The influence of leader core self-evaluation on follower job stress and follower affective commitment : can leader core self-evaluation be too high (or too low)?

(1)

Master Business Administration- Leadership and Management track

The influence of leader core self-evaluation on follower job stress and follower affective commitment. Can leader core self-evaluation be too high (or too low)?

Leonie Bank, 6156924 Master Thesis Date: June 25th, 2015

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Leonie Bank, 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

In this paper, I examine the effects of the personality trait leader core self-evaluation (CSE) on two important employee outcomes; employee affective commitment and employee job stress. Research shows that commitment and well-being in the workplace is very important in predicting employee performance and with this in achieving organizational success. Additionally, leaders are crucial in influencing these outcomes, which highlights the importance of studying leader CSE for employees and the success of organizations. This multi-source survey study among 162 leader-employee dyads, explores how leader CSE may influence employee’s affective commitment and job stress. The main purpose of this study is to test the relationship between leader CSE and follower affective commitment and job stress. In addition, I examine whether this effect is potentially curvilinear, as I hypothesize that too much or too little leader CSE might result in negative leader behaviour and therefore may negatively influence employee outcomes. Furthermore, the potential moderating influence of employee CSE in the relationship between leader CSE and employee outcomes is tested.

Results of the regression analyses show that leader CSE has no significant effect on

affective commitment and job stress. Furthermore, there is no curvilinear effect of leader CSE on employee outcomes. Lastly, results show that there is no significant moderating effect of follower CSE on the relationship between leader CSE and employee outcomes. Potential explanations for these null findings and areas of future work are explored in the discussion section. Even though these findings suggest no significant effects, repetition and replication with extra data are necessary. Due to some limitations, future research should further investigate the link between leader CSE and employee outcomes and moreover, possible costs of extremely low and extremely high CSE for employees and eventually the long-term success of organizations.

(4)

Keywords: Leadership; Leadership behaviour; Leader CSE; Well-being; Affective commitment;

(5)

Index of figures and tables

Figure 1.1 Conceptual model

Table 1. Means, Standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alpha Table 2. Means and standard deviations affective commitment

Table 3. Means and standard deviations job stress

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analyses of the curvilinear relationship Table 5. Moderating role of employee CSE on affective commitment Table 6. Moderating role of employee CSE on job stress

Table 7. Moderating role of employee CSE on affective commitment (curvilinear) Table 8. Moderating role of employee CSE on job stress (curvilinear)

Index of appendices

Appendix 1 Instructions leader survey Appendix 2 Items survey

(7)

1. Introduction

Over the last years the importance of employees’ well-being and employees’ organizational commitment in achieving organizational performance is increasingly being acknowledged (Meyer & Maltin, 2010). To wit, a workplace with healthy and committed employees decreases

absenteeism and turnover and increases satisfaction and performance (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Research shows that leaders and their personality play an important role in creating an environment in which employees can experience and gain well-being and commitment (Skakon, Niels, Borg & Guzman, 2010). The personality, behaviour and leadership style of a leader can have a negative or positive effect on employees’ job stress and commitment (Skakon et al, 2010). Research also suggests that among many leader behaviours and traits, the personality trait core self-evaluation (CSE) tends to be especially important in determining the effectiveness of leaders (Judge, Piccolo & Kosalka, 2009). As CSE is of high value in determining leader effectiveness, the current study focuses on how leader CSE affects followers and their affective commitment and one of the important aspects of well-being, namely job stress.

Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) define CSE as the fundamental evaluation people have about themselves and the world, which can be positive or negative. The CSE of leaders influences their job behaviour and interpersonal relations (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Research shows that leaders with a positive CSE create more opportunities for their organizations and are better at motivating their employees, compared to leaders with a negative CSE (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Resick, Whitman, Weingarden & Hiller, 2009). Furthermore, having a leader with a positive CSE positively influences the entrepreneurial orientation of organizations (Simsek, Heavey & Veiga, 2009). Also, these leaders have a higher degree of well-being, are more satisfied and perform better (Resick et al, 2009). Therefore, leaders with positive CSE are more desirable for organizations, than

(8)

leaders with negative CSE. Moreover, in society it is desirable to think positive about oneself and undesirable to think negatively about oneself (Judge & Hurst, 2007).

However, several scholars suggest that there might be a limit, and even possible costs to the positive effects of excessive positive CSE (Judge & Hurst, 2007). Overall, leaders show higher levels of CSE than the average person and some studies suggest that leaders might be at risk to gain extremely positive CSEs (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Most of these leaders are successful,

constantly receive positive feedback and their potential and qualities are reaffirmed by others, which increases their CSE (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997). Leaders with overly positive CSE show this in their behaviour and as a result they might take grandiose risks, take decisions based on their self-importance and show hostility towards their employees (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Thus, we want people to feel good about themselves (i.e. have a positive CSE), but can CSEs be too high and backfire by having negative implications in organizations? To investigate this possible risk, this study focuses on how leader CSE affects followers, taking into account that this effect may be non-linear.

As previously discussed, the degree of leader’s CSE can influence their behaviour, decision-making and interpersonal relations (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). As mentioned before, employees and their well-being and commitment are crucial factors in achieving organizational performance and leaders and their behaviour play an important role in influencing these outcomes (Meyer & Maltin, 2010; Skakon et al, 2010). Therefore, this study explores the relation between the degree of leader CSE and these employee outcomes. Furthermore, research shows that besides the importance of leaders in influencing employee outcomes, the personality traits of employees themselves, like CSE, also play a role in influencing these outcomes (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Employees with positive CSE are more positive and confident and therefore less susceptible to the influence of leaders, than employees with negative CSEs. These employees view themselves more negatively and are less confident and therefore in higher need of leadership (Nübold, Muck, & Maier, 2013;

(9)

Judge et al, 1997). Therefore the following research questions arise: ‘What is the effect of leader CSE on employees’ affective commitment and employees’ job stress? Is there a curvilinear relationship between leader CSE and employees’ affective commitment and job stress? And will employee CSE moderate the relationship between leader CSE and employees’ affective commitment and job stress?’.

The research model is depicted below in Figure 1.1. I suggest that leader CSE is positively related to employee affective commitment and negatively related to employee job stress.

Furthermore, I propose that there is a limit on the expected positive effect of CSE on employee outcomes and that affective commitment is lower and job stress is higher, when leader CSE is extremely low and extremely high, than at moderate levels of core self- evaluation. Lastly, I expect that the degree of CSE of employees moderates the curvilinear effect between leader CSE and employee outcomes.

Figure 1.1 Conceptual model linking leader CSE, employee CSE and employee affective commitment and job stress

Understanding how leader CSE influences employee outcomes, like job stress and affective commitment, is important in practical and theoretical perspective. First of all, employees are the most important assets for organizations (Barney & Wright, 1997) and their well-being and

commitment is crucial for employees and organizations (Judge, Van Vianen & De Pater, 2004). To clarify, their well-being and commitment influences second-level outcomes, like performance,

(10)

motivation, productivity, absenteeism and turnover (Parker & DeCotiis, 1983). In the long run, those employee outcomes are important predictors of the organizations’ performance and long-term success (Judge et al, 2004). Second, with this study, an attempt is made to add to the current gap in scientific literature by addressing the possible effects of leader CSE on employee outcomes, the role of follower CSE, and the potential costs of extreme leader CSE.

In this theoretical framework an overview of the current literature on the concepts of leaders’ CSE, employees’ affective commitment, well-being and employees’ CSE is provided. Following, the hypotheses stated in this study, are explained. Ensuing, the research methodology describes the procedure, sample and the measures used in this study. Furthermore, analyses are described and explained in the results section. The discussion includes limitations, theoretical and practical implications of this study and shows future directions

(11)

2. Theoretical background

The following literature review serves as a platform for the current knowledge on leader and follower CSE, follower affective commitment and follower job stress and the link between leader CSE and these employee outcomes. Relevant literature and theories to these aforementioned concepts are explained below.

2.1. The personality trait CSE

CSE is a personality trait that was first introduced by Judge, Locke and Durham (1997). Recently this personality trait has received the attention of many scholars within the field of psychology and management, but is still a relatively new concept within the literature (Tsaousis, Nikolaou, Serdaris, & Judge, 2007).

Judge, Bono, Erez and Locke (2005, p. 257) define CSE as ‘a concept that represents the fundamental assessments that people make about their worthiness, competence, and capabilities; such evaluations vary from positive to negative self-appraisals’. Generally the concept is called CSE, however in some studies the concept is labelled as self-concept or self-appraisal (Resick et al, 2009; Judge et al, 2005). In this study the concepts are used interchangeably. The concept of CSE comprises four different traits, namely self-esteem, locus of control, neuroticism and generalized self-efficacy (Judge et al, 2005).

The first trait, self-esteem can be considered as the way a person values him- or herself, or the belief about one’s self-worth (Resick et al, 2009). In general, people with high self-esteem show higher levels of positive feelings about themselves. In addition, people with high self-esteem tend to stay positive when they fail, which makes them more likely to be successful in the future. While people with low esteem feel negatively in case of failing and view the next opportunity as another chance to fail (Judge & Bono, 2001). To clarify, people with positive CSE usually show higher levels of self-esteem, than people with negative CSE (Judge et al, 2005).

(12)

Secondly, generalized self-efficacy is the perception of how well a person can deal with life’s challenges or the perception of how well a person can perform in different situations (Judge et al, 2005; Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2002). In general, people with positive CSE have high generalized self-efficacy, which means they perceive themselves as being capable of performing well in varying situations. However, people with a negative CSE usually score lower on generalized self-efficacy and have a lower believe of their own capabilities (Judge, Erez & Bono, 1998).

The third trait, neuroticism, which is also known as the low end of emotional stability, can be described as the degree to which a person has control over his/her emotional reactions (Resick et al, 2009). People who have positive CSEs tend to score high on emotionally stability (i.e. low on neuroticism), experience positive emotions and are in control of their emotions. However, people with negative CSEs usually score at the lower end of emotional stability, thus high on neuroticism. These people respond more to everyday occurrences, experience more negative emotions and are less in control of their emotions (Johnson, Rosen & Levy, 2008).

Lastly, locus of control means the beliefs about the causes of events in one’s life. When people have an internal locus of control, they see outcomes as being contingent on their own behaviour (Judge et al, 2005). In general, people with positive CSEs have an internal locus of control and thus feel like they can control outcomes (Johnson, Rosen & Levy, 2008). People with negative CSEs mostly have an external locus of control and feel like that one’s outcome are not controllable and feel helpless (Johnson et al, 2008).

In short, people with positive CSEs are most likely people who are self-confident, well adjusted, and positive, believe in themselves and who see themselves as in control of their lives (Judge et al, 2002; Tsaousis et al, 2007). While people with negative CSEs view themselves and their capabilities more negatively and are less in control of their emotions (Johnson et al, 2008; Judge & Bono, 2001). The concept of CSE is an important predictor of many crucial factors for employees and organizations (Judge et al, 2004), this will be explained below.

(13)

2.1.1. CSE and employee outcomes

Most of the research on CSE is executed on the employee level and has related the degree of CSE to job satisfaction, motivation, performance, affective commitment, and job stress (Judge & Bono, 2001; Best, Stapleton & Downey, 2005; Judge et al, 1998). The following section gives an

overview of the available literature and research on people with negative and positive self-appraisals.

As noted, studies show that there is a positive relationship between CSEs and job

satisfaction, which means that people with a positive self-evaluation are more satisfied with their jobs, than people with a negative self-view (Judge et al, 2005). In addition, research shows that employees who perceive themselves positively (i.e. have positive CSE) perform better within their jobs (Judge et al, 1998). Furthermore, CSE is also positively related to task motivation, meaning that people with a high CSE set higher goals and are more motivated to achieve them, because they focus on the positive aspects of the task (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012). However, employees with low CSE see the task negatively and as being beyond their control and

consequently think they are not going to succeed the task (Nübold, Muck, & Maier, 2013). In addition, studies show that high self-efficacy may help to sustain motivational efforts. On the other hand, employees who have a low sense of self-efficacy do not believe they can do what is necessary to achieve or accomplish what they want (Porter, Bigley & Steers, 2003)

Research shows a positive relation between employees’ CSE and their affective

commitment (Kittinger, Walker, Cope & Wuensch, 2009). To clarify, employees with high CSE tend to be more positive and also experience more positive events within the organization, but also outside of the organization (Kittinger et al, 2009). Due to the fact that they have positive

experiences in the organization, their affective commitment towards the organization increases. However the study by Kittinger and colleagues (2009) suggests that there is no direct link between CSE and affective commitment. Instead, they found an indirect link between CSE and affective

(14)

commitment, where the relation is mediated by job satisfaction and job characteristics. Also, several of the four CSE components have separately been related to affective commitment and of these the relationship between locus of control and affective commitment has been studied the most

(Kittinger et al, 2009). Research shows that locus of control plays an important role in influencing affective commitment. Irving, Coleman & Cooper (1997) explain the positive relationship, by arguing that employees with an internal locus of control feel they are more in control over their environment. Also, so-called internals are better at making the right choice when it comes to choosing an organization to work for and with this, experience more positive events, resulting in more affective commitment towards the organization (Irving et al, 1997). I return to the concept of affective commitment below.

Another concept that is central in this study is the concept of job stress. Research shows that employee CSE negatively relates to the experienced stress of employees. To explain, employees who score high on CSE, show a lesser degree of stress and are less at risk for burning out, than people with low CSE (Best et al, 2005). Another study explains this decrease in stress, by mentioning that employees with high CSE are better at dealing with stressful situations and generally view situations more positive (Ritz, Shantz, Alfes & Arshoff, 2012). On the other hand, employees with low CSE, who have low levels of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability and have an external locus of control, are more likely to perceive a constraining working environment. Therefore employees with low CSE are more at risk of burning out and being dissatisfied with their jobs (Best et al, 2005).

To summarize, people with positive CSE are mostly self-confident, have self-worth and self-potency, are free from anxiety and they appraise themselves positively. Furthermore, these employees usually perform better and feel more satisfied and motivated at work. Also, they are more affectively committed to their organization and show lesser degrees of job stress, than people with negative self-evaluations (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Nübold et al, 2013; Kittinger et al, 2009).

(15)

However what we know less about yet in the current literature is whether CSE of leaders also affects followers. Therefore, the next section focuses on leader CSE and how this trait can affect employee outcomes, like affective commitment and job stress.

2.1.2. CSE and leader outcomes

In research concerning personality traits, high CSE is usually viewed as a positive concept for employees, leaders and consequently for the organization (Judge & Hurst, 2007). As noted above, in society it is generally considered desirable to be and think positive about oneself and undesirable to think negatively about oneself (Judge & Hurst, 2007). Even though most of the research on CSE focuses on employees, some studies focus on CSE within the personality of leaders and CEO’s (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Hu, Wang, Liden & Sun, 2012; Simsek, Heavy & Veiga, 2010). These researchers have started to try to understand the influence of leader and CEO personality on the well-being of employees and the performance of organizations (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). In line with this, the current study also addresses how leader personality affects followers. Although this study focuses on leaders at lower hierarchical levels, because low-level leaders usually are more involved with their followers, as they monitor the performance, productivity and satisfaction of their followers (Casimir & Waldman, 2007; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002). The following section will focus on the proposed positive and negative effects of leader CSE on employees and thus the organization.

2.1.3. CSE and positive effects- bright side

According to Hiller and Hambrick (2005), CEO’s and leaders generally score higher on the

personality trait CSE, than the average population, because they receive positive feedback and have been repeatedly confirmed to have valuable qualities and skills. However these scholars mention that there is still sufficient variability between CEO’s and leaders, and that they do not all score at the higher end of CSE (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). As stated before, leaders with positive CSE are generally more desirable, than leaders with negative CSE (Resick et al, 2009). This can be

(16)

explained by several factors. First of all, several scholars found a positive relationship between leader CSE and transformational leadership. Certain characteristics of CSE, like internal locus of control, self-confidence and self-determination are namely important aspects for transformational leaders (Resick et al, 2009). Generally, transformational leaders are viewed as positive leaders, who have a positive effect on their followers (Tims, Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2011; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002; Barbuto & Burbach, 2006). Thus, leaders with positive CSE show a

transformational leader style, which positively affects employees.

Furthermore, research shows that leaders with an overall positive self-concept are more able to form a vision in a way that builds commitment to the organization’s goals, than CEO’s with a lower or negative self-concept (Arthur and House, 1994). Also, leaders with a positive self-concept know their own capabilities and the organization’s capabilities and are therefore able to empower employees (Resick et al, 2009). Additionally, leaders who are self-confident are known to create opportunities, overcome obstacles and have more motivational power, than less confident leaders (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Moreover, leaders with high CSE are positive, confident and feel like they are in control over their actions and thus are better able to motivate their subordinates in following the vision of the leader (Resick et al, 2009). Other research also supports the positive side of leaders with positive CSE (Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Leaders with positive CSE care more about their employees and focus on the talents and needs of each individual employee (Resick et al, 2009), than leaders with low levels of CSE. Shamir et al. (1993) mention that leaders who are confident and self-assured can give psychological comfort to their followers, which increases cohesion among employees. In addition, leaders who have high control over their emotions, i.e. scoring low on neuroticism, are better able to gain the follower’s trust (Resick et al, 2009). Some authors argue that high CSE leaders are more focused on the well-being of the organization, than on their own success, which explains the generally positive view and findings of positive leader CSE in the literature (Resick et al, 2009).

(17)

To summarize, leaders with positive CSE have some benefits to individuals, because they tend to have a more transformational leadership style and they can empower, motivate and comfort their employees (Shamir et al, 1993; Resick et al, 2009; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005), which affects employee outcomes. In contrast, leaders with low levels of CSE have less capacity in positively influencing, supporting, empowering and motivating their employees (Resick et al, 2009; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Taken together, based on the aforementioned evidence, I expect that leader CSE relates positively to employee outcomes like affective commitment and negatively to employee job stress. This link will be further explained in the sections on affective commitment and job stress below. In short, positive effects of leader CSE on follower outcomes are expected. However research shows that every personality trait has its negative sides (Judge & Hurst, 2003).

Furthermore, literature about CSE mentions that there are conflicting views about whether CSE can be too high or not (Judge & Hurst, 2007), these conflicting views will be discussed below.

2.1.4. CSE and negative effects- dark side

When leaders show extremely high levels of CSE, they are overly confident and full of self-worth and self-regard, this can be called ‘hyper-CSE’ or ‘hubris’ (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Some studies mention the positive effects of extremely high CSE within leaders. These hyper- CSE leaders are confident about their abilities and believe in positive outcomes, when they apply their abilities. Furthermore, they are not concerned about negative outcomes, because they believe they are capable of solving all problems (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005).

However, other authors mention the possible negative effects of leaders with extremely positive CSE. Leaders with extremely high CSE tend to take risky decisions, because they believe in positive outcomes, which can lead to organizational disasters (Crocker & Park, 2004). Besides organizational problems that occur from leaders with extremely high CSE, some negative effects for employees have also been found. The current study focuses on these effects. Research shows that leaders who score at the upper end of the CSE scale, show exaggerated and extreme

(18)

self-confident or pride and suggests that hubristic CEO’s make decisions based on their self-importance (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Furthermore, research shows that leaders who are extremely self-confident are really focused on themselves, which consequently goes at the expense of others. This loss of relationship is a negative effect of showing extremely high levels of CSE (Crocker & Park, 2004). Colvin et al. (1995) confirm the negative side effect of high CSE, by arguing that leaders with an unrealistically high CSE or positive self-concept are seen as ‘exploitive’ by their peers. In addition, they mention that those leaders actually tend to have lower well-being, than leaders with moderate positive levels of CSE. This shows the negative consequences for leaders themselves, on top of the consequences for the organization and employees (Colvin et al, 1995). However, in this study I focus on the effects of hyper CSE leaders on employee outcomes.

Other researchers have looked at differences between men and women with extremely high CSE (Colvin, Block & Funder, 1995). They state that men with overly positive self-evaluation have the tendency to interrupt their partner during a conversation, speak more quickly and even show hostility. Men who showed less self-enhancing tendencies, expressed more social skills, like caring about the partner and showing sympathy towards the partner (Colvin et al, 1995). Women with overly positive self-evaluations were described as showing an interpersonal style during the conversation and as seeking reassurance from their partner. On the contrary, women who did not show overly positive self-evaluations seemed more comfortable and relaxed, exhibited better social skills and seemed to be liked more by their partner. Overall, people with overly positive

self-evaluations are likely to show behaviour that is harmful to their social relationships with others (Colvin et al, 1995). The relationship between leaders and employees is of high value for employees and organizations (Tepper, 2000), when the negative behaviour of a leader harms this relationship, this might negatively affect employees.

Some scholars tried to investigate the link between high self-esteem and antisocial

(19)

expectations they found mixed results and they doubt if there is a simple connection between high CSE and antisocial behaviour (Baumeister et al, 2003). However, as stated before, others have argued that leaders who are extremely self-confident and have high self-esteem, do not focus on the relationship with others and only focus on themselves, which can be seen as showing antisocial or deviant behaviour (Crock & Parker, 2004; Colvin et al, 1995). When leaders do not focus on others and behave antisocial, they can harm the relationship with employees and negatively affect their well-being.

High CSE can also be looked at from the angle of the narcissistic leadership literature (Judge & Hurst, 2007). Narcissistic leaders are usually described as people who have little concern for others and accordingly are not concerned about developing equal relationships with employees. Additionally, narcissistic leaders usually do not award or recognize the efforts and accomplishments of employees (Resick et al, 2009). Even though it is not confirmed that high CSE directly correlates with narcissistic leadership and the concepts are even quite different, some indirect relationship can be found (Colvin et al, 1995). For reason that people with overly positive self-evaluations get lonely and this can result in showing narcissistic behaviour. As mentioned before, narcissistic behaviour entails a lack of concern and attention for others (Colvin et al, 1995), which can have negative consequences for employees.

To summarize, different opinions exist about the so-called negative side effects of extreme positive CSEs of leaders. However, as discussed, the limited research that is available on leaders CSE does suggest that leaders with extremely high CSE might have negative effects on employees. This is because those leaders only focus on themselves, do not care about others, might show narcissistic behaviour and other behaviour that is harmful to their social interaction. And this behaviour may eventually result in loss of relationship with their employees (Resick et al, 2009; Colvin et al, 1995; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Crocker & Parker, 2004). Therefore, I expect that leaders with extremely high CSE negatively influence employee outcomes, like affective

(20)

commitment and job stress. Even though there is no specific literature available about extremely low CSE within leaders, I expect leaders with extremely low CSE to show behaviours in line with the suggested negative behaviours of extremely high CSE. The relationship between CSE, their behaviours and the link with employee outcomes will be further explained in paragraph 2.2.2 and 2.3.2. The aforementioned employee outcomes will be explained next, starting with affective commitment.

2.2. Affective commitment

Nowadays organizations are putting a lot of effort in attracting, selecting and retaining committed employees (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011). A committed workforce is very important to

organizations, because this means employees are less likely to leave the organization, which decreases costs for the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Organizational commitment can be separated into three different kinds of commitment, namely affective, continuance and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In all forms of organizational commitment, employee turnover decreases, however the reason for this differs. Employees who show affective commitment, want to stay with the organization, employees with strong continuance commitment continue to stay with the organization, because they feel they have to and employees who show normative commitment stay because they ought to do so (Allen and Meyer, 1990). In this study I only focus on affective commitment, because I am mainly interested in people who wánt to stay with the organization and I expect organizations to most likely aspire affective commitment (Kittinger et al, 2009). To clarify, employees who are affectively committed to the company perform better on their jobs, than employees who show continuance commitment to the organization (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin & Jackson, 1989).

According to Allen and Meyer (1990, p.1) affective commitment can be defined as the ‘employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization’. In other words, affective commitment can be seen as an emotional attachment to the organization.

(21)

Employees who feel affectively committed towards the company enjoy being part of the

organization, identify themselves with the organization and feel involved in the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Other research mentions that employees who are affective committed towards the organization maintain the relationship, because they like the organization. In addition, they feel loyal towards the organization and feel a sense of belonging (Geyskens, Steenkamp, Scheer & Kumar, 1996). Other authors define affective commitment as ‘employees’ emotional bond to their organization’ (Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli, 2001, p. 825).

As stated before, a workforce with affectively committed employees has advantages for organizations, because it increases organizational effectiveness (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Aside from organizational effectiveness, research shows that there is a positive relationship between affective commitment and effective performance and productivity of employees (Rhoades et al, 2001; Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). Employees with high affective commitment are highly motivated to help the organization reach its goals and do this by showing in-role and extra-role behaviours (Eisenberger, Karagonlar, Stinglhamber, Neves, Becker, Gonzalez-Morales & Steiger-Mueller, 2010). Other research shows that affective commitment results in a decrease in

absenteeism (Rhoades et al, 2001). The strongest relationship has been found between affective commitment and employee turnover, showing that turnover diminishes when affective commitment increases (Kittinger et al, 2009). These aforementioned studies emphasize the importance of

employees with high affective commitment towards the organization, because this affects crucial factors for organizations (Kittinger et al, 2009).

Besides benefits for organizations, some benefits have been found for employees as well. Affective commitment correlates positively with job involvement, overall job satisfaction and occupational commitment (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002). In addition,

affectively committed employees show more organizational citizenship behaviour, than people with continuous commitment towards the organization. Furthermore, employees with affective

(22)

commitment towards the organization, show lesser degrees of self-reported stress and work-family conflict (Meyer et al, 2002). Other research supports the importance of affective commitment on employee well-being, psychological well-being and general health (Meyer & Maltin, 2010). To summarize, affectively committed employees are important to organizations, because they do not only show more productivity and better performance, they are also less likely to leave the organization (Kittinger et al, 2009) While simultaneously affective commitment also shows to have positive effect for employees themselves (Meyer et al, 2002; Meyer & Maltin, 2010). The next section aims to explain the role of leaders in influencing employees’ affective commitment.

2.2.1. Affective commitment and leadership

It is recognized that many different factors, some outside the control of the leader, influence employees’ affective commitment. Research emphasizes the important role leaders and their leadership styles and behaviours play in influencing their subordinates, and especially in the affective commitment of their subordinates (Kittinger et al, 2009).

Several scholars found that empowering leadership positively relates to affective

commitment (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011). Which can be explained by the fact that employees feel empowered when their leaders use an empowering style of leadership. When employees feel

empowered, they get more engaged and motivated and feel a sense of belonging and a connection to the organization. In other words, employees feel greater affective commitment towards the

organization, when this leadership style is being used (Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011). In addition, other studies emphasize the importance of leadership style on the affective commitment of

employees (Lee, 2005). A positive relationship was found between transformational leadership and affective commitment. According to Bono and Judge (2003) transformational leaders pay a lot of attention to the emotional and affective needs and responses of employees. Furthermore,

transformational leaders focus on the development of their followers and use inspirational

(23)

the leader and the organization (Lee, 2005). Transformational leaders communicate an attractive vision and show trust in their followers to achieve their goals. In addition, those leaders also

emphasize the importance of individual consideration (Nübold et al, 2013). By putting an accent on satisfying the needs and paying attention to the emotions of their followers, they are more likely to gain affectively committed employees (Lee, 2005).

Besides, research shows that relationship between leaders and followers is highly important (Lee 2005; Eisenberger et al, 2010). When followers feel that the relationship with their leader is high on affect, professional respect and contribution, they show greater affective commitment, than when one or more of these aspects is missing. This way, leaders create positive experiences for their employees, which increases their affective commitment (Lee, 2005). On the contrary, transactional leaders, who are characterized by using punishments and rewards in motivating their employees, lower the affective commitment (Lee, 2005).

According to the social exchange theory (Mohamed, Taylor & Hasan, 2006), employees tend to have greater affective commitment when the organization shows support and care towards its employees When employees know the organization cares about their well-being, treats them with respect and values their contribution, the social and emotional needs of employees get

fulfilled. This also increases their affective commitment towards the organization (Mohamed et al, 2006). Leaders can help the organization, because they play an important role in showing support towards and caring about their employees (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Rafferty and Griffin (2006) describe supportive leadership as leaders who give emotional, informational and appraisal support to subordinates. They highlight the importance of emotional support, which includes aspects as showing concern and taking into account the emotional needs and preferences of their followers when making decisions for the organization (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Leaders who display supportive leadership, tend to have employees with greater affective commitment. Also

(24)

advise their employees on their careers, follow their progress, and encourage them to keep developing themselves. Developmental leaders and supportive leaders have in common that they both focus on the welfare of their employees (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006).

To wrap up, a committed workforce is important for the organizations’ performance and also has advantages for employees themselves (Meyer et al, 2002; Meyer & Maltin, 2010). Leaders can contribute to the affective commitment of their employees by creating a supportive working environment, showing emotional support, caring about their employees and treating them fairly (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002). Also, showing a transformational leadership style tends to increase the affective commitment, because they show care for their employees (Bono & Judge, 2003). However, there is less knowledge yet about how the leader personality trait CSE influences affective commitment. The next section tries to link leader CSE to employee affective commitment.

2.2.2. CSE and affective commitment

As discussed previously, I expect a positive relationship between leader CSE and follower affective commitment, because these leaders show positive leadership behaviours, like supporting,

empowering and comforting their employees (Shamir et al, 1993; Resick et al, 2009; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). However, can there be a limit to the expected positive influence of leader CSE on affective commitment? Research shows that leaders with extremely high CSE do not care about others, are only concerned about themselves and show behaviour that is harmful to their interaction with employees. These behaviours can result in a loss of relationship with their employees (Resick et al, 2009; Colvin et al, 1995; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005; Crocker & Parker, 2004). While research shows that a relationship that is high on affect, is important for employees and their affective commitment towards the organization (Lee, 2005). Besides, their peers see leaders with extreme CSE as exploitive (Colvin et al, 1995). Due to the aforementioned evidence, I expect that leaders with extreme positive CSE do not show a transformational leadership style and do not create a

(25)

supportive working environment, which is important for increasing affective commitment within employees. Furthermore, leaders with extremely high CSE are not likely to care about their employees’ emotional needs and well-being, which is also important to get affectively committed employees (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). These destructive behaviours of leaders with extreme CSE are likely to negatively influence the affective commitment of employees, because they are not in line with the behaviours that are important in gaining affective commitment according to the abovementioned literature.

On the other hand leaders with moderate (i.e. positive) CSE have better social skills and show more care towards their employees. Therefore I expect employees who have leaders with moderate CSE to experience a positive relationship with their leader, which is an important predictor of affective commitment (Lee, 2005). Furthermore, research shows that leaders with moderate CSE tend to have a transformational leadership style, which is important in gaining affective commitment (Bono & Judge, 2003; Colvin et al, 1995). More importantly, these leaders pay attention to the emotional needs of their followers, which increase their affective commitment (Bono & Judge 2004; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Also, moderate CSE leaders focus on individual consideration and look at the talents and needs of each individual employee, which also results in affectively committed employees (Nübold, 2013). In addition, these leaders empower their employees; this results in more engagement and eventually in higher affective commitment

(Albrecht & Andreetta, 2011). For this reason, leaders with moderate CSE are more likely to create a supportive working environment and positively influence the affective commitment of employees, than leaders with extremely high CSE.

Lastly, I expect leaders scoring very low on CSE to have employees with lower affective commitment. As previously discussed, leaders with low CSE are low on self-confidence and score high on neuroticism (Judge et al, 1998), which means they show anxiety and have low self-worth and low self-potency (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Also, they perform worse and view themselves

(26)

more negatively, than leaders with moderate CSE (Judge et al, 2005). Moreover, scholars state that people low on CSE do not show intimacy and trust in the relationship; also they are avoidant and focus on protecting themselves (Murray & Rose, 2003). Research shows that those leaders are less able to empower their employees and gain their trust (Judge et al, 2005), while these behaviours are important in gaining affective commitment. Moreover, I expect leaders with extremely low CSE to not show transformational leadership behaviours, which also affects affective commitment within employees (Bono & Judge, 2003). Therefore, I expect leaders with low CSE to be less able to support and care for their employees, which will increase the stress level (Van Dierendonck et al, 2004). These aforementioned arguments result in the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. Leader CSE is positively related to follower affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2. At very low or very high levels of leader CSE, follower affective commitment is lower than at moderate levels of leader CSE.

Aside from employees’ affective commitment, employee well-being has received a lot of attention in the literature, as employee being is crucial for organizations. The concept of employee well-being and its consequences will be explained below.

2.3. Job stress

Over the last years, employee well-being has become a more important subject in business and organizations (Van de Voorde, Pauwe & van Veldhoven, 2012). This is a result of the fact that many studies show that employee health and well-being can negatively affect employees and organization (Danna & Griffin, 1999). Employee well-being in general can be defined as the way people feel about themselves (Van Dierendonck, Haynes, Borrill & Stride, 2004). Some well-known concepts within the literature on employee well-being, are job stress and occupational burnout (Gill, Flaschner & Shachar, 2006). According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS,

(27)

2011), the number of employees that show signs of stress and burning out, is increasing the last few years. In addition, the CBS mentions that already 1 out of 8 people are showing signs of burning out and this is still increasing (CBS, 2011). Other research on job stress shows that 90% of employees, experience job stress at work (Smith, 2001). This paper focuses on the concept of occupational stress, which is a first-level outcome of the job and the organization. A first-level outcome can be separated from second-level outcomes, such as employee performance, motivation and

organizational commitment (Parker & DeCotiis, 1983).

In many studies, stress is defined differently and there is no consistency on those definitions, which explains the difficulty of studying work stress (Parker & DeCotiis, 1983). According to Gil et al. (2006), job stress can be described as the reaction of an employee to work characteristics that seem to be threatening to him or her. Motowidlo, Packard and Manning (1986, p. 618) define stress as ‘an unpleasant emotional experience associated with elements of fear, dread, anxiety, irritation, annoyance, anger, sadness, grief, and depression’. In this paper, the definition of Motowidlo et al (1986) will be used. This definition is quite similar to the definition of Parker and DeCotiis (1983, p. 160), who describe job stress as a ‘feeling of discomfort’.

Job stress has negative implications for mental and physical health among employees and can contribute to organizational problems (Motowidlo et al, 1986; Parker & DeCotiis, 1983). Research shows that there is a direct relationship between job stress and physical and mental health problems. Job stress can result in physical health issues, like headaches, stomach-aches, high blood pressure, high cholesterol level and in extreme cases, stress can even result in heart attacks (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). Furthermore, forms of mental health problems occur from stress, like dissatisfaction with the job, anxiety and depression (Gill et al, 2006).

However, occupational stress does not only result in negative issues for employees, these health problems also have negative effects on organizations. Employees suffering from health problems occurring from stress, show less productivity and work performance (Gill et al, 2006).

(28)

Other second-level outcomes resulting from stress are reduced commitment, increased absenteeism and higher employee turnover rates (Van Dierendonck et al, 2004). Eventually, occupational stress results in enormous costs for individuals, organizations and ultimately the state (Jamal & Baba, 2000). Parker and DeCotiis (1983) even mention annual costs of around 20 billion dollars.

However, several scholars argue that it is debatable whether stress actually cost billions of dollars for the countries (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991).

The aforementioned consequences indicate that it is necessary for organizations to find the cause that increases the stress-level for employees and especially what leaders can do to prevent this. Many different opinions exist about what it is that causes job stress and most studies have focused on job characteristics and personality characteristics of employees, as predictors of job stress (Offermann & Hellmann, 1996). However, the importance of leaders and their behaviour in influencing and causing employee stress has long been underestimated (Offermann & Hellmann, 1996). The following section gives an overview of the existing literature on job stress and leadership traits.

2.3.1. Job stress and leadership

Leaders and CEO’s fulfil an important role in organizations, because they articulate a vision, motivate their employees towards a collective purpose and manage the organizational culture (Resick et al, 2009). As leaders play such an important role in organization, studies have focused on how the personality of leaders affects employees and organizations (Tepper, 2000). The personality of CEOs is reflected in their behaviour and this determines their decision-making, strategy forming, but more importantly their communication and relationship with employees (Nadkarni &

Herrmann, 2010). This does not only account for CEOs and high-level leaders, but also for lower-level leaders. As previously mentioned, low-lower-level leaders are closely involved with their employees, as they need to monitor their followers’ satisfaction, productivity and performance. Therefore their

(29)

interaction with and concern for followers is highly important (Casimir &Waldman, 2007; Yukl, Gordon, & Taber, 2002).

According to Offermann and Hellmann (1996) the way leaders behave does relate to

subordinate stress and in addition they state that employees are especially influenced by the support they receive from their leaders. Also other research mentions that leadership influences the well-being of employees (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Some studies even mention that the relationship between supervisor and subordinate is considered to be one of the best predictors of subordinate job stress (Tepper, 2000), which indicates the importance of leaders in influencing job stress.

As has been stated before, receiving support from leaders plays an important role in the well-being of employees (Offermann & Hellmann, 1996). Leaders who do not show a supporting style of leadership, fail to provide supportive feedback and exert high pressure on their employees, appear to have employees who show lower well-being and more stress, than leaders who have a supportive leadership style (Van Dierendonck et al, 2004). Supportive leaders are leaders who show positive affect towards their employees, which decreases the stress level of their employees. In addition, followers who perceive their leaders as caring about the welfare of their employees, show a higher sense of emotional well-being. Furthermore, leaders who care about other employees have employees with higher confidence and show more loyalty towards the leader and the organization (Webb, 2007).

Besides creating a supportive working environment, leaders should also show empowering behaviour (Wong, McMahon, & Kaufmann, 1999). Conger and Kanungo (1988) mention that there are disempowering behaviours like authoritarian leadership styles, setting unrealistic goals, being controlling and rigid, which results in disempowered employees who have high feelings of frustration and panic. In stead, leaders should encourage their employees and provide them with emotional support and create opportunities for employees to achieve their task (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). When employees receive emotional support and enough information about the

(30)

task, they feel empowered and experience less feelings of job stress (Laschinger et al, 1999). In addition, research also shows that leaders with a transformational leadership style reduce employee job stress, because transformational leaders openly communicate with their followers (Tracy & Hinkin, 1994; Gill et al, 2006).

In short, the relationship between leaders and employees affects the well-being of employees. Leaders who are supportive and caring towards their employees, have less stressed employees, than leaders who are not supportive (Van Dierendonck et al, 2004; Webb, 2007). Furthermore, leaders with a transformational leadership style and leaders who show emotional support, tend to have employees with less job stress (Tracy & Hinkin, 1994; Laschinger et al, 1999). The abovementioned literature explains how leaders influence employee job stress, however the current literature lacks evidence on how the personality trait CSE of leaders influences job stress. The next section aims to link leader CSE to job stress.

2.3.2. CSE and job stress

As previously mentioned, I expect a negative relationship between leader CSE and job stress, because, leaders with positive CSE tend to support, empower and comfort their employees (Shamir et al, 1993; Resick et al, 2009; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005), which are all important behaviours in preventing job stress. However, can there be a limit to the suggested positive effects of leader CSE? As discussed before, leaders with extremely high levels of CSE have the tendency to interrupt their partner during a conversation, speak more quickly and even show hostility. Also they show

behaviour that is harmful to their social interaction, because they only care about themselves and not about others, which consequently results in a loss of relationship with their employees (Colvin et al, 1995; Crocker & Park, 2004; Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). As leaders with extreme CSE focus on themselves and not on the relationship with employees, I expect those leaders to have more stressed employees. The relationship between leaders and subordinates is namely one of the best predictors of job stress (Tepper, 2000). Moreover, due to their focus on themselves, I expect them

(31)

to be less supportive towards their employees, which also increases employees’ stress level (Colvin et al, 1995; Offermann & Hellmann, 1996; Van Dierendonck et al, 2004). In addition, I expect that leaders with extreme CSE do not show a transformational leadership style, do not care about their employees, and do not give emotional support (Tracy & Hinkin, 1994; Laschinger et al, 1999). Those negative behaviours that leaders with extremely high CSE show, will increase job stress for employees.

On the other hand, as previously stated, leaders with moderate (i.e positive) CSE give psychological comfort to their employees, which decreases their job stress (Shamir et al, 1993; Laschinger et al, 1999). In addition, moderate CSE leaders empower their employees, care about them and focus on the talents and needs of each employee (Shamir et al, 1993; Resick et al, 2009), which are all important behaviours in preventing job stress. Therefore I expect that leaders with moderate positive CSE pay more attention to the relationship with their employees, because they care more about the welfare of their employees (Resick et al, 2009). Those leaders will therefore create a supportive working environment and show positive affect and care towards their

employees, which all results in lesser degrees of job stress (Offermann & Hellmann, 1996). However, leaders who show very low levels of CSE, are low on self-confidence and score high on neuroticism, which means they show anxiety and have low self-worth and self-potency (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Furthermore, research shows that people low on CSE think more negatively about themselves and perform worse (Judge et al, 1998). Due to their low self-worth and anxiety, they are likely not able to focus on the relationship with their employees and show

emotional support and care for them. This may result in an increase in job stress for employees. Furthermore, those leaders are less able to empower employees, which will increase employees’ job stress (Bono & Judge, 2003). Showing empowering behaviour is namely important in preventing job stress (Wong et al, 1999). Besides low CSE leaders are less likely to show transformational behaviour, which will also result in higher levels of job stress for employees (Bono & Judge, 2003;

(32)

Tracy & Hinkin, 1994). These behaviours make it likely to expect that low CSE leaders are less supportive towards their employees, which will increase the stress level (Van Dierendonck et al, 2004). Given the existing literature review on job stress and leader CSE, this study seeks to test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3. Leader CSE is negatively related to follower job stress.

Hypothesis 4. At very low or very high levels of leader CSE, follower stress is higher than at moderate levels of leader CSE.

The following section explains how employee CSE can act as a moderator in curvilinear the relationship between leader CSE and employee outcomes.

2.4. The moderating role of CSE

Besides the importance of leader traits and behaviours on follower outcomes like job stress and affective commitment, follower characteristics may play also an important role in this (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). Howell and Shamir (2005) emphasize that the characteristics of followers determine how susceptible followers are to the influence of their leaders. In addition, research shows that people with different types of personalities prefer different kinds of leadership styles (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). Also personality differences make people react differently to the behaviours and leadership styles of leaders (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Several scholars even argue that under certain circumstances, leadership has little or no influence (Nübold et al, 2013). For example when employees are already highly motivated and competent, they will not or hardly be influenced by leadership (Nübold et al, 2013). The aforementioned evidence states that differences in the personality can explain why some employees will be more influenced by leaders than others. The following section tries to explain why the degree of CSE within employees might moderate the curvilinear relationship between leader CSE and follower affective commitment and job stress.

(33)

As already discussed, the personality trait of CSE can be described as the fundamental assumptions that people have about themselves (Judge et al, 1998), which can be positive or negative. As has been stated before, follower CSE was shown to directly influence job stress, regardless of the behaviour of the leader (Best et al, 2005). To clarify, employees with negative CSE have the tendency to be more stressed, than people with positive CSE (Best et al, 2005). Thus, employees with low CSE have more problems coping with stressful events (Ritz et al, 2012). Besides, employees with positive CSE show higher degrees of affective commitment towards the organization, than employees with negative CSE (Kittinger et al, 2009). To clarify, employees with positive CSE are more positive and experience more positive events in their life, this increases their affective commitment towards the organization (Kittinger et al, 2009). In short, employees with positive CSE experience less stress and have higher affective commitment towards the

organization, than employees with negative CSE.

Furthermore, research shows that people with differences in personality, need different forms of leadership (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001), which makes it likely to expect that employees with negative or positive CSE also have different needs. For example, scholars mention that CSE can have a ‘buffering effect’ when employees are in negative situations, because employees with

positive CSE focus on the positive aspects about themselves and overcome negative thoughts (Bono & Colbert, 2005). Some studies found that negative leadership, like abusive leadership is most destructive for employees with low CSE, because those employees view themselves negatively and cannot overcome the negative effects of abusive leaders (Zhang, Kwan, Zhang & Wu, 2012).

In addition, Cohen and Wills (1985) suggest that social support from leaders is especially important for employees who are experiencing stress. They argue that social support can protect employees with a high level of stress, coming from stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985).

Furthermore, other scholars suggest that employees low on CSE may benefit more from supportive leaders, because they are less able to manage stressful events (Nübold et al, 2013). As people with

(34)

low CSE are less confident, experience more stress and think more negatively, they are in higher need of positive leadership and are more sensitive to the positive and negative behaviours of leaders (Zhang et al, 2012). Therefore I expect employees with low CSE to be more susceptible to the influence of leader CSE in general. This effect will also occur in the extremely low and extremely high levels of leader CSE, as leaders with extremely high or extremely low CSE show less support and show negative behaviours, which is crucial for employees scoring low on CSE. Given the importance of leadership and support for employees with low CSE, I expect them to be more susceptible to these negative behaviours of leaders with extremely high or low CSE.

On the other hand, research shows that employees with positive CSE, who are confident and high in self-esteem, do not need the support from their leader (Nübold et al, 2013). Several authors argue that employees with positive CSE already feel good about themselves, feel competent, are self-determined and are therefore in lower need of support (Nübold et al, 2013). Furthermore, they argue that people with positive CSE are less susceptible to the influence of negative or positive leader behaviour, because these people think positively and feel good about themselves and

therefore will not or hardly be influenced by others (Nübold et al, 2013). Therefore I expect people with positive CSE to be less susceptible to the influence of leader CSE. Even though leaders with extremely high CSE and extremely low CSE show less support towards their employees and show more negative behaviours, employees with positive CSE will be less susceptible to the assumed negative influence of leaders with extremely low or high CSE. Furthermore, employees with positive CSE will also be less influenced by the expected positive behaviours and influence of leaders with moderate CSE.

To summarize, CSE of leaders may have a differential or buffering effect on followers’ job stress and followers’ affective commitment, depending on whether followers’ CSE is positive or negative. Employees with positive CSE are already affectively committed to the organization, experience less stressful events and think positively about themselves, therefore they will be in less

(35)

need of support of the leader and also will be less influenced by the behaviours of a leader (Nübold et al, 2013). On the other hand, people low on CSE have lower affective commitment, show higher degrees of stress, are less confident and feel more negatively about themselves. Therefore they are in higher need of support from the leader and will be more susceptible to the leaders’ behaviours, whether this is positive or negative behaviour (Nübold et al, 2013). Therefore I expect that employee CSE will moderate the (curvilinear) effect of leader CSE on follower affective commitment and follower stress and I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 5. Follower CSE moderates the curvilinear effect of leader CSE on follower affective commitment, such that this curvilinear effect is weaker when employees have higher levels of CSE.

Hypothesis 6. Follower CSE moderates the curvilinear effect of leader CSE on follower stress, such that this curvilinear effect is weaker when employees have higher levels of CSE.

(36)

3. Research Method

The following section elaborates on the research method used in this study. This section contains a detailed description of the research design, respondent sample and instruments used to

operationalize the constructs.

3.1. Participants and procedure

This thesis is part of a leadership research project group at the University of Amsterdam. Together with four other students, I developed two separate self-administered questionnaires, however we all added our own specific items to study our own research question. The questionnaires were only available in Dutch, because we only asked Dutch respondents to fill in the questionnaire. However most of the scales were adopted from English studies; therefore the back translation technique was used to create the Dutch version of the questionnaire.

These coupled questionnaires were distributed online among managers and employees from different organizations and with varying functions, all within the Netherlands. We aimed to collect at least 120 leader-subordinate dyads. We asked managers to fill out the leader questionnaire and to provide one of their subordinates, randomly, with the employee survey. Another way was to

distribute the survey to an employee and asking the employee to distribute the leader questionnaires to their manager. To make sure that the right leader questionnaire was linked to the right employee questionnaire, we used matching codes. All respondents filled in the questionnaire anonymously, the data was treated confidentially and was not used for other purposes than this research. In appreciation of their effort, the participants had the opportunity to fill in their email address, so at the end we can send them some highlights of the different studies.

We started distributing the first questionnaires in the beginning of March and after two weeks we sent a reminder to the managers and employees. A few days before the closing of the questionnaire, we sent them a last reminder to participate in the study. The questionnaire was eventually closed on the 27th of April.

(37)

3.2. Sample

A total of 170 leaders and 180 employees completed the questionnaire, which resulted in 162 complete leader-employee dyads. We did not exclude the 18 single employee responses and the 8 single leader responses from the sample, because those responses contain usable information. Respondents came from a wide variety of different industries, varying from tourism, charity,

healthcare, banking, consultancy, steel, government, education, media etc. Below, the leader sample and employee sample are discussed separately.

3.2.1. Leader survey

A total of 287 leaders received an email with a unique code, and 215 leaders returned the

questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 74,9%. However not all questionnaires were completed and some missed a major part of the data, therefore these questionnaires were excluded from the sample. The final sample consists of 170 usable leader responses, which results in a completion rate of 79,1%.

In total, 166 leaders filled in their sex, and this sample consists of 99 men (59,6%) and 67 women (40,4%). In the final sample, 164 leaders filled in their age, where the age from the leaders varies from 20 to 63 with an average of 42,6 years (SD = 10,75). Again, 166 leaders answered the educational question and the results show that more than 82% of the leaders hold a higher

educational degree. Furthermore, 11,4% of the leaders possess a lower general secondary degree and 4,8% a high school degree. The tenure of leaders varies from less than a year to 41 years, with an average tenure of 12,19 years (SD = 9,87). Most of the leaders (69,7%) have daily contact with their employees, 28,5% have weekly contact and only 1,8% of the leaders says they contact their employees monthly. The manager-employee tenure varies from less than a year to 26 years, with an average of 6,04 years (SD=5.58). In addition, 69,3% of the leaders mentions they have been

(38)

3.2.2. Employee survey

From the 287 employees who received an email with a code, 204 employees returned the

questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 70,6%. However not all questionnaires were completed and some missed a major part of the data. The final sample consists of 180 usable employee

questionnaires, resulting in a completion rate of 88,2%.

A total of 179 employees filled in their age. The age ranges from 18 to 64 with an average of 33,54 years (SD = 11,60). The total sample consists of 85 men (47,8%) and 93 women (52,2%). Also, most of the employees possess a higher educational degree (72,5%), 18,5% hold a lower general secondary degree and 5,6% a high school degree. Results show that most of the employees work fulltime for their organization, namely 106 employees (59,2%). 73 employees (40,8%) indicate to work part-time for the organization. Employee tenure varies a lot from one month to 38 years with an average of 5,94 years (SD=7,08).

3.3. Measures

The leader and employee questionnaire contain several variables that are not discussed in this paper, because other students made use of the same questionnaire for their thesis research. In this thesis, only the four variables that are necessary to answer the research question are discussed. All

variables are answered using a seven-point Likert scale, which measures from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The concepts of leader CSE, follower job stress, follower affective

commitment and follower CSE are measured using different items, and these will be explained below.

Leader CSE is measured using 12 items, based on Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger (1998). For example, ‘I am confident I get the success I deserve in life’ and ‘I complete tasks successfully in life’. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is (0.74).