Charismatic leaders and followers : the role of self-esteem, admiration and envy

(1)

Cha

Universit MSc in B Leadersh Academi Supervis Submitte

arismatic

ty of Amster Business Adm hip and Mana

ic year: 2015 or: Prof. Dr. ed: 22 June, 2

c leaders

So

rdam ministration agement trac 5 - 2016 . Deanne De 2016 - final

MAST

s and fo

admirat

otirios Tso

ck en Hartog version

TER THE

llowers:

tion and

oukas (11

ESIS

: the role

envy

1088796)

e of selff‐esteem

m,

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Sotirios Tsoukas (11088796) 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)

Abstract

Charismatic leadership is seen as beneficial for the organizations and their employees and emphasizes on emotions and values. However, not much attention has been given to the way this is happening and to possible negative results. The purpose of this study is to explore possible mechanisms that take part in the way charismatic leaders affect followers and the consequences of these relationships. I propose that charismatic leadership can elicit both positive and negative emotions to the followers. Followers can experience admiration or envy for their leader based on their levels of self-esteem, and in turn, admiration and envy will mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership and follower outcomes (employee performance and emotional exhaustion). The analysis of 93 leader - follower dyads did not support all the hypotheses. No moderating role of self-esteem was found, and admiration did not mediate the charismatic leadership - employee performance relationship. Nevertheless, there was a mediating effect of employee envy for the leader in the relationship between charismatic leadership and emotional exhaustion. As expected,charismatic leadership was positively related to admiration and negatively related to envy. Even though not all the hypotheses were supported, the findings contribute to the understanding of how charismatic leadership impacts followers, and how other factors have a part in that.

Keywords: Charismatic leadership; self-esteem; admiration; employee performance; envy; emotional exhaustion

(4)

Leadership has been a subject of concern since the beginning of history. Through time various definitions of leadership have emerged and different models describing different aspects of leadership have been developed. Charismatic leadership is one of them and unlike the traditional theories, which emphasize on rational processes, charismatic leadership theories emphasize on emotions and values (Yukl, 1999). Before 1980, charismatic leadership was a topic that was not given much attention. However, after that, this topic received increasing interest (Conger, Kanungo andMenon, 2000). This increasing interest can be attributed to the modern business demands, as it appears to fit well with the charm of business heroes and their ability to motivate and affect others (Bryman, 1993). Leaders are not the only ones who have a part for a firm's performance. Employees have a part as well. Yet, the literature is not very clear about how and why charismatic leaders can lead to positive results and also it seems that the negative side is missing. This study argues that charismatic leadership can have two sides. Charismatic leaders can be admired by their followers, which in turn leads to positive results, but also they can be envied, which will lead to negative results. I also propose that whether followers feel admiration or envy depends on their level of self-esteem, since it is the perception one has of himself or herself.

This study focuses on charismatic leadership and the emotions of admiration and envy towards the leader, and also what effect these two can have on followers and their relationship with their leader. The reason for this is to explore aspects that have not been given much attention about charismatic leadership and its effects. Researchers have been interested in studying how employees' work performance and behaviors are influenced by their perceptions of their leaders. Shamir, Houseand Arthur(1993) explained the process by which charismatic leadership causes transformational effects on followers such as attachment to the leader and to a mission, motivational arousal, enhancing self-esteem, trust and confidence to the leader. They argued that leader behaviors have effects on followers through follower self-concepts. These self-concepts are activated by leader behaviors and then stimulate motivational mechanisms that enhance self-expression, self-esteem, self-worth and self-consistency (Shamir et al 1993). Previous studies found that charismatic leadership can have positive results regarding employees'

(7)

work engagement (Strickland, Babcock, Gomes, Larson, Muh & Secarea, 2007) and the more employees are engaged in their work, the more they demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Organ, 1988). Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) furthered their research and found mediation relations among charismatic leadership, workengagement, and OCB. Charismatic leaders motivate their followers to be more involved in their work and this climate fosters the development of organizational behaviors. Thus, the majority of the literature demonstrate a positive work climate that stems from charismatic leadership.

Although the literature of charismatic leadership is very broad and concerns many researchers and academics, there are only a few studies about the dark side of charismatic leadership and its impact on followers. One of the possible negative impacts that I found interesting is the envy employees may feel for their supervisor. On the other hand, there is also a scarcity of studies regarding admiration, a positive effect of charismatic leadership. The studies on charismatic leadership seem to neglect the role of other-directed emotions that take part in the leader-follower relationship (Galliani& Vianello, 2012), and to my knowledge, there are not enough studies exploring these two feelings, admiration and envy, along with charismatic leadership in the business world and how it affects follower behaviors. Thus, this paper will add to the existing literature by addressing the relationship between charismatic leadership and follower outcomes, by examining how two contrasting emotions towards charismatic leaders, admiration and envy can lead to employee performance and exhaustion respectively.

Envy and admiration are emotions that all employees experience more or less in their working environment, but even so, not much interest has been given. More specifically, most of the articles about envy focus on the envy employees may feel about their subordinates (e.g.Kim, O’Neill &Cho, 2010), and not about the envy employees may feel for their leader. According to Kim, O’Neill andCho (2010), employees may feel envy when there is low quality leader-member exchange (LMX) compared to others. If this happens, then employees enter a negative emotional state and lose their will to demonstrate organizational behaviors. This situation is bad for both the employees and the firm and it is even worse when this happens in a group or team level. On the other hand, the emotion of admiration can have positive effects on employees. It promotes followers' self-improvement and social behaviors and motivates them to improve and perform better (Galliani, & Vianello, 2012). Consequently, both these dimensions are important for the

(8)

business context because they affect directly the mental state of the employees, which in turn can lead to beneficial or damaging results, and thus, this study can provide data that can be used in the real world. I assume that follower's self-esteem can be a determinant on whether followers experience admiration or envy towards their leader. There are only a few studies involving follower's self-esteem and leadership, and so, it is more interesting to test whether there is a moderating effect of self-esteem.

Based on the existing literature and the research gaps, the following research questions emerge: Can charismatic leadership have two contrasting effects on followers, namely admiration and envy for the leader? Whether and when charismatic leaders are admired or envied and what effect can have on follower outcomes?

The purpose of this paper is to extend the current literature of charismatic leadership by adopting a model that includes two faces of this leadership style, admiration and envy, and their relation with employee outcomes. Also, self-esteem may be an important determinant on how followers react to charismatic leadership behavior, as self-esteem is the degree of self-worth someone feels (Brockner, 1988). The model, as is shown in Figure 1, proposes that followers of charismatic leaders can feel admiration and envy about their leaders. This relationship is moderated by the followers' level of self-esteem. In addition, the model suggests that charismatic leadership can lead to employee performance or exhaustion and these relationships are mediated by admiration and envy respectively. Direct effects are also investigated.

Figure 1: Research model

Charismatic leadership

Admiration for the leader

Envy for the leader Employee performance Emotional exhaustion Follower self-esteem

(9)

Using a sample of 93 leader - follower dyads, I investigate charismatic leadership in the business environment and the moderating role of follower self-esteem, and address the relationship between charismatic leadership and employee performance and emotional exhaustion, mediated by admiration and envy respectively. This paper firstly provides an overview of the literature on charismatic leadership and the other variables I am investigating (self-esteem, admiration, envy, employee performance and exhaustion), while proposing my hypothesis. The following section describes the research method and after that the results of the data analysis are presented and interpreted. The discussion section includes theoretical and practical implication of the study, and suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical background

This section includes the theories related to the research model. The purpose of this section is to provide a theoretical base for a better understanding of the model and the study.

2.1 Leadership

Before jumping to the theories behind charismatic leadership, it is better to have an overview of the conceptualizations of leadership in general.

Leadership has always been a topic of interest since the beginning of civilization and its importance is clear through history. Napoleon expressed this importance by saying that ''he would rather have an army or rabbits led by a lion than an army of lions led by a rabbit'' (Bass & Stogdill, 1990, p.6). Also, analyses of changes in firms over significant periods have shown that leadership has a profound influence on the organization (Day & Lord, 1988). Leadership means different things to different people. There are many definitions of leadership depending on the emphasis on leader abilities, personality traits, influence relationships, cognitive versus emotional orientation, individual versus group orientation, and appeal to self versus collective interests (Den Hartog, Koopman, Thierry, Wilderom, Maczynski & Jarmuz, 1997). According to the GLOBE project researchers, leadership is “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House, Javidan, & Dorfman, 2001, p.494).

(10)

During the last century, various leadership approaches and theories have emerged. Before 1980, the main approaches to leadership were the trait, style, and contingency approach (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). After the early 1980s the interest on leadership moved to another level. Researchers became more interested in how some leaders can stimulate followers' motivation, admiration, commitment, respect, trust, dedication, loyalty, and performance (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Charismatic leadership belongs to these 'new' leadership styles. House's theory of charismatic leadership was based on path-goal theory (House, 1977). Charismatic leadership, instead of addressing how follower needs and conditions determine leader behavior, like path-goal theory did, charismatic leadership theory primarily addresses the effects of leaders on followers’ valences, emotions, motivation, and self-esteem (House, 1996). 2.2 Charismatic leadership

The concept of charisma made his first appearance in the work of Max Weber in 1947 (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Since then, researchers have extended and modified this theory to describe charismatic leadership in formal organizations, explaining how leaders influence followers and the type of leader-follower relationship that emerges (Yukl, 1999). Charisma is one of the four components of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), but because of its importance, it has been the basis for its own literature.Charisma is the degree to which a leader raises admiration and inspiration to the followers and provides them with a role model for ethical conduct and a clear sense of purpose that is energizing, and building identification with the leader and his or her articulated vision (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999). Charismatic leaders provide vision and a sense of mission, and appeal to followers on an emotional level. Attaining charisma in the eyes of one’s employees is central to the success of a transformational leader (Bass, 1990).

Charisma can be found in leaders, not only in the business world but also in politics and military. We read and hear about charismatic leaders, but in reality there are not as many as someone would have thought. Bass (1986) attributed this scarcity to two reasons. Firstly, there might indeed be a scarcity of charismatic leaders because managers lack the necessary skills, or secondly, there might be managers who have the required skills but do not take the opportunities to stand out among their peers or be afraid to take risks. The most likely is that there are more than those visible.

(11)

According to ordinary belief, charisma is something that people have or have not. Many researchers have considered charisma as a personal factor. This personal factor is consisted of physical, psychological and ability characteristics (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Physical characteristics include appearance, height, piercing eyes and distinctive voice while psychological characteristics include self-confidence, loyalty in their beliefs and values, superiority and strong need for power, and audacity and determination (House, 1977; Bryman, 1992; House & Howell, 1992; Turner, 1993). Finally, ability characteristics include intelligence, and interpersonal and rhetorical skills (Locke, 1991; Den Hartog & Verburg, 1998). However, if we view charisma only as a personal attribution we cannot explain the mutual relationship between leader and follower. This relationship makes more sense if we take other factors in consideration such as leader behavior and mission, followers’ attribution of charisma, the situation, and the validation of charisma (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

Charismatic leadership is considered one of the most effective types of leadership and can be applied across a wide variety of situations (Shamir & Howell, 1999). This is not surprising if we take a look into the literature about the qualities of charismatic leaders and how they influence followers. Bass (1985) argued that charismatic leaders have referent power and influence. This means that the leader has power over the followers because followers identify with him or her, admire and respect him or her. A charismatic leader is a role model to his subordinates, provides clarity to unclear situations and motivates change by his visions (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010). Furthermore, they transmit higher performance expectations (Shamir, 1991; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999). Also, they set personal examples and take risks by exhibiting confidence. Because of that, followers want to identify with them and to emulate them (Babcock-Roberson & Strickland, 2010). Two important qualities of charismatic leaders are the intellectual and individual stimulation (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Intellectual stimulation is defined as having a leader who encourages innovation and creativity, as well as critical thinking and problem-solving. The leader makes his subordinates to question existing methods of problem solving and motivates them to find new ways.

House (1977) first used charisma in the study of formal organizations, where he combined personal traits, leader behavior, and situational factors. Dominance, self-confidence,

(12)

need for influence, and a strong conviction of the integrity of one’s own beliefs are the four vital characteristics that play a part in charismatic leaders according to his theory. As I mentioned before, charismatic leaders act as role models for their followers and through this role modeling they create favorable situations with followers and build a mission/goal. They show trust in their subordinates and their abilities and so they can communicate higher expectations. In addition, charismatic leaders are more likely to excite subordinates about the accomplishment of the mission than non-charismatic leaders (House, 1977). House also describes certain effects of this type of leadership. Some of them are: ''follower trust in the correctness of the leader’s beliefs, similarity of followers’ beliefs to those of the leader, unquestioning acceptance of and willing obedience to the leader, identification with and emulation of the leader, emotional involvement of the follower in the mission, heightened goals of the follower, and a feeling on the part of followers that they will be able to contribute to the accomplishment of the mission'' (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001, p.174). Conger (1999) argued that some of these dimensions were also characteristics of other leadership styles (e.g. self-confidence, need to dominate) and so was not very distinguishable among other forms. Since then, there have been several revisions of this theory with the most important being the one by Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993).

In their study, Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) tried to explain the process by which the effects of charismatic leadership take place and more specifically how charismatic leader behaviors cause transformational effects on followers through a self-concept based motivational theory. They argued that charismatic leadership engages follower's self-concept in the interest of the mission/vision articulated by the leader. The core of their theory describes five processes that stimulate followers' self-concepts. Charismatic leaders motivate subordinates by the following processes: (a) Increasing the intrinsic valence of effort. Charismatic leaders do this by accenting the symbolic and expressive aspects of an effort. That way, by giving emphasis, the effort itself reflects values, thus when followers make that effort they make a 'moral statement'. Also, this can be done in a collective level, by referring to the participation as an expression of collective identity. Then it becomes more meaningful in the eyes of the followers and implicates their self-concept. When leaders increase the valence of collective identities, they also increase the probability that followers demonstrate self-sacrificial, collective-oriented behaviors (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). When followers make that effort and identify themselves with certain

(13)

values, the leader and the collective, they become affected by social and psychological forces that increase their commitment (Kanter, 1968).

(b) Increasing effort-accomplishment expectancies. Charismatic leaders achieve this by boosting the self-esteem and self-worth of followers. They show confidence and trust in followers' abilities and because of that they express higher expectations (Yukl, 1989). In this way they enhance not only followers' self-esteem but also perceived self-efficacy, which is a strong source of confidence and motivation. Self-worth is increased by the relationship between effort and important values. The sense of self-worth increases self-efficacy as well. Effort-accomplishment expectancies can be also increased by the emphasis on collective efficacy. A follower's self-efficacy is increased by being part of a successful group (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).

(c) Increasing the intrinsic valence of goal accomplishment. Charismatic leaders articulate their vision and goals in terms of the values they represent. Consequently, followers' efforts are more meaningful because they are consistent with their self-concept. Another way to increase the meaningfulness of these goals is by creating a sense of evolution which is very important for self-consistency and a sense of meaningfulness (McHugh, 1968). Sense of evolution means to show that these goals are in line with the collective past and its future. Furthermore, charismatic leaders emphasize the importance of goals/mission for a group identity and to distinguish it from other groups. Followers connect with other members and this gives meaning to their efforts as they form a collective identity (Jahoda, 1981).

(d) Instilling faith in a better future. Charismatic leadership stresses the importance of the intrinsic rewards. It ''tends to emphasizes vague and distal goals and utopian outcomes'' (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993, p.583). Employees believe in a better future and this gives them hope and motive for effort.

(e) Creating personal commitment. Charismatic leadership creates a high level of commitment on the leader and the follower to a common goal or vision (House, 1977). With the term commitment in charismatic leadership we meanunconditional commitment, internalized "personal" or "moral" commitment (Johnson, 1982). This commitment motivates the followers to

(14)

continue their activities and to invest in efforts regardless of the outcome and the balance of external costs and benefits (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).

All these aforementioned processes are self-reinforcing, because they relate the follower's self-concept to that of his leader and to the mission (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). This revision differs from House's earlier theory in that charismatic leadership is viewed as a more collective process rather than a dyadic process (Conger, 1999). In addition, Shamir, House and Arthur argue that the nature of the influence process is more reciprocal where the leader's vision is in agreement with the follower's values.

The widespread use of the term charisma has raised some concerns. A variety of leaders are referred to as charismatic even though they belong in different fields. For example, there are charismatic leaders in politics, religion, business organizations, and social movements (Howell, 1988). This raises the question whether we should define different types of charisma (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

The most important distinction is probably between socialized and personalized charismatic leaders (Howell, 1988). Socialized charismatic leadership is based on equalitarian behavior. Socialized charismatic leaders use their power to serve collective interests and others and not their self-interests. They develop and empower others and align their interests and visions with those of their followers though an open two-way communication (House & Howell, 1992; Popper, 2002). In contrast, personalized charismatic leadership is based on personal dominance and authoritarian behavior. Such leaders use their power for personal purposes and to chase their own goals. They are exploitative of others and usually rely on personal approval or rejection of followers to persuade others to comply with them. In addition, they can be impulsively aggressive and maintain one-way communication and ignore others' feelings (House & Howell, 1992; Popper, 2002). Popper in her study pointed narcissism as the major personality variable that distinguished socialized from personalized charismatic leaders. However, these two types are not mutually exclusive, as it is possible at some occasions that a leader behaves in a way that display aspects of both socialized and personalized charismatic leadership (House & Howell, 1992).

(15)

Another way of distinguishing charismatic leadership is with the social or psychological distance between leader and follower (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). This is a distinction between close and distant leadership. Katz and Kahn (1978) argued that charismatic leadership is effective only at the top ranks of the organization, and only to distant leadership because charisma is more effective if there is some psychological distance between leader and follower. In such, leaders can hide weaknesses and be seen as more 'godly'. In a close leadership there is much greater availability of information about the leader. Social distance helps for the leader's image-building efforts and adds a 'romance' to the leadership (Shamir, 1995). Bass and Stogdill (1990) in their book argued that social distance is not necessary for the function of charismatic leadership and that even low-level supervisors can influence their followers. Therefore, charismatic leadership can exist in different levels of the organization but there will be different characteristics and effects for close and distant leaders (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

As we saw, followers are inspired by charismatic leaders and devote themselves to them. However, sometimes the benefits of charisma can be neutralized or even taken over by its negative consequences. In some cases, a persuasive charismatic leader is likely to abuse his or her power for self enhancement and personal benefits. In this case he or she will try to exploit his followers who are vulnerable to the leader's manipulative appeal and his charisma (Howell, 1988). These types of behaviors are referred to as the 'dark side' of charisma (Howell, 1988; Conger, 1990) and include poor interpersonal relationships and administrative practices, negative consequences of impulsive behavior and impression management, negative consequences of self-confidence, and failure to plan for succession (Conger, 1990; Yukl, 1998). Charismatic leaders influence others by their charm rather than reason. Charm is based on emotional manipulation, so it can bias peoples' views. Followers become a subject of manipulation and exploitation because they become committed to their leader by his or her charm. Thus, they think less critically about their charismatic leader and their relationship (Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009). Moreover, charismatic leadership can have negative consequences in groups or teams regarding decision making, because, as it promotes unquestionable obedience, reduces in-group criticism (Janis, 1982). Finally, charisma can be addictive. Charismatic leaders become addicted to charm and approval. Their desire for approval may distract them from their business goals. This aspect fosters narcissism. On the other hand, followers become addicted to their leaders as well (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2012). According to De Vries, Roe and Taillieu (1999) there is a positive

(16)

relationship between charismatic leadership and the need for leadership, which means that followers become more dependent to a charismatic leader, and being so dependent to a leader is not good for the organizations. Despite the negative effects, the dark side of charismatic leadership has received little attention in the literature.

2.3 Charismatic leadership and follower self-esteem

In this paper I want to explore if there are other factors that influence the relationship between a charismatic leader and a follower. More specifically, I want to investigate the effects of

followers' self-esteem in that relationship and how it can affect the outcomes. Self-esteem is how a person evaluates overall his or her own worth (Brockner, 1988). It is one's perception of

himself or herself and it is different from how others think of him or her. It is ''an attitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which the individual believes the self to be capable, significant, successful and worthy” (Coopersmith, 1967, p. 4). People with high self-esteem consider themselves worthy but not superior to others, while people with low self-self-esteem feel self-rejection and self-contempt (Rosenberg, 1986). Self-esteem can be considered an evaluation or judgment of someone's self which includes terms such as acceptance, self-confidence, self-respect, self-satisfaction, self-worth, sense of competence, or self-ideal

congruence, as mentioned in various studies (Tharenou, 1979). Although self-esteem may seem similar to self-concept, they are different. The difference is that self-concept refers to the conscious perceptions one has of himself or herself, instead of the evaluation of these

perceptions. According to Simpson and Boyle (1975) self-esteem can be categorized into three types; global self-esteem, which is a general evaluation, specific, which is related to a specific situation or role, and task specific which is the competence in a task. In this study I am using self-esteem in its broader term.

Based on the definitions we can assume that self-esteem is an important determinant on how employees react to certain leadership styles. Brockner (1983, 1988) came up with the concept of behavioral plasticity to explain the role of self-esteem in role perception-employee response relationships. Behavioral plasticity is the extent someone is affected from external factors (e.g. social influences). In other words, people react differently to external cues, and thus, they are affected by external environmental factors in a different way. The level of someone's behavioral plasticity is related to a number of stable individual characteristics, however,

(17)

Brockner (1988) focused on self-esteem as the major characteristic. According to behavioral plasticity theory, individuals with low self-esteem are more reactive or behaviorally plastic that those with high self-esteem (Brockner, 1988; Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings, 1993). The reason is because people with low self-esteem are more susceptible to external stimuli and seek out and respond to events in their environments. Also, they are more influenced by conditions in their work environment and organizational characteristics (Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings, 1993).

Social psychology gives three perspectives about the relationship between self-esteem and behavioral plasticity. Firstly, individuals with low self-esteem feel uncertain about whether their actions and thoughts are appropriate. Secondly, they seek approval and acceptance by others, through conforming attitudinally or behaviorally. Lastly, they are likely to allow negative feedback in one area to generalize to other parts of the self and domains of personal activity (Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, & Cummings, 1993; Saks & Ashforth, 2000).

Therefore, self-esteem plays an important role in how followers react to leadership styles. Based on this theory, individuals with low self-esteem are more reactive and susceptible to external cues and characteristics and thus, we can expect that they will be more susceptible to charismatic leadership, since a charismatic leader is by definition a role model, someone who provides guidance and a vision. To support this, the literature of charismatic leadership has implied that employees with low self-esteem and self-concept clarity are more eager to identify themselves with charismatic political and religious leaders (Freemesser & Kaplan, 1976; Howell & Shamir, 2005). But what happens with high self-esteem employees?

Individuals with high self-esteem do not feel uncertain about him/herself nor do feel the need of acceptance. Studies based on concept have shown that followers with high self-concept are likely to have a high motivation for self-expression and to protect and enhance their already high self-esteem (e.g. Howell & Shamir, 2005). Thus, they are less likely to react to such external cues the way low self-esteem people do, and consequently have a different relationship with their leader. As Graen and Uhl-Bien stated, ''effective leadership processes occur when leaders and followers are able to develop mature leadership relationships

(18)

Therefore, high self-esteem individuals may respond to leadership differently. In order for a charismatic relationship to appear on followers with high self-esteem or self-concept, the leader must respond to existing traits of the follower's self-concepts, such as values and identities (Hogg, 2001). Moreover, charismatic leadership may not have a positive effect on followers with high self-esteem because they will not perceive their leader as charismatic. In their eyes he or she can be someone equal and not a role model, which can even lead to negative feelings in the longer run such as envy, as I will explain later.

In this study I propose that self-esteem will moderate how followers react to charismatic leadership and consequently whether this relationship will lead to positive or negative results. 2.4 Admiration, envy and self-esteem

Emotions are an important factor in the management field and a subject of various studies. In some cases, emotions may have disruptive effects in the business environment since they can prevent rational and objective behaviors (Dasborough, 2006). Nevertheless, they are unavoidable and part of everyday and organizational life, especially in the interpersonal relationships at work, such as leader - follower relationships.

Emotions in general bring about motivations and action tendencies, which in turn activate certain behaviors (Frijda, 1986). The affective events theory (AET) states that employees react emotionally to work-related events on everyday basis (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). These emotional responses in turn, influence their attitudes and behaviors. Since leadership is an emotional based process from both the leader and the follower perspective, the interaction of leaders and followers is an example of the situation where these affective events occur (Dasborough, 2006). In the AET, followers perceive their leader either as sources of ''uplifts'' if positive emotions are raised or as sources of ''hassles'', if negative emotions are raised (Dasborough & Ashkanasy, 2003). Therefore, in a leader - follower relationship employees experience positive or negative emotional states which lead to different outcomes. Admiration and envy are common other-directed emotions that employees may experience in their work environment.

Haidt and Keltner, (2004) conceptualized admiration as the characteristic emotion elicited by others' skills, talents or achievements. In other words, it is elicited by the perception

(19)

of others' excellence and can motivate people to improve. Admiration belongs in the family of the appreciation emotions along with appreciation, awe, respect and esteem (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). Even though it may seem important, there are only a few studies on the feeling of admiration, especially in the business context. Henrich and Gil-White (2001) reviewed the anthropological literature on prestige and suggested that prestige evolved as part of the human capacity of culture. People started learning from copying others, and for that reason, finding the best role model would give the most advantages. Consequently, those who excel at something receive the most attention and draw followers. In turn, the followers try to establish a relationship with these persons because they motivate them to learn further and shape in the prestige. Thus, followers feel admiration and want to be close to such prestigious people. Lockwood and Kunda, (1997) emphasized the role of social comparison as one of the conditions that makes people to inspire others and be admired.

Charismatic leadership is an attribution based on how followers perceive their leader's behavior (Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). As I discussed in the previous chapter, individuals perceive their leaders differently based on their self-esteem. Low self-esteem employees are the ones that are more susceptible to charismatic leaders and idealize them. It is the idealized aspect that makes such employees to admire, respect and identify with their leaders. Therefore, I expect that follower self-esteem will moderate the relationship between charismatic leadership and the effects on followers, and that in this case charismatic leaders will be admired by followers with low self-esteem.

Hypothesis 1a: Charismatic leadership is positively related to follower's

admiration for the leader.

Hypothesis 1b: Follower self-esteem moderates the relationship between

charismatic leadership and leader admiration, such that the relationship will be stronger for low levels of follower self-esteem.

On the other hand, envy is considered an unpleasant emotion, composed of thoughts and feelings of inferiority, hostility and resentment that result from the awareness of another person or group of persons who enjoy a desired possession such as an object, social position, attribute, or quality of being etc (Parrott, 1991). Envy is often confused with jealousy, however, envy is

(20)

defined in dyadic terms, which means that envy involves two persons where one of them lacks what the other has (Parrott, 1991; Smith & Kim, 2007). People who experience envy feel discontented and hostility because someone else has a desired superiority. This superiority can vary from possessions to social/work positions.

According to balance theory and self-evaluation theory (Heider, 1958; Tesser, Millar, & Moore, 1988), envy occurs when what someone lacks is central to his or her self-concept and the person who has it is perceived as an equal. To elaborate it more, envy can be felt because of a negative social comparison. In other words, when someone notices that a similar person has something he or she wants, which can be either a subject or a position, and central to his or her sense of self, that person will experience envy. Nevertheless, the negative social comparison does not have to be all-encompassing. Even a single disadvantage compared to someone else can trigger feelings of envy as well (Schoeck, 1969). Another thing that can cause envious feelings is the perceived unfairness (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007). This perception of unfairness can evoke envy towards a co-worker who received a better office for example, or towards the leader who has a better position in the organization. However, Cohen-Charash found in a previous study that even though envy and unfairness are related, they are different constructs, which means that envy can occur even if unfairness is absent (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007).

It would not be surprising to see employees feeling a certain degree of envy towards others in the organization that have achieved more. In many cases that envy is directed at their leaders. When envy is not in an extreme level but rather as part of rivalry and ambition, it may be tolerated. But the opposite situation can lead to damaging outcomes, for the organization and for the envious person (Stein, 1997), as I will discuss later. A leader in an organization, in order to acquire his or her position must have a number of qualities and attributes, such as various skills, experience, power over others, status and prestige, that others lack (Stein, 1997).

We saw that by definition envy occurs when someone who is consider as equal has a desired possession or social position. Hence, we can expect that some employees will experience envy towards their leader. As I discussed before, individuals with high self-esteem may consider themselves equal to their leader (a charismatic leader in this case) and thus feel envy for the leader, since he or she possess something they want. It is important to note at this point that

(21)

although envy is typically considered to be felt by individuals with low self-esteem, it is not the case in this study. Research suggests that high self-esteem people react more to envy (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996).Based on the charismatic leadership literature, we can expect that, in general, envy will be negatively related to charismatic leadership. However, in this study I want to focus on this relationship while taking into account followers' self-esteem. I expect that while followers with low self-esteem will be more affected by and admire a charismatic leader, those with high self-esteem will experience feelings of envy.

Hypothesis 2a: Charismatic leadership is negatively related to follower's envy for

the leader.

Hypothesis 2b: Follower self-esteem moderates the relationship between

charismatic leadership and follower envy for the leader, such that the relationship will be stronger for high levels of follower self-esteem.

2.5 Admiration and employee performance

Research has shown that the job satisfaction of employees is related to the leadership style of supervisors (Medley & Larochelle, 1995), since leadership is the process of influencing followers to accomplish goals. In turn, there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and performance (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The theories on charismatic leadership predict some follower effects, such as higher job satisfaction, motivation and performance (Bass, 1985; Conger &Kanungo, 1988).Built on these assumptions, Shamir, House and Arthur, (1993) found that charismatic leadership was indeed positively related with employee performance and satisfaction. In the present paper I try to demonstrate that this might not be the case in all situations. Based on my assumptions the relationship between charismatic leadership and follower performance exists only when it is mediated by follower admiration for the leader.

As I mentioned, charismatic leaders increase performance expectations by showing trust and confidence in the followers' abilities. They also motivate them to persist in efforts despite difficulties. Consequently, when the followers manage to accomplish their tasks they will feel satisfied with their performance and that they belong to an effective team (Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000). Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) argued that this sense of self-efficacy and collective efficacy, along with the personal commitment to a vision that comes from a

(22)

charismatic leader, will yield heightened performance motivation which will result in higher levels of performance. However, charismatic leadership ''is based on emotional rather than rational grounds in that the follower isinspired to give unquestioned obedience, loyalty, commitment, and devotionto the leader''(Howell & Frost, 1989, p. 244), which means that in order for these effects to take place, the leader must be appealing to the follower. In other words, the follower must admire his or her leader.

By definition, admiration gives rise to inspiration which in turn leads to improvement. Galliani andVianello, (2012) in their study found that a leader can motivate his or her followers to improve their work performance only if he or she is admired by them. On the other hand, a leader, even a skilled one, can decrease the motivation of followers to improve their performance if no admiration is felt. Admiration by itself can motivate employees to improve their skills and to help and respect their coworkers and supervisors (Galliani & Vianello, 2012). Lockwood and Kunda (1997) argued that the effect of role models depends on the perceived attainability of their success and on the self-relevance of the domain in which the role model achieved their successes. Thus they can either cause self-enhancement or self-deflation. Based on these arguments I expect that charismatic leadership leads to increased employee performance through some certain factors. One of these factors is admiration.

Hypothesis 3a: Employee's admiration for his/her supervisor is positively related

to employee performance

Hypothesis 3b: Employee admiration for the leader mediates the relationship

between charismatic leadership and employee performance. 2.6 Envy and emotional exhaustion

There are plenty of negative outcomes that can occur in a business environment. For this thesis I focus on emotional exhaustion as one of these negative outcomes, because it is often experienced by workers. Burnout is getting more and more attention from academics because of its negative impact on the business environment. It has important implications for the quality of work life and for the function of the organization (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). Burnout is a psychological response to constant work stress and includes three components, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1982). In this study I am

(23)

interested in the emotional exhaustion because it refers to the mental state of employees, and also because this dimension is viewed as the first step of theburning out process and can be examined without taking into account the other two (Cordes& Dougherty, 1993).

Emotional exhaustion is defined in the literature as the chronic state of physical and emotional depletion that results from unfavorable work conditions such as immoderate job demands and hassles, and is characterized by physical and mental weariness, when supporting resources are insufficient (Shirom, 1989; Shirom, 2003). By the term resources we mean "those objects, personal characteristics, conditions,or energies that are valued by the individual or thatserve as a means for attainment of these objects" (Hobfoll, 1989, p.516). Emotional exhaustion has a negative effect on employees in terms of attitudes and behaviors and is also linked with lower job satisfaction, productivity, organizational commitment and eventually with decreased performance and turnover (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Lee &Ashforth,1996;Mulki, Jaramill, & Locander, 2006).

Charismatic leadership is found to be associated with lower levels of burnout which means that is associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion as well, since emotional exhaustion is the main component of burnout. Charismatic leaders provide a sense of purpose, empower followers and help them believethey can achieve goals (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1999). However, the relationship between charismatic leadership and burnout cannot be the same for everyone. This relationship has been found to be stronger for individuals low on internal locus (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). We can assume that internal locus works in a similar way with self-esteem so that charismatic leadership leads to lower levels of emotional exhaustion for employees with low self-esteem. According to Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) charismatic leaders do not affect their subordinates equally. This happens because people have different predispositions and these predispositions will determine the effects of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). How followers react to leadership depends on their traits. Followers' emotions and work motivation play an important role in emotional exhaustion and charismatic leadership does influence emotional responses and motivation (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009).

Thus, we can expect that when followers admire their leader, it is unlikely that they will experience emotional exhaustion. However, if the followers do not feel admiration for the leader, the outcomes may be different, even in presence of a charismatic leader. Emotional exhaustion

(24)

can also be explained using Hobfoll's (1989) conservation of resources (COR) theory. According to COR, people endeavor to obtain and keep what is valuable to them (resources, as mentioned before), and the loss of these resources can trigger stress in the form of emotional exhaustion (Cole & Bedeian, 2007). Accordingly, envy occurs in a similar way, when someone lacks something that desires and the person who has it is perceived as an equal. Therefore, we can assume that charismatic leadership will not have the same effects, in terms of reducing the levels of emotional exhaustion, for employees who feel envy towards their leader.They will experience charismatic leadership with a sense of inadequacy or despair (Conger &Kanungo, 1988).

This leads me to my next hypothesis. Employees who feel envy for their leader will not experience the same charismatic effect as those who feel admiration towards the leader. Addressing their workload and tasks will be more difficult since they will not be motivated. Furthermore, having to deal with their sense of envy on everyday basis is mentally challenging. In time, their job will not be meaningful and this will result in job dissatisfaction, lower productivity and organizational commitment, and even turnover intensions. In addition, it is worth mentioning that feelings of envy are often consigned to the unconscious, which means that envious people can be unaware of the extent of envy they feel for someone (Stein, 1997). The accumulation of envy to the unconscious can lead to mental distress. Therefore, I expect that charismatic leadership can result in emotional exhaustion for individuals who feel envy for their leader.

Hypothesis 4a: Envy for the leader is positively related to employee's emotional

exhaustion

Hypothesis 4b: Employee envy for the leader mediates the relationship between

charismatic leadership and employee emotional exhaustion.

Finally, we can expect two more effects for admiration and envy, regarding the two outcomes of this study, employee performance and emotional exhaustion.

Hypothesis 5a: Employee's admiration for his/her supervisor is negatively related

to employee's emotional exhaustion.

(25)

3. Method

This part describes the research method used for this study. First I will describe the procedure and design of the study as well as the sample. Afterwards, a description of the measures needed for this study will be presented.

3.1 Procedure

This thesis is part of a group thesis project which is developed by six students in a master's programme at the university of Amsterdam under two supervisors. This is an explanatory research because I am trying to establish causal relationships between the variables of my model. However, it is a cross-sectional study due to the time limitation.

For the data collection we used two different questionnaires, one for employees and one for supervisors, which were distributed online, as links to the surveys were sent to each participant. The responses were anonymous and treated with confidentiality and were not used or released for other purposes, but matching codes were used to link the supervisor and employee questionnaires into dyads. We started the distribution of the surveys in February 2016 and we finished in April 2016.

The surveys were available in English and Dutch, depending on the countries of the participants. Most of the original scales were in English and the rest in Dutch, thus back-translation was used in order to have all scales in both languages. Each questionnaire included instructions and a brief description of the purpose of the thesis project (see Appendix A). After the questions of the variable items, there were some questions for obtaining demographical data. 3.2 Sample

The sample for the group project is supervisors and employees in a variety of functions, departments and hierarchical levels from a range of organizations in Germany, Greece, Netherlands, and Spain. For the survey we used only people who work full-time. The sampling technique we used for the collection of the data was non-probability sampling and more specifically volunteer and convenience sampling because of the time limitation. Also, managers and employees from personal networks of contacts were willing to help us with this process.

(26)

Data were requested from 174 leader-follower dyads (348 questionnaires). However, only 226 questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 64.9%, much less than what was expected. After removing the response that were missing data and after matching the questionnaires into dyads, 93 dyads were left for the analysis. From them 62% were from Netherlands and 21.5% from Greece. The average age for employees was 36 years old and for supervisors 45 years old.

3.3 Measures

The questionnaires used for the collection of data were used for the whole thesis project, thus they include items for all the variables required for the project and after the collection each student is using only what is needed in his/her study. All variables are using reliable items from the extant literature and are rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The translated items have been checked by both supervisors to ensure they are correct. The questionnaires also included demographics such as gender, age, tenure and educational background. Below are presented the items of the variables for this specific study only (for the full list of items see Appendix B):

Charismatic leadership is measured with a 11-item scale adopted from De Hoogh, Den

Hartog, & Koopman (2004). Cronbach's alpha is 0.944, which indicates very high reliability. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would affect reliability if they were deleted. The items in this scale are indicative about the supervisor such as ''My supervisor has a vision and imagination of the future''.

Self-esteem is measured using a 10-item scale from Rosenberg (1965). In this scale there

were five counter-indicative items that needed to be recoded. Reliability for this scale is high, with Cronbach's alpha = 0.84. However, two items needed to be removed since the corrected item - total correlation were less than 0.30. These two items increased reliability after they were removed. The scale includes questions about how participants view themselves and includes items such as ''I am satisfied with myself''.

Admiration is measured with a 3-item scale from Algoe and Haidt, (2009). Cronbach's

(27)

one item the reliability would increase, but because that increase is not significant and also this scale consists of only three items, it is not worth deleting. The scale includes items such as ''I admire my leader''.

Envy is measured using a 9-item scale adopted from Cohen-Charash, and Mueller,

(2007). Reliability for this scale was high (Cronbach's alpha was 0.84), but two items needed to be removed for that. The corrected item - total correlation was less than 0.30 for these two items and the reliability increased after they were removed. This scale includes items such as ''I feel envious''.

Employee performance is measured using a 7-item scale from Ashford and Black, (1996).

This scale is based on leader evaluation of employee performance. In this scale there were five counter-indicative items that needed to be recoded. Reliability for this scale is 0.768. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted. The scale includes items such as ''Appropriately completed his / her assigned duties''.

Emotional exhaustion items are adopted from a 20-item Burnout scale measuring

emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1986). From this scale I am using the 6 items measuring emotional exhaustion. Cronbach's alpha for these 6 items is found 0.866 and all items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all corrected item-total correlations are above .30). The scale includes items such as ''I feel mentally exhausted by my work''.

4. Data analysis and results

In this section I will describe the procedure I followed to analyze the collected data and the results of this analysis.

4.1 Data analysis

Our data was collected with the questionnaires as mentioned in the previous section and was analyzed using IBM's Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). First, we had to match the

(28)

responses into the dyads in order to continue with the analysis. Counter-indicative items were recoded and responses that were missing data were removed. Next, scale reliabilities were checked (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients), as are presented in the previous section, and then I had to compute the items' means in order to proceed with the analysis of the data.

To test the hypotheses, I used correlation and regression analysis. Correlation analysis allows us to quantify the intensity and the meaning of the relationship between 2+ variables. In this study I used bivariate correlations. Furthermore, for the regression analysis, because of my moderated mediation model, I used the Process by Andrew Hayes.

4.2 Results

4.2.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliability Scores Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Charismatic Leadership 5.34 .98 (.94) 2. Self-Esteem 5.67 .82 .298** (.84) 3. Admiration 5.16 1.13 .794** .162 (.83) 4. Envy 2.32 .93 -.554** -.454** -.456** (.84) 5. Employee Performance 5.94 .61 .132 .095 -.008 -.278** (.77) 6. Emotional Exhaustion 2.93 1.16 -.428** -.405** -.387** .536** -.108 (.87) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 1 shows that the participants in the sample indicate a high level of CharismaticLeadership (M=5.34), Self-Esteem (M=5.67), and Employee Performance (M=5.94). Based on the results from the correlation analysis, employee's admiration for the leader is highly correlated to charismatic leadership (.794) with significant correlation at the .01 level. This relationship supports hypothesis 1a, where charismatic leadership is significantly related to high levels of admiration for the leader. However, admiration is not related to employee performance (-.008), which is contrary to my expectations. Thus, hypothesis 3a is not supported. Also, there is a negative relation between employee's admiration for the leader and emotional exhaustion (-.387), significant at the .01 level, which supports hypothesis 5a.

(29)

Envy is relatively high, negatively correlated to self-esteem (-.454) and significant at the .01 level, which contradicts my hypothesis that envy toward the leader is felt by employees with high self-esteem. On the other hand, we cannot see any significant relationship of self-esteem and admiration (.162). Nevertheless, envy toward the leader is highly negatively correlated to charismatic leadership (-.554), supporting hypothesis 2a. The results suggest that there is a high positive relation between envy and emotional exhaustion (.536) and a tendency to negative relation between envy and employee performance, both significant at the .01 level, supporting

hypotheses 4a and 5b.

Employee performance does not have a significant correlation with charismatic leadership (.132), while emotional exhaustion is negatively related with charismatic leadership (-.428) and significant at the .01 level.

4.2.2 Moderated mediation

To test the other hypotheses, I used the procedure provided by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes, (2007), for examining a moderated mediation model. More specifically, I used the MODMED macro (Model 8, Preacher & Hayes, 2004), which provides results relevant to my hypotheses.

To do that I had to separate the model into two parts and run the process for each. Firstly, I examined the top path of my model, with employee performance as an outcome. The results in table 2 indicate that the effects of charismatic leadership on employee performance are not contingent on the employees' self-esteem, as there is no interaction between XW in the model of Y (0.0057, p>0.05). A closer inspection of the conditional effects indicates a slight direct effect to be conditioned by self-esteem. For medium values of self-esteem there is a direct relationship between charismatic leadership and employee performance (effect = .2244, SE = .1125, p<.05, CI: .008 to .448). For lower and higher values of self-esteem the results are similar but weaker. The indirect effect of charismatic leadership in employee performance via employee admiration for the leader was not contingent on esteem in none of the three different levels of self-esteem (lower part of the table). There is no moderated mediation relationship, which means that

hypothesis 1b is not supported. However, there is a very small mediation effect (negative) of

admiration only under the significance level of 10% (-.1615, p < .1), thus we can say that

(30)

between charismatic leadership and admiration, which was found at the correlation analysis as well. Table 2: Analysis results with admiration as mediator Consequent Admiration (M) Employee performance (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

Charismatic leadership (X) 1.26 0.3487 0.0005 0.192 0.332 0.5646 Admiration (M) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐0.1615 0.0947 0.0918 Self‐Esteem (W) 0.1964 0.3411 0.5663 0.005 0.3036 0.9986 Charismatic Leadership x Self‐ Esteem (XW) ‐0.06 0.0642 0.3486 0.0057 0.0573 0.9205 constant ‐0.8444 1.811 0.6422 5.5724 1.6108 0.0008 R2 = 0.6403 R2 = 0.0535 Self‐Esteem Unstandardized boot effects Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Conditional indirect effect of Charismatic Leadership on Employee performance at values of the Self‐esteem): 4.8454 ‐0.1563 0.0885 ‐0.3294 0.0201 5.6607 ‐0.1484 0.0832 ‐0.3078 0.0199 6.476 ‐0.1404 0.0791 ‐0.299 0.0186

Next, I examined the bottom path of my model, with employee's emotional exhaustion as an outcome. The results in table 3 indicate that the effects of charismatic leadership on emotional exhaustion are not contingent on the employees' self-esteem, as there is no interaction between XW in the model of Y (0.067, p>0.05). The indirect effect of charismatic leadership on employee's emotional exhaustion via employee's envy towards the leader was negatively contingent on employee's self-esteem, although not very strong. The effect was stronger for the lower levels of self-esteem (indirect effect = -.2, SE = .086, CI: -.39 to -.05) than for the higher levels of self-esteem (indirect effect = -.14, SE = .08, CI: -.32 to -.006). There is no moderated mediation relationship in this part either, thus hypothesis 2b is not supported. However,

hypothesis 4b is supported as there is a mediation effect of envy (.424, p<.05). There is also a

negative relationship between charismatic leadership and envy (-.917, p<.05) and between self-esteem and envy (-.826, p<.05).

(31)

Table 3: Analysis results with envy as mediator

Consequent

Envy (M) Emotional Exhaustion (Y)

Antecedent _Coeff. _SE _p _Coeff. _SE _p

Charismatic leadership (X) _‐0.917 _0.3702 _0.0152 _‐0.5716 _0.5011 _0.2571 Envy (M) ‐ ‐ ‐ _0.4241 _0.1395 _0.0031 Self‐Esteem (W) _‐0.8261 _0.3621 _0.025 _‐0.5989 _0.4877 _0.2228 Charismatic Leadership x Self‐Esteem (XW) 0.0905 0.0681 0.1875 0.0672 0.09 0.4574 constant _9.126 _1.9227 ₀ _6.3656 _2.82 _0.0265 R2 = 0.41 R2 = 0.34 Self‐Esteem Unstandardized boot effects Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Conditional indirect effect of Charismatic Leadership on Employee performance at values of the Self‐esteem): 4.8454 ‐0.203 0.0862 ‐0.389 ‐0.0496 5.66 ‐0.1717 0.0736 ‐0.3325 ‐0.0453 6.476 ‐0.14 0.0793 ‐0.32 ‐0.0058 5. Discussion

The aim of the research of this thesis was to examine the effects of charismatic leadership. In contrast with the majority of the extant literature, I wanted to see whether charismatic leadership can have negative effects as well. More specifically, I wanted to see the impact of charismatic leader on followers' emotions, and what consequences these emotions can have. This study contributed to the extant literature by examining the moderating role of follower self-esteem in the charismatic leader - follower relationship and how subordinates can experience different feelings based on their levels of self-esteem. This study suggested that followers' self-esteem moderates the impact of charismatic leaders on followers’ emotions, which will lead to either admiration or envy for the leader. Furthermore, I examined whether these emotions, admiration

(32)

and envy, will mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership and follower outcomes, in this case employee performance and emotional exhaustion. The purpose was to provide answers for the following research questions: Can charismatic leadership have two contrasting effects on followers, namely admiration and envy for the leader? Whether and when charismatic leaders are admired or envied and what effect can have on follower outcomes? In spite of that, I also examined the direct relationships of the research model.

5.1 Theoretical implications and directions for future research

The main purpose of this study was to examine the moderating role of employee self-esteem in the relationship between charismatic leadership and two contrary outcomes, employee

performance and emotional exhaustion via admiration and envy for the leader respectively. However, the results of the analysis suggest that there is no moderating effect of self-esteem in this relationship. This means that the level of an employee's self-esteem is not that important when a charismatic leader is present. This may be because, as Rosenberg (1986) said, people with high self-esteem consider themselves worthy and not superior to others. Thus, employees with high self-esteem will acknowledge their leader as charismatic and skilled, while employees with low levels of self-esteem will be more susceptible to charismatic leadership, and so,

charismatic leadership will have the same effects. Another explanation of these results can be the fact that the respondents in our sample scored high in self-esteem (mean score = 5.67), which makes sense since charismatic leaders enhance followers' self-esteem(Carlton-Ford, 1992), and thus we cannot make any concrete conclusions. Future research can address this issue by having a bigger and more diverse sample. Also, future research can investigate if other variables can act as a moderator in a similar research model, such as leader - member exchange.

Surprisingly, no mediating effect of admiration for the leader was found, which contradicts the findings of Galliani and Vianello (2012). They found that employees' admiration for their leader skills, increased their task performance. This happens through the mechanism of motivation. In other words, when leaders are admired, they motivate their subordinates to perform better. However, their study was not about charismatic leaders. Since it is known that charismatic leadership is associated with increased follower performance, based on my results, it can be assumed that charismatic leadership leads to employee performance through other mechanisms other than admiration. Conger et al (2000) found that charismatic leaders do not influence