1
SELF-CONCEPT
CLARITY AND
NEED FOR
LEADERSHIP
The importance of self-knowledge
Executive Programme Management Studies
HRM Track
Amsterdam Business School
J.M.M. van Kleef
student number: 10317279
supervisor:
dr. A.H.B. de Hoogh
final draft 4-9-2015
2 This document is written by J.M.M. van Kleef 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.
3 TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3. METHOD 4. RESULTS 5. DISCUSSION 6. CONCLUSION 7. REFERENCES
4 Abstract
This study examined the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership. This study further investigated the moderating effects of workload,
coworker support and worklife balance on the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership. Quantitative data were collected from 114 participants in the nonprofitsector. Moderated regression analysis results showed that self-concept clarity correlated negatively with need for leadership. No support was found for the
moderating effects of workload, work life balance and co-worker support.
introduction
Although it is largely recognized and accepted by practioners and researchers that leadership is important, and it is recognized and accepted that leaders do contribute to key
organizational outcomes, research shows that not all followers equally need leaders to perform well. (De Vries, 1997).
It is interesting to look at possible antecedents of need for leadership. We argue that self- concept clarity may be an important antecedent. Self-concept refers to the “the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined” (Campbell, Trapnell, Heine, Katz, Lavallee & Lehman, 1996). It is plausible that followers who have no clear and consistent
5 self-concept guiding their behavior, will need guidance and support to be able to know what they are expected to do.
Especially when followers with low self-concept clarity have high workload and work life imbalance, it is likely that followers will count on their leader’s encouragement and support. Moreover, we propose that coworker support moderates the relationship between self- concept clarity and need for leadership.
In this study we investigate the role of self-concept clarity (Campbell et al., 1996) in relation to need for leadership (De Vries, 1997). We examine how self-concept clarity relates to need for leadership , and whether workload, co-worker support and work-life balance moderate the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership. (see Figure 1 for the
theoretical model)
We will start with a brief overview of the research on follower-centered approaches to leadership. Next, we will examine the follower characteristics ‘need for leadership’ and ‘’self-concept clarity’. Subsequently , we will discuss the direct relationship of self-concept clarity and need for leadership and the possibility of moderator effects. We will discuss our method of research, and subsequently, present the results. This thesis will finish with the conclusions and a discussion.
6
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Follower-centered approaches to leadership
Researchers have studied the concept of leadership extensively. Although many writers agree that leadership is a relationship that is jointly produced by leaders and followers, it can be stated that most theories of leadership (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988) are leader centered. Most researchers have focused primarily on the leader and neglected the significance of followers.
Recent work has extended follower-centered approaches to leadership ( Meindl, 1995; Shamir, Pillai, Bligh & Uhl-Bien, 2007). This work, initiated by Meindl (1995) and extended by others (Howell & Shamir, 2005) shows that the role of followers in leadership processes is broader than the role previous given them in leadership theories.
As described by Carsten and Uhl-Bien (2010) research on follower-centered
perspectives of leadership has explored how followers construct leadership (Meindl, 1995), how personal characteristics of followers influence perceptions of leadership (Schyns & Felfe, 2006), and how followers can engage in self-leadership and shared leadership (Manz & Sims, 1980; Pearce & Conger, 2003).
Uhl- Bien and Pillai (2007) conclude that despite the fact that follower-centered approaches draw much needed attention to the role of followers in the leadership process, these approaches are still primarily leader-centric in its focus. An area that has not been explored in leadership research is that of followership (Baker, 2007). In the followership approach the issue of interest is not follower perspectives on leadership but instead follower
7 perspectives on followership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).
Follower-centric perspectives also include research on Implicit Leadership Theories (ILS; Rusj, Thomas, & Lord, 1977). This research proposes that followers have beliefs and schema for leader behaviour that influence the extent to which they attribute effectiveness and normative evaluations to a leader. (Weick, 1979). De Vries and van Gelder (2005) introduced the idea of implicit follower theories, arguing that people not only have ideas about how leaders are, but also about how followers are.
According to Uhl-Bien individuals have implicit relationship theories. She has argued that these theories affect the cooperation between, for example, leader and follower, as both enter the relationship with different or similar ideas. (Uhl-Bien, 2003). An individual’s implicit relational schema consists of prototypical traits and behaviors that he/ she expects relational partners to demonstrate. (Uhl-Bien, 2003).
In sum, research on follower-based approaches is still in its infancy. As leadership-centered theories and follower-leadership-centered perspectives are inextricably linked, it is positive that in recent years follower-centered perspectives have become more popular. For example, several researchers have discovered that follower traits such as motivation and self-efficacy (Dvir & Shamir, 2003) enhance perceptions of transformational leadership. Other research shows that emotional arousal in followers increase perceptions of charismatic leadership. (Pastor, Mayo, Shamir, 2007). Bligh and Schyns (2007) found that follower attitudes can have a negative effect on perceptions of leadership. Carsten & Uhl-Bien (2010) examine the social construction of followership. Their results suggest that followership can very along a passive-to-proactive continuum.
In a recent extensive review of the leadership and the self literature, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, and Hogg (2004) conclude by remarking that it is important to develop a theory that considers different aspects of follower selfconcept that have not yet
8 been considered. In essential respects they agree with Lord, Brown, and Freiberg (1999) . They point out that both followers’ and leaders’ self-concepts have received very little attention. They further suggest that a focus on the self-concept provides a mechanism for understanding reciprocal effects from both leaders to followers and followers to leaders (Lord et al.,1999).
This study will focus on followers’ self-concept clarity. We propose that followers’ self- concept clarity is related to followers’ need for leadership. This research relates to the work of Howell and Shamir who investigated the relationship between the type of charismatic relationship that develops between leaders and followers and the followers’ self-concept (Howell and Shamir, 2005).
self-concept clarity
The preoccupation with self-knowledge has been around as long as history itself. ‘Know thyself’ is a well-known phrase that was written in ancient Greek letters on the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. For centuries, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists have emphasized the importance of self-knowledge. Research demonstrates that individuals vary not only in terms of what they think of themselves, but also in the clarity and certainty of their self-images (Baumgardner, 1990; Campbell, 1990). The clarity and certainty people have about their self-perceptions are captured in the construct of self-concept clarity. Self-concept clarity has been Self-conceptualized both as a trait and a state (Campbell et al., 1996). It refers to the “the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined”, internally consistent, and temporally stable (Campbell et al., 1996, p.141).
Individuals with low self-concept clarity have clouded notions of who they are and what traits they possess. They are unsure about how to describe themselves and tend to change their self-views more easily. Low self-concept clarity arises when people experience a
9 mixture of positive and negative self-beliefs, leading to self-concept confusion, which in turn has several negative consequences (Leary & Tangney, 2003). Individuals are said to have high self-concept clarity if they know which traits describe them, if these descriptions stay constant through time, and if these descriptions relate to specific behaviours.(Campbell, 1990).
Researchers have described a number of constructs that on the surface seem similar to self-concept clarity, yet are nevertheless distinct. Specifically, self-concept clarity is distinct from a concept called strong sense of self (Flury & Ickes, 2007). People with a strong sense of self are supposed to have a concrete sense of who they are and they are assumed to know what their opinions are on certain issues (Flury and Ickes, 2007). As mentioned earlier, Campbell defines self-concept clarity as the extent to which the contents of an individual’s self-concept are, in addition to being clear and welldefined, coherent and well-integrated and highly stable over time (Campbell et al., 1996). In contrast, a strong sense of self requires a high level of clarity and at least a moderate level of stability, but not a high level of
integration. (Flury and Ickes, 2007).
certainty is another construct that is closely related to self-concept clarity. Self-certainty can be defined as the Self-certainty with which people hold self-views (Story,2004). There is an important difference between a diffused self-concept and an uncertain one. For instance, a person may be highly certain of two self-beliefs that are psychologically
inconsistent. Although certainty of the specific self-beliefs may be high, the inconsistency of those beliefs may contribute to a lack of global self-concept clarity (Story,2004).
Similarly, self-concept clarity differs from self-complexity. According to Linville (1982) self-complexity refers to the number of self-aspects a person has and the amount of independence among those self-aspects. For example, a man who conceives himself as
10 range of life experiences has a large number of nonoverlapping self-aspects. Social
psychologists would say that he has high self-complexity. In contrast, a woman who perceives herself primarily as either a student or as a member of the hockey team and who has encountered a relatively narrow range of life experiences would be said to have low self-complexity. It is important to note that self-concept clarity refers not to a low number of selfviews, but to the extent to which self-views are well defined. For example, a woman may be high in self-complexity because she has a large number of nonoverlapping roles. She may also be high in self-concept clarity because she is certain of her views of herself in each role.
Finally, self-concept clarity is distinct from self-concept differentiation. Donahue, Robins, Roberts and John (1993) define self-concept differentiation as the degree to which one sees the self as having different personality characteristics in different social roles. In contrast to self-complexity, self-concept differentiation involves not the number and independence of self-aspects, but rather the variability of one’s traits across roles. People high in self-concept differentiation presumably lack coherence and integration among their self-aspects (Donahue et al.,1993). Nevertheless, some theorists emphasize the advantages of self-concept differentiation.They view a high level of self-concept differentiation as an indication of specialized identities that facilitate coping with the various social role demands of modern life. (Campbell et al., 2003). From this point of view, self-concept differentiation differs from self-concept clarity, as the view that a lack of self-concept clarity is undesirable, is commonly shared.
The view that self-concept clarity is desirable, is commonly shared. One of the benefits of self-concept clarity is that it bolsters self-esteem (Campbell, 1990; Campbell et al.,1996). Campbell (1990 ) compared persons high and low in self-esteem and found that persons high in self-esteem show (1) greater stability in their self-beliefs over time; (2) greater consistency in the way they report their self-beliefs; (3) greater confidence and
11 extremity in their beliefs about the self and (4) greater consistency between their general
self-beliefs and situation specific self-self-beliefs.
It is also positively related to subjective well-being, incorporating variables such as
satisfaction with life and the experience of positive mood (Campbell et al.,1996; De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005). There is also experimental evidence that self-concept clarity not only correlates with psychological well-being, but also bolsters it. (Lewandowski, Nardone and Raines, 2010). Further greater self-concept clarity has been associated with lower
neuroticism, less negative affect and less distress (Bigler, Neimeyer & Brown, 2001)
Correlational research suggests that self-concept clarity helps people deal with daily negative events (Lavallee and Campbell,1995), being treated unjustly by others (de Cremer and Sedikides, 2005) and relational breakups (Slotter, Gardner and Finkel, 2010).
Importantly, the relationship between self-concept clarity and different well-being indicators seems to be culturally bounded. Until now self-concept clarity research has mainly focused on the Western world, a predominantly individualistic culture in which the habitual point of focus is on the individual. However in collectivist cultures, individuals look to the social environment to define the self (Cousins, 1989). Such cultures place less importance on the self and more importance on the social group and an individual's ability to blend in with their group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Campbell et al. (1996) found that Japanese students reported lower self-concept clarity than Canadian students. Further, the correlations between self-concept clarity and self-esteem were higher for Canadian participants than for Japanese participants (Campbell et al, 1996).
12
Need for leadership
Need for leadership can be defined as the extent to which an employee wishes the leader to facilitate the paths towards individual, seems to be of immediate relevance for what happens in the interaction between the leader and the subordinate. (De Vries et al, 2002). Need for leadership can be considered as a characteristic of subordinates. (De Vries, 1997).
According to the Vries (1997; de Vries et al., 2002), need for leadership is a social-contextual need , which can vary depending on circumstances (De Vries et al, 2002).“Social” refers to the social setting in which the motive develops. “Contextual” refers to environmental contingencies of the need. So a subordinate may feel a strong need for leadership in one social setting, whereas in other social settings the same subordinate feel no need for leadership. (De Vries et al, 2002). These findings are in line with the conclusions of Ryan (1995) who has argued that people may have different needs at different times and/ or in different settings.
“Organizational formalization”, “organizational inflexibility”, “advisory and staff support” were positive related to need for leadership (de Vries, Roe, Taillieu, & Nelissen, 2004). According to the Vries these results suggest that followers need their supervisor due to complexity of professional and bureaucratic organizations. Supervisor may add value by helping subordinates to overcome some of the obstructions in these organizations which could prevent subordinates from being effective.
Research shows that besides the social-contextual setting and the circumstances, followers’s characteristics determine the need for leadership. De Vries et al (2004) found that ‘ experience, training, knowledge, ability and need for independence“ were negatively related to need for leadership. In this study the focus is on follower’s self-concept clarity. It
13 is plausible that this characteristic is related to need for leadership. According to Flury and Ickes (2007) and Kernis (2005) people with a weak sense of self (i.e. individuals who have low self concept clarity) rely on others to help them form opinions and make decisions.
This behaviour probably has to do with the fact that people with a diffused self-concept have low self-efficacy. Self-efficacy expectations are beliefs about one’s ability to successfully perform a given behaviour. (Bandura, 1977). One sense’s of self-efficacy can play a major role in how one approaches goals, tasks, and challenges (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005). Expectations of a person’s efficacy determine whether behaviour will be initiated, how much energy will be expended, and for how long the effort will be sustained in the presence of difficulties. People with greater self-efficacy are more likely to make efforts to accomplish a task, and to persist longer in those efforts because they believe they are able to eventually succeed (Bandura, 1997). Conversely, people who doubt their ability to complete a difficult task are more likely to avoid it. It is likely that they need others to complete this task.
According to Lindley (2001) self-efficacy is strongly related to selfesteem. Given the powerful relation between self-esteem and self-concept clarity (Campbell, 1990) , it is
reasonable to assume that self-concept clarity and self-efficacy also are associated. Further self-efficacy is positively influenced by the control of negative emotions. As self-concept clarity is correlated negatively with neuroticism. (Lavallee & Campbell, 1995), it is also likely that people with a diffused self-concept are often people with low self-efficacy.
Campbell (1990) suggests that individuals who have uncertain self-concepts are more dependent on self-relevant information and are more susceptible to and influenced by this information than are people with more articulated self-views. These findings are in line with the conclusions of Vartanian, and Dey (2013) who have argued that individuals who are low in self-concept clarity lack a clear sense of their own identity. They might seek out and
14 become vulnerable to the influence of external sources that can help define the self; in
contrast, individuals high in self-concept clarity should be less influenced by external guides because they have a strong sense of their own personal identity (Vartanian & Dey, 2013). This leads to the following hypothesis
H1 Self- concept clarity is negatively related to need for leadership
Self- concept clarity, need for leadership and stress
Scolars have reasoned that individuals with higher self-concept clarity are overall more active and show more cooperative problem-solving behaviour than people with low self-concept clarity (Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad & Zapf, 2010). Other research indicates that self-concept clarity is associated with preferred coping styles.(Smith, Wethington and Zhan, 1996). A coping style can be defined as the usual and stable response to an event(s) or situation(s) which is the product of a cognitive process involving the appraisal of situational demands, the adaptability and possibility of responses, and the reappraisal of the situation following the person’s behaviour. Coping strategies are often categorized into active and passive strategies. Active strategies include seeking social support or advice and information, planned problem solving, taking action and positive reappraisal. In contrast, withdrawal, denial, emotional discharge and resigned acceptance are exemples of passive coping strategies.
Research shows that people with clearer self-concepts have a tendency to engage in more active coping behaviors. (Smith et al., 1996) .Conversely, people with less clear self-concepts tend to use more passive coping strategies. These strategies are not directly focused on
resolving either the problem itself or the emotional consequences of the problem, but these behaviours indirectly avoid the problem. These maladaptive coping skills usually make things worse. It is therefore likely that in times of stress, employees with a diffused self-concept
15 need an increase in support. It seems therefore reasonable to expect that stress influences the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership.
As research shows that workload, work-life balance and co-worker support are factors that influence an individual’s stress level, it seems plausible that workload and work-life imbalance are also affect the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership.
The influence of workload
There are many factors that increase stress level at the workplace i.e. extended work hours and lack of support in the organizational setting (Davey, Obst & Sheehan, 2001). Uncertainty around the future of one’s job, role conflict, and physical demands of the work can also impact stress levels. (Brief & Aldag, 1976). In this study we focus on workload.
There is no single, commonly accepted definition of workload but there are many conflicting concepts of what workload comprises. According to Karasek (1979), workload can be conceptualized as job strain, a combination of psychological job demands and control in the job. High job strain may result from high job demands combined with low job control (Karasek,1979).
Although the terms workload and stress are often used interchangeably and are sometimes difficult to distinguish from one another, workload should not be confused with stress. Hart and Bortolussi (1984) draw the following distinction between workload and stress in their assessment of sources of workload. Workload was evaluated as the change in effort required when dealing with tasks, whereas stress was regarded as an experience that is the
consequence of changes in the tasks. However, the results of their study indicated closely correlated estimations of workload and stress. (Hart & Bortolussi,1984). Experiencing a
16 heavy workload will likely to enhance the need for leadership. Supervisors can help to
identify the crucial element that has the strongest effect of the workload of an employee. They can help employees to take care of themselves by encouraging them to manage their workload differently, e.g. setting more realistic targets. Further they can take the necessary actions to reduce workload. It is clear that organizations and in particular human research departments should consider this issue. The work schedule, job specification, etc. should be clearly set out. (Guimarães et al., 2012, p.1647). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2a Workload is positvely related to need for leadership
Research shows that self-concept clarity and stress are inextricably linked. Self-concept clarity could play a protective role against important stressors because individuals with a clear self-concept may be more able to cope with negative appraisals. Other research shows that self-concept clarity is inversely related to indices of psychological distress and is positive related to subjective well-being. (Campbell et al., 1996; De Cremer & Sedikides, 2005; Lavalllee & Campbell). On the other hand, individuals with a confused self-concept are more likely to exhibit heightened reactions to stressful events because their self-concept does not provide them with effective and consistent input on how to behave (Kernis, Paradise, Whitaker, Wheatman, &Goldman, 2000). Stress may exacerbate the manifestation of neuroticism and self-concept clarity is correlated negatively with neuroticism. (Lavallee & Campbell, 1995). Neurotic individuals are more likely than their counterparts to implement ineffective coping strategies when attempting to regulate stress (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). Is it plausible that in stressful situations, followers will count on their leader’s
17
H2b The workload moderates the relationship between self concept clarity
and need for leadership, such that when the workload is high, the
relationship between self concept clarity and need for leadership is stronger
than when the workload is low.
The influence of worklife balance
Striving for a good work-life balance has become a challenge for many employees nowadays. Over the last decade, an ever increasing number of employees are struggling with how to manage their joint enactment of multiple roles. Work-family conflict issues have received a great deal of attention from researchers. This conflict has been widely reported (e.g. Amstad, Meier, Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, N.K. ,2011). This conflict has been defined as a form of interrole conflict in which the role pressures from work and family are mutually incompatible in some respect (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985).
Recently, a broader term has emerged in the literature to refer to work/non work conflict: work-life balance which offers a more inclusive approach to the study of work/ non work conflict compared to work-family conflict. Work-life imbalance is a source of stress that many individuals experience. Research on work-family conflict and work-life balance shows that incompatibility between work and family and work-life imbalance have adverse effects on employees‘ health and well-being( e.g. Kinnunen, Feldt , Geurst, & Pulkkinen, 2006). Both work family conflict as work-life imbalance have been associated with increased stress and burnout (Anderson, Coffey & Byerly, 2002).
18 Many organizations implement work practices intended to facilitate employees’ efforts to fulfil both their employment-related and their personal responsibilities. There are a large variety of these practices which include the following : flexible working hours, part-time work, job sharing, parental leave, compressed work weeks, telecommuting and financial and/ of informational assistance with childcare and eldercare services (Hartel, Fujimoto, Strybosch & Fitzpatrick, 2007).
Research shows that supervisory support is a critical factor in reducing work-life conflict for the people they manage. Supervisors can encourage or discourage the use of formal work-life benefits by subordinates.Studies found that supervisory support was an important source of social support in coping with problems associated with work-family conflict (Anderson et al., 2002). As supervisors have firm-specific knowledge of work-life policies, they can provide subordinates with information about, and access to, formal work-life benefits (Hopkins ,2005). Furthermore, they can help them to access resources that will help to manage work-life balance. (Hopkins,2005). Further, even in the absence of formal work-life policies, supervisors are often able to exercise flexibility and provide informal ways to accommodate employees’ personal circumstances.
Thus, based on previous research, it can be concluded that supervisor support has a relationship with work-life balance. Therefore, it seems plausible that employees turn to their supervisors when they are experiencing work-life balance difficulties. This leads to the following hypothesis
H3a Work-life balance is negatively related to need for leadership
Work-life imbalance is a source of stress that many individuals experience and striving for a good work-life balance has become a challenge for many employees nowadays. Due to
19 ineffective coping strategies, it is plausible that followers who have a low self-concept clarity lack the ability to solve problems It is likely that they need their supervisors to help them. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3b work-life balance moderates the relationship between self-concept
clarity and need for leadership, such that such that self-concept clarity will
be less strongly associated with need for leadership when the work-life
balance is good then when there is imbalance.
The influence of co-worker support
Research in social psychology indicates that there is a relationship between helping and status. Being dependent on others may imply relative weakness while giving help to others is associated with relatively higher status and strength (Nadler & Fisher, 1986). Other research shows that helping within the group is motivated by the helper’s ambition to obtain status in the group (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). Another social psychological study found that high self-esteem individuals seek less help than low self-esteem individuals (Nadler, Mayseless, Peri, & Chemerinski, 1985). The theoretical framework to explain these results is the threat-to-self-esteem model (Fisher, 1982). According to the threat-threat-to-self-esteem model help is perceived as threatening because help implies that the aid recipient is incapable of completing the task alone (Fisher, 1982).
Some people are less likely than other people to seek help. Further, it seems plausible that the people seek help, the more people receive support. The following hypothesis can be
20
H4a Co-worker support is positively related to need for leadership
Research has shown that social support can help an individual maintain psychological well-being, especially in times of stress (Blanchard, Albrecht, Ruckdeschel, Grant & Hemmick, 1995).). Social support has been described as a coping resource (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) in that the access to a social network may help individuals utilise coping strategies more effectively (such as information seeking or looking for other jobs (Heaney, Price & Rafferty, 1995).
In terms of the mechanism of social support, there are two competing theories about the nature of the relation between social supports and health.(Cohen &Wills, 1985). The ‘main effect hypothesis’ argues that social support may work directly to reduce psychological strains and increase well-being irrespective of whether people face stressful events. (Cohen &Wills, 1985).
According to the second hypothesis social support is mostly beneficial in stressful times, as the support is positively related to health and well-being by protecting people from the effects of stressors (Beehr, Jex, Stacey & Murray, 2000). Social support is expected to interact with the stressor so that those who perceive that they have strong social support may react less negatively to stressors than those who do not perceive strong support (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994). In other words the strength of the relationship between stressors and the
outcomes depends on the level of social support; when social support is high, the relationship between stressors and their outcomes is relatively weak. In contrast, when social support is low, the relationship becomes stronger.
Social support can take different forms. It may for example be emotional, instrumental, or informative (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994). These different forms of support clarify by which
21 mechanisms social support may function as moderator of the relation between stressor and stress outcomes. Emotional support refers to the things that people do that make us feel loved and cared for and serves to build self-confidence (Heaney et al., 1995). Such support is useful in combating everyday stress. Instrumental support involves the provision of tangible aid and services that direct assist a person in need (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The third type of support, informative, works to decrease uncertainty. This support involves the provision of advice, suggestions, and information that a person can use to address problems. By
communicating with others and being part of a social network, the individual obtains information that can serve to decrease situational ambiguity (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
As low self-concept clarity is correlated with the use of more passive coping styles, such as disengagement and denial and as people with a diffused self-concept often have inadequate problem-solving skills, it seems plausible that the different forms of social support will benefit the individuals who have low self- concept clarity.
This leads to the following hypothesis
H4b perceived coworker support moderates the relationship between self
-concept clarity and need for leadership, such that self--concept clarity will
be less strongly associated with need for leadership when coworker support
is high than when it is low.
22
The conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1
workload
self-concept clarity
need for leadership
23
METHODS
respondents and procedure
The data for testing the hypotheses were gathered in a crossfunctional and
crossorganizational sample of 114 employees, i.e., the sample contained people working in different jobs within different firms. Participants were working in the nonprofit sector. A preliminary list of nonprofitorganizations was identified through personal contact.
Is was drawn in the following way. Before the questionnaire was launched, a test group of four employees provided feedback about the questionnaire. This resulted in textual changes to improve the understanding of the questions. After informative meetings with representatives of the management and personnel departments, all employees who orally agreed to participate, received questionnaires and return envelopes at their homes. The questionnaires were accompanied by a letter, in which the goal of the study was briefly introduced. The confidentiality and anonymity of the answers were emphasized. The questionnaires consisted of two parts. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of 66 Likert-scale items. In the second part of the questionnaire participants were asked
24 measures
In this section the measures used in this study will be explained. All items were obtained from previous research. The following variables were measured in the current study: need for leadership, self-concept clarity, workload, work-life balance and perceived co-worker
support.
need for leadership
Need for leadership of the followers was measured by 17 items of de Vries (1997). The ‘need for leadership’ variable was scored on 1-5 Likert-like scales. Its answering categories ranged from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘a lot ’(5). The original instrument was in the Dutch language. The ‘need for leadership’ scale described a series of specific work goals for which the subordinate would need a contribution from his/ her leader (e.g. “I need my supervisor to arrange things with higher-level management” and “ I need my leader to help solve problems”).
self-concept clarity
The Self-Concept Clarity Scale consisted of 12 items assessing the extent to which one feels positively about oneself and believes the same person across different situations and over time. (Campbell et al.1996). Five-point Likert-scale items were used, with a response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items are “my beliefs about myself often conflict with one another” and “in general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am”. The original instrument was in the English language.
Since all respondents to the survey had Dutch as their first language, the original items were translated into Dutch. As the original items of the Self Concept Clarity Scale were
25 translated into Dutch, it was very important to assure that the content of the items remained unchanged. A forward- backward translation procedure was used.
workload
Our measure of ‘workload’ was based on a Dutch version (Furda, 1995) of Karasek’s (1985) Job Content Instrument. The scale included four items that refer to quantitative, demanding aspects of the job (e.g., time pressure, working hard). A sample item is “My work requires working very hard?” Items were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from never (1) to always (5). A forward- backward translation procedure was used.
perceived co-worker support
On the basis of an eight-item index adopted form Anderson and Williams (1996), respondents were asked to indicate how often during the past month their co-workers provided them with support. A sample item is “How often did your direct colleagues listen to your work related problems is the last month?” Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5) to indicate the frequency with they had experienced the situations described by each of the eight items. A forward- backward translation procedure was used.
work-life balance
To assess ‘work-life balance’ two subscales of the SWING (Survey Work–home Interaction NijmeGen; Geurts, Taris, Kompier, Dikkers, Van Hooff, & Kinnunen, 2005) were used. The work-familyconflict (FWC) subscale consisted of 8 items and the family-work conflict (FWC) subscale was composed of 4 items. Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (1) to always (5) to indicate the frequency with they had experienced the
26 difficult to fulfil your domestic obligations because you are constantly thinking about your work?” and “How often does it happen that your work schedule makes it difficult for you to fulfil your domestic obligations?” ).
control variables
We controlled for possible alternative explanations by including relevant control variables. Four control variables were included in the present study: age, work experience, perceived leader effectiveness and hierarchy of authority. ‘Hierarchy of authority’ was measured using the Hage & Aiken scale (1967), made up of 5 items with a response format ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). These items measured the reliance of employees upon their supervisors in making their own decisions regarding their own work (e.g. “Little action can be taken until a supervisor approves a decision” and “ A person who wants to make his or her own decision without consulting his or her supervisor will be quickly discouraged”)
To measure perceived leadership effectiveness, participants were asked to complete a three-item measure assessing their leaders’ effectiveness (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, &
Koopman, 2005). Respondents used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all (1) to very much (5) A sample item is “How effective is the person you are evaluating as a leader?
analysis
The statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Before analysing the variables, the reversed-coded items were recoded. Scale reliabilities, descriptive statistics and inter-item correlations were computed.
27 The relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership was examined by means of correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity. The assumption of homoscedasticity was checked by visual examination of a plot of the standardized residuals (the errors) by the regression standardized predicted value The linearity assumption was tested with scatter plots. The assumption of normality was checked by visual inspection of data plots, skewness, kurtosis and probability plots. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was also used.
Additionally, the correlations amongst the predictor variables (self-concept clarity, workload, work-life balance and perceived co-worker support) included in the study were examined. To examine the hypothesized moderation effects between the variables, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed.
The regression analysis was conducted with the independent variable self-concept clarity and three moderating variables: (1) workload, (2) work-life balance, and (3) perceived co-worker support. All variables were centred first following the recommendations of Cohen,
Cohen, West, and Aiken (2002).
A series of interaction terms were calculated between self-concept clarity and each of the moderating variables, which were entered at stage four. In step 1, the control variables age, workexperience, hierarchy of authority and leader effectiveness were added to the model. In the second step the independent variable self-concept clarity was added to the model and in step 3 the three moderating variables were added. Finally, in step 4 product terms of the standardized independent variable with the moderating variables were added to the model.
28
RESULTS
In this section the results of the data analysis will be reported. Before analysing any data, a reliability analysis is performed on each scale to ensure its internal consistency. The need for leadership scale had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.88. The self-concept clarity scale had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84, the workload scale had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84 and the co-worker support scale had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.82. Finally, the work-life balance scale had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.60. All values are above the required minimum score of 0.60 (Nunnally, 1978). The values of the need for leadership scale, the self-concept clarity scale, the workload scale and the co-worker scale are considered to be good, as these values are all above the score of 0.80 (Nunnally, 1978).
Descriptive statistics for all variables and frequencies for work experience and age were computed and showed a good range of participants in terms of work experience and age. Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlations are provided in Table 1.
variabelen M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. age 41.6 11.7 2. work experience 9.04 9.27 .62** 3.hierarchy authority 2.38 .85 .21 .10 4.leader effectiveness 3.20 .98 -.14 -.14 -.33** 5.workload 3.66 .77 .04 -.07 -.02 .08 6.work-life balance 3.49 .44 -.02 .06 -.15 .17 -.22* 7.co-worker support 3.26 .71 -.25** -.27** -.10 .28** -.04 .14 8.self-concept clarity 3.77 .65 .26** .11 .04 .07 .04 .21 -.10 9.need for leadership 2.76 .71 -.32** -.29** .05 .02 .13 .09 -13 -.27**
* = p<.05 ** = p<.01
29
All correlations were weak to moderate. This indicates that multicollinearity was unlikely to be a problem (see Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). As can be seen from the data the participants reported relatively high levels of self-concept clarity. The mean scores for workload and work-life balance were also relatively high.
Examination of the correlation matrix suggests that while some relationships were significantly related as expected, evidence of other hypothesized relationships were not evident. Specifically, self-concept clarity was significantly negatively related to need for leadership (r =-.27, p < .01). However, workload, co-worker support and work-life balance were not significantly related to need for leadership. Further, the table shows that work-life balance was significantly negatively related to workload (r = -.22, p < .05) .Work-life balance was also significantly positively related to self-concept clarity (r = .21, p < .05)
Besides of the correlations between the variables of the research model, Table 1 presents also the correlations between the control variables and between the control variables and the variables of the research model. Interesting, the control variable age was significantly related to both self-concept clarity (r = .26, p < .01) and need for leadership (r = -.32, p < .01). There was also a correlation between need for leadership and work experience (r = -.29,
p < .01).
The hypotheses are explored in more detail below. Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses.The regression analysis was conducted with the variable self-concept clarity and three moderating variables: (1) workload, (2) work-life balance, and (3) co-worker support. We conducted the analysis after mean-centering (Stone, 1988) all variables. Need for leadership was the dependent variable. In step 1, the control variables age, work experience,
30 leader effectiveness and hierarchy of authority were added to the model. In the second step the independent variable ‘self-concept clarity’ was added to the model and in step 3 the moderating variables ‘workload’, ‘co-worker support’ and ‘work-life balance’ were added. Finally, the interaction terms were added to the model. Table 2 summarizes the results of the regression analysis
Table 2
Need for leadership
step 1 step 2 step 3 step 4
step 1 age -.26* -.20 -.20 -.23
work experience -.15 -.17 -.17 -.17
hierarchy of authority .13 .13 .17 .16
leader effectiveness .01 .03 -.01 -.02
step 2 self-concept clarity -.21* -.26** -.25**
step 3 workload .19* .21*
work-life balance .23* .23*
co-worker support -.01 -.02
step 4 self-concept clarity x workload .16
self-concept clarity x work-life balance .06
self-concept clarity x co-worker support .05
Δ
R2 .136 .039 .063 .023
Note. Standardized regression coefficients are shown.
*p<.05. **p<.01. All tests are one-tailed.
The regression analysis with need for leadership as dependent variable indicated that the control variables explained 13,6 % of the variance in need for leadership (R2 = .136).
31 Main effects
Hypothesis 1 predicted a negative relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership. Results indicated that the this hypothesis was supported, as self-concept clarity was negatively correlated with need for leadership. (β=-.21 ;p<.05).
Hypothesis 2a predicted a positive relationship between workload and need for leadership. This hypothesis was supported by the analysis, as workload was positively related to need for leadership.(β=.19 ;p<.05). Hypothesis 3a stated that work-life balance would be negatively related to need for leadership. This hypothesis received support (β=-.23 ;p<.05). Hypothesis 4a made the prediction of a positive relationship between co-worker support and need for leadership. The predicted relationship was not found.
Moderation effects
Hypothesis 2b stated that workload would moderate the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership, such that when the workload was high, the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership was stronger than when the workload was low. Hypothesis 3b predicted that work-life balance would moderate the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership, such that when the work-life balance was good, self-concept clarity would be less strongly associated with need for leadership than when there was imbalance. According to hypothesis 4b co-worker support would moderate the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership, such that when the coworker support was high, the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership was stronger than when the workload was low.
32 As shown in Table 2, interactions of the moderating variables ‘workload’, ‘work-life balance’ and ‘perceived co-worker support’ with the independent variable self-concept clarity did not explain a significant amount of the variance in need for leadership (R2 = .21, ns). The results
of the regression analysis showed that there were no significant moderating effects of
workload, co-worker support and work-life balance on the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership. Therefore, H2b, H3b and H4b were rejected.
33
DISCUSSION
In this section study findings will be discussed. The present study examined the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership. The results suggest that self-concept clarity is significantly related to need for leadership. Subordinates with a diffused self-concept, seem to have a stronger need for leadership, than employees with a clearly defined self-concept. These findings are in line with previous research indicating that individuals with a weak sense of self rely on others to help them form opinions and make decisions (Flury & Ickes, 2007).
De Vries et al. (2004) found negative relations between both age and workexperience with need for leadership. These results seem consistent with the results in this study, as the correlation analysis showed that there was indeed a significant negative relationship between both experience and age with need for leadership suggesting that younger and/ or
inexperienced employees have a relatively stronger need for leadership than older and/or experienced workers. However, the results from the hierarchical regression showed that there were in fact no direct relationships between both age and need for leadership. This analysis showed that self-concept clarity was making the largest contribution in explaining need for leadership.
It was remarkable that the participants reported relatively high self-concept clarity scores. These findings are in line with previous research on self-concept clarity. (Lewandowski et al., 2010). People seem to know themselves good and have no conflicting thoughts about the different aspects of my their personalities .
34 Workload was correlated with need for leadership. These finding is consistent with other research, suggesting that supervisors can take the appropriate actions to reduce workload (Chen, Wang & Hung, 2009).Work-life balance was also correlated with need for leadership. This result is in line with previous research, suggesting that supervisor support is also crucial for work‐family enrichment (Wadsworth and Owens, 2007) since supervisors can eventually lighten most of the work related tension and strain (Beehr, Jex, Stacey & Murray, 2000), which may potentially provide the energy and confidence (Marks, 1977) to participate in family related activities.
No support was found for the positive relationship between co-workersupport and need for leadership. Some research suggests that there is something to be exchanged between co-workers. When employees perceive they have the support of a co-worker, they are more likely to reciprocate with helping behaviors addressed at that person (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002). This mechanism may explain the non-significant finding.
The expected moderating effects of workload and work-life balance did not materialize. The effects were not statistically significant. Why were the moderating hypotheses for workload and work-life balance not supported? A plausible explanation for the non-significant findings is that moderator effects are often difficult to detect due to statistical power problems in moderated multiple regressions (Aguinis, Beaty, Bolf & Pierce, 2005).Further, paradoxically, seeking supervisor support in times of stress can also be considered to be one manifestation of an active coping style, as this problem-focused coping strategy is characterized by efforts designed to deal with those aspects of the problem that induced stress. (Nadler, 1998). Supervisors may fulfil the management and coordinative functions employees are not able to provide themselves. Therefore, one who chooses to seek help can be viewed as motivated to solve the problem. The fact that people with low self-concept clarity have a tendency to
35 engage in more passive coping behaviors, (Smith et al., 1996) may explain the
non-significant findings.
Further, we found no support for the moderating role of co-worker support. As indicated previously, it is difficult to detect moderator effects (Aguinis, Beaty, Bolf & Pierce, 2005). Another explanation is that social support is not always helpful (Bolger & Eckenrode, 1991). A explanation for that is provided by the fact that the people most likely to provide an
individual with social support (e.g. co-workers, friends) are also likely to be sources of stress for that individual (Stark, Spirito, Williams, & Guevremont, 1989).
Limitations
This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its results. It is important to note that in this study self-concept clarity is conceptualized as a relatively stable trait. Despite the empirical support for the temporal stability of individuals’ self
representations (Campbell et al. 1996; Troll & Skaff, 1997), there is also substantial evidence supporting the notion that individuals’ self-concept is responsive to situational influences. Nezlek and Plesko (2001) found that self-concept clarity fluctuated from day to day. On some days, participants had a clearer, more coherent understanding of who they were than on other days. Lavallee and Campbell (1995) also provided some evidence that clarity is malleable. They measured daily changes in “self-concept confusion,” which the authors defined as temporary uncertainty, doubt, or confusion about one’s self-concept, as a result. This
evidence shows that self-concept clarity also may be sensitive to daily events. These findings are consistent with other research (De Hart & Pelham, 2007; Kernis, 2005) suggesting that one’s sense of self may fluctuate on a daily basis in response to external events, such as approval from others (e.g.Oosterwegel, A.,& Oppenheimer,L. (2002). Future research should
36 address the daily dynamics among self-concept clarity and identity processes, and their effects on need for leadership.
Another important limitation is that there may be some difficulty generalizing the findings of this study to all other nonprofit organizations due to the limited geographic diversity, as all participants were from the Netherlands. Research by Campbell et al. (1996) shows that Japanese participants report lower self-concept clarity scores than their Western counterparts. Future research should also examine how cultural differences affect the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership.
A further limitation of the present research is that a relative large number of employees of educational organizations were involved. Thus the findings may not be representative of other nonprofit organizations in the Netherlands. Future research should explore this topic in a more representative sample of a variety of non-profit organizations.
Although fairly common in previous research dealing with self-concept clarity (e.g., Campbell et al., 1996), this study relies on self-report to measure self-concept
clarity. Self-reports have many advantages. An important advantage is that the self has access to thoughts, feelings, and sensations that are unavailable to others (Robins, Norem, & Cheek, 1999). Despite this, self-administered questionnaires do have some disadvantages.
The main disadvantage of self-report is that there are a number of potential validity problems associated with it. Some people show a tendency to respond to
questions in a manner that, although systematic, interferes with the validity of the response (Paulhus, 1991). Well-known examples are socially desirable responding ,acquiescent responding , and extreme responding.
Furthermore, research indicates that there are many biases in self-perception. Paulhus and Vazire (2007) state that the self-report nature of self-concept clarity makes it prone to
37 positivity/self-enhancement bias. In addition, bias can be caused by the desire to confirm one’s existing self-views (Swann & Read, 1981). Other research shows that self-concept clarity is moderately correlated to self-deception. As a result, people who have a tendency to be somewhat dishonest, tend to have clearer self-concepts.
Even if participants are trying to be honest, they may lack the introspective ability to provide an accurate reflection of what they are like. A self-concept is clear to the extent that people have a clear notion of who they think they are. It is questionable whether individuals whose self-perceptions lacked clarity would be sufficiently aware of their status to report it. The question is how well do we actually know ourselves? Many psychologists are skeptical about people’s capacity for self-knowledge. (Taylor and Brown, 1988). According to Wilson (2003) an important limit on self-knowledge, is the fact that much of the mind is inaccessible to conscious awareness. The accuracy of friends’ and family members’ perceptions all show that self-perceptions are not more accurate overall (Vazire, 2010; Vazire & Mehl, 2008). Therefore, future research is recommended to include multiple sources of data collection.
Practical Implications
Our findings have valuable implications for managers and supervisors. Although employees with low self-concept clarity may need leaders for several reasons, they certainly need their supervisors to help them to gain self-knowledge. It is very important that supervisors are sensitive to these needs. This has important consequences for the quality of feedback they give.
Research demonstrates that individuals with low self-efficacy are prone to negative feedback. They are likely to attribute performance failure to themselves and their poor ability. Negative feedback has an negative impact on these individuals. (Silver, Mitchell, and Gist, 1995).
38 These findings are in line with other research suggesting that low-efficacious people are more likely to react to negative feedback by experiencing negative affect, exhibiting less
motivation on a subsequent task, and attributing the feedback less to effort and more to ability (Kernis, Brockner, and Frankel, 1989). As outlined previously, it is likely that people with a diffused self-concept have a low sense of efficacy. It is therefore very important that
supervisors provide good guidance and constructive feedback. Organizations do well to create a qualitatively good feedback culture. For instance, managers may initiate training programs and social activities where supervisors and employees can learn and practice to give and receive constructive feedback. Supervisors may also help employees with low self-concept clarity cognitively process success experiences in a way that maximizes their impact on self-efficacy beliefs.
39
CONCLUSION
In sum, the present study builds and expands on previous findings indicating that the study of personal characteristics of followers can make a valuable contribution to our understanding of followers, followership and the leader-follower relationship. Future research on individual differences in self-concept clarity can provide deep new insight into the nature of leadership and followership.
Although this study suggests that self-concept clarity is correlated to need for leadership, additional research that includes careful measurement of self-concept clarity may provide stronger support for the apparent relationship. To understand the relationship between self-concept clarity and need for leadership more thoroughly, researchers would do well to consider whether they are actually examining self-concept clarity and not some other seemingly related constructs such as selfesteem or self-complexity.
Future research may also benefit from the use of multiple data gathering instruments. A greater depth of information may be obtained by conducting interviews with the
participants. Personal interviews could elicit greater information regarding participants’ self-concept clarity and need for leadership. Future research may also include interviews with individuals involved with the participants. In this respect, interviews with supervisors, coworkers, family and friends may seem logical.
40
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94–107.
Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N.K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 151-169.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes, at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282-296.
Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-life conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of
Management, 28(6), 787-810.
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: Theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 14 (1) (2007), pp. 50–60.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Baumgardner, A. H. (1990). To know oneself is to like oneself: Self-certainty and self-affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1062–1072.
Bechtoldt, M.N., De Dreu, C.K., Nijstad, B.A. & Zapf, D., 2010. “Self-concept clarity and the management of social conflict”. J Pers. 78(2), P. 539.
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., and Murray, M. A. (2000). Work stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain and job performance. Journal of
41 Bigler, M., Neimeyer, G. J. & Brown, E. (2001) The Divided Self Revisited: Effects of Self-Concept Clarity and Self-Self-Concept Differentiation on Psychological Adjustment. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 396-415
Blanchard, C. G., Albrecht, T. L., Ruckdeschel, J. C., Grant, C. H., & Hemmick, R. M. (1995). The role of social support in adaptation to cancer and to survive. Journal
of Psychosocial Oncology, 13, 75-95.
Bligh, M. C., & Schyns, B. (2007). The romance lives on: Contemporary issues surrounding the romance of leadership. Leadership, 3(3), 343–360.
Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Social relationships, personality, and anxiety during a major stressful event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 440-449.
Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J. (1976). Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 468-472.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 538–549.mpbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Campbell, J.D., Assanand,S.,&Di Paula, A. (2003).The structure of the self–concept and its relation to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 115–140.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructs of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543–562. Chen, D., Wang, Y., & Hung, D. (2009). A Journey on Refining Rules for Online Discussions: Implications for the Design of Learning Management Systems. Journal of Interactive Learning
Research, v20 n2, 157-173.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2002). Applied multiple regression - correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, S. and Wills, T.A. (1985).'Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis',
Psychological Bulletin, 98 (2): 310-357.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice, Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), pp.471-82
Cousins, S. D. (1989).Culture and self-perception in Japan andthe United States. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131.
Davey, J., Obst, P., & Sheehan, M. (2001). Demographic and workplace characteristics which add to the prediction of stress and job
42 satisfaction within the police workplace. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 16(1), 29-39. De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to
procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 157-173. De Hart, T., & Pelham, B. W. (2007). Fluctuations in state implicit selfesteem
in response to daily negative events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 157–165. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.002
De Hoogh, A. H. B., den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839-865.
De Vries, R. E. (1997). Need for leadership: A solution to empirical problems in situational theories of leadership. Enschede, The Netherlands: FEBO Print.
De Vries, R.E., Roe, R.A., & Taillieu, T.C.B. (2002). Need for Leadership as moderator of the relationship between leadership and individual outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 121 – 137.
De Vries, R.E. & Van Gelder, J.L. (2005). Leadership and need for leadership: An implicit theory. In B. Schyns & J. Meindl (Eds.), Implicit leadership theories: Essays and explorations. Greenwich, CT, USA: Information Age Publishing.
De Vries, R. E., Roe, R. A., Taillieu, T. C. B., & Nelissen, N. J. M. (2004). Who needs
leadership in organizations and why? [Behoefte aan leiderschap in organisaties: Wie heeft het en waarom?]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 204–226.
Donahue, E.M., Robins, R.W., Roberts, B.W.,&John, O.P. (1993). The divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on
self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 834-846. Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327-344.
Fenlason, K. J. & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: Effects of talking to others. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157-175.
Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A. & Whitcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 27-54.
Flury, J.M., & Ickes, W. (2007). Having a weak versus strong sense of self: The Sense of Self Scale. Self and Identity, 6, 281-303.
43 Franken, R. (1994). Human motivation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Furda, J. (1995). Werk, persoon en welzijn: Een toetsing van het job demand-control model. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht.
Geurts, S.A.E., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Dikkers, J.S.E., Van Hooff, M.L.M. & Kinnunen, U.M. (2005). Work_home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19, 319_339..
Greenhaus, J. H. & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.
Guimarães, L. B., de M., Pessa, S. L. R., & Biguelini, C. (2012). Analysis of the workload imposed on the workers of the imprint and cutting/Welding sectors of a flexible packaging manufacturer. Work, 41, 1647-1655.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1087-1100.
Hage, J. and Aiken, M. 1967. “Relationship of centralization to other structural properties”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 72-92.
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
1402–1413.
Hart, S. G. and Bortolussi, M. R. (1984) Pilot errors as a source of workload, Human Factors, 26, 545 ± 556.
Hartel, C., Y. Fujimoto, V. E. Strybosch and K. Fitzpatrick: 2007, Human Resource
Management: Transforming Theory into Innovative Practice (Pearson Education, Australia). Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. 1995. Increasing coping resources at work: A field experiment to increase social support, improve work team functioning,
and enhance employee mental health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16: 335–352. Hopkins, K. 2005. Supervisor support and work-life integration: A social identity
perspective. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,
cultural and individual perspectives: 445-468. Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Howell, J. M. and Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences, Academy of Management Review 30 (1) (2005), pp. 96–112.
Karasek, R.A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
