .03! .01! 3.68! .000! Follower!Gender! .37! .19! 1.92! .058! Leader!Gender! .24! .18! 1.37! .175! Dependent!variable!model:!Well!Being! Predictor( B! SE! t! p! Constant! 3.49! .52! 6.77! .000! Leader!Legitimacy!! .24! .09! 2.68! .009! Leader!Age! 8.01! .01! 8.67! .506! Follower!Age! .02! .01! 3.05! .003! Follower!Gender! .23! .15! 1.54! .129! Leader!Gender! .10! .14! .73! .466! Dependent!variable!model:!Satisfaction!with!the!Leader! Predictor( B! SE! t! p! Constant! 8.05! .63! 8.08! .938! Leader!Legitimacy!! 1.24! .11! 11.30! .000! Leader!Age! 8.01! .01! 81.30! .198! Follower!Age! .01! .01! 1.42! .159! Follower!Gender! .34! .19! 1.83! .071! Leader!Gender! 8.01! .17! 8.05! .964! The!indirect!effect!of!leader!age!through!leader!legitimacy!on!leader! effectiveness!

Predictor( Effect! Boot!SE! BootLLCI! BootULCI!

Turnover!Intention! 8.015! .006! 8.027! 8.005!

Affective!Commitment! .014! .006! .004! .027!

Well!Being! .007! .003! .002! .015!

Satisfaction!with!the!Leader! .034! .013! .010! .062!

(36)

Note.&Standardized&regression&coefficients&(β)&are&reported.& *p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001 ! ! Table&5.&Results&of&hierarchical&regression&analyses&for&mediation&model& &

Leader&Effectiveness! & Leader&Legitimacy!

& Model&1:&

Turnover&Intention& & Affective&Commitment&Model&2:& & Well&Being&Model&3:& & Satisfaction&with&Leader&Model&4:& & Leader&Legitimacy&Model&5:& Dependent&variable& Step&1& Step&2& Step&3& & Step&1& Step&2& Step&3& & Step&1& Step&2& Step&3& & Step&1& Step&2& Step&3& & Step&1& Step&2& Step&1:&control& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

Follower&age& =.23*& =,18& =.26*& & .33**& .30**& .36***& & .30**& .29*& .34**& & .03& =.02& .10& =.06& =.16& Follower&gender& .04& .04& .10& & .23*& .23*& .18& & .20& .19& .16& & .22*& .22& .13& .13& .11& Leader&gender& =.19& =.18& =.18& & .14& .13& .13& & .08& .08& .08& & .01& .00& =.00& .30& .01& Step&2:&main&effect& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

Leader&age& & =.17& =.02& & & .11& =.03& & & .01& =.08& & & .15& =.10& & .31**& Step&3:&mediating&effect& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

Leader&legitimacy& & & =.50***& & & & .44***& & & & .29**& & & & .81***& & &

R2/R2&adjusted& .09/.05& .11/.06& .33/.28& & .18/.15& .19/.15& .36/.32& & .13/.10& .13/.09& .21/.15& & .05/.01& .07/.02& .66/.63& .02/.02& .11/.06& R2&change& .09& .03& .22***& & .18**& .01& .17***& & .13*& .00& .08**& & .05& .02& .59***& .02& .09**& F& 2.38& 2.37& 7.35***& & 5.63**& 4.48**& 8.47***& & 3.85*& 2.85*& 3.91**& & 1.37& 1.47& 28.70***& .52& 2.25&

(37)

5.2.2.$A$moderated-mediation$relationship$between$leader$age$and$leader$effectiveness$ Hypothesis* 2* and* 3* suggest* a* moderated4mediation* effect* where* leader* age* is* related*to*leader*effectiveness*through*leader*legitimacy,*and*this*mediated*relation*is* moderated* by* leader* behaviour.* More* specifically,* the* mediated* relationship* between* younger* leader* age* and* leader* effectiveness* via* leader* legitimacy* is* moderated* by* directive*leadership*behaviour*such*that*it*is*more*negative*when*directive*leadership* behaviour* is* high* rather* than* low.* Moreover,* the* mediated* relationship* between* younger* leader* age* and* leader* effectiveness* via* leader* legitimacy* is* moderated* by* empowering* leadership* behaviour* such* that* it* is* less* negative* when* empowering* leadership*behaviour*is*high*rather*than*low.*Moderated*mediation*is*established*when* the* conditional* indirect* effect* of* leader* age* on* leader* effectiveness,* through* leader* legitimacy,* differs* in* strength* across* low* and* high* levels* of* directive* and* empowering* leadership*(Preacher*et*al.,*2007).**

Results*of*the*hierarchical*regression*analysis*are*presented*in*Table*6.*At*first,* the* various* indicators* of* leader* effectiveness* were* used* as* dependent* variables.* After* entering*the*control*variables,*the*predictor*(leader*age)*and*moderators*(empowering* &*directive*leader*behaviour)*were*added.*As*a*third*step,*the*interaction*terms*of*the* moderators*were*entered.*Therefore,*the*cross*products*of*leader*age*and*empowering* leadership*and*of*leader*age*and*directive*leadership*were*computed.*As*a*last*step,*the* mediator*leader*legitimacy*was*added.**

* *Table* 6* shows* that* the* introduction* of* the* interaction* of* leader* age* and* the* moderators* (directive* &* empowering* leadership)* explained* no* or* only* negligible* additional* variance* in* the* various* indicators* of* leader* effectiveness.* The* absence* of* change*in*variance*might*be*ascribed*to*non4significant*correlations*of*both*interaction* terms.* After* leader* legitimacy* was* entered* in* the* fourth* step,* significant* additional* variance* explained* by* the* model* in* turnover$intention* was* 13%* (∆R2**=*.13,*p*<*.001)* and*13%*in*satisfaction$with$the$leader$(∆R2**=*.13,*p*<*.001).*For*affective$commitment$

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Voor aile Oase-Iezers die er met hemelvaart met bij konden zijn en deze zomer van plan zijn naar Nederlands en/of Belgisch Limburg te gaan, enige gegevens over de tien tuinen in

* Vochtige ruigten met riet, wilgeroos­ je en koninginnekruid kunnen eens in de 3-5 jaar gedeeltelijk worden ge­ maaid. Aan breed water grenzende vochtige ruigten

Furthermore, this study is the first study to show a positive moderating effect of internationalization on the relationship between both gender diversity as

In agreement with the CO 2 laser welding results, the plasma electron temperature calculated with the Fe(I) emission lines decreases with the average laser power also in this case

In hoofdstuk 5 wordt beschreven welke governance instrumenten wanneer ingezet kunnen worden voor het bevorderen van het gebruik van open

A semi-structured interview method was adopted, which made it possible to pursue interesting leads but still retain a basic structure in the interview (Annexe 2).

Met betrekking tot het electoraal proces en het functioneren van de overheid kan gesteld worden dat ondanks dat in 1990 vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen werden

Er wordt gekeken naar de invloed van andere landen op de resource curse door de handel tussen China en Angola en de leningen van China aan Angola te vergelijken met de