The impact of managers on
employee happiness
The influence of leadership styles and employee self-efficacy on employee’happiness, and the moderating role of employee neuroticism
Name: Cathelijn Feith
Student number: 6037135
Date: 29-06-2015
Supervisor: Dr. Annebel de Hoogh
University: University of Amsterdam
Faculty: Economics and Business
Master: Business Administrations
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Cathelijn Feith, 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.
Abstract
This study examined the main and interactive effects of a charismatic and passive leadership style, and employee self-efficacy, on two constructs of employee
happiness; hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Together these happiness constructs produce benefits at short-term as well as over the long run. Since employees may respond differently to leader behaviour, their personality is taken into account. Therefore, a moderating role of employee neuroticism in the relationship between leadership styles and employee self-efficacy was also tested. In total 140 employees rated their managers’ leadership style and their own self-efficacy and neuroticism. This study found some interesting direct linkages between the leadership styles and the happiness dimensions, as well as between self-efficacy and happiness. Moreover, employee self-efficacy partially mediated the positive relationship between
charismatic leadership style and hedonic well-being, as well as the negative relationship between the passive leadership style and eudaimonic well-being. Full mediation of self-efficacy was found in the positive relationship between charismatic leadership and employee eudaimonic well-being. However, inconsistent with the expectations, no support was found for the moderating role of employee neuroticism in the relationship between leadership styles and employee self-efficacy.
Table of content
Chapter 1: Introduction
………..……....4Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
………...52.1 Leadership style and employee happiness………..………...5
2.2 The mediating role of employee self-efficacy………..8
2.3 Leadership style and employee self-efficacy………..……...11
2.4 The moderating role of employee neuroticism………..12
2.5 Research model………..14
Chapter 3: Methodology
………...153.1 Sample and procedure………...…….15
3.2 Measures………...………..16 3.2.1 Employee happiness………16 3.2.2 Leadership styles……….17 3.2.3 Employee self-efficacy………18 3.2.4 Employee neuroticism……….19 3.2.5 Control variables……….19
Chapter 4: Results
……….…...204.1 Univariate analysis………...………..20
4.2 Bivariate analysis………...………....20
4.3 Multivariate analysis………...……...22
Chapter 5: Explorative study
………..………….…...28Chapter 6: Discussion
………..………….…...306.1 Limitations and future research………...………..33
6.2 Practical implications and conclusion………...………34
References
………..………….…...35Chapter 1: Introduction
The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human motivation. Maximizing the sum of happiness in society nowadays seems the norm. However, the traditional ‘disease model’ mainly paid attention to illness, depression, stress, and similar negative experiences and outcomes. Later on a more positive psychology was introduced what legitimized attention to happiness and well-being (Fisher, 2010). The move towards a positive psychology inspired organizational researchers to incorporate happiness in the workplace in their organizational behaviour studies. What is their incentive? According to Fisher “happiness at work is likely to be the glue that retains and motivates the high-quality employees of the future” (2010, p.404).
Research has shown that leadership, and specifically charismatic or transformational leadership - performed by leaders with a vision who inspire their followers -, is important for employee happiness at work (Sivanathan, Arnold, Turner & Barling, 2004). This works as followed; charismatic leadership enhances employee self-efficacy - a person’s believes in ones capabilities. As a consequence employees will experience positive emotions and feel more meaningful in their work, which makes them feel happier.
However, literature also indicates that the influence of leadership depends on the personality traits of the follower. Specifically neuroticism - the tendency to experience negative emotions like anger, sadness, and insecurity - influences the way employees perceive and react to their work environment. The latter includes the leadership style of their manager (Felfe & Schyns, 2006). Therefore, this study investigates the linkage between leadership style, employee self-efficacy and employee happiness. It expects a moderating effect of employee neuroticism on the relationship between leadership style and employee self-efficacy. In addition to charismatic leadership, this study also focuses on passive leadership, which is a negative form of leadership due the low involvement in followers and delegating lots of responsibility. The aim of this study is to answer the following research question:
Is the relationship between leadership styles and employee happiness mediated by employee self-efficacy, and does this relationship depend on employee neuroticism?
Chapter 2: Theoretical framework
2.1 Leadership style and employee happiness
Happiness often gets attention in psychological research, incorporating forms like pleasant moods and emotions, well-being, and positive attitudes. Recently the interest in happiness has also extended to workplace experiences (Warr, 2007). Defining employee happiness can be done in various ways. Happiness-related constructs defined and measured at the person level include job satisfaction, affective commitment and mood at work (Fisher, 2010). According to Fisher, job satisfaction is the most frequently used dimension in research on employee happiness. Because of this abundance this current study aims to investigate another dimension of happiness. One of the, possibly even oldest, used definitions of happiness consists of the two dimensions ‘hedonic well-being’ and ‘eudaimonic well-being’. According to the hedonic approach, happiness is related to positive emotions, pleasant feelings and favourable judgments, and is influenced by affective experiences. The Greek philosopher Aristippus believed that the goal in life is to experience the maximum amount of pleasure, and happiness is the totality of one’s hedonic moments. Hedonism has been explained in a variety of ways, from only bodily pleasures to a broader scope of appetites and self-interests. Most applied in the hedonic psychology is subjective happiness, which aims at the presence of positive mood, and the absence of negative mood (Ryan & Deci, 2001). However many others, like philosopher Aristotle, found the hedonic approach to happiness a vulgar idea, making humans slaves of their desires. He believed that happiness could be found in doing what is worth doing. This so-called eudaimonic approach relates happiness to doing what is morally right, meaningful and growing, which is regardless of how one feels at a specific moment (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonic well-being produces benefits at short-term, while eudaimonic benefits are only present over more than three months (Huta & Ryan, 2009). According to Fisher (2010) the division of happiness in these two components is covering the entire concept of happiness. Therefore, this current study takes on this division of employee happiness into the dimensions hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
work environment, but also by the psychosocial work environment (e.g. Gilbreath & Benson, 2004). As summarized by Sparks et al. (2001), management style is one of the four main psychosocial work environment issues that are of current concern for employee happiness in the 21st-century workplace.The focus has been on managers because they can be a major influence on employees’ work lives, positively or negatively, since managers have a large impact on work demands, control, and social support (Gilbreath & Benson, 2004; Harris & Kacmar, 2006). Therefore this current study builds upon the expectation that leadership influences employee happiness. Management studies literature suggests a basic distinction between a traditional transactional leadership style, which is rule-driven and task focused, and a more favored transformational style, where leaders encourage creativity and innovation, and are characterized as inspirational (Holmes & Marra, 2006). Especially applied research in transformational leadership is abundant, according to Bass (1999). This could be due to changes in the marketplace and workforce over the two decades that have resulted in the need for leaders to become more transformational and less transactional if they were to remain effective (Bass, 1999). Therefore this current study leaves out transactional leadership and investigates a more transformational leadership style. An important conceptual issue for transformational leadership is the extent to which it is found similar and compatible to charismatic leadership. Some theorists minimize the differences between transformational and charismatic leadership (e.g., House & Shamir, 1993). It is now common practice in many books and articles to treat the two approaches as equivalent. The assumption of equivalence has been challenged by leadership studies that view transformational and charismatic leadership as two distinct but partially overlapping processes. Bass (1985) proposed that charisma is a necessary component of transformational leadership, but he noted that a leader can be charismatic without being transformational. Several writers have proposed that a leader can be transformational without being charismatic. A few writers have even suggested the possibility that the two types of leadership may be incompatible (Yukl, 1994, 1999).
This study focuses on charismatic leadership, because literature indicates that charismatic leadership influences follower happiness, through leaders’ affective states. Moreover, charismatics tend to have a high self-esteem, which is highly related to positive well-being and happiness (Diener & Diener, 1996). Charismatic leaders
inspire by articulating strategic vision, communicate high performing expectations, express confidence that followers can attain them, emphasize collective identity and show sensitivity to followers’ needs. By mentoring, energizing and empowering their followers they encourage them to develop their full potential and contribute to the organization (Shamir et al., 1993). According to Bono and Ilies (2006) charismatic leaders enable their followers to experience positive emotions. Specifically, the behaviour of charismatic leaders can make a difference in the happiness and well-being of followers by influencing their emotional lives. At last, charismatic leaders increase meaningfulness of work and enhance positive emotions (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009), which implies a positive relation to both the hedonic and the eudaimonic component of happiness.
In contrast to the charismatic leadership style, related to positive and effective follower outcomes, this study will also investigate a more opposite style: laissez-faire leadership. This style seems to be the most inactive, least effective, and most frustrating leadership style (Barbuto Jr., 2005). Bass (1985) sees laissez-faire as a key type of transactional leadership. However, since laissez-faire actually represents the absence of leadership, most conceptualizations of transactional leadership exclude laissez-faire (Barbuto Jr., 2005). In line with these multiple conceptualizations, this current study treats laissez-faire as a separate style. This current study uses another widely used term for this style, passive leadership, in order to emphasize the more opposite end of the leadership continuum than the charismatic style. Passive leaders are barely involved with their subordinates and offer them little support or guidance. They avoid making decisions, fail to take responsibility for managing and are inattentive to productivity or the necessary completion of duties (Barbuto Jr., 2005). According to Barbuto Jr. (2005) passive leadership will lead to negative follower outcomes like low productivity, resistance to change, and low quality of work. Specifically in relation to follower well-being, passive leadership was found to have the potential to undermine subordinates’ well-being (Einarsen et al., 2007). Moreover, passive leader behaviour is a destructive leadership behaviour that is related to workplace stressors, bullying at work and psychological distress (Skogstad et al., 2007). Therefore, we expect the same destructive (negative) relationship between passive leadership and the happiness of employees. Previous literature about passive leadership does not apply any specification towards the two happiness components
described above. Therefore, we can only express the expectation that passive leadership negatively relates to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Charismatic leadership is positively related to employee hedonic
well-being.
Hypothesis 1b: Passive leadership is negatively related to employee hedonic
well-being.
Hypothesis 2a: Charismatic leadership is positively related to employee eudaimonic
well-being.
Hypothesis 2b: Passive leadership is negatively related to employee eudaimonic
well-being.
It is important to mention that leaders can possess more than one leadership style, to some extent. So behaving in one leadership style does not exclude the same leader from also behaving in another leadership style (Bass, 2009).
In addition to the direct linkage between leadership style and employee happiness, we expect this linkage to be mediated by the degree of self-efficacy of an employee.
2.2 The mediating role of employee self-efficacy
According to Bandura (1997) perceived self-efficacy can be defined as “an individual’s beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required in managing prospective situations. Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel, motivate themselves, and act” (p.3). Four main sources of influence are used in the development of self-efficacy, including enactive mastery (successful accomplishments), modeling (vicarious experiences provided by social models), verbal/social persuasion, and psychological arousal. Although self-efficacy does not alter people’s capabilities, it affects the sense of mastery and control over their environment and influences the choices people make, the effort they expend, how long they persevere in the face of challenge, and the degree of anxiety or confidence they bring to the task at hand (Bandura, 1997). The higher one’s self-efficacy the
more likely one is to engage in task-related behaviour. Research found that self-efficacy positively predicts job attitudes, training proficiency and job performance (Saks, 1995; Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998; in Chen & Bliese, 2002). Moreover, doubters tend to suffer setbacks and give up, while self-confident people are more likely to keep at it and succeed (Tsai, Tsai & Wang, 2011). An accurate estimate of self-efficacy is important for an individual in his/her pursuit of success. The optimal self-efficacy perception is the one that slightly outreaches one’s capabilities (Bandura, 1986).
Nearly all previous studies have shown that high self-efficacy is related to better health outcomes, well-being and forms of happiness, whereas low self-efficacy is related to depression, job dissatisfaction, and burnout (e.g. Bandura, 1997; Judge & Bono, 2001; Schyns & von Collani, 2002; Siu et al., 2007). Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) argue that self-efficacy can affect job satisfaction through its association with practical success on the job. Because individuals with high self-efficacy deal more effectively with difficulties and persist in the face of failure, they are more likely to achieve expected outcomes and thus derive satisfaction from their jobs. Another way in which self-efficacy may impact employee outcomes is through approaches to coping, how someone deals with problem-solving and stress. Individuals with low self-efficacy tend to use more emotion-focused coping than problem-focused coping (Jex, Bliese, Buzzell & Primeau, 2001). Semmer (2003) found that people who have the tendency to employ problem-focused coping tend to report less physical and psychological stress symptoms.
Caprara et al. (2006) are the pioneers of focusing on the specific link between efficacy beliefs and employee well-being. The results of their study show that self-efficacy beliefs contributed significantly to subjective well-being, which can be divided into subjective happiness and life satisfaction. Subjective happiness refers to a subjective evaluation of whether a person feels happy or unhappy, which serves as the affective component of subjective well-being (similar to hedonic well-being). On the other hand, life satisfaction refers to the cognitive judgmental process by which a person assesses her quality of life, which serves as the cognitive component of subjective well-being (similar to eudaimonic well-being) (Strobel et al., 2011). According to Strobel et al. (2011) people who are confident to achieve what they want (i.e. are high in self-efficacy) experience higher subjective well-being than people
who are not (i.e. are low in self-efficacy). Thus, we expect self-efficacy to enhance both employee hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. This leads to proposing the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Employee self-efficacy is positively related to employee hedonic
well-being.
Hypothesis 3b: Employee self-efficacy is positively related to employee eudaimonic
well-being.
Besides these direct main effects between employee self-efficacy and both dimensions of employee happiness, previous literature makes it plausible to expect that employee self-efficacy also mediates the relationship between leadership style and employee happiness. Recent theoretical work investigated the link between several leadership styles and follower outcomes (Waldman et al., 2001; in Casimir et al., 2006) but still the leadership black box needs to be opened (Hunt, Boal & Sorenson, 1990; in Casimir et al., 2006). There is a need to examine more closely the dynamics of the relationship between leadership and outcomes, including the role of potential mediators like trust in the leader and self-efficacy (Shamir, 1991; in Casimir et al., 2006). More often self-efficacy was found to be a significant mediator between charismatic or transformational leadership and follower outcomes (Pillai & Williams, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990). However, more research is needed on whether the same mediation effect also counts for happiness, as a follower outcome, and specifically for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Moreover, this mediation effect is based on the impact of charismatic or transformational leadership but is not yet investigated for the passive leadership style. To contribute to previous literature this current study will therefore investigate the linkage of leadership style to employee happiness, mediated by employee self-efficacy. This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between charismatic leadership and employee
hedonic well-being is mediated by employee self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between passive leadership and employee hedonic
Hypothesis 5a: The relationship between charismatic leadership and employee
eudaimonic well-being is mediated by employee self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between passive leadership and employee
eudaimonic well-being is mediated by employee self-efficacy.
Besides a mediation effect, this study also expects a moderation effect. Suggested is that the relationship between both leadership styles and employee self-efficacy depends on a personality characteristic of the employee, which serves as a moderator. In order to elaborate on this moderation effect we first investigate the main effect between leadership and self-efficacy.
2.3 Leadership style and employee self-efficacy
Pillai and Williams (2004) bridge the gap between leadership and employee outcomes with self-efficacy. This is in line with the suggestion of House and Shamir (1993) that the primary motivational mechanism through which transformational and charismatic leaders influence their followers is by enhancing followers’ self-efficacy. Findings of another study by Shamir et al. (1993) propose a direct linkage between charismatic leadership and followers’ self-efficacy.
According to Yukl (1999) charismatic and transformational leadership behaviours and their effects, especially role modelling, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal appear to parallel the determinants of self-efficacy (as mentioned before, the development of self-efficacy is influenced by the sources enactive mastery, modelling, verbal/social persuasion, and psychological arousal). Podsakoff et al. (1990) also highlighted the characteristic of role modelling. They suggest that charismatic or transformational leaders influence followers’ self-efficacy by role modelling the appropriate behaviours. Followers identify with a leader (role model) and this identification supports observational learning (Bandura, 1986). This serves to empower them to achieve the leader's vision (and so act to performance) through the development of self-efficacy and self-confidence (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
Eden (1992) argued that leadership is the mechanism through which managers raise performance expectations and enhanced self-efficacy, which in turn increases performance. Redmond et al. (1993) also showed that leader behaviour aimed at
increasing follower self-efficacy resulted in higher levels of subordinate creativity in problem-solving situations. It would, therefore, be important for charismatic or transformational leaders to enhance followers' beliefs, which together they would be able to find a solution for the problem at hand. Once self-efficacy is established, followers will begin to trust the leader, which will increase their commitment to the leader and the organization (Yukl, 1998). Based on the previous arguments charismatic leadership is expected to enhance employee self-efficacy.
On the contrary, passive leadership holds the absence of leadership, and thus also the absence of for instance leader role modelling and verbal/social persuasion by a leader, which are important determinants of self-efficacy (Yukl, 1991). If a leader will not be role modelling the appropriate behaviours, he will not either be of influence on follower self-efficacy, due to a lack of identification and observational learning (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Bandura, 1986). Therefore we expect a negative relationship between the passive leadership style and employee self-efficacy and we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 6a: Charismatic leadership is positively related to employee self-efficacy. Hypothesis 6b: Passive leadership is negatively related to employee self-efficacy.
2.4 The moderating role of employee neuroticism
Shamir et al. (1993) argue that charismatic leaders will not have similar effects on all followers. They discuss some follower characteristics that may moderate the relationships between leader behaviours and followers outcomes. They focus on follower’s values, identities and organizational orientations. Personality traits are also discussed as potential moderators.
In this study the influence of leadership on an employee’s self-efficacy is expected to depend on the employee’s degree of neuroticism, because neuroticism influences how employees perceive their environment and their manager. Neuroticism can be defined as the tendency to exhibit poor emotional distress and to view the world through a negative lens. People who score high on neuroticism tend to experience negative affects, such as anger, sadness, guilt, anxiety and insecurity. On the contrary, people who score low on neuroticism tend to be calm and relaxed (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Judge et al., 2002).
According to Felfe and Schyns (2006) neuroticism is related negatively to the perception and acceptance of charismatic or transformational leadership. Such leaders set high expectations and difficult standards of performance. As neuroticism means lower self-esteem and higher anxiety, followers with higher neuroticism might experience more insecurity and a high degree of anxiety. This might cause avoidance and withdrawal when confronted with a charismatic or transformational leader because neurotic individuals may find the pressure of the leader harder to deal with than emotionally stable individuals (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Therefore, followers with high self-esteem and emotional stability (low on neuroticism) are expected to prefer transformational leaders, whereas followers with low self-esteem (high on neuroticism) refuse this kind of interaction (Felfe & Schyns, 2006).Since the expectation is that high neurotic employees refuse/avoid/withdrawal from a charismatic or transformational leader, one could say that these high neurotic employees will be less affected by this leadership style, which will have less impact on their self-efficacy.
Passive leaders are barely involved with their subordinates and offer little guidance to their employees. Therefore, neurotic employees are likely to be more negatively affected by the lack of consideration and support from passive leaders (Judge et al., 2004; in De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). This is because, compared to emotionally stable employees, neurotic employees are likely to have a lower self-efficacy when working with a passive leader, due to their affective instability and tendency to psychological distress (Watson et al.; in De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Previous arguments about the role of neuroticism lead to the expectation of the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 7a: Employee neuroticism moderates the relationship between
charismatic leadership and employee self-efficacy, such that the positive relationship between charismatic leadership and employee self-efficacy is stronger for employees low on neuroticism.
Hypothesis 7b: Employee neuroticism moderates the relationship between passive
leadership and employee self-efficacy, such that the negative relationship between charismatic leadership and employee self-efficacy is stronger for employees high on neuroticism.
In case of leadership studies the personality theory usually is related to the personality of the leader. Much research is done on whether leader traits matter in leader effectiveness, nonetheless few on whether employee traits matter in leader effectiveness. But, followers’ personality affects their preferences for different types of leaders (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). Therefore, investigating the personality of subordinates in a leadership context would provide an interesting contribution to the literature.
2.5 Research model
For a visual overview, the variables and hypotheses are included in the research model in Figure 1.
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Sample and procedure
In total 145 employees completed a survey questionnaire. Respondents were employed at the headquarters of Nestlé the Netherlands. Nestlé is world’s largest food concern, from origin a Swiss company founded in 1866, and nowadays employing more than 330.000 people worldwide. All employees at the Dutch headquarters were encouraged by the CEO and HR director to participate in an online (Qualtrics) survey that was administered to them by e-mail. A letter from the researchers assuring confidentiality was sent with the e-mail that contained the link to the online questionnaire. The questionnaires filled out by employees were completed anonymously and returned directly into Qualtrics. About 300 employees were required to fill-out the questionnaire and 145 valid questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 48 percent. After accounting for missing data 140 responses were used for the data analysis (n = 140). The sample is 47,1 percent male and 52,9 percent female, which leads to 64 male and 72 female responses, and there are 4 missing data (see Figure 2). The average age of the sample is about 37 years, with a minimum age of 21 and maximum age of 61 (N = 131, M = 37,45, SD = 10,42). The respondents had worked, on average, 41 months in their current job (N = 131, M = 41,49, SD = 76,01) and 19 months with their current manager (N = 131, M = 19,99, SD = 44,20). The respondents work at different departments throughout the organization, divided over Finance, Legal, Human Resources, IT, Operations, Communications and some Commercial departments (marketing/sales). This division is visually shown in Figure 2. The respondents evaluated the management within the organization (mostly regarding their own manager) and in that way the leadership styles they experience and observe. In addition, they indicated their perception of the degree of their own self-efficacy, their feelings of happiness at work and their neuroticism.
Figure 2. Circle diagrams for gender and division
3.2 Measures
The variables employee happiness, employee self-efficacy, employee neuroticism and leadership style were all measured on an ordinal measurement level. Gender and division were measured on a nominal measurement level. And at last, age, the length of working in the current position, and the length of working together with the current manager were measured on a ratio scale.
3.2.1 Employee happiness
Hedonic well-being among employees was measured with the positive affect scale of the Positive And Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Inventory (Watson et al., 1988; Ryff, 1989) that asked employees the extent to which they felt specific emotions on an average day (e.g. feeling excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, inspired, or active). This scale consists of 10 items to which the responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Cronbach’s alpha was 0,856 (α = .86; M = 5,14; SD = 0,64). This means the scale is reliable.
Eudaimonic well-being was measured with the short-form of the six dimensions of well-being (Ryff, 1989). An item example was “When I look at the story of my life, I
am pleased with how things have turned out.”. This scale consists of eighteen items
(of the original of 48 items) to which the responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Seven of the
eighteen items (4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17 and 18) were formulated negatively instead of positively and therefore had to be recoded. These reversed items were used in later analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,817 (α = .82; M = 5,42; SD = 0,57). This means the scale is reliable.
3.2.2 Leadership styles
Both the charismatic and the passive leadership styles were measured with the Charismatic Leadership in Organizations questionnaire (CLIO; De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004). All the items have a seven-point Likert response scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Charismatic Leader Behavior Scale includes six items regarding articulation of an attractive vision, providing meaning to follower’s work and modeling of desired behavior. An example of an item is “He/she has a vision and imagination of the future.”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,895 (α = .90; M = 4,95; SD = 1,14). This means a high reliability of the charismatic leadership scale. The passive leadership scale also consists of six items. An example of an item is “He/she only comes to action when problems are getting
chronic.”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,735 (α = .74; M = 3,04; SD = 1,11). This means
the scale is reliable. A Principal Component Analysis is done to measure the validity of the scale. This analysis showed that the twelve leadership items indeed load on two different components; the six items that are supposed to measure charismatic leadership fit to one component, and the other six items that are supposed to measure passive leadership fit to a second component (see Table 1). Therefore the leadership scale will be divided and two scales will be computed: a charismatic and passive
leadership style.
Table 1
A Rotated Component Matrix for the Leadership scale
Component
1 2
Lead4 ... is able to
make others enthusiastic about his/her plans.
,812 -,134
Lead15 ... has a vision
Lead25 ... is always
looking for new opportunities for the organization.
,808 -,202
Lead7 ... gives
employees the feeling they contribute to an important and collective goal. ,799 -,115 Lead24 ... encourages employees to think independently. ,745 -,119
Lead8 ... appears to feel
confident about his/her ideals, opinions and values.
,741 -,102
Lead17 ... appears to be
a supporter of the saying: "only intervene when necessary".
,322 ,661
Lead18 ... does not
undertake an attempt to improvement, as long as the work responds to the required demands.
-,077 ,633
Lead20 ... only comes
to action when anything goes wrong.
-,549 ,609
Lead3 ... only comes to
action when problems are getting serious.
-,424 ,602
Lead21 ... avoids
making decisions. -,421 ,525
Lead19 ... avoids
getting involved with time-consuming issues.
-,135 ,511
3.2.3 Employee self-efficacy
The self-efficacy construct was measured using the New General Self-Efficacy scale (NGSE; Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001). Responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The employee
self-efficacy scale consists of eight items. An item example is: “I will be able to
successfully overcome many challenges.”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,874 (α = .87; M =
5,44; SD = 0,64). This means the scale is reliable.
3.2.4 Employee neuroticism
Employee neuroticism was measured with four of the in total twenty items of the Mini-IPIP that measures the Big Five personality traits (of which neuroticism is one). Responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). An item example is: “I have frequent mood swings.”.
Two of the four items (9 and 19) were positively formulated instead of negatively like supposed to in order to measure the degree of neuroticism. Therefore they had to be recoded. These reversed items were used in later analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was 0,612 (α = .61; M = 3,35; SD = 0,92). This means the neuroticism scale has a low reliability. However, deleting one of the items will not increase the reliability. Moreover, since it is an existing items-scale the scale is expected to be reliable enough to incorporate it in this study.
3.2.5 Control variables
In our analyses that will follow hereafter, we controlled for potential differences in age, gender, gender of the manager, division, tenure of current position, and tenure with the manager.
By means of a frequency table all variables are univariate described along their means and standard deviations. Afterwards the variables are bivariate analysed on their mutual correlations, by means of a Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient. At last, the variables are multivariate exposed to multiple regression analyses in order to test the hypotheses. All of this is reported in the results section.
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Univariate analysis
The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Self-efficacy has the highest average score (M = 5,44, SD = 0,64), which leads to the assumption that employees have a strong believe in their own achievements. The lowest average score is for passive leadership (M = 3,04, SD = 1,11). This indicates that on average employees perceive the leadership style of their manager not so much a passive style. Moreover, this suggests that employees perceive more charismatic leadership (M = 4,95, SD = 1,14) than passive leadership among their managers. Remarkable is that the average degree of happiness among employees is quite high. This applies to hedonic well-being (M = 5,14, SD = 0,64) and, even a little higher, to eudaimonic well-being (M = 5,42, SD = 0,57). Also worth mentioning is the degree of neuroticism among the respondents (M = 3,35, SD = 0,92). This means that on average the respondents perceive themselves not to be very high, neither very low on neuroticism.
4.2 Bivariate analysis
The intercorrelations of the scales used in this study are also presented in Table 2, together with the means and standard deviations. The intercorrelations are measured with Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients. A high correlation between two variables means that they overlap to some extent, also called multicollinearity. A multiple regression model with highly correlated predictors can indicate how well the entire bundle of predictors predicts the outcome variable. However, in a multiple regression the effect of one predictor is adjusted for the influence of other predictors, in order to test the unique contribution of each variable. Even if two variables correlate highly, in the same regression this will decrease the significance (Berry, 1993, in De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008, p.303). To prevent this we try not to involve highly correlated variables in the same regression.
The highest significant correlations are the moderate correlations of self-efficacy with hedonic well-being (r = 0,59, p < 0,01) and eudaimonic well-being (r = 0,56, p < 0,01). This means that the higher the degree of self-efficacy, the higher the degree of
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and the other way around. And even more concrete, the more an employee beliefs in his own capabilities, the happier he is. Consistent with this study’s expectations, the passive leadership style correlates significantly negatively with hedonic (r = -0,17, p < 0,05) and eudaimonic well-being (r = -0,34, p < 0,01), and the charismatic leadership style correlates significantly positively with hedonic (r = 0,33, p < 0,01) and eudaimonic well-being (r = 0,30, p < 0,01). However, all of these correlations are quite weak. Not significant is the negative but low correlation of passive leadership with self-efficacy. The correlation between charismatic leadership and self-efficacy is significant and positive but low (r = 0,23, p < 0,01). This means that the more a leader is perceived by an employee to lead in a charismatic way, the higher this employee’s self-efficacy, and the other way around.
Neuroticism has no significant correlations with both the leadership styles. However, neuroticism was significantly negatively related to self-efficacy (r = -0,26, p < 0,01), hedonic well-being (r = -0,24, p < 0,01), and eudaimonic well-being (r = -0,40, p < 0,01). These negative correlations are not surprising, because people who score high on neuroticism tend to experience negative affects, such as anger, sadness, guilt, anxiety and insecurity.
Tenure of current position and tenure with current manager are not related to any of the variables under study (only to age) and are thus left out of further analyses. The same accounts for age, gender of the manager and the division. Only gender of the employee significantly correlates with the passive leadership style (r = -0,27, p < 0,01). Therefore we will add gender as a control variable to further analyses that include passive leadership.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients (N = 140)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Charismatic 4,95 1,14 1 2 Passive 3,04 1,11 -.55** 1 3 Self-efficacy 5,44 0,64 .23** -.12 1 4 Hedonic well-being 5,14 0,64 .33** -.17* .59** 1 5 Eudaimonic well-being Neuroticism 5,42 0,57 .30** -.34** .56** .53** 1 6 3,35 0,92 -.01 .16 -.26** -.24** -.40** 1 * p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01
4.3 Multivariate analysis
To test the hypotheses, we then conducted hierarchical regression analyses for both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. We centered the independent variables charismatic and passive leadership, and self-efficacy around zero by subtracting the mean from each score (e.g. Aiken & West, 1991).
In Step 1 we entered the independent main effect of the relationship between charismatic leadership and hedonic being, and separately for eudaimonic well-being. In order to prevent a bias due to the strong correlation between both leadership styles we controlled this regression for passive leadership. The same main effect was tested for the relationship between passive leadership and separately hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, while controlling for charismatic leadership.
The possible mediation effect was analysed according to the suggestion by Baron and Kenny (1986). Mediation occurs if both charismatic leadership and self-efficacy have a significant relationship with hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and if the relationship between charismatic leadership and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being is significantly lower (partial mediation) or no longer significant (full mediation)
when self-efficacy is entered in the equation (see Step 2 in Table 3). The same is done for passive leadership instead of charismatic leadership, which is shown in Step 3 in Table 3.
Table 3 shows the regression results for both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. The findings reported are standardized beta weights in step 1, 2 and 3, the R2, the F value for each step, and the amount of change in R2 for each step (ΔR2).
Table 3
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the impact of charismatic and passive leadership and self-efficacy, on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being
Hedonic well-being Charismatic leadership Passive leadership Employee self-efficacy R2 (adj. R2) F df ΔR 2 Step 1 .31** -.14 .63** Step 2 .15* .59** .42 (.41) 50.07** 2,137 .33 Step 3 -.08 .63** .41 (.40) 47,13** 2,137 .39 Eudaimonic well-being Charismatic leadership Passive leadership Employee self-efficacy R2 (adj. R2) F df ΔR 2 Step 1 .27** -.27** .55** Step 2 .14 .51** .32 (.31) 31.75** 2,137 .25 Step 3 -.22** .53** .35 (.34) 36.49** 2,137 .28
Note. N=140. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. Both R2 and adjusted R2 are reported, and ΔR2 refers to the unadjusted R2.
** p < 0,01; * p < 0,05
More variance is explained in hedonic well-being than in eudaimonic well-being (see Table 3). Consistent with Hypothesis 1a charismatic leadership was positively related to hedonic well-being (β = .31, p < .01), when controlled for passive leadership. A separate regression analysis showed that the passive leadership style was negatively related to hedonic well-being, when controlled for charismatic leadership. Since this finding was not significant (β = -.14, ns), Hypothesis 1b is not supported. This means that only charismatic leadership accounts for a significant proportion of variance in hedonic well-being when entered separately (R2 = .09).
Consistent with Hypothesis 2a charismatic leadership was also positively related to the eudiamonic dimension of happiness (β = .27, p < .01). A separate regression analysis showed that, in line with Hypothesis 2b, passive leadership was negatively
related to eudaimonic well-being (β = -.27, p < .01). Thus, both charismatic (R2 = .07) and passive leadership (R2 = .07) account for a significant proportion of the variance in eudaimonic well-being when entered separately.
Two separate regression analyses were done to test the impact of employee self-efficacy on both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Consistent with Hypothesis 3a and 3b, employee self-efficacy was positively related to both hedonic (β = .63, p < .01) and eudaimonic well-being (β = .55, p < .01). Thus, employee self-efficacy accounts for a significant proportion of the variance in hedonic (R2 = .40) and eudaimonic well-being (R2 = .30).
Step 2 and 3 in Table 3 show the findings of separate regression analyses to test the mediation effect of employee self-efficacy on charismatic and passive leadership, in relation to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Although the beta weight of the relationship between charismatic leadership and hedonic well-being decreases when self-efficacy is added to the equation, it remains significant. Thus, both variables have an independent main effect on hedonic well-being, and only partial mediation by self-efficacy can be inferred (Hypothesis 4a). Together they explain for 41% of the variance in hedonic well-being (R2 = .41). Since the independent main effect of passive leadership on hedonic well-being was not significant, self-efficacy was not found to mediate the relationship between passive leadership and hedonic well-being (Hypothesis 4b). The beta weight of the relationship between charismatic leadership and eudaimonic well-being decreases and does not remain significant when employee self-efficacy is added to the equation. This means that both charismatic leadership and self-efficacy have an independent main effect on eudaimonic well-being, and a full mediation can be inferred (Hypothesis 5a). Together they explain for 31% of the variance in eudaimonic well-being (R2 = .31). The relationship between passive leadership and eudaimonic well-being has a decreasing beta when self-efficacy is added to the equation, however does it stay significant. Thus, both passive leadership and employee self-efficacy have an independent main effect on eudaimonic well-being, and partial mediation can be inferred (Hypothesis 5b). Together they explain for 34% of the variance in eudaimonic well-being (R2 = .34).
The possible moderation effect of neuroticism on the relationship between the leadership styles and self-efficacy was analysed by entering the interaction terms (Employee neuroticism ✕ Charismatic leadership, and Employee neuroticism ✕
Passive leadership) in the equation of the separate leadership styles and self-efficacy. The interaction term was based on the centered scores for neuroticism and both the leadership styles. If the interaction term significantly increases the amount of variance explained in self-efficacy, than neuroticism can be identified as a moderator of the relationship between the leadership styles and employee self-efficacy. Table 4 reports standardized beta weights in step 1, 2 and 3, the R2, the F value for each step, and the amount of change in R2 for each step (ΔR2). In Step 1 these findings are measured for the relationship between charismatic leadership and self-efficacy (testing Hypotheses 6a and 6b). In Step 2 employee neuroticism was added as an independent variable to the regression. In step 3 the interaction term for neuroticism and charismatic leadership was added to the equation (testing Hypotheses 7a and 7b). The same steps were done for passive leadership.
In line with Hypothesis 6a charismatic leadership is positively related to employee self-efficacy (β = .27, p < .01). Besides this main effect, we look at a possible moderation of employee neuroticism. The interaction term does not add significantly to the explained variance in employee self-efficacy. The interaction for employees with high and low degree of neuroticism is depicted in Figure 3 (high and low regression lines were plotted, as suggested by Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Therefore Hypothesis 7a was not supported by this study. Passive leadership is negatively related to employee self-efficacy, as is consistent with the expectation. However, this finding was not significant (β = -.10, ns) and therefore Hypothesis 6b was not supported. At last, the interaction term for passive leadership did not add significantly to the explained variance in self-efficacy. The shape of this interaction is depicted in Figure 4, by plotting regression lines for both high and low degree of employee neuroticism. This means Hypothesis 7b was not supported.
Table 4
Hierarchical regression analyses testing the potential moderation effect of neuroticism on the relationship between the leadership styles and self-efficacy
Employee self-efficacy Charismatic leadership Employee neuroticism Neuroticism ✕ charisma R2 (adj.R2) F df ΔR 2 Step 1 .27** .07 (.06) 10.431** 1,138 .00 Step 2 .27** -.24** .13 (.12) 10.134** 2,137 .06 Step 3 .27** -.24** .01 .13 (.11) 6.715** 3,136 .00 Passive leadership Employee neuroticism Neuroticism ✕ passive R 2 (adj.R2) F df ΔR 2 Step 1 -.10 .01 (.00) 1.411 1,138 .00 Step 2 -.07 -.23** .06 (.05) 4.579* 2,137 .05 Step 3 -.07 -.23** -.04 .07 (.04) 3.126* 3,136 .01
Note. N=140. Standardized regression coefficients are shown. Both R2 and adjusted R2 are reported,
and ΔR2 refers to the unadjusted R2. ** p < 0,01; * p < 0,05
Figure 3. Regression lines for charismatic leadership explaining self-efficacy for employees with a high and low degree of neuroticism (+1 and -1 SD from the mean)
1 2 3 4 5 Low Charismatic leadership High Charismatic leadership Emp loye e s el f-e ffi cac y Low Neuroticism High Neuroticism
Figure 4. Regression lines for passive leadership explaining self-efficacy for employees with a high and low degree of neuroticism (+1 and -1 SD from the mean)
Finally, the gender of the employee was added as a control variable to the equation of regressions regarding passive leadership. However, employee gender did not account for a significant percentage of the variance in either hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, and employee self-efficacy.
1 2 3 4 5
Low Passive leadership High Passive leadership
Emp loye e s el f-e ffi cac y Low Neuroticism High Neuroticism
Chapter 5: Explorative study
This study was part of a larger data collection in which also a transformational (extension of the charismatic scale) and a transactional leadership style were investigated, next to charismatic and passive leadership. Moreover, besides neuroticism, also the other four personality traits of the Big Five were tested. These are ‘openness to experience’, ‘conscientiousness’, ‘extraversion’ and ‘agreeableness’. Previous literature inspired to incorporate neuroticism as an employee personality trait that could possibly affect the model, more than the other personality traits. However, since employee neuroticism was not found to have a significant impact on the relationship between the leadership styles and employee self-efficacy, we also did regression analyses to test the possible moderation effect of the other personality traits on the relationship between the leadership styles and employee self-efficacy. For all leadership styles together with all personality traits interaction terms were created. This explorative study found that the interaction term for transactional leadership and employee agreeableness adds significantly to the explained variance in employee self-efficacy. The shape of this interaction is depicted in Figure 5, by plotting regression lines for both high and low degree of employee agreeableness. This indicates that highly agreeable employees experience a higher self-efficacy when perceiving their manager as a transactional leader, than employees who are low on agreeableness. Of the Big Five personality traits agreeableness is the one most concerned with how individuals differ in their orientations toward interpersonal relationships. It describes individual differences in being likeable, pleasant, and harmonious in relations with others (Graziano & Tobin, 2009).
Figure 5. Regression lines for transactional leadership explaining self-efficacy for employees high and low on agreeableness (+1 and -1 SD from the mean)
1 2 3 4 5 Low Transactional Leadership High Transactional Leadership E m pl oye e S el f-e ffi ca cy Low Employee Agreeableness High Employee Agreeableness
Chapter 6: Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between leadership styles and employee happiness, and whether employee self-efficacy mediates this main effect. A second purpose was to test the potential moderating effect of employee neuroticism on the relationship between leadership styles and employee self-efficacy. Although the present study does reveal reliable relationships between the factors leadership styles, self-efficacy and happiness, it is important to note that the effect sizes were not large.
This current study contributes to previous research on follower happiness by investigating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Both charismatic and passive leadership were not yet tested in relation to these specific happiness dimensions, neither was employee self-efficacy. Testing both dimensions was expected to give more meaning to what is affecting employee happiness, and also in what timeframe. In line with this study’s expectations we found that charismatic leadership was positively related to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Specifically, employees experience more pleasant feelings due to affective moments when they perceive their manager as more charismatic. Perceiving your manager as inspiring, visionary and encouraging would enhance the production of pleasant feelings at short-term notice. Moreover, over the long run, employees would feel more meaningful and morally right in doing what they do.
This present study found that a passive leadership style was related negatively to the eudaimonic well-being of an employee, as was hypothesized. This means that the more employees perceive their manager to show passive leadership, the less meaningful and morally right they feel in their work. Specifically long-term happiness benefits will be weakened by perceiving your manager lacking on providing support and/or taking responsibility. The main effect of passive leadership on hedonic well-being did not reach significance and is therefore inconsistent with the expectations of this study. The previously mentioned weak and non-significant relationships could possibly be explained by the findings by Sparks et al. (2001). They stated that management style is just one of the four main psychosocial work environment issues that are of current concern for employee happiness in the 21st-century workplace.
Therefore, extending this research with other psychosocial work environment issues could be of added value.
Consistent with the hypothesis, employee self-efficacy was found to be positively related to both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. This means that the higher the self-efficacy of employees, the stronger their feelings of happiness. More concrete, employees experience more pleasant emotions and feel more meaningful and morally right in their work, when they have stronger beliefs in their own capabilities. As an employee believes he is capable of executing a difficult task or achieving a high standard goal, he will experience feelings of happiness on short-term notice, as well as at long-term follow-up.
Self-efficacy is one of the mechanisms through which charismatic leaders affect follower outcomes (Pillai & Williams, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 1990). This current study contributed to opening this leadership black box (Hunt, Boal & Sorenson, 1990; in Casimir et al., 2006), specifically for hedonic and eudaimonic well-being as follower outcomes. We hypothesized and found employee self-efficacy partially, rather than fully, mediating the relationship between the charismatic leadership style and hedonic well-being. This supports the idea that some, but not all, of the impact of charismatic leadership on employees’ pleasant emotions involve employees’ believes in their own capabilities. This is because the latter in turn increases hedonic well-being. Specifically, as an employee perceives his manager as inspiring, visionary and setting high expectations, he will experience positive emotions at short-term notice, which is partially due to believing he is capable of, for instance, living up to these high expectations. Moreover, results revealed an even full mediation of employee self-efficacy in the relationship between charismatic leadership and employee eudaimonic well-being. Specifically, the impact of charismatic leaders on employees feeling meaningful and morally right in their work involves employees’ beliefs in their own capabilities. This means that perceiving your manager as an inspirational, empowering and encouraging leader enhances feelings of happiness over the long run, due to believing that you are capable of executing specific courses of action.
For the relationship between passive leadership and hedonic well-being, no mediation by self-efficacy was found. This suggests that there are possibly other mechanisms through which passive leadership influences employees’ pleasant feelings in their work environment. Thus, there still is a need to examine more closely the dynamics of
the relationship between leadership and employee outcomes (Shamir, 1991; in Casimir et al., 2006). Besides self-efficacy, Shamir (1991) also proposed trust in the leader as a possible mediator. This may help to further enhance the understanding of mediation in the relationship between passive leadership and employees’ pleasant feelings at work. In contrast to these short-term happiness benefits, the relationship between the passive leadership style and the eudaimonic dimension of happiness, however, was partially mediated by employee self-efficacy. Thus, some of the affect of passive leadership on employees feeling meaningful and morally right in their job, involve whether employees believe in their own capabilities. This means that, as an employee perceives his manager as unsupportive, irresponsible and indecisively he may experience a low degree of long-term happiness feelings, which is partially due to a lack of self-efficacy beliefs.
Charismatic leadership was positively related to employee self-efficacy, which supports the hypothesis and is in line with previous literature (Shamir et al., 1993). However, the expectation that charismatic leadership has more impact on employees’ self-efficacy when these employees are low on neuroticism was not supported. This means that, according to this study, neuroticism does not influence employees’ perception of leadership styles. Inconsistent with the expectation, the negative relationship between passive leadership and employee self-efficacy was not significant. Therefore the dependence of this relationship on employee neuroticism was not supported either. In short, in this study employee neuroticism was not found to have a moderating role.
Finally, beyond expectations, there was a significant finding in an explorative study, indicating a moderating effect of employee agreeableness (another employee personality trait) on the relationship between transactional leadership (another leadership style) and employee self-efficacy. Highly agreeable employees experience a higher self-efficacy when perceiving their manager as a transactional leader, than employees who are low on agreeableness. This addresses to the suggestion by Shamir et al. (1993) that follower characteristics may moderate the relationships between leader behaviours and follower outcomes.
6.1 Limitations and future research
Although this study provides some interesting findings, it also has his limitations that should be taken into account when interpreting the results. First of all, the use of self-reported measures by employees could lead to a possible single-source bias. This means that data is based on only one source, which could lead to the appearance of biases. The choice for this design, however, is due to the aim to measure the perception of employees. Still, future research efforts could incorporate alternative designs and multiple sources of data collection, like for instance including managers to rate themselves.
Socially desirable responding and a positive perception towards managers may also address to these possible biases. The questions concerning leadership require employees to evaluate the leadership style of their own manager. This, and also the questions regarding their personal well-being, is quite confidential and the idea that the main results would be shared with the organization could possibly have influenced the honesty of answering (actual be more negative than the results indicate). The correctness of answering could also have been influenced by time pressure. The high workload and full agendas of employees could have made them rush while filling out the questionnaire that could have influenced the results.
Another possible bias is that the degree of neuroticism of employees could have ‘coloured’ the perception of the leadership style. The non-significant and low correlations between neuroticism and both the leadership styles suggest that neuroticism affects ratings of leaders’ behaviour. For example, a more neurotic employee may rate his manager as less charismatic, because he interacts differently with a leader, or because of his generally negative perceptions in life (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Because individual perceptions may not accurately reflect leader behaviour, future research should rather collect multiple ratings per manager.
Furthermore, the reliability estimate for neuroticism could favourably have been higher. However, the reliability was not extremely low, and because it was an existing scale that in previous studies contained an acceptable reliability, we decided to retain the original scale. The reliability could possibly have lowered our chances to find evidence for a moderation effect. Future work could aim to identify and test other potential moderators, like for instance the other Big Five personality traits. Findings
did not confirm a moderating role of neuroticism but extended research indicates that employee agreeableness could possibly serve as a moderator in the leadership-self-efficacy context. Besides, speaking about context, the reports of leadership behaviours are not ‘context free’ (Avolio & Bass, 1995), so future research could take into account situational factors like the organizational culture, or the leader-follower-relationship.
Finally, the results were obtained in a sample of employees from one single organization, which presents a specific context. Thus, findings need to be replicated in other organizational contexts, like for instance in a non-corporate organizational culture.
6.2 Practical implications and conclusion
“Happiness at work is likely to be the glue that retains and motivates the high-quality employees of the future” (Fisher, 2010, p.404). Therefore, identifying what
antecedents affect this happiness is important to organizations. Widely suggested is that managers can be a major influence on employees’ work lives (Gilbreath & Benson, 2004; Harris & Kacmar, 2006). Our findings suggest that charismatic leaders enhance employee happiness, on a short-term notice, as well as over the long run. These leaders may affect these feelings of happiness through enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs. On the contrary, passive leaders may weaken employees’ feelings of happiness over more than three months. Also within this impact, employee self-efficacy plays a partially mediating role. Some research suggests that training could improve charismatic leadership (Dvir et al., 2002; in De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Helping leaders to develop a more supportive, involving and inspirational leadership style may have the benefit of employees feeling happy at work. This study extends previous research by showing that interactive effects of leadership styles and employee self-efficacy help explain employee happiness. More attention for the moderating role of employee personality is needed in this area, because the
expectation remains that leader behaviour may lead to different reactions depending on the personality of employees. We hope that this study stimulates future research to enhance our understanding of how leaders can affect their employees’ happiness.
References
Aiken, L. & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Avolio, B. & Bass, B. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 1999-218.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barbuto Jr., J. (2005). Motivation, and transactional, charismatic, and
transformational leadership: A test of antecedents. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 11(4), 25-40.
Baron, R. & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press, New York.
Bass, B. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32. Bass, B. (2009). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications. New York: Free Press.
Bono, J. & Ilies, R. (2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The
