Transformational leadership and employee well-being : the mediating role of emotion, liking and organizational identification

Transformational Leadership and

Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role

of Emotion, Liking and Organizational

Identification

Yana Spelt (10317368)

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics & Business Master thesis MSc Business Studies

Specialization: Managing & Leading People Academic year: 2013-2014

Supervisor: Dr. Corine Boon

Abstract

It is often assumed that transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee well-being, but the mechanisms of how transformational leadership exerts its effects remains to be a relatively undiscovered research area. In a cross-sectional study of 227 Dutch employees from diverse industries, it was tested how the positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee well-being could be explained. Employee well-being was divided into two constructs: psychological well-being and social well-being, whereas social well-being was measured in terms of cooperation. It was proposed that the relationships could be explained by three mediating variables. Those were employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification. Linear regression analyses showed that transformational leadership significantly and directly predicted employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification. Transformational leadership also had a significant and direct effect on psychological well-being. Marginal support has been found for the positive effect of transformational leadership on cooperation. Further, multiple mediation analyses showed that employee positive emotion was the only significant mediator of the transformational leadershippsychological well-being and transformational leadershipcooperation relationship. The findings of this study contribute to theory and practice. Also, implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Keywords: transformational leadership; psychological well-being; cooperation; employee positive emotion; liking the leader; organizational identification

Table of contents

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Theory and hypotheses ... 6

2.1 Transformational leadership ... 6

2.2 Employee well-being... 7

2.3 Effect of transformational leadership on psychological well-being and cooperation ... 10

2.4 Employee positive emotion ... 12

2.5 Liking the leader... 16

2.6 Organizational identification ... 19

3. Methodology ...23

3.1 Sample ... 23

3.2 Procedure ... 24

3.3 Measures... 25

3.3.1 Translation, back-translation procedure ... 25

3.3.2 Transformational leadership ... 25

3.3.3 Employee positive emotion ... 26

3.3.4 Liking the leader ... 26

3.3.5 Organizational identification ... 26

3.3.6 Psychological well-being ... 26

3.3.8 Control variables ... 27 3.4 Analytical strategy... 28

4. Results ...30

4.3.2 Multiple mediation analysis... 37

4.3.3 Pairwise contrasts ... 40

5. Discussion ...45

5.1 Theoretical and practical implications ... 45

5.1.1 Psychological well-being ... 45

5.1.2 Cooperation ... 49

5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 53

List of references ...57

Appendix A: Questionnaire items ...67

List of figures and tables

Figures

Figure 1 A research model of transformational leadership, psychological and social well-being, and the mediating effects of employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification.

5

Figure 2 Research model (including hypotheses). 22

Figure 3 PROCESS Model 4 for psychological well-being. 37

Figure 4 PROCESS Model 4 for cooperation. 37

Tables

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, correlations, reliabilities. 32 Table 2 Hierarchical regression analyses for transformational leadership predicting

psychological well-being, cooperation, employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification.

35

Table 3 Hierarchical regression analyses for employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification predicting psychological well-being and cooperation.

42

Table 4 Bootstrap results for employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification as mediators of the relationship between transformational leadership and 1) psychological well-being and 2) cooperation.

43

Table 5 Regression results for employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification as mediators of the relationship between transformational leadership and 1) psychological well-being and 2) cooperation.

Introduction 1

1. Introduction

Every day at work, employees have to face leadership. Leaders are of great importance to the work environment since they are actually able to control this environment and, more specifically, the well-being of employees (Skakon, Nielsen, Borg & Guzman, 2010). Employee well-being is a relevant research topic for both organizations and employees. It is important for organizations since happy and healthy employees will increase their effort and contribution to the organization (Fisher, 2003). Van De Voorde, Paauwe and Van Veldhoven (2012) additionally found that employee well-being in terms of happiness and relationship leads to better organizational performance. The consequences of well-being are also quite relevant to employees. There is clear evidence that employees with a high level of well-being are more likely to be mentally and physically healthy, are happier with their life, live longer (Cartwright & Cooper, as cited in Robertson & Cooper, 2008) and take a positive approach to their work and relationships with others (Robertson & Cooper, 2010).

The concept of employee well-being has been used in many ways (Liu, Siu & Shi, 2010). In their systematic review, Van De Voorde et al. (2012) divided well-being into three dimensions: 1) happiness; 2) health; and 3) relationship. They found that organizations and employees both benefit of employee well-being in terms of happiness and relationship. Health turns out to be beneficial for organizations, but not for employees. The current study therefore focuses on the dimensions of well-being that are beneficial for both parties: happiness and relationship well-being, which are hereafter known as psychological and social well-being. Psychological well-being is mainly concerned with subjective positive experiences and feelings of employees at work (Grant, Christianson & Price, 2007). It is the most central dimension in employee well-being since it is frequently used in conceptual models and empirical studies (Diener, Suh, Lucas & Smith, 1999; Van Horn, Taris, Schaufeli & Schreurs, 2004). Psychological well-being may be so important since employee productivity – which is important for organizations – can be explained for a large part by the psychological well-being of an employee (Donald, Taylor, Johnson, Cooper, Cartwright & Robertson, 2005).

Whereas psychological well-being is focused on the individual, employee well-being is also dependent on the interactions and quality of relationships with others in the workplace (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Hence, social well-being is another considerable topic to investigate.

2 Introduction

Social well-being is concerned with the quality of the relationships between employees, or between employees and their leader or the organization (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). However, there is no overall scale available to measure the construct of social being. Social well-being will therefore be investigated in terms of cooperation between employees (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Cooperation can fulfill the needs of both organizations and employees (Tjosvold, 1984). Understanding shared social processes like cooperation is further important for organizations because of their increasing interest in teams in the workplace (Barsade, 2002).

Turning back to leadership, Sparks, Faragher and Cooper (2001) mentioned that a leadership style is one of the four main psychosocial work environment issues that are of current concern for employee well-being in the 21ste-century workplace. The style of a leader can work out positively or negatively for the well-being of employees (Skakon et al., 2010). The empirical literature on transformational leadership has demonstrated that it is strongly and positively associated with employee well-being (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway & McKee, 2007; Densten, 2005; Liu et al., 2010; Skakon et al., 2010; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000; Sparks et al., 2001). However, the mechanisms of how transformational leadership influences employee well-being remains a relatively untouched area (Arnold et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2010). Just a few motivational explanations are investigated of how transformational leadership exerts its effects on employee well-being. So has it been found that trust in the leader and self-efficacy partially mediated the influence of transformational leadership on job satisfaction and fully mediated the influence of transformational leadership on perceived work stress and stress symptoms (Liu et al., 2010). It has also been found that the effect of transformational leadership on well-being lies in the effect that leaders have on the organizational climate, whereby employee well-being will be enhanced by an innovative climate (Tafvelin, Armelius & Westerberg, 2011). At last, there are two work-related mechanisms that played a mediating role in the transformational leadershippsychological well-being relationship: 1) employee perceptions of meaningful work (Arnold et al., 2007); and 2) employee perceptions of work characteristics (i.e., role clarity, increased meaningfulness and increased opportunities for development)(Nielsen, Randall, Yarker & Brenner, 2008).

The purpose of this paper is to extend the current literature by demonstrating the importance of psychological mechanisms between transformational leadership and 1)

Introduction 3 psychological well-being and 2) cooperation. The mechanisms are divided into three dimensions. The first dimension is focused on the individual employee. It is measured in terms of employee positive emotion. Employee positive emotion may be an extremely important antecedent of employee well-being since emotion is indispensable of everyday organizational life (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Based on the transformational leader’s individual consideration (Bass, 1999; Yammarino & Bass, 1990), emotional contagion theory (Bono, Foldes, Vinson & Muros, 2007; Schoenewolf, 1990) and broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), it is expected that employee positive emotion mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Based on the processes of trust (Jones & George, 1998; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), helping (Fredrickson, 2003; Tjosvold, 1984) and, again, emotional contagion theory, it is expected that employee positive emotion mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation.

The second dimension is focused on management, more specifically on liking the leader. Liking plays a considerable role in the quality of relationships and may therefore be an important antecedent for the social well-being of employees (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Moreover, Brown and Keeping (2005) recommended that models of transformational leadership should take liking into account since it plays a substantive role in transformational leadership. Liking will already be assessed during the first two weeks of the interaction between a leader and employee and it predicts employee’s rating of the quality of their relationship six months later (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell, 1993). Because of a high quality relationship that may develop between a transformational leader and an employee (Engle & Lord, 1997; Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008) and the transformational leader’s behaviour of individual consideration, it is expected that liking the leader mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Based on Byrne’s similarity-attraction theory, it is expected that liking the leader mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation.

The third dimension is focused on the organization. It measures the employee’s identification with the organization. Organizational identification is a third noteworthy antecedent of well-being, because employees who are identified with the organization are more likely to derive satisfaction from the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Based on social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2005; Tajfel, 1982; Van

4 Introduction

Knippenberg, 2000), it is expected that organizational identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and 1) psychological well-being and 2) cooperation. Additionally, theories of affective sharing and similarity-attraction (Walter & Bruch, 2008) further help to explain why organizational identification mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation.

It is important to make a distinction in different types of antecedents of well-being and in different types of well-being itself, because reinforcements or trade-offs may occur between the different dimensions. Grant et al. (2007) found, for example, that the effects of managerial practices on employee well-being differs. Those practices may create trade-offs between different dimensions of employee well-being, whereby one aspect of employee well-being may improve while another may decrease. Further, it is important to understand the underlying processes since every employee may react differently. The well-being of employees may be based on their emotions, whether they like the leader or not, or on their identification with the organization. It is also interesting to understand how the processes evolve and how they can be developed and reinforced for a positive impact on employee psychological well-being and cooperation. There are no studies that have explicitly included psychological well-being and cooperation as an outcome by investigating employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification as psychological mediators between transformational leadership and employee outcomes.

To begin, the relevant literature on transformational leadership and employee well-being has been reviewed. The positive effect of transformational leadership on psychological well-being and cooperation is demonstrated by empirical research that has been found in the literature. Also, the mediating effects of employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification on psychological well-being and cooperation have been studied theoretically. Second, the research design and methodology of this study are discussed. Third, the results of the employee questionnaire are provided, followed by a discussion and conclusion. Finally, implications and future directions for theory and research regarding transformational leadership and well-being in the workplace are suggested. The research model of the current study is presented in figure 1.

Introduction 5

Figure 1. A research model of transformational leadership, psychological and social well-being, and the mediating effects of employee positive emotion, liking the leader and organizational identification.

Employee positive

emotion _{Psychological}

well-being Liking the leader

Transformational leadership Social well-being (cooperation) Organizational identification

6 Theory and hypotheses

2. Theory and hypotheses

In this section the relevant literature on transformational leadership, employee positive emotion, liking the leader, organizational identification, psychological well-being and cooperation has been reviewed. Also, hypotheses are drawn on the basis of theories in the literature and previous research. An overview of the hypotheses is provided in figure 2 at the end of this section.

2.1 Transformational leadership

Leadership is defined by Jago (1982, p. 315) as “both a process and a property. The process of

leadership is the use of noncoercive influence to direct and coordinate the activities of the members of an organized group toward the accomplishment of group objectives. As a property, leadership is the set of qualities or characteristics attributed to those who are perceived to successfully employ such influence”. Leadership theory contains the exchange relationship

between a leader and employee where orientation, support and enhanced employee behaviour is provided by the leader (Tsai, Chen & Cheng, 2009).

In the 1970s and 1980s was the leadership research field properly criticized. Many academics were concerned about the survival of leadership in Europe, because leadership seemed useless in individualized cultures (Hunt, 1999). Fortunately, the study of transformational leadership came in the late 1970s (Bass, 1999; Hater & Bass, 1988; Hunt, 1999; Judge, Piccolo & Ilies, 2004) and it has transformed the field entirely. From then, transformational leadership theory dominated studies about leadership. Theories about transformational leadership help to explain how leaders influence employees to be willing to move beyond their immediate self-interests for the greater good of the organization and in order to enhance their performance (Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003; Bass, 1999). A transformational leader acknowledges the emotions and values of employees and they make their work meaningful. As a result, employees feel trust, loyalty and respect toward a transformational leader (Yukl, 1999).

Transformational leadership can be divided into four dimensions: 1) idealized influence or charisma, where the leader envisions a desirable future and a sense of mission, shows confidence and determination, gains respect and trust and increases optimism (Bass, 1999; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001); 2) inspiration, where the leader acts as a role model for employees

Theory and hypotheses 7 and where a vision is communicated (Bass, 1999; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001); 3) individual consideration, where the leader recognizes, support and coach the developmental needs of employees so that they can develop to their fullest potential (Bass, 1999; Yammarino & Bass, 1990); and 4) intellectual stimulation, where the leader encourages employees to become more creative and innovative in solving problems and to be critical on existing methods that has been used (Avolio, Bass & Jung, 1999; Bass, 1999).

Many researchers have investigated the positive effects of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is positively related to several aspects of leadership effectiveness, such as employee motivation, satisfaction and performance (Bass, 1997; Yukl, 1999). Some studies are worth mentioning, for example a meta-analysis of the transformational leadership literature conducted by Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996). They found support for the belief that all dimensions of transformational leadership are associated with employee satisfaction and performance, even across different contexts. Transformational leadership has not only positive effects on outcomes that are related to individual employees. It also predicts directly and positively group-level performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993). By thrilling the self-interests and shared values of employees, transformational leaders can help them to collectively maximize their performance. More evidence of the positive effects of transformational leadership is found in a longitudinal field experiment of Dvir, Eden, Avolio and Shamir (2002). Transformational leaders have a more positive impact on employees’ direct development and on their motivation to put in extra effort. Yammarino and Bass (1990) also found that the employees’ extra effort can be achieved by transformational leadership. They additionally showed that transformational leadership is strongly related to the employees’ satisfaction with the leader. That transformational leadership has also been linked to the broad field of employee well-being will be explained in subsection 2.3. An overview of the employee well-being literature will first be provided in the following subsection.

2.2 Employee well-being

Employee well-being can simply be seen as employee feelings and experiences of feeling bad or feeling good (Warr, 2006). The scientific study of well-being was developed as a reaction to the overwhelming emphasis on negative states (Diener et al., 1999). Scientific articles were far more

8 Theory and hypotheses

focused on negative emotions, such as depression and anxiety, than on positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction (Myers & Diener, 1995). A reason that positive emotions received less attention in the past may be that positive emotions are a little harder to study. They are not easily distinguished from one another (e.g., happy, joy and amusement). Anger, fear and sadness, on the other hand, are clearly different experiences (Fredrickson, 2003).

Meantime has employee well-being been developed into a broad concept with many operationalizations. Employee well-being has originally been studied in terms of job satisfaction (Liu et al., 2010). Job satisfaction is an employee’s subjective positive or negative judgement about his or her work situation (Weiss, 2002). Later on, job-related tension, morale, depression and burnout were also categorized as employee well-being (Warr, as cited in Liu et al., 1987). Danna and Griffin (1999) added health to the employee well-being categorization. They mentioned that health includes mental/psychological indicators as affect, frustration and anxiety, and physical/physiological indicators as blood pressure, heart condition and general physical health.

Van De Voorde et al. (2012) reviewed 36 quantitative employee well-being studies published from 1995 to May 2010. They showed that the concept of well-being can be clearly divided into three dimensions: 1) happiness; 2) health; and 3) relationship (Grant et al., 2007; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Happiness, which is also known as psychological well-being, contains the subjective experiences at work. It is concerned with experiences of pleasure or the balance of positive and negative thoughts and feelings in employees’ judgements (Grant et al., 2007). Employees’ thoughts and feelings are also known as affective well-being, which makes affective well-being one aspect of psychological well-being (Liu et al., 2010). Job satisfaction, commitment and generalized psychosomatic complaints are other aspects that can be used in organizations to understand the psychological well-being of employees (Arnold et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2007; Van De Voorde et al., 2012).

Health, or physical well-being (Grant et al., 2007), contains stressors and strain at work. Stressors (e.g., workload and work intensification) refer to events or situations that give rise to stress, whereas strain (e.g., stress and burnout) refers to the results of that stressors (Spector & Jex, 1998; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Stressors impact employees in a process where they are first exposed to stressful working conditions. When those conditions are perceived by employees

Theory and hypotheses 9 they will exhibit strains, which can include behaviours (e.g., increased smoking), physical illness and psychological distress (Spector & Jex, 1998).

The relationship dimension is also known as social well-being (Grant et al., 2007). Social well-being includes the interactions and quality of relationships between employees, or between employees and their leader or the organization they are working for. The quality of relationships between employees can be understood by cooperation. Organizational support, social exchange within an organization and organizational trust can be used to understand the quality of the relationships between employees and their leader or the organization (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Social well-being is different from the other two dimensions, because it is focused on interactions with others. Psychological and physical well-being are both focused on the individual.

Van De Voorde et al. (2012) have found that employees and organizations both benefit of employee well-being in terms of psychological and social well-being, which is also known as the mutual gain perspective. In contrast, physical well-being appears to function as a conflicting outcome since it is only beneficial for organizations. Physical well-being can even be harmful for employees in terms of their well-being, because improvements in organizational performance may be achieved by reduced employee health. The current study will be focused solely on psychological and social well-being, because it is important for practical reasons that employee well-being is beneficial for both parties.

The overall psychological well-being of employees will be measured by items that cover several aspects (i.e., affective well-being, job satisfaction and generalized psychosomatic complaints) of the construct. However, there is no overall scale available to measure the construct of social well-being. Current study already investigates relationships between the leader and employee (through the effect of transformational leadership on psychological well-being, social well-being and liking the leader) and between the organization and employee (through organizational identification). Employee relationships is the only relationship that is missing in the study’s conceptual model. Social well-being will therefore be discussed as the relationships between employees in terms of cooperation. Cooperation refers to situations in which employees work together to achieve mutual goals (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Morgan &

10 Theory and hypotheses

Hunt, 1994). Employees in cooperation perceive that their goals are positively linked to each other, which means that one’s goal facilitates the goals of others (Tjosvold, 1986).

2.3 Effect of transformational leadership on psychological well-being and cooperation Leaders can have a major positive or negative influence on employee well-being since they have a large impact on work demands, social support and control (Gilbreath & Benson, 2004; Repetti, 1993). So has a lack of social support of the leader been linked to poor health (Repetti, 1993) and increased levels of stress (Balshem, 1988; Kirmeyer & Dougherty, 1988). Studies have found that a transformational leader reduces those stress levels (Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Transformational leadership is of all leadership styles the one with the most positive effects on employee well-being (Van Dierendonck, Borrill, Haynes & Stride, 2004). It has even been emphasized in the literature that leaders should be encouraged in transformational skills to enhance employee well-being (Sparks et al., 2001).

Turning to the first relationship to examine, it is quite clear that transformational leadership has a positive effect on the psychological well-being of employees. This can be clarified by two dimensions of transformational leadership (Densten, 2005; Liu et al., 2010). First, individual consideration is reflected in the transformational leader’s behaviours of showing concern for employees’ needs and feelings and this concern may be related to employees’ favourable affective responses, such as job satisfaction (Butler, Cantrell & Flick, as cited in Liu et al., 1999). According to the three dimensions of employee well-being (i.e., psychological, physical and social well-being) is job satisfaction an aspect of psychological well-being. Second, inspiration is apparent from the visioning behaviours of transformational leaders that assist employees in their quest for meaning (Densten, 2005). Psychological well-being will be increased when employees find positive meaning (Davis, Nolen-Hoeksema & Larson, 1998).

The positive associations between transformational leadership and psychological well-being are tested and demonstrated in several studies (e.g., Kelloway, Turner, Barling & Loughlin, 2012; Liu et al., 2010; Nielsen et al., 2008; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990). Arnold et al. (2007) used in two separate studies among Canadian health care workers and service workers different measures of psychological being; affective well-being and mental health of employees. Results showed that transformational leaders had a

Theory and hypotheses 11 positive influence on the psychological well-being of employees in both studies. Further, Bono et al. (2007) found in a sampling study that employees with a transformational leader are more likely to experience increased job satisfaction. Based on transformational leadership theory and previous findings, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee psychological well-being.

It is also expected that transformational leadership has a positive effect on cooperation. A transformational leader has a major focus on interpersonal and social interactions (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987) and those interactions are facilitated by cooperation (Tjosvold, 1984). Cooperation is promoted by the leader’s charisma, which motivate employees to pursue the group and organizational interests (De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2002). Employees with a transformational leader will be concerned for the well-being of colleagues and the organization they are working for (Bass, 1999). They are willing to move beyond their immediate self-interests for the greater good of the organization (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass, 1999).

Fostering the acceptance of group goals is another behaviour of a transformational leader. A transformational leader encourages employees to work together toward a common goal, thereby promoting cooperation between employees (Podsakoff et al., 1990). When employees share common goals, they are more likely to cooperate with each other to achieve those goals (Collins & Smith, 2006; Wagner, 1995). Cooperation will also be fostered by a shared mission and vision (Tjosvold, 1986; Tjosvold & Tsao, 1989). A shared mission and vision can be accomplished by the transformational leader’s idealized influence and inspiration. Idealized influence is reflected in the leader’s envisioning of a desirable future and a sense of mission. In inspiration the leader also communicates a vision and will act as a role model for employees (Bass, 1999; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

Empirical evidence has demonstrated that transformational leadership has a positive influence on the employees’ helping coworker behaviour (Tsai et al., 2009), which would logically enhance cooperation. Moreover, De Cremer and Van Knippenberg (2002) examined in three studies among Dutch students from different schools that leadership may motivate people

12 Theory and hypotheses

to cooperate by focusing on procedural fairness and perceived charisma. They found that procedural fairness and perceived charisma were both positively and significantly related to cooperation. Results also showed that procedural fairness and charisma had stronger effects on cooperation on their own than in combination. As known is charisma an element of transformational leadership. In addition, a study of Pillai, Schriesheim and Williams (1999) has demonstrated that transformational leadership is positively linked to procedural fairness. Based on transformational leadership theory and empirical evidence, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1b: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee cooperation.

How transformational leadership exactly exerts it effects on psychological well-being and cooperation will be hypothesized in the following subsections. It is proposed that the effects can be achieved by employee positive emotion (subsection 2.4), liking the leader (subsection 2.5) and organizational identification (subsection 2.6).

2.4 Employee positive emotion

Fox and Calkins (2003, p. 8) define emotion as “a psychological state of specific duration that

involves expressive behavior for communication”. Emotion in the workplace may happen

through cognitive appraisal or evaluation of a change in the work environment (Fox & Calkins, 2003). Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) further define emotion as a subjective feeling state. It includes basic emotions (e.g., joy, love, anger) and social emotions (e.g., shame, guilt, jealousy). Emotion is important, because it provide people with valuable information about themselves, other people and the interactions between people inside organizations (Lazarus, 1991).

Leaders can have a powerful role on the emotions of employees. On the one hand, employees may feel increased anxiety during leadership interactions. Leaders directly evaluate employee performance during interactions and thus interactions with leaders may increase anxiety about performance (Bono et al., 2007). But on the other hand, leaders may elicit feelings of happiness, optimism and enthusiasm in employees. This is especially true for transformational leaders (Bono et al., 2007). Transformational leaders acknowledge employees’ emotions (Yukl,

Theory and hypotheses 13 1999) and will actually predict the emotional attachment of employees to the leader (Emrich, Brower, Feldman & Garland, 2001; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004).

From a more theoretical standpoint, the positive emotions of transformational leaders are contagious and can be passed on to other organizational members. In other words, the positive emotions experienced and expressed by transformational leaders, such as optimism and enthusiasm, can be transferred to employees. This is also known as the process of emotional contagion (a psychological mechanism), which means that by working together on daily activities, leaders’ and employees’ emotions converge (Bono et al., 2007; Schoenewolf, 1990). The process of emotional contagion has been examined by Barsade (2002) and Sy, Côté and Saavedra (2005). Results showed that there was a significant influence of emotional contagion on individual-level attitudes and group processes. Emotions are spread from leaders to employees and among group members. Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel and Miller (2001) further found that when leaders smile more often or for longer and pay more attention to others, then the participants experienced more positive emotions through the process of emotional contagion. They also reported that expressive positive nonverbal styles of leadership can evoke similar and positive expressions of emotion from employees who are exposed to it.

Prior research has already demonstrated that transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee positive emotion. E.g., Bono et al. (2007) found that employees with leaders scoring high on transformational leadership experienced more positive emotions in their workplace. In addition, Bono and Ilies (2006) found a positive link between the emotions of charismatic leaders and employees in a series of studies. The link was explained by the process of emotional contagion. They demonstrated that the leader’s expression of enthusiasm can be linked to positive employee states. Charismatic leaders express positive emotions, which are passed on to employees, resulting in the experience of positive emotions by those employees. As mentioned before is charismatic leadership part of transformational leadership. Based on emotional contagion theory and previous findings, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2a: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee positive emotion.

14 Theory and hypotheses

The first focus of this study is on how employee positive emotion impact the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Transformational leaders may influence employees’ psychological well-being through positive emotions. Those leaders provide an atmosphere that contributes to the experience of positive emotions and their own positive emotions influence employees’ experiences (Bono et al., 2007; Ilies et al., 2005). Employees, in turn, have positive affective responses that will increase their psychological well-being. This process can be understand by the transformational leader’s individual consideration, where the leader shows concern about employee feelings, and by the process of emotional contagion. The way in which transformational leaders influence employee well-being was also suggested by Bono and Ilies (2006) to be a process where the positive emotions experienced and expressed by the transformational leader is transferred to employees through emotional contagion.

The mediating effect of employee positive emotion on psychological well-being can further be explained by Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory. This theory assumes that positive emotions broaden people’s thought-action repertoires, encourage them to discover novel ideas and makes sure that those positive emotions will increase the likelihood that one will feel good in the future (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Positive emotions initiate – through their effects on broadened thinking – upward spirals toward increasing affective psychological well-being. In other words, positive emotions predict future increases in positive emotions by broadening people’s thought-action repertories. This may also be reflected in the transformational leader’s behaviour of intellectual stimulation, where the leader encourages employees to become more creative and innovative (Avolio et al., 1999; Bass, 1999).

It is noteworthy that employee positive emotion has a substantial overlap with employee psychological well-being. So can employee positive emotion even be seen as a key ingredient of psychological well-being (Robertson & Cooper, 2010). Arnold et al. (2007) similarly mentioned that psychological well-being – affective well-being in particular – is a sense of experiencing positive emotions. Affective well-being is explicitly concerned with feelings, emotions and experiences of pleasure (Grant et al., 2007).

However, that positive emotions predict greater psychological well-being has been demonstrated by several researchers. For example, Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren and De

Theory and hypotheses 15 Chermont (2003) found in a meta-analytic review that employees’ experiences of positive emotions influence job satisfaction. Diener, Oishi and Lucas (2003) additionally demonstrated that employee positive emotion has a positive effect on subjective being. Subjective well-being is in fact psychological well-well-being since psychological well-well-being contains subjective experiences of happiness or pleasure at work (Grant et al., 2007; Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Moreover, Stein, Folkman, Trabasso and Richards (1997) found that positive emotions were correlated with positive states of mind. They used positive states of mind as one of their indicators of psychological well-being. Based on the discussed theories and empirical findings, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2b: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being is mediated by employee positive emotion.

Three theoretical argumentations have been found in the literature to explain how employee positive emotion impact the relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation. First, employees with a transformational leader experience more positive emotions in their interactions with colleagues (Bono et al., 2007), probably because of the leader’s focus on interpersonal and social interactions (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Experiencing positive emotions may cause one to have more positive perceptions of others and this will result in a heightened experience of trust in another person. Both theory and empirical evidence indicate that trust leads to cooperative behaviours (Jones & George, 1998; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), thus cooperation between employees will be enhanced.

Second, employees who experience positive emotions also become more helpful to others (Isen, as cited in Fredrickson, 1987). Employees who give help can feel proud of their good deeds and will experience continued good feelings. Employees who receive help, in turn, feel grateful and will also experience good feelings (Fredrickson, 2003). The process of helping may enhance cooperation between employees since employees in cooperation expect others to help them perform effectively to reach their goals and assist each other (Tjosvold, 1984).

Third, Barsade (2002) did a causal test of emotional contagion among 94 business school students. The consequences of emotional contagion on groups dynamics, such as cooperation,

16 Theory and hypotheses

were examined in this test. Results showed that cooperation improves by the positive emotional contagion that group members experienced. More empirical evidence has been found by Sy et al. (2005). They found in a study of 189 students that the positivity of leaders’ affective states was associated with more and better group co-ordination among the participants. Based on the literature reviewed above, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2c: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation is mediated by employee positive emotion.

2.5 Liking the leader

Liking influences relationships that develop between leaders and employees (Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997). It can be a positive or negative evaluative judgement, or attitude, regarding one’s leader (Naidoo, Kohari, Lord & DuBois, 2010). Leader impression begins with the formation of a general concept of the leader as likeable or dislikeable. Once employees has formed this concept, they interpret the leader’s behaviours just in terms of that (Srull & Wyer, 1989). Hall and Lord (1995) also reported that the affect felt towards a leader will influence the employee’s leadership perceptions and judgements and thus the degree to which employees like their leader. Employee perceptions play a key role in the (rapid) formation of a general liking or disliking.

Transformational leadership is associated with employee perceptions of seeing the leader as more likeable. Brown and Keeping (2005) even concluded that liking is a key component of transformational leadership. Transformational leaders express more positive emotions. As a result, employees feel more positive too – through the process of emotional contagion – and they are likely to make more positive evaluations of the leader (Bono & Ilies, 2006).

Beside the positive emotions that transformational leaders express, perceived similarity also has an impact on liking. In similarity-attraction experiments, the participant makes judgements about a stranger after having seen a sample of the stranger’s responses to a series of opinion questions. The measurement of attraction consists of two judgements items, one judging of how enjoyable it would be to work together with the stranger and the other indicating liking (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). According to the similarity-attraction paradigm of Byrne (as cited in Lankau, Riordan & Thomas, 1971), the more similar an employee perceives its leader to be,

Theory and hypotheses 17 the more the leader is liked. Accordingly, the literature on transformational leadership shows that employees feel strong personal identification with a transformational leader (Hater & Bass, 1988) and thus will a transformational leader be seen as more likeable.

Turning to empirical evidence, Engle and Lord (1997) confirmed theory about similarity-attraction. They found that employees’ perceived attitudinal similarity was significantly associated with the degree to which employees like their leader. Kelloway et al. (2012) and Brown and Keeping (2005) further found that employees’ liking of the leader is congruent with perceptions of transformational leadership. Liking was significantly associated with all four dimensions of transformational leadership (i.e., idealized influence/charisma, inspiration, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation). Additionally, Naidoo et al. (2010) found in a study of 162 employed adults that the charismatic aspect of transformational leadership had a positive and significant effect on liking. Based on emotional contagion theory, similarity-attraction theory and previous findings, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3a: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on liking the leader.

Another focus of this study is on how liking the leader impact the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being. The impact of liking can theoretically be explained by the quality of a relationship between the leader and employee. Liking is strongly related to both leader and employee ratings of the quality of their relationship (Engle & Lord, 1997) and the quality of leader-employee relationships, in turn, is important for the psychological well-being of employees (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008). This means that transformational leaders can foster psychological well-being through the development of high quality relationships, whereby the leader is liked by the employee. High quality relationships are characterized by a leader’s special and unique relationship to each of its employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Especially a transformational leader has a special and unique relationship with employees, because the individual needs and feelings of employees are recognized, supported and coached by the transformational leader’s behaviour of individual consideration.

Empirical literature on the mediating role of liking in the transformational leadershippsychological well-being relationship shows inconsistent findings. Kelloway et al.

18 Theory and hypotheses

(2012) found that psychological well-being was not predicted by liking the leader. Contradictory, Brown and Keeping (2005) found that liking was significantly related to job satisfaction, which is part of psychological well-being. They also found that liking fully mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, at least when transformational leadership is assessed with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). However, Kelloway et al. (2012) also assessed transformational leadership by means of the MLQ. More research is necessary to investigate the mediating effect of liking in the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being. Based on the previous theoretical discussion, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and employee psychological well-being is mediated by liking the leader.

The concept of similarity is very considerable in theories of social relations (Brown & Abrams, 1986). Therefore, similarity-attraction theory is also used to explain how liking the leader impact the relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation. A transformational leader will probably be liked by its employees, because the leader is perceived as similar and employees may feel strong personal identification with the leader. Assuming that all employees like their transformational leader and share the same values and goals that are provided by the leader’s idealized influence and inspiration, they will also be similar to each other. Cooperation between employees will be enhanced, at least when employees are similar in attitudes (Brown & Abrams, 1986).

The mediating effect of liking the leader in the transformational leadershipcooperation relationship has not been empirically tested before. Based on the previous theoretical discussion, the following is therefore hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3c: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation is mediated by liking the leader.

Theory and hypotheses 19 2.6 Organizational identification

Organizational identification represents employee perceptions of oneness with or feelings of belongingness to the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and the experience of the successes and failures of the organization as one’s own (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The concept of organizational identification is rooted in social identity theory, which states that a self concept can be affected by membership in social groups. When employees feel identified with a group they will perceive themselves more in terms of the characteristics that they share with others than in terms of the characteristics that differentiate them (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ilies et al., 2005; Tajfel, 1982; Van Knippenberg, 2000). Organizational identification can be seen as a component of an employee’s social identity in the organization (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).

Social identity theory can inter alia be used to explain the positive effect of transformational leadership on employee organizational identification. Transformational leaders emphasize employees’ membership in the organization, transform the needs, values, preferences and aspirations of employees from self-interests to collective interests and make sure that employees’ self-concepts are in line with the mission of the organization (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Transformational leaders stress the importance of a social identity by connecting the employee to a larger entity (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995) and link employee goals to the values of the organizational mission, which serves as a basis for identification (Shamir et al., 1993). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational identification can further be achieved by the leaders’ self-sacrifice, idealized influence, group-oriented behaviour and voice (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Bass, 1999; Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; D. Van Knippenberg, B. Van Knippenberg, De Cremer & Hogg, 2004).

It is also noteworthy that theories of transformational leadership in organizations give a central role to the employee’s personal identification with the leader (Hater & Bass, 1988). Identification with the leader and social identity may overlap each other when the leader is perceived as a representative character. Employees who feel personal identified with a transformational leader are likely to feel identified with the organization as well since the leader represents the interests of the organization (Shamir et al., 1993).

Moreover, Ashforth and Mael (1989) discussed how identification with a charismatic leader may be generalized to the organization. Organizational identification can be accomplished

20 Theory and hypotheses

by symbolic management. Because charismatic leaders emphasize symbolism, inspirational and visionary messages, nonverbal communication and ideological values (Shamir et al., 1993), they are likely to induce organizational identification. As Ashforth and Mael (1989, p. 28) described:

“Through the manipulation of symbols such as traditions, myths, metaphors, rituals, sagas, heroes, and physical setting, management can make the individual’s membership salient and provide compelling images of what the organization represents”.

That transformational leadership has an influence on organizational identification has been demonstrated by several researchers. E.g., Epitropaki and Martin (2005) examined the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership perceptions on organizational identification. They found in a study among 502 services employees that transformational leadership has a significant positive and direct effect on organizational identification. Liu, Zhu and Yang (2010) agreeable found that transformational leadership was positively related to organizational identification in a sample of 191 Chinese employees. The same effect has been demonstrated by Kark, Shamir and Chen (2003), who reported a strong correlation. Transformational leadership positively and significantly predicted organizational identification. Based on previous discussed theory and empirical evidence, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4a: Transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee organizational identification.

How employee identification with the organization impact the relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being can also be explained by social identity theory. Social identity includes affective states of feelings, because it is focused on the positive feelings (e.g., happiness) that an employee receives from the organization (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Moreover, when employees feel identified with the organization they will engage in and derive satisfaction from the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This will enhance the psychological well-being of employees since psychological well-being includes positive affective feelings and experiences (e.g., satisfaction and happiness) as well (Grant et al., 2007). Thus, when employees feel identified with the organization they will probably be happier and more satisfied, which in turn will enhance their psychological well-being. Relating this to

Theory and hypotheses 21 leadership, leadership is very important to the relationship between organizational identification and psychological well-being since leaders are the main source of information for employees about the goals and objectives of the organization (Martin & Epitropaki, 2001). Especially transformational leaders are likely to induce organizational identification through their emphasis on collective organizational needs, values, preferences and aspirations (Shamir et al., 1993).

Turning to empirical evidence, Martin and Epitropaki (2001) found in a cross-sectional survey of 439 employees from seven companies based in South Wales that high organizational identification was significantly associated with behaviours of transformational leadership and with more positive psychological reactions to work (e.g., job satisfaction and psychological affective well-being). Wegge, Van Dick, Fisher, Wecking and Moltzen (2006) further found in a study of 372 call centre agents that highly organizationally identified employees reported greater psychological well-being. Organizational identification was inter alia a predictor of well-being in the sense of job satisfaction. On the basis of the arguments mentioned in the literature reviewed above, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4b: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and psychological well-being is mediated by employee organizational identification.

The mediating role of organizational identification in the transformational leadershipcooperation relationship will be examined at last. This particular relationship can be explained by two theories. First, an important finding in social identity research, which is relevant to this study, is that employees perceive themselves in terms of common characteristics that they share with others (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ilies et al., 2005; Van Knippenberg, 2000). When employees define themselves in collective terms, they are more likely to cooperate with other group members towards collective goals (De Cremer & Van Vught, 1999; D. Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As mentioned before, transformational leaders make sure that employees define themselves in collective terms by emphasizing the superiority of a social identity.

Second, the Positive Group Affect Spiral of Walter and Bruch (2008) indicated that mechanisms of affective sharing and affective similarity-attraction between group-members

22 Theory and hypotheses H1a (+) H1b (+) H2a (+) H3a (+) H4a (+) H2b (+) H2c (+) H3b (+) H4c (+) H3c (+) H4b (+)

result in high quality interpersonal relationships. As known can the quality of relationships between employees be understood by cooperation (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Walter and Bruch (2008) emphasize that organizational identification is likely to enhance affective sharing between employees and that employees who are identified with the organization are likely to be attracted to other members of the respective organization. This process may presumably enhance cooperation. The Positive Group Affect Spiral further assumes that strong and consistent leaders with charisma, thus transformational leaders, will have a positive impact on affective sharing and similarity-attraction.

Support for the mediating role of employee organizational identification has in some way been found in a laboratory experiment of De Cremer and Van Knippenberg (2002). They found that the positive effect of leader charisma on cooperation, through self-sacrifice and relational concerns, was mediated by group members’ feelings of group belongingness, or in other words by organizational identification. Based on social identity theory, the Positive Group Affect Spiral and empirical evidence, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4c: The positive relationship between transformational leadership and cooperation is mediated by employee organizational identification.

Figure 2. Research model (including hypotheses).

Employee positive

emotion _{Psychological}

well-being Liking the leader

Transformational leadership Social well-being (cooperation) Organizational identification

Methodology 23

3. Methodology

The methodology section starts with an overview of the sample characteristics and a description of the study’s procedure. Hereafter, the variables that were included in the questionnaire and the reliability of each variable are presented. A list of all questionnaire items is reported in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the complete questionnaire, which is translated in Dutch. Finally, how the previous suggested hypotheses were tested is explained in the analytical strategy.

3.1 Sample

An employee survey was held in the Netherlands among a wide variety of industries, with respondents of different age, gender, tenure and work hours a week. A total of approximately 350 surveys was distributed to Dutch employees in different organizations by means of convenience sampling. Employees that were the easiest to obtain were selected for the study (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Due to the study’s time restrictions it was necessary to obtain respondents quickly. The researcher’s acquaintances (N=15) were asked to distributed the survey randomly within their company. Acquaintances were chosen from diverse industries. Respondents were mostly working in the publishing industry, retail, factory, financial industry, local government, judicature, education, care, child care and in the Navy.

The response rate that was conducted by this method was a little disappointing. The survey was therefore further distributed to 200 convenience selected individual employees by means of social media (Facebook and LinkedIn). Snowball sampling has also been used to enlarge the group of respondents. Individual employees were asked to spread the survey to two or three colleagues. Some of them even responded that they would ask all their colleagues to participate in the survey.

Of all employees, 303 responded to the survey, which is an estimated response rate of almost 32%. To determine this response rate, it was assumed that every individual employee has send the survey to three colleagues. A total of 227 responses were useful for the study. The sample consisted of 55.5% female (N=126) and 44.5% male (N=101); current age ranged from 17 to 58 years, with an average number of 33 years; the respondents’ tenure at work ranged from 0 to 41 years, with an average number of 8 years; work hours a week according to their employee contract ranged from 0 to 48 hours, with an average number of 34 hours; and 13.7%

24 Methodology

(N=31), 12.3% (N=28), 11.5% (N=26), 11.5% (N=26) and 7% (N=16) were working at local governments, care, retail, factory and education, respectively.

3.2 Procedure

Data from a quantitative employee survey was collected cross sectional at one point in time. A survey was appropriate for this study since it allowed for easy data comparison and particular relationships between variables can easily be discussed (Saunders et al., 2009). Within a timeframe of 6 weeks all responses were gathered. Survey administration started on March 4th 2014 and was closed on April 10th 2014. At several days a week companies or individual employees were approached to participate in the survey. The survey was accompanied by a letter from the researcher urging people to participate by explaining the relevance and importance of the research topic. The letter also indicated that the survey was conducted on an anonymous basis and that the results would only be used for research purposes.

The questionnaire was relatively short; it took approximately 10 minutes to complete. It was distributed by e-mail. Advantages of an internet-mediated questionnaire are especially the low costs and efficiencies since access to the respondents is easier, there are no travelling costs and data can be automatically processed (Saunders et al., 2009). Responses can also be processed anonymously by an internet-mediated questionnaire. This was important for reducing subject bias as a result of the questionnaire’s sensitive questions (e.g., “How much do you like your

supervisor?”). A lot of questions were related to the employee’s supervisor or the organization.

Some may therefore say what they thought their supervisor or organization wanted them to say (Saunders et al., 2009). To reduce subject bias, respondents were also asked to mention the name of their industry rather than the company they are working for.

A disadvantage of an internet-mediated questionnaire was the chance on default errors. During the survey some respondents mentioned that an error occurred by filling in their age. Although pilot testing has been done before, it seemed during the survey that this error occasionally occurred on mobile and tablet platforms. As a result, a lot of responses were not provided with data on age. The error may be one of the reasons why some respondents cancelled the survey directly since employee age was the first question of the questionnaire.

Methodology 25 The questionnaire was personal delivered and collected to one factory company. The employees of this company do not often work with computers, so it was necessary to deliver the questionnaire in printed form. A printed questionnaire is however more personal and provides a decent response: 23 of the 25 delivered questionnaires were collected in return.

3.3 Measures

The employee survey consisted of 53 questions on the transformational style of leadership of his or her leader combined with a self-assessment of emotion, liking the leader, organizational identification, psychological well-being and cooperation. Validity of the constructs was ensured since the survey consisted of validated measures from the empirical literature. The survey was started by 5 questions on demographics and information about tenure and working hours a week.

3.3.1 Translation, back-translation procedure

The questionnaire had to be in Dutch since all respondents were of Dutch nationality. Most of the scales that were used in the survey had been developed and published in English, so care had to be taken to ensure that the items were translated correctly. The items were translated by the researcher and then checked by the researcher’s supervisor. For each variable an appropriate scale has been found.

3.3.2 Transformational leadership

The independent variable, transformational leadership (12 items; α=.96), was assessed by means of a short version of the Dutch CLIO questionnaire (De Hoogh, Koopman & Den Hartog, 2004a). The questionnaire measures Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO) and employees indicate if their leader uses a specific type of behaviour. The assessment measures explicitly the presence of a transformational leadership style. An example item of the CLIO questionnaire is “My manager encourages employees to think independently” (+). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicated more transformational leadership behaviours.

26 Methodology

3.3.3 Employee positive emotion

The first mediator, employee positive emotion (10 items; α=.90), was assessed by means of the positive affectivity items of the PANAS scales (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS scales consist of positive affectivity (10 items) and negative affectivity (10 items) and has previously been used by Brotheridge and Lee (2003). It measures the emotional reactions of employees to their job. An example item of the positive affectivity PANAS subscale is

“Interested” (+). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). Higher scores indicated experiences of more positive emotion.

3.3.4 Liking the leader

Liking the leader (4 items; α=.93) was assessed by means of a liking scale previously used by Engle and Lord (1997) and Naidoo et al. (2010). The liking scale assessed the degree to which employees liked their leader. An example item is “I think that my supervisor would make a good

friend” (+). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 representing “strongly disagree”

and 5 representing “strongly agree”. Higher scores indicated more liking of the leader.

3.3.5 Organizational identification

Organizational identification (6 items; α=.82) was assessed by adapting Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) scale to organizations in general. The scale assessed the definition of the self in terms of one’s group membership. An example item is “When someone criticizes my organization, it feels

like a personal insult” (+). Items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). Higher scores indicated more identification with the organization.

3.3.6 Psychological well-being

The first dependent variable, psychological well-being, consists of affective well-being, job satisfaction, commitment and generalized psychosomatic complaints. The current study aims to measure the overall psychological well-being of employees. Psychological well-being (6 items; α=.73) was therefore assessed by means of using the six positively worded items from the General Health Questionnaire-12 (Arnold et al., 2007; Shevlin & Adamson, 2005). The GHC assesses disruptions in normal function and the emergence of new distressing symptoms (Shevlin