Ritesh Tikai 6171761 Bachelor Thesis Amsterdam Business School
Example
Pride can help an organization to become stronger. Employees may be prepared to do more for their organization if they contain a higher amount of pride within them. They can try to fulfil their job as good as possible, because they see themselves as a proud person that is able to do his job as good as possible. However, pride can also lead to unwanted behaviour in an organisation. An example of this is of the employees of a Goodyear plant in the northern of France. Maurice Taylor, the head of Goodyear, accused the employees of taking too long breaks and getting too little work done. The employees said it was the French way of working and refused to change this behaviour. Taylor then threatened to close the plant for this reason (Carnegy , 2013). This example shows the pride and hubris of two parties. First, there is the CEO that refuses to settle from factors that do not align with his way of thinking. Second, there are the employees that rather risk their job than the way they were used to working. In this example pride influences what people expect to get and what they expect to be prepared to give in certain situations. By aligning expectations it may positively influence pride and what employees will do for the organization. By not aligning expectations it may negatively influence pride and what employees will do for the organization.
Purpose
In this paper we will look at the consequences that certain leadership styles have on the pride and on the behaviour of employees and their leaders that is created by pride. In the literature there is a distinction made in the different forms of pride. First, we will research the relationship and the effects between the type of leadership and the type of pride. Second, we will research if leaders positively or negatively influence the behaviour of employees through pride. According to Wubben, Cremer and van Dijk (2012) pride can lead to positive behaviour and negative behaviour. In this paper we will make a distinction in positively influenced pride, authentic pride, and negatively influence pride, hubristic pride. This paper will describe both forms. The results of this paper can help managers understand how to behave in front of their employees and how to handle the pride of their employees.
Research question
This leads to the following research question: What effects do leadership styles have on the pride and
hubris of employees and are they mediated through pride when they effect the behaviour of
employees? More specifically, does transformational leadership have a positive effect on pride and, in turn, does this lead to more pro-organizational behaviour through pride? Does hubristic leadership have a negative effect on hubris and lead to less pro-organizational or even counterproductive behaviour through pride?
Den Hartog (1997) describes a transactional leader as a person that helps his or her employees to perform as they should. A transformational leader however, creates an emotional connection with his or her employees. He or she can inspire his employees to go beyond their expected performance. A factor that may explain this behaviour is pride. The employee is proud of his or her leader and works harder. Wubben, Cremer and van Dijk (2012) see pride in this context as pro social behaviour and call this authentic pride. Pro social in this context is seen as a positive influence of authentic pride. This will create positive Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). This is individual behaviour that is not directly recognized by the formal reward system, but can create a overall better organizational performance (Moorman, 1993). Yet, employees can experience their leader negatively. In that situation pride can create anti social behaviour. This is explained as hubristic pride, a form of pride that forms around the ego of an individual making him think only about his own interests. Hubristic pride may lead to counterproductive behaviour. Employees can see their leaders as abusive and start to resist against them (Tepper, 2007). This can occur when a leader may be considered hubristic. They can also copy his behaviour and start to act hubristic them self. This will also lead to
counterproductive behaviour. Petit and Bollaert (2012) explain that a hubristic leader has a grandiose sense of self. A hubristic leader also places himself above the community of humans. Furthermore, he doesn’t feel that he has to obey the rules like other beings.
Theories of variables
Transformational leadership
The best way to lead your employees is a subject that comes up a lot in how to organize your organisation. Bass (1985) discusses a relationship between a leader and his employees where they help each other out. The leader rewards his employees for the work he does. He explains there are three parts. These are contingent rewarding, active management-by-exception and passive
management-by-exception. De Hoogh, Den Hartog and Koopman (2004) confirm this and add that the work of an employee should be justified by a suitable reward. Transformational leadership however can give the work of an employee more meaning. Transformational leadership is more focus
motivating people instead of just ordering around. Bass and Avolio (1994) describe transformational leadership in four parts: Charisma, Inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Podsakoff (1990) nuanced transformational leadership with six key behaviours. He starts with the identification and articulation of a vision. The identification involves the behaviour of the leader in working towards new goals and chances and making that clear throughout the whole organisation. The articulation will help his employees to look up towards their leader and his vision on these goals and chances. Another key behaviour is providing an appropriate model. The model gives employees the values of their leader and how they can use these values. The third key behaviour is fostering the acceptance of group goals. The leader can help to create more cooperation between
employees with group goals. Furthermore, there are the fourth and fifth key behaviour. These involve having high performance expectations and providing individualized support. The leader can reflect his expectations on his employees and help them on a personal level. Finally, there is the sixth key behaviour, intellectual stimulation. The leader tries to challenge the status quo of the employees in what they believe is intellectual possible. These six behaviours are how transformational leadership will be defined in this paper.
Hubristic leadership
Power is one of the tools of a leader in an organization to get tasks done. A leader is assumed to help the organization with this power. There are however situations where the perception of the leader starts to differ from that from the rest of the organisation. He might see himself as better than the rest. He can start to think he deserves more that the rest. This can even lead to scenarios where the leader will abuse his power and overreach his capacity to get himself or the organization at a better position. Petit and Bollaert (2012) describe this type of leader as a hubristic leader. They discuss the hubris of a leader in three dimensions. The first dimension consists of the fact that a leader has a grandiose sense of him self. The second dimension is that a leader sees him self as standing above the community of humans. The last dimension describes how the leader doesn’t feel that laws and` rules apply to him.
A leader doesn’t turn hubristic in a single day. Hayward and Hambrick (1997) explain that there are three sources that can lead to hubristic behaviour among leaders. Recent organizational success is one of those reasons. Stakeholders easily blame the CEO when an organization has problems. Sometimes this even leads to desire for a new CEO. The hope of the stakeholders will be that the new CEO will solve the problems of the organization. The stakeholders created a culture where CEO’s are not only judged by what they’re doing, but where CEO’s are judged by how well the organization is doing. This leads to a situation that a CEO sees his own success every time the
organization does well. Even when there are other factors involved (Eisenhardt & Bourgeois, 1988). Another reason described by Hayward and Hambrick (1997) is the media praise for the CEO. The media portrays the actions of a CEO. If he sees himself back in the paper, he may not only see his actions as that of a leader. He can see himself as the hero of the firm. The final reason is the CEO’s self-importance. The leader can see himself as more needed that he in fact is. Hayward and Hambrick (1997) describe that salary can be a reason for this. Earning more salary than the rest of the
organization can increase the hubris of a leader. The leader sees himself as better than the rest and may see his opinion as superior. He may try to force this opinion on the rest of the organization. By doing this he doesn’t feel sympathy with others that oppose him. He will bend the rules until he gets his way (Christie& Geis, 1970; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). In this paper we will try to find out what the effect of the attitude of a leader towards his employees will have on the pride of the employees. We will also research if pride mediates the style of leadership on the work behaviour of the employees.
Authentic and hubristic pride
Pride can be considered as a strength of an individual, but it can also be a weakness. It can help an individual in getting a job done in a honest way, but it can also obstruct the way of getting the job done at all (Lewis, 2008). Verbeke, Bellschak and Bagozzi (2004) explain that there are several reasons for feeling pride. An individual can feel pride when he experiences personal worth. He can also feel pride when an action defies his ethics. These ethics can differ for every person. In this paper pride will be divided into two forms: Authentic pride and hubristic pride. Authentic pride is considered as a pro social emotion. It occurs when the success of a person reflects on his self-esteem. Hubristic pride can be considered as an anti social emotion. It gets triggered by narcissism (Tracy & Robins, 2007, Lewis, 2008) and will increase the chances of engaging in counterproductive work behaviour.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)
There are ways employees behave towards each other that can have a positive effect in the
organization. Organ (1988) describes organizational citizenship behaviour as individual behaviour that helps the organization, but is not directly linked to any formal reward system. OCB can also be a form of help of the employee to colleagues, without being ordered to do so. There are five OCB
dimensions. These are Sportsmanship, Courtesy, Conscientiousness, Altruism (the willingness to help others) and Civic Virtue (the degree of interest of employees in the life of the organization) (Organ, 1988). Sportsmanship involves accepting fouls in the organization. According to Organ (1988) sportsmanship involves accepting negative consequences that come with the job. Podsakoff (2000) goes even further and explains that is more than not complaining when you are being put into an inconvenient position, but also to keep a positive mood. Courtesy involves being willing to prevent problems for others by giving or asking for help. An example of this would be by notifying in advance when you will be absent when you make an appointment with your dentist or go on a holiday.
Conscientiousness involves awareness of what is going on in the organization.
Lee (1992) describes two broad forms of OCB, OCBI and OCBO. OCBI involves the citizenship behaviour aimed towards individual employees (for example, helping an individual co-worker). OCBO involves such the behaviour towards the organization. (for example, suggesting a helpful procedural change). In this paper the behavioural consequences of both OCBI and OCBO will be examined. The idea behind this is that the pride of an employee can have an effect on both
behaviour towards other individuals as well as the organization as a whole. We expect that people who experience more pride will be more likely to show both ECBI and OCBO. This paper will look at the direct comparison of a supervisor and his employee. Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki, Kutcher and Rosner (2005) show that there are positive effects of job satisfaction and involvement with the
organization with OCB. Transformational leaders may be able to influence these factors and therefore also positively affect OCB.
Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB)
Employees can show behaviour that has a negative impact on the organisation and their supervisors. This behaviour can be considered counterproductive. A reason for this behaviour can be that the employee feels mistreated. The employee does not get the recognition he thinks he deserves for doing a job (Tepper, 1998). It may also occur when the super visor breaches the contract. There are two situations in which this will take place. This can happen when the supervisor isn´t able to reward his employee. The assets of an organization may be frozen. It can also happen when the supervisor does not want to reward the employee. The employee may have been underproductive. This can be in the form of formal reward systems or informal reward systems (Organ,1998).
Another reason for CWB can be that the employee takes over the behaviour of his supervisor. He sees that his supervisor does not work in the best interest of the organization and may copy this behaviour by prioritizing his own interest (Alchian & Demsetz 1972). An individual can show this behaviour on purpose or without even noticing it himself. There are several forms of CWB described in four deviances. First, the production deviance, the individual can harm the organization in a way that isn´t considered very harmful. This occurs for example by leaving early from work. Second, the property deviance, the individual can harm the organisation in more serious ways. He can for example take home supply from work, which is stealing from your organization. The third form is political deviance. This can happen make harmless jokes about each other. The final form is personal aggression. This occurs when employees hurt each other physically or verbally (Robinson&Bennet, 1995). In this paper we will consider these deviances as the actions a hubristic leader and his employees can participate in.
Relations between variables
Den Hartog (1997) explains how a transformational leader creates a process of personal identification with his employees. If a leader shows a certain type of pride, this pride may be copied by the
employees. Authentic pride is perceived as a pro social emotion (Wubben, 2012). In contrary to hubristic pride, it is controllable, unstable and focuses on a specific cause. As a pro social emotion it may create a situation where employees go further than their job description. They create a better work environment or are prepared to help each other out more often. These actions can be describes as OCB. As noted, Organ (1988) pointed out five dimensions of OCB, which can be influenced by pride. Podsakoff found a positive effect between social forms of leadership and OCB.
Tepper (2007) describes how a CEO can abuse his power in an organization. Tepper describes a positive relationship between abusive supervision and the resistance behaviour of subordinates. This would mean that if the CEO shows more pride and uses this in a wrongly perceived way, his
employees would be provoked to show more resistance. This can be considered as a negative
behavioural consequence of pride and hubris. Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) however, explain that pride can also have positive behavioural consequences by improving the motivations of
employees. Hayward and Hambrick (1997) found associations between the size of premium paids for large acquisitions and the hubris of a CEO. Large acquisitions lead to a bigger hubris of the CEO. This behaviour can be copied by the employees of the CEO. When the CEO shows more signs of hubristic pride, the employees may show the same characteristics. This is however not the ideal situation. When employees start to think the rules of the organization for example do not apply to them, this will lead to counterproductive behaviour. Petit and Bollaert (2012) confirm this and describe factors that can explain the hubris of an CEO. Also, they explain that the possible behaviour of an CEO that makes an large acquisition shows more hubris than average and can be perceived as more negative. Hubristic pride is uncontrollable, stable and has a global cause ( Wubben, 2012). These factors can also lead to counterproductive behaviour of employees. A possible solution that they describe is authentic leadership. Employees can get frustrated by their hubristic leader. Storm and Spector (1987) explain that frustration can also lead to counterproductive behaviour. According to them, next to frustration, another reason for counterproductive behaviour is a desire to gain more power and control. This might occur when employees start to feel hubristic pride. Furthermore, Hambrick and Mason (1984) show that certain characteristics of CEO’s will predict certain behaviour in decision-making. This might lead to the conclusion that certain characteristics of employees can predict how employees will react with the type of leadership and pride.
Conceptual framework
Hypotheses
Hubristic
leadership Hubristic Pride Counterproductive Behaviour Transformational
Leadership Authentic Pride
Organizational Citizenship
In order to answer this research question the paper will be divided into six hypotheses based on previous literature.
Transformational leaders can inspire their employees. This can help boost their self esteem. The inspiration can have a positive effect on the authentic pride of the employees. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: Transformational leaders have a positive effect on authentic pride.
By boosting the self esteem of their employees, it can be beneficial for leaders. If the authentic pride of an employee rises, the employee may be prepared to do more than his job description. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2: Authentic pride leads to positive organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).
Employees will be prepared to do more than their job description for a transformational leader. However, they will only be prepared to do so through their authentic pride. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H3: Transformational leadership causes OCB, but this effect is mediated by authentic pride. If there is no authentic pride, there is no relationship between transformational leadership and OCB.
A hubristic leader can be seen as arrogant and self-involved. This may affect the pride of the employees of the hubristic leader. They can take over the same characteristics of their boss in their pride, leading to the following hypotheses:
H4: Hubristic leaders have a positive effect on hubristic pride.
By taking over characteristics like arrogance and self-involvement, employees may only focus on what is important to them and not even do their job well. This can increase the chance of counterproductive work behaviour. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H5: Hubristic pride has a positive effect on counterproductive work behaviour (CWB).
Employees may be more counterproductive at their job if they have a hubristic leader. However, this will only take place through the hubristic pride of the employee. This leads to the following
H6: Hubristic leadership causes CWB, but this effect is mediated by hubristic pride. If there is no hubristic pride, there is no relationship between hubristic leadership and CWB.
Design
The research in this paper is conducted in the form of a quantitative survey study. Saunders (2009) explains that survey studies can be used with exploratory and descriptive studies. He describes a survey as a research strategy that collects data in a structured manner within a sizeable population. A survey can collect a large amount of data from a population in a small amount of time. Given the time frame of this study of three months, a quantitative survey was an understandable option. It gave the researchers more control over the research process and it helped with findings that can be made about the whole population. This has also brought down the cost in comparison of questioning the entire population. Saunders also explains how quantitative data can be analysed and interpreted from simple tables to comparable statistics. These data helped to find the statistical relationships between the chosen variables. The level of analysis was the departments of several firms in several industries in the Netherlands. The relationship between an employee and his direct supervisor was observed. Because of the previous research done on the subject the feasibility of the proposed research can be considered as high. It is possible to conduct a quantitative survey study among available participants. The
sampling for this survey will be considered as convenient. There were be seven researchers that conducted the survey. They were expected to collect a minimal sample of twenty surveys each in a period of two weeks. The feasibility was increased, because there were no restraints among the participants. Furthermore, the survey is conducted among several group members who increased the feasibility even more.
The measured variables in this study will be: - Transformational leadership
- Hubristic leadership - Authentic pride - Hubristic pride
- Organizational Citizenship Behaviour - Counterproductive Work Behaviour
The statements in the survey will be answered by the participant with the Likert-style rating scale. This will allow the participant to express in what degree he or she agrees or disagrees with a
statement. For descriptive statistics, the participant will also be asks to answer categorical questions. These questions can be useful to recognize behaviour between certain groups in the population (Saunders, 2009). The questionnaire-based survey will be the most important data source. The other
data sources will contain articles from scientific journals about the several variables. This research design and strategy has his advantages and limitations. Saunders (2009) points out the fact that it can cost time and trouble to create a representative population. The proper analysis of the results can also take a lot of time with SPSS. A big advantage however, is that once the data is collected, the
researcher is no longer dependant on others for information. Due to a lack of time, it is not possible to conduct a structured observation or structured interviews next to the survey. This would have given more complete and more detailed results about the subject. It is also a limitation that the data is collected in one time frame. Several time frames would have increased the reliability of this study. Furthermore, it is not certain that this study will lead to the same result if it were conducted in Asia or America. The attitude of an employee towards a supervisor may be different due to cultural
differences.
Predictions
The prediction based on previous literature will be that authentic pride leads to positive organizational citizenship behaviour and hubristic pride leads to negative counterproductive behaviour. Furthermore, transformational leaders have a positive effect on pride and hubristic leaders have a negative effect on pride. The certain type of leadership causes a certain type of behavioural consequence, but this effect is mediated by pride. If there is no pride, there is no relationship between the type of leadership and the behavioural consequences.
Method Sample
The sample size in this research contained 114 dyads of the 115 participants. One dyad was excluded because of missing data. The average age of the participants is 36 years old, SD= 13, 2. There is a slight majority in the gender of the group for women. There are 64 women and 50 men. This shows a group of 55, 7 percent of women and 43.5 percent men. 8.7 percent of the participants only went to high school. 20 percent of the group of participant did MBO. The largest part of the group did HBO (32.5 %) or WO (35.7%). The sample size was selected by a research group of 7 Amsterdam Business School students. The participants had the option to fill out a survey online or they were given a printed version. The participants were selected according to convenience sampling.
Measurements
Participants were handed out surveys, there were to types of surveys, one for the leader and one for the employee. The surveys involved subjects such as transformational leadership, hubristic leadership, authentic leadership, hubristic leadership, OCB and CWB. The questions were asked with two types of Likert scale with values between 1 and 7 and values between 1 and 9. Cronbach’s alpha will be
reported in the results section. Transformational leadership was measured from employees with 11 items. Citations come from De Hoogh. Den Hartog & Koopman (2004). An example would be: “Your boss stimulates you to think outside of the box with your work.” Authentic pride is measured from employees with 7 items. Citations came from Wubben, Cremer and van Dijk (2012). An example of one of these items is if employees see their leader as “talented” or “successful”. OCB was determined for employees with 12 items. Citations came from Van Dyne & Le Pine (1998) and MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter (1991). An example would be “I come up with new ideas for procedures”. Hubristic leadership was measured from employees with 10 items. Citations came from Christie & Geis (1970). An example would be “People aren’t going to work hard unless you force them.” Hubristic pride was decided from employees with 9 items. Citations came from Petit & Bollaert (2012). The respondents were asked if they considered themselves “invincible” and “self-involved” CWB was measured from employees with 11 items. Citations came from Fox & Spector (1999). An example of an item would be “I purposely waste property of the organisation”.
Procedure
The research group was had the option to spread the survey to any type of organization. There were two types of questionnaires, one for the supervisor and the other for his employee. The condition was that the supervisor should lead the employee directly. This prevented the option to take the CEO of a company and a floor worker. Hence, you could see direct connections on what the two types of participants have on each other by working with each other. Seven students collected the data for this survey. They were allowed to use their social network and focused on collecting data from participants that had work their primary engagement (thus not, for example, student with only small part-time jobs. The questionnaires were spread in two ways. The first way was through Qualtrics, a program specially design to do surveys on and with statistical applications. The second way was to hand it out personally in hard copy. The survey of the supervisor was made shorter and more directly. The reason for this is that managers tend to be busier and have less time to fill out a long survey. The data collection of the seven students was done in a timeframe of two weeks.
Analyses
The data collected by the research group was first checked on the reliability. After concluding an acceptable reliability the variables was correlated with each other. To determine whether the
hypotheses could be accepted or rejected, we used regression analyses. This showed the validity of the research. The tested models will be summarized in descriptive and regression tables.
Results
We included 114 dyads and excluded 1 dyad in this research. The reason for the exclusion was
a lack of time.
As mentioned in the introduction, the expectation of the effect between transformational leadership and authentic pride is presumed to be positive. Also, we expect to find a positive effect authentic pride and OCB. Furthermore, we expect the positive effect of transformational leadership on OCB to disappear when we add authentic pride to the model. This will show us that authentic pride has a mediating effect.
Tabel 1: Descriptives and correlations between transformational leadership, authentic pride and OCB (Cronbach's alpha on the diagonal)
M SD 1 2 3 1.Transformational Leadership 5.44 0.88 (0.911) 2. Authentic pride 4.58 0.62 0.226* (0.774) 3. OCB 5.66 0.77 0.366** 0.203* (0.914) Note. N=114. *p<.05. **p<.01.
Model 1, with an explained variance of 13 percent, showed that transformational leadership has a significant positive effect (β =.366, p <.01, R2 = .134) on OCB with an alpha of 0.016. This is smaller than 0.05. This gives an indication that managers who perform transformational leadership will help increase the OCB of employees. This leads to the rejection of H3. (Baron and Kenny step 1).
The second regression analysis led to a significant positive effect of transformational leadership on authentic pride. Model 2, with an explained variance of 5 percent, showed that
transformational leadership has a positive effect (β =.226, p <.01, R2 = .051) on authentic pride with an alpha of 0.00. This is smaller than 0.05. This indicates that managers who perform transformational leadership will increase the authentic pride of his workers. This leads to support for H1 (Baron and Kenny step 2).
Furthermore, Model 3, with an explained variance of 4 percent, showed that authentic pride has a significant positive effect (β =.203, p <.01, R2 = .041) on OCB with an alpha of 0.03. This is smaller than 0.05. This indicates that employees with higher authentic pride will have a higher OCB. This leads to support for H2 (Baron and Kenny step 3).
Finally, Model 4, with an explained variance of 8 percent for transformational leadership(β =.338, p >.05, R2 = .149) and authentic pride(β =.126, p <.01, R2 = .149) , showed that
transformational leadership has an significant effect on OCB with an alpha of 0.00 and authentic pride had no a significant effect with an alpha of 0.162. This indicates that transformational leadership has a direct effect on proactive behaviour. If this were not the case, the effect with authentic pride would be the largest. Also, the effect of transformational leadership, which was found in model 1, would have disappeared in model 4. This leads to the rejection of H3 (Baron and Kenny step 4). Thus, in contrast to H3, we find no mediation, but rather a strong direct effect of transformational leadership.
Tabel 2 Regression results for all 4 model with variabels transformational leadership (TL), authentic pride (AP) and OCB
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Depe ndant Varia ble
OCB AP OCB OCB
C SE B C SE B C SE B C SE B Const ant 3.915 *** 0.424 3.710 *** 0.3 60 4.515 *** 0.527 3.337 *** 0.589 TL 0.321 *** 0.077 0.366 0.161 *** 0.0 65 0.226 0.296 *** 0.079 0.338 AP 0.250 *** 0.114 0.203 0.156 *** 0.111 0.126 R-squar e 0.134 0.051 0.041 0.149 Note. N=114. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
In the introduction we mentioned an expected positive effect between hubristic leadership and hubristic pride. We also presume a positive effect between hubristic pride and CWB and a mediation: if hubristic pride is placed between hubristic leadership and CWB, the effect between hubristic leadership and CWB is expected to disappear.
Tabel 3 Descriptives and correlations between hubristic leadership, hubristic pride and CWB (Cronbach's alpha on the diagonal).
M SD 4 5 6 4. Hubristic Leadership 3.25 0.80 (0.751) 5. Hubristic Pride 2.97 0.82 0.231* (0.803) 6. CWB 1.44 0.47 -0.168 0.115 (0.788)
Note. N=114. *p<.05. **p<.01.
Model 5, with an explained variance of 2 percent, showed that hubristic leadership has a significant negative effect (β =-.168, p <.01, R2 = .028) on CWB of employees with an alpha of 0.02. This is lower than 0.05. This would have indicated that managers who perform hubristic leadership will decrease the CWB of employees. This leads to the rejection of H6 (Baron and Kenny step 1).
The sixth regression analysis showed positive effect of hubristic leadership on hubristic pride. Model 6, with an explained variance of 5 per cent, showed that hubristic leadership has a significant positive effect (β =.231, p <.01, R2 = .053) on hubristic pride with an alpha of 0.20. This is lower than 0.05. This indicates that managers who are hubristic leaders will increase the hubristic pride. This gives support for H4 (Baron and Kenny step 2).
Furthermore, Model 7, with an explained variance of 1 percent, showed that hubristic pride has insignificant positive effect (β =.115, p <.01, R2 = .013) on CWB with an alpha of 0.224. This is higher than 0.05. This indicates that employees with more hubristic pride do not show more CWB. This leads to the rejection of H5 (Baron and Kenny step 3).
Finally, Model 8, with an explained variance of 4 per cent for hubristic leadership (β =-.196, p >.05, R2 = .042) and hubristic pride (β =.123, p <.01, R2 = .042), showed that hubristic leadership has an insignificant negative effect with an alpha of 0.055 and hubristic pride has an insignificant positive effect of 0.226 on CWB. This leads to the rejecting of H6 (Baron and Kenny step 4). Thus, again, we do not find mediation and H6 does not receive support.
Tabel 4 Regression results for all 4 models hubristic leadership, hubristic pride and CWB (Cronbach's alpha on the diagonal).
Note. N=114. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
Discussion
Summary of study results Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Depen dant Varia ble CWB HP CWB CWB C SE B C SE B C SE B C SE B Const. 1.712 *** 0.183 2.174 *** 0.343 1.250 *** 0.163 1.571 *** 0.217 HL -.109 *** 0.055 -.168 0.243 *** 0.103 0.231 -.109 *** 0.056 -.196 HP 0.065 *** 0.053 0.115 0.065 *** 0.053 0.123 R-square 0.028 0.053 0.042
The goal of this paper was to determine what effect transformational leadership had on OCB through authentic pride and what effect hubristic leadership had on CWB through hubristic pride. This led to the research question: What effects do leadership styles have on the pride and hubris of employees and
are they mediated through pride when they affect the behaviour of employees? More specifically, does transformational leadership have a positive effect on pride and, in turn, does this lead to more pro-organizational behaviour through pride? Does hubristic leadership have a negative effect on hubris and lead to less pro-organizational or even counterproductive behaviour through pride?
The study results indicate that there was a positive relationship between transformational leadership and authentic pride. There was also a significant positive relationship between authentic pride and OCB. Furthermore, there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. If both transformational leadership and authentic pride are put in a regression with OCB, transformational leadership shows a significant positive effect and hubristic pride shows a
insignificant positive effect on OCB. This would indicate a direct effect of transformational leadership on OCB and the absence of authentic pride as a mediating role between transformational leadership and OCB.
Other study results show a significant negative relationship between hubristic leadership and CWB and an insignificant positive effect between hubristic leadership and hubristic pride. The positive relationship between hubristic pride and CWB turned also out to be a positive significant relationship as well. When both hubristic leadership and hubristic pride are put in a regression with CWB, hubristic leadership shows an insignificant negative effect and hubristic pride shows a insignificant positive effect on CWB.
Hypotheses 1, 2 and 5 were supported. Transformational leaders have a positive effect on authentic pride. Authentic pride leads to positive organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Hubristic pride has a positive effect on counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). H3 showed that there was a direct connection between transformational leadership and OCB. Thus, transformational leadership causes OCB , but this effect is not mediated by authentic pride. and OCB H4 showed significant negative effect. Hubristic leaders do not have a positive effect on hubristic pride. This effect was also found for hubristic leadership in H6 for hubristic leadership, but the effect in this model was insignificant. Hubristic leadership decreases CWB, but this effect is not mediated by hubristic pride.
Unexpected results
It was unexpected to find that hubristic leadership had a negative effect on CWB. This would mean that if a leader shows more hubris, an employee is less likely to show counterproductive work
behaviour. It was also unexpected that hubristic pride had an insignificant positive effect on CWB. An employee that is more self involved and arrogant is presumed to show more signs of CWB. It was also
unexpected to find that authentic pride did not act as a mediator between transformational leadership and OCB.
Discussion points
When you look at the results and the literature it is build on then you would expect a slightly different results. A possible explanation for this might be that authentic pride and transformational leadership should change places. It may be possible that the authentic pride of an employee is mediated by transformational leadership to OCB. A leader can look at the pride of his employee and choose to increase or decrease the level of transformational leadership to get the wanted level of OCB. This would explain the direct connection between transformational leadership and OCB. This may also be the case with hubristic pride being mediated by hubristic leadership into CWB. Looking at how big the hubristic pride of an employee is, may affect the level of hubristic leadership that a manager will show to get to the maximum wanted CWB The significance level between the variables transformational leadership, authentic pride and OCB show that this might be a possibility.
It would however not explain why more hubristic leadership would lead to less CWB. A possible explanation for this might be that an employee is more frightened of a hubristic leader. A hubristic leader may fire you more quickly, or take other sanctions more easily, because he wants to use his authority and cares less about the rules that go with the deployment of an employee. However, the items used to examine this variable also include manipulating employees. The leader may still be arrogant and self involved. He also may affect his employees which can show the same characteristics. This does not increase the CWB though, because the leader knows how to get his way with the
employees and makes sure they obey by for example saying what they want to hear or giving them what they want in certain ways.
There could be several reasons why authentic pride did not mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. The first explanation might be that the sample size of the survey was too small. This reduces the power of the mediating effect. This is plausible, because the effect does appear to go in the right direction. This is not the case with hubristic pride. The negative effect of hubristic leadership on CWB might explain that there might be another theory involved. It might also be possible that authentic pride is a moderator between transformational leadership and OCB. This would explain the direct effect between transformational leadership and OCB. The presence of authentic pride however, could decide how strong this effect is. This is also a possibility for hubristic pride as a moderator between hubristic leadership and CWB. The presence of hubristic pride could also decide how strong this effect is. Finally, there could also be a possibility that transformational leadership and authentic pride are part of a dynamic circle and affect each other towards OCB. This would explain the direct relationship of transformational leadership on OCB as well as the direct relationship of authentic pride on OCB.
The questionnaire started with the question on which characteristics the employee describes himself with. By giving high values for pride and low for arrogance, the employee may be less likely to be negative about his boss. He might presume himself as arrogant for doing just that.
It might also be a discussion point that the timeframe in which the surveys were taken was too narrow. This may have given the research team the feeling to push the survey onto the respondents. The respondents may on their turn have answered to quickly without giving the real thought to the questions.
Furthermore, there might be a possibility that the data is too one-sided. More than half of the respondents had an education of HBO or WO. The average mindset of the respondents and the relation with their leader might have been different if more MBO educated people were involved in this research.
Interpretation of results
The results partly fit the theory. There is a significant positive effect of transformational leadership on OCB through authentic pride, but there is significant negative effect of hubristic leadership on CWB through hubristic leadership. There is no significant mediating role for authentic pride and hubristic pride. Therefore, the theory is partly verified and has to be adjusted.
The contribution of this study extents existing literature in a way that there is one gap less for researchers to look at when investigating authentic pride and hubristic pride. It takes authentic pride on one side with its effect on OCB and hubristic pride and its effect on CWB. The fact that the results are not significant can help other researchers in two ways. They can accept that the hypotheses are rejected or they can try to conduct their own survey adjusted with the discussion points that were mentioned earlier.
The results found in this study partly comply with earlier studies. Den Hartog, van Muijen & Koopman (1997) pointed out that transformational leaders tend to inspire their employees. Employees on their turn would be willing to do more than they are supposed to do. OCB is an example of this. Wubben, de Cremer & van Dijk, E. (2012) showed that authentic pride could lead to more social behaviour. OCB can also be perceived as an example of this kind of behaviour. Yet, the combination of inspiring leaders and authentic pride do not significantly lead to a higher OCB. The theory would also indicate that hubristic leadership would increase hubristic pride and create more
counterproductive work behaviour. There was however a negative effect between hubristic leadership and CWB. The theory should be adjusted.
There are practical implications for this study. Managers can use these results in developing their own leadership style. They know from this study what effect transformational leadership has on OCB and also realise that hubristic leadership does not have to lead to lesser results. They will also take the pride of their employees in consideration, but will realise there is no proof yet that their leadership will be mediated by the pride. This paper will also help managers understand their function
as role models. It helps them understand that employees take over characteristics of their boss. Knowing this may influence the way managers look at their employees and behave towards their employees. The pride of employees may not have a mediating role in this research. This however does not mean we can rule out the fact that does not influence the OCB and CWB of employees. This is a subject that other researcher can use for future research. For future research we can also try to find out what other variables affect OCB and CWB and if other variables will have a mediating effect between a certain type of leadership and the behavioural consequences. Another subject for future research may be that pride can be created by the individual self. An employee can have an arrogant and selfish boss, but this does not have to mean he will change his own values in doing his job well. Other factors like education and the neighbourhood an individual grew up in may influence the pride of an individual more severe.
This study has certain limitations; it is a cross-sectional study in which you can’t proof reversed causality. Authentic pride may lead to OCB, but OCB can also lead to more pride. In this study we only test the relationship between the variables, not the direction of the variables. To ensure the direction and to find the causal effect we would have to use a longitude study
Conclusion
Pride can help an organization to become stronger, but can also lead to unwanted behaviour in an organisation. This paper conducted a research with the variables transformational leadership and authentic pride and their effect on OCB and hubristic leadership and hubristic pride and their effect on CWB. This led to the following research question: What effects do leadership styles have on the pride
and hubris of employees and are they mediated through pride when they affect the behaviour of employees? More specifically, does transformational leadership have a positive effect on pride and, in turn, does this lead to more pro-organizational behaviour through pride? Does hubristic leadership have a negative effect on hubris and lead to less pro-organizational or even counterproductive behaviour through pride?
Transformational leadership helps to increase the authentic pride and the level of OCB. There is however no mediating effect through authentic pride. Hubristic leadership increases the hubristic pride of an employee, but it decreases the level of CWB. There is also no mediating effect through hubristic pride.
References
Alchian, A.A., &Demsetz, H. (1972) Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization.American Economic Review 62, 777-95.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (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.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The
Free Press.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993) Transformational Leadership: A Response to Critiques. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.) Leadership theory and research:
Perspectives and directions. New York: Free Press.
Bragger, J.D., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., Kutcher. E. J. & Rosner, l. I. E. (2005). Workfamily conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior
among teachers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20 (2).
Carnegy H. (2013) US tyremaker drives over French pride. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/639e1178-7b2e-11e2-8eb3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Pu76wnxj, Financial Times.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. De Hoogh, A.H.B., den Hartog D.N. & Koopman, P.L. (2004) De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag & Organisatie, Volume 17(5), 354-382
Den Hartog, D. N., van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
70 (1), 19-34.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Bourgeois, L.J. (1988) Politics of strategic decision making in high velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737-770. Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., Haga, W.J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46- 78.
Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Hayward, M. L. A., Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 103-127.
Hambrick, D.C., Mason, P.A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. The Academy Of Management Review, 9 (2), 193-206.
Hoogh, A.H.B., Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 354-382. Howell, J.M., & Hall-Merenda, K.E. (1999). The ties that bind: The impact of leader member
exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680-694
Lee & Allen (2002) Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of Affect and Cognitions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 131–142
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., & Stilwell, D. (1992). A longitudinal study on the early development of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 4, 662-674.
Liden, R.C., & Maslyn, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43-72. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision processes, 50, 123-150
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P., Organ, D.W. (1993) Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 209-225.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome.
The Academy of Management Review, 14 (2), 294-297
Petit, V., & Bollaert, H. (2012). Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOs and how to prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics, 108 (3), 265-283.
Paulhus, D.L. & Williams, K.M.(2002). The dark triad op personality: Narcissims, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literatiure and suggestions for future research, Journal of
Management, 26, (3), 513-563.
Robinson, S. L. & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors; A 41 Multidimensional Scaling Study. Academy of Management Journal 38 (2), 555- 572.
Robinson, S.L. & Morrison, E.W. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: a longitudal study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 525-546.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009) Research methods for business students (5th edn). Edinburgh Gate, ES: Prentice Hall
Storms, P.L., & Spector, P.E. (1987) Relationships or organizational frustration with the reported behavioural reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 60, 227-234.
Tracy, J.L. & Robins, R.W. (2007) The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506-525.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 261-289.
Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J.A. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology 1998. 83, (6), 853-868
Verbeke, W., Belschak, F. D., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The adaptive consequences of pride in personal selling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (4), 386-402.
Wubben, M. J. J., de Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2012). Is pride a prosocial emotion? Interpersonal effects of authentic and hubristic pride. Cognition and Emotion, 26 (6), 1084-1097.
