Transformational Leadership, Employee Voice and
Employee Workload:
The mediating effect of voice quantity of employees towards colleagues between transformational leadership and voice quality of employees towards managers and the
moderating effect of employee workload on the relation between voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards managers.
July 2th 2014, Amsterdam
Course: MSc. Thesis (6314M0230Y)
Education: Business Studies – Leadership and Management track
Student name: Rob van Werkhooven (10349987)
Lecture name: Inge Wolsink MSc.
Abstract
Although transformational leadership seems to enhance voice among employees (Crant & Bateman, 2000; Detert & Burris, 2007), the relation between transformational leadership and quality and quantity of employee voice remains uninvestigated. Further, transformational leadership motivates and inspires employees to perform beyond the expectations of the organization (Bass, 1985). Consequently, this could lead to increasing workload of employees. The influence of employee workload on the relation between employee voice quantity and quality also remained uninvestigated. Through a questionnaire among 70 dryads this study expects to find a positive mediating effect of employee voice quantity among colleagues on the relationship between transformational leadership and employee voice quality towards managers. Further this study expects to find a negative moderating effect of employee workload on the relation between voice quantity towards colleagues and voice quality towards managers. The data collected in this study did not support the two hypotheses. This suggests that voice quality of employees towards colleagues does not positively mediate the relation between transformational leadership and voice quality of employees towards managers and that employee workload does not negatively moderate the relationship between employee voice quantity and voice quality. Although no support for both hypotheses was found, different aspects of transformational leadership seem to influence the voice behavior of employees in our study. In addition to the voice behavior of employees, the results of this study show a positive effect of employee voice quantity towards colleagues on employee voice quality towards the manager. This suggests that managers can influence the quality of voice communicated to them by stimulating employee voice among colleagues.
Keywords: Transformational leadership, voice quantity, voice quality, employee workload
Words: 187
Introduction
Employees often have ideas and opinions how organizations could increase its effectiveness. Employees who have ideas and opinions how to improve organizational
effectiveness can decide to keep the ideas for themselves or express their ideas. The leadership style used by a manager seems to influence the decision of employees to express their ideas or not, but does leadership style also lead to ideas of higher quality? Consequently, a leadership style that motivates and inspires employees to perform beyond the expectations of the organization could increase workload (Bass, 1985), but does increasing workload not negatively influence the quantity and the quality of the ideas expressed by employees?
If employees decide to express their ideas, this is seen as proactive voice behavior (PVB). PVB is seen as important, because it could lead to an increase in organizational performance (Bateman & Crant, 1999). However, as a manager it could be challenging to stimulate employees to express their ideas. For example: while the workload among employees rises, workload of a manager could also rise. As a result, it is possible that the manager will be primarily focused on his own performance. Employees will notice that and as a result, employees do not dare to speak up. Therefore, for a leader it is important to use a leadership style that stimulates employees to speak up. The leadership style that stimulates idea generation through individual attention and vision is transformational leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Moreover, different scholars argue that transformational leaders enhance the frequency of employees speaking up (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2012).
The frequency of employee voice is defined as voice quantity (Wolsink, forthcoming). Although transformational leadership enhances the frequency of employees speaking up, it remains uninvestigated if increase in frequency also leads to ideas that are more useful or original. Wolsink (forthcoming) was the first to argue that the extent to which voice is original and useful is known as voice quality.
Based on the previous, it sounds easy to stimulate employee voice. However, the previous does not take current economic community into account, where a lot of pressure has been put on increasing organizational effectiveness (Mumford, Scott, Gadis & Strange, 2002). As mentioned earlier, the layoff of employees can result in increasing workload, while increasing workload could lead to stress (Kroon, Voorde & Van Veldhoven, 2009). It could be questioned what the effect of employee workload is on the number of ideas expressed by employees. Stress might
result in a lower number of ideas expressed. However, the influence of workload on employee voice quantity is for most organizations more interesting to know.
Therefore, this study investigates whether leaders who stimulate idea generation through individual attention and vision, indirectly influence the originality and usefulness of ideas employees communicate to them by stimulating the frequency with which employees communicate ideas and opinions to each other. Furthermore, this study investigates to what extend employee workload negatively influences the relation between frequency of voice used among employees and the quality of ideas communicated by the employees towards the manager. Based on the previous, the following research questions will be inquired in this study:
“To what extent does voice quantity of employees towards colleagues positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and voice quality of employees towards managers? To what extent does employees workload negatively moderates the relationship between voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards managers?” (see figure 1 on page 15 for a visual representation of the proposed model).
The contribution of this study is twofold. First, this study investigates whether or not transformational leadership affects voice quantity among employees and the voice quality of employees towards managers. Previous studies have shown that transformational leadership positively influences the proactive voice behavior of employees (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2012). Although voice quantity and voice quality are forms of proactive voice behavior, scholars have not yet defined which form of proactive voice behavior will influence transformational leadership. Based on the results of this study, managers could adapt their leadership style that more ideas and opinions about the organization will flow from the employees towards the manager. For managers also interesting to know is to what extent the voice quantity of employees towards colleagues’ influences voice quality of employees towards the managers.
Second, this study investigates the influence of employee workload on the relation between employee voice quantity among colleagues and employee voice quality towards managers. Previous studies have shown that workload has a negative influence of proactive voice behavior of employees. However, since Wolsink (forthcoming) made the split between voice quantity and voice quality, it remains uninvestigated which part of proactive voice behavior is influenced by
workload. Based on the outcomes of this study, managers in organizations could influence employee workload in order to keep the flow of ideas coming.
Proactive Behavior
Proactive people constantly try to seek for information and opportunities to improve things (Crant, 2000). Scholars define proactive behavior (PB) as an activity that is self-initiated (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Moreover, PB is seen as behavior that has the intention to improve current situations (Jones, 1986). As a result, this behavior requires people constantly challenging the current situation instead of passively adapting to this situation (Crant, 2000; Bindle & Parker, 2010). Organizations could challenge employees to show PB as well, this is known as proactive work behavior (PWB). Employees who show proactive work behavior will take various actions to ensure they effect or change their selves or the work environment they work in (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). PWB could arise in various different forms. One of these forms, and the form of PWB which is important for this study, is proactive voice behavior (Morisson, 2011).
Proactive Voice Behavior
As mentioned before, proactive voice behavior (PVB) of employees is a form of PWB (Morisson, 2011). Although PB and PWB have a lot in common, both constructs differ from each other. Where PB is accepting and present oriented, PVB is future and change oriented (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Moreover, the content in which PVB takes place differ from the content in which PWB takes place. PWB is focused on creating changes and challenging or encouraging within the internal organizational environment (Biddle & Parker, 2010). So PVB is not just random speaking, it is voicing with the intent to improve business conditions and decision-making (Morisson, 2011). In addition to this, PVB is voice with the intent to solve problems before they escalate (Biddle & Parker, 2010).
Voice
Voice is defined as the communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns or opinions about work-related issues that challenges the status quo (Wolsink, forthcoming; Morisson, 2011). Scholars further define voice as a promote behavior that emphases the expression of constructive
Morisson (2011) distinguishes three types of voice. First, ideas or suggestions aimed by the employee to improve the organization are referred to as suggestion-focused voice. Second, problem-focused voice refers to the expression of work-related activities or issues that could eventually damage the organization. Finally, opinion-focused voice is distinguished. Opinion-focused voice refers to the expression of ideas that differ from the ideas of others (Morisson, 2011). Most of previous studies among voice focus on the frequency to which employees speak up. However, based on the three types of voice, it could be argued that the quality of the voice expressed should be taken into consideration as well.
Voice Quantity versus Voice Quality
Most literature among proactive voice behavior focus on the number of times employees speak up (Biddle & Parker, 2010; Morisson, 2011; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Wolsink defines the frequency to which employees express suggestions, concerns or opinions about work related-issues as voice quantity. However, Wolsink (forthcoming) argues that the effectiveness of voice should be taken into consideration, voice can occur with a high frequency but with no clear message and voice can occur with low frequency but with a clear message. The effectiveness of employee voice behavior is better known as voice quality (Wolsink, forthcoming). In addition, voice quality is seen as the extent to which an idea is changing, useful or original (Wolsink, forthcoming). Although the effect of voice quantity on voice quality has not been topic of research yet, different scholars argue that the decision of employees to voice can be influenced. As mentioned earlier, a factor that could influence the decision of employees to voice or not is the leadership style used by the manager.
Leadership
Scholars define leadership as the ability of an individual to motivate other people to go beyond the self-interest in the interest of the group (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Sosik & Godshalk, 2000). Moreover, leadership is defined as the ability to contribute to the collective vision and as the ability to make personal self-sacrifices in good of the collective (House and Shamir, 1993). In current research among leadership, there is a huge interest in charismatic and transformational leadership (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001) since these leadership styles try to
motivate employees. Moreover, transformational leadership is the leadership style that seems to enhance PVB the most (Den Hartog and Koopman, 2001).
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership tries to motivate and inspire employees to perform beyond the expectations of the organization (Bass, 1985). Moreover, this achievement is done through followers of a certain leader, who develops an emotional and motivational arousal towards the leader (House, Woycke and Fodor, 1988).
To achieve emotional and motivational arousal Bass (1985) argues that transformational leadership consists out of four aspects. The first identified by Bass is idealized influence or charisma. In this aspect trust and confidence in the leader is created and the leader creates followers (Bass, 1991; Judge & Picollo, 2004). The second aspect identified is inspirational motivation. Here the leader behaves as a role model and communicates in an inspiring way to his followers (Bass, 1985). Moreover, in this aspect the leader challenges his followers by communicating high standards. In the third aspect, intellectual stimulation, the leader provides personal attention to his followers and encourages the development of intelligence and innovation. (Yammarino & Bass, 1991). Finally, individualized consideration is identified. This aspect focuses on the development of subordinates, the leader act as a mentor or coach (Bass, 1999).
The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Voice Quantity
Crant & Bateman (2000) and Detert & Burris (2007) argue that transformational leaders stimulate proactive voice behavior because transformational leaders are more change-oriented and proactive themselves. Proactive behavior involves anticipating and solving problems and finding new was to change current work situation (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996; Parker & Collins, 2010; Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006). In order to solve problems and change current work situations, employees are expected to express their ideas and opinions. In addition, Detert & Burris (2007) argue that intellectual stimulation is an aspect of transformational leadership that should stimulate the voice quantity of employees as well.
Considering the arguments and findings of previous studies, this study proposes that transformational leadership has a positive effect on employee voice quantity.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Employee voice quantity towards colleagues is positively
associated with transformational leadership.
The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Voice Quality
As discussed before, Bass (1985) identified four different aspects of transformational leadership. It is expected that all aspects could influence voice quality of employees towards the manager. The first two aspects, idealized influence and inspirational motivation, stimulates employees to achieve high results. Moreover, the achievement of high results could lead to high quality of voice. The third, intellectual stimulation, stimulates employees to use their intelligence and to come up with something innovative. The stimulation of using intelligence could therefore lead to high quality of voice. In intellectual stimulation, the leader act as a mentor or coach. By acting as a coach or mentor, the leader could stimulate the employees to come up with original and high quality ideas.
Although previous research found that transformational leadership influences employee voice quantity (Detert & Burris, 2007; Crant & Bateman, 2000) no research has been done on the relationship between transformational leadership and voice quality. In case voice quantity of employees towards colleagues rises, it can be expected that employees will supplement each other with their input on ideas. Consequently, it is expected that ideas communicated towards the manager be of higher quality, since employees have more confidence to voice.
Considering the arguments and findings of previous studies, this study proposes that transformational leadership has a positive effect on the voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees communicated towards the manager.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Voice quality of employees towards managers is positively
associated with transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Voice quality of employees towards the manager is positively
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Voice quantity of employees towards colleagues mediates the
relationship between transformational leadership and voice quality of employees towards the manager.
The first four hypotheses test voice quantity and voice quality in transformational leadership in perfect situation. Different factors can play a role to what extent employees are willing and able to share ideas and thoughts. As discussed before, workload could be one of the factors that influence the relationship between voice quantity and voice quality.
Workload
Employee workload can be described as a subjective construct that reflects the perceived work demands of an employee on a particular day (Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater, 2010). Rydstedt & Johansson (1998) argue that the workload of employees is a job stressor, influencing the wellbeing of employees and eventually the wellbeing of an organization. The wellbeing of employees can be harmed because high workload leads to stress reactions, which eventually could lead to physiological stress levels like high blood pressure or absenteeism of work (Gardell, 1987; Carrere, Evans, Palsane & Rivas, 1991; Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater, 2010). Moreover, workload could lead to psychological strain like negative affect and bad performance towards the organization employees’ work for (Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater, 2010). An example of bad performance towards the organization could be the expression of ideas and opinions.
Based on the previous, it could be argued that workload has negative influence on the performance of employees. Assuming that H2, H3 and H4 are true, it could be questioned what the effect of employee workload is on the relationship between voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards the manager.
Considering the arguments and findings of previous studies, this study proposes that employee workload negatively moderates the relationship between employee voice quantity towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards managers.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Employee workload negatively moderates the relationship
Method
Research Design
The measure of variables used in this study was done through a survey. An online questionnaire instead of a paper-based questionnaire was chosen because the response rate for online questionnaires tends to be higher (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). To further ensure this high response rate, the surveys were completed while a researcher was present at the organization.
Variables used in this study were measured through two different questionnaires: one questionnaire was designed for employees and a separate questionnaire was designed for managers. The advantage of using surveys is that standardized questions make it possible to compare the responses of the different participants. This survey was designed with help of the internet-based program Qualtrics, which ensures that collected data could easily be transferred to the statistical software program SPSS. SPSS was used to analyse the results.
Sample
Participants in this study were managers and employees of organizations. All participants in this study were Dutch speaking, this because the questionnaire was only administered in Dutch. 76 managers and 152 employees participated in this study, which resulted in 76 triads. A triad consist of two employees and one manager who work together on a weekly basis. Due to cancelled appointments and missing data, not all triads could be used. Therefore, the total sample consisted out of 70 full triads. As the data for this study was collected in The Netherlands, there was a specific focus on a country. This sample existed of 113 males (54%) and 97 females (46%). 45 males (64%) and 25 females (36%) completed the manager survey, while their average age was 42.07 years (SD = 11.93) with an average tenure of 135.44 months (SD = 127.07). 68 males (49%) and 72 females (51%) completed the employee survey, while their average age was 32.79 years (SD = 12.18) with an average tenure of 92.50 months (SD = 171.01). The most common sector in which the participants were active in was privately owned companies (38%), followed by retail (17%) and non-profit organizations (9%).
Procedures
Recruitment of triads was done through seven researchers of the University of Amsterdam. The collection of data started in November 2013 and was closed in February 2014. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling. If it was possible, the potential participants were personally visited as much as possible. If this was not possible, contacts were addressed by telephone or e-mail. Beforehand, all potential participants were informed about the study through an information brochure.
If a complete dryad agreed to participate, an appointment was made. Before the start of the survey, all participants signed an informed consent form (see Appendix). By signing the form, participants confirmed that participation was voluntary and that they received sufficient information about the research.
After signing the informed consent form, participants entered the survey. The manager and the employees received unique codes in order to match the results of the employees to results of the manager (for example: the manager received code M001, employee 1 received code X001 and employee 2 received code Y001). The survey of the employees took approximately 25-35 minutes to complete and the manager survey around 15-25 minutes.
After the participants indicated that the questionnaire was completed, a check was done in Qualtrics to ensure that participants really completed the questionnaire. In addition, after completing the questionnaire participants received a small gift to thank participants for their participation. Afterwards a last e-mail was send to thank participants for participation (see appendix). In the table below, the measured variables are given, as well as the source-level measured.
Table 1: Source-level of the key variables
Manager-level Employee-level
Voice quality (17 items)
Transformational leadership (11 items) Voice quantity (13 items)
Measurements
Dependent variable: Voice Quality
Voice quality was rated from a managers’ point of view. Managers declared to which extent ideas of their employee were useful or original. In the manager survey, voice quality was measured in 17 items, based on a new scale developed by Wolsink (forthcoming). Of these 17 items, 10 items referred to the extent to which ideas were original and 7 items referred to the extent to which ideas were useful. Managers were asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, to which extent the items were applicable to their employees. An example of an item asked is: “If my employee gives his/her opinion about organizational functioning, then it is about important issues”. A high score means that the manager of the employee values the ideas of the employee as important improvements. The seventeen items asked turned out to be reliable, namely α= 0.96.
Independent variable: Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership was measured from an employees’ point of view. Each employee declared to which extent the leadership of the manager was charismatic or considered as individual focused/intellectual stimulation. Transformational leadership was measured in 11 items based on De Hoogh, Den Hartog and Koopman (2004). Of these 11 items, 4 items contained information about charisma and 7 items contains information about individualized consideration/intellectual stimulation. Employees were asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally not applicable to (5) totally applicable, to which extent the items were applicable to their manager. An example of an item asked is: “My manager encourages employees to a new way of thinking about problems”. A high score means that the manager encourages employees to come up with new ideas. The eleven items asked turned out to be reliable, namely α= 0.95.
Mediator variable: Voice quantity
Voice quantity was measured from an employees’ point of view. Each employee rated the voice quantity of his or her colleague, the colleague who also participated in this study. In the employee survey, voice quantity was measured in 13 items based on a new developed scale by
Wolsink (forthcoming). Of the 13 items, 5 items refer to suggestion-focused voice, 4 items refer to problem-focused voice and 4 items refer to opinion-focused voice. In this survey employees were asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally not applicable to (5) totally applicable, to which extent the items were applicable to the colleague. An example of an item asked is: “How often does your colleague come up with improvements about organizational functioning?”. A high score means that the colleague of the participant exchanges, on a regular basis, ideas how organizational functioning could be improved. The thirteen items asked turned out to be reliable, namely α= 0.90.
Moderator variable: Workload
Workload was measured from an employees’ point of view. Employees rated their perceived workload. Workload was measured in 7 items based on Ilies (2009). Employees were asked to indicate on a five point Likert scale, ranging from (1) never to (5) often, to which extent the items were applicable to themselves. An example of items asked is: “I work under constant time pressure”. A high score means that the employee constantly has to work hard in order to finish his or her work in time. The seven items asked turned out to be reliable, namely α= 0.86.
Analysis and Predictions
This study conducts different correlation and linear regression analyses to test the hypotheses. H1 will check to what extent transformational leadership has a direct effect on voice quantity of employees towards colleagues. For H1 it is expected to find a positive correlation and regression coefficient for the effect of transformational leadership on voice quantity.
H2 will check to what extent transformational leadership has a direct effect on voice quality of employees towards managers. For H2 it is expected to find a positive correlation and regression coefficient for the effect of transformational leadership on voice quality.
H3 will check to what extent voice quantity of employees among colleagues has a direct effect on voice quality of employees towards managers. For H3 it is expected to find a positive correlation and regression coefficient for the effect of voice quantity on voice quality.
With help of PROCESS (Preacher & Hayes, 2012) H4 will check to what extent voice quantity of employees towards colleagues mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and voice quality of employees towards managers. First, a regression analysis will be executed with voice quality as dependent variable and transformational leadership as independent variable. Second, a regression analyse will be executed with voice quantity as dependent variable and transformational leadership as independent. Third, a regression analysis will be executed with voice quality as dependent variable and voice quantity as independent variable. Finally, a fourth regression analysis will be executed with voice quality as dependent variable and transformational leadership and voice quantity as independent variables. For H4 it is expected to find a positive regression coefficient of voice quantity on the relationship between transformational leadership and voice quality.
With help of PROCESS (Preacher & Hayes, 2012) H5 will check to what extent workload of employees moderates the relationship between voice quantity of employees among colleagues and voice quality of employees towards managers. First, a regression analysis will be executed with voice quality as dependent variable and transformational leadership and workload as independent variables. Second, a moderation analysis will be executed with voice quality as outcome variable, voice quantity as dependent variable and workload as moderation variable. For H5 it is expected to find a negative regression coefficient of employee workload on the relationship between voice quantity and voice quality.
Figure 1: Operationalized model, key variables and their measurements.
•Transformational Leadership Den Hartog & Koopman (2004), employee survey, 12 items, 1-5 Likert Scale •Voice Quantity Wolsink (2013), employee survey, 15 items, 1-5 Likert Scale •Voice Quality Wolsink (2013), manager survey, 26 items, 1-5 Likert Scale •Workload Ilies (2010), employee survey, 15 items, 1-5 Likert Scale
Results
Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on all variables used in this study. On all four variables a principal axis factor analysis was executed with oblique rotation (direct oblimin). The analysis was executed to test whether or not the underlying structures of each variable were found. In addition, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was executed to measure if the sample size was large enough to execute a stable factor analysis. The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. Each variable in this study should score a minimum of 0.8 on the KMO measurement, where a value of 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors (Field, 2012). Finally, it was checked if each item within a variable had an individual factor loading above 0.5.
Dependent variable: Voice Quality
It was expected to find three factors, namely the extent to which voice is flexible, original or useful. A first analysis showed that the 7 counterbalanced items formed an additional factor, while all 3 items on flexibility had individual factor loadings below 0.5. Therefore, the counterbalanced and changing items were removed from this study. The KMO-measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.96. Initial analysis was run to obtain the eigenvalues for each factor in the data. After the removal of the counterbalanced and flexibility items, it was expected to find the remaining two factors, namely original and useful (see Measurements, page 12). Both factors were found as expected and had eigenvalues over 1. In combination the factors explained 67.61% of the variance. See Appendix for the factor loadings after rotation.
Independent variable: Transformational Leadership
It was expected to find two factors, namely charismatic and individualized consideration/intellectual stimulation (see Measurements, page 12). A first analysis showed that 1 individualized consideration/intellectual stimulation item had an individual factor loading below 0.5. Therefore, this item was removed from this study. The KMO-measure verified the
eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Both factors were found as expected and had sufficient eigenvalues. In combination the factors explained 67.15% of the variance. See Appendix for the factor loadings after rotation.
Mediator variable: Voice Quantity
It was expected to find three factors, namely voice considered as suggestions, problems and opinions (see Measurements, page 12). After a first analysis 1 problem-focused item and 1 opinion-focused item were removed from this study because these items had individual factor loadings below 0.5. The KMO-measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.88. An initial analysis was run to obtain the eigenvalues for each factor in the data. All three factors were found as expected and had sufficient eigenvalues. In combination the factors explained 53.02% of the variance. See Appendix for the factor loadings after rotation.
Moderator variable: Workload
It was expected to find one factor, namely workload (see Measurements, page 12). After a first analysis 2 items were removed from this study because these items had individual factor loadings below 0.3. The KMO-measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.83. An initial analysis was run to obtain the eigenvalues for the factor in the data. The factor was found as expected and had sufficient eigenvalue. The factors explained 46.65% of the variance. See Appendix for the factor loadings after rotation.
Descriptives and Correlation between Key Variables
Table 2: Descriptives and correlations between the key variables (Cronbach's Alphas on
diagonal).
M SD 1 2 3 4
1 Voice Quality (dependent variable) 4.27 1.16 (.96)
2 Transformational Leadership (independent variable) 5.08 1.20 .16 (.95)
3 Voice Quantity (mediator variable) 3.23 0.63 .30** -.12 (.90)
4 Workload (moderator variable) 2.66 0.71 .05 -.04 .10 (.86)
Table 2 presents the descriptives, correlations and Chronbach’s Alphas of all variables used in this study. The table shows that values of Cronbach’s Alpha all exceed 0.7, meaning that the reliability of each scale is sufficient. The strength of a pair of variables was explored through a correlation matrix. The correlation matrix was used as guidance for the analyses, executed later. Test for multicollinearity showed no multicollinearity problems.
H1 predicts a positive relation between transformational leadership and voice quantity, which is not supported by the results (r = -0.12, ns). This indicates that there is no relationship between transformational leadership and how often employees voice towards colleagues in our sample.
H2 predicts a positive relation between transformational leadership and voice quality, which is not supported by the results (r = 0.16, ns). This indicates that there is no relationship between transformational leadership and how original or useful employees voice towards managers in our sample.
Since the first correlation outcomes of H1 and H2 were unexpected, an additional correlation matrix was formed in which transformational leadership was split in the two aspects mentioned earlier, namely charisma and individualized consideration / intellectual stimulation. This additional correlation matrix was executed to explore whether or not one of the two aspects of transformational leadership influences voice quantity or voice quality of employees. Table 3 shows the outcome of this additional correlation matrix.
Table 3: Descriptives and correlations between the key variables. (Cronbach's Alphas on
diagonal).
M SD 1 2 3 4
1 Voice Quality 4.27 1.16 (.96)
2 Charisma 5.18 1.20 .05 (.94)
3 Individualized consideration / intellectual stimulation 5.03 1.31 .20* .78** (.86)
4 Voice Quantity 3.23 0.63 .30** -.18* -.08 (.86)
Note: N=140. *p < .05, **p < .01
The results of the correlation matrix show a negative relation between charisma and voice quantity of employees towards colleagues. This indicates that in our sample the higher the degree of charisma shown by leaders, the fewer employees speak up. In addition, the results show a
positive relation between individualized consideration / intellectual stimulation and voice quality of employees towards managers (r = 0.20, (.05)). This indicates that in our sample the more leaders stimulate intellectual thinking of employees the higher the originality and usefulness of the ideas communicated by employees towards managers.
H3 predicts a positive relation between voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards the manager, which is supported by the results of table 2 (r = 0.30, (.01)). This indicates that there is a relation between how often employees voice towards their colleagues and how original and useful employees voice towards managers in our sample, meaning that the more employees voice towards their colleagues the more original and useful the voice of employees towards managers.
H4 predicts a positive relation between transformational leadership and voice quality through voice quality. However, as discussed at the correlation results of H1 the positive relation between transformational leadership and voice quantity was not found. This indicates that there is no positive mediating relation of voice quantity between transformational leadership and voice quality in our sample. In addition, table 3 shows a negative relation between charisma and voice quantity, therefore it can be concluded that there is no positive mediating relation of voice quantity between charisma and voice quality in our sample. Finally, table 3 shows a negative relation of voice quantity between individualized consideration / intellectual stimulation and voice quality, therefore it can be concluded that there is no positive mediating relation of voice quantity between individualized consideration / intellectual stimulation and voice quality. However, the correlation matrix does not take a mediating effect into account.
H5 predicts a negative relation of workload on voice quantity and voice quality. However, the results of table 2 show a positive relation of workload with both variables. This indicates that employees who perceive workload more often voice towards their colleagues than employees who do not perceive workload and that employees who perceive workload voice more original and useful ideas towards managers than employees who do not perceive workload. However, the correlation matrix does not take a moderating effect into account.
H1: The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Voice towards Colleagues
Table 4 (Model 2) shows the regression results for H1. Based on the outcome of the regression analysis, with an explained variance of 1%, and the previously mentioned correlations H1 is rejected that transformational leaders influence the frequency of employee voice towards colleagues. This means that employees, who experience their manager to be transformational, do not more often voice ideas and suggestions to their colleagues, than employees who do not experience their manager to be transformational. In other words: transformational leadership does not seem to relate to the amount of ideas colleagues communicate to one another.
As mentioned earlier transformational leadership exists out of two aspects (see Correlations). Literature discusses the positive influence of intellectual stimulation on voice quantity of employees; therefore a regression analysis of both aspects on transformational leadership was executed.
Table 5: Regression results: charisma and intellectual stimulation on voice
quantity
Model 1 Model 2
b SE β b SE β
Constant (Voice Quantity) 3.71 .24 3.43 .21
Charisma -.09 .04 -.18*
Intellectual stimulation -.04 .04 -.08
R2 .03 .01
Note: N=140, *p < .05, **p < .01
The results of table 5 show that employees, who experience their manager as charismatic, less often voice ideas and suggestions to their colleagues, than employees who do not experience their manager to be charismatic. In addition to this, the results of table 5 show that employees, who experience their manager as intellectual stimulating, do not more often voice ideas and suggestion towards their colleagues.
H2: The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Voice towards Managers
Table 4 (Model 1) shows the regression results for H2. Based on the outcome of the regression analysis, with an explained variance of 3%, and the previously mentioned correlations H2 is rejected that transformational leaders influence the originality and usefulness of employees voice towards managers. This means that employees, who experience their manager to be transformational, do not more often voice more original and useful ideas to their managers, than employees who do not experience their manager to be transformational. In other words: transformational leadership does not seem to relate to the originality and usefulness of ideas employees communicate to their manager.
As mentioned earlier transformational leadership exists out of two aspects (see Correlations). Literature discusses the positive influence of intellectual stimulation on voice quality of employees; therefore a regression analysis of both aspects on transformational leadership was executed.
Table 6: Regression results: charisma and intellectual stimulation on voice
quality
Model 1 Model 2
b SE β b SE β
Constant (Voice Quality) 4.00 .44 3.38 .39
Charisma .05 .08 .05
Intellectual stimulation .18 .07 .20*
R2 0.003 0.003
Note: N=140, *p < .05, **p < .01
The results of table 6 show that employees, who experience their manager as charismatic, do not more often voice ideas that are more original and useful to their manager, than employees who do not experience their manager to be charismatic. In addition to this, the
results of table 6 show that employees, who experience their manager as intellectual stimulating, more often voice ideas that are more original and useful towards their manager.
H3: The Effect of Voice towards Colleagues on Voice towards Managers
Table 4 (Model 3) shows the regression results for H3. Based on the outcome of the regression analysis, with an explained variance of 9%, and the previously mentioned correlations H3 is accepted that frequency of employee voice towards colleagues influence the originality and usefulness of employees voice towards managers. This means that employees, who express their ideas and opinions towards colleagues, more often voice original and useful ideas to their managers, than employees who do not express their ideas and opinions towards colleagues. In other words: employees voice quantity towards colleagues seems to relate to the originality and usefulness of ideas employees communicate to their manager.
H4: The Mediating Effect of Voice Quantity towards Colleagues Between Transformational Leadership and Voice Quality towards Managers
A mediating analysis was conducted to test the fourth hypothesis. Process, by Andrew F. Hayes was used to execute the analysis.
Table 4: Regression results for the 4 models with Transformational Leadership, Voice Quantity and Voice Quality as variables
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Depending variable Voice Quality Voice Quantity Voice Quality Voice Quality
coefficient SE β coefficient SE β coefficient SE β coefficient SE t
Constant 3.50 .42 3.55 .23 2.50 .49 1.40 0.66 2.12
Transformational Leadership .15 .08 .16 -.06 .04 -.12 0.19 0.15 3.99**
Voice Quantity .55 .15 .30** 0.59 0.08 2.42*
To establish mediation effect four different conditions should be met (see Analysis & Predictions). H1 and H2 found no support for transformational leadership effecting voice quantity and voice quality. In addition H1 found a negative effect of charisma on the frequency of voice used towards colleagues and no effect of intellectual stimulation on the frequency of voice used. Based on the previous, H4 is rejected that the relation between transformational leadership and the originality and usefulness of voice used by employees towards is mediated by the frequency of voice used by employees towards colleagues. In addition, based on previous findings voice quantity does not seem to mediate the relation between charisma or intellectual stimulation and voice quality.
H5: The Moderating Effect of Employee Workload on Voice Quantity towards Colleagues and Voice Quality towards Managers.
A moderation analysis was conducted to test the fifth hypothesis. Process, by Andrew F. Hayes was used to execute the analysis.
Table 9: Regression results of main (Model 1) and interaction effects (Model 2) of
Workload on the relation between Voice Quantity and Voice Quality
Model 1 Model 2
b SE β coefficient SE t
Constant (Voice Quality) 2.42 0.58 4.27 0.10 44.69**
Voice Quantity 0.54 0.15 0.3** 0.54 0.14 0.13
Workload 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.14 3.75**
Voice Quantity x Workload - 0.09 0.18 - 0.53
R2 0.089 0.091
Note: dependent variable is Voice Quality, N=140, *p < .05, **p < .01
Table 9 shows the results for H5. Based on the outcome of the moderation analysis, with an explained variance of 9%, H5 is rejected that the relation between the frequency of employee voice and the originality and usefulness of employees voice is negatively influenced by employee workload. This means that employees who perceive workload, does not more often voice with useful ideas
than employees who perceive no workload. In other words: employee workload does not seem to influence frequency and originality and usefulness of ideas employees communicate.
Discussion
Main goal & research question
The first main goal of this study was to prove that transformational leadership leads to more useful and changing voice used by employees towards managers, because transformational leadership stimulates the frequency of expressing ideas and opinions. The previous was expected because transformational leadership seems to positively influence proactive behavior (Morisson, 2011; Detert & Burris, 2007), which seems to stimulate the frequency of voice. In addition, proactive behavior involves anticipating, solving problems and finding new was to change current work situation (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996; Parker & Collins, 2010; Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006), which seem to stimulate the usefulness of ideas and opinions. However, voice quantity and voice quality are new topics addressed by Wolsink (forthcoming) and therefore, previous studies remained uninvestigated what aspects of voice transformational leadership influences.
The second main goal of this study was to prove that workload negatively influences the originality and usefulness of the ideas and opinions communicated by employees towards managers. Again, voice quantity and voice quality are relatively new topics. However, previous studies done by Palsane & Rivas (1991) and Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater (2010) suggested that workload could lead to stress and eventually to bad performance towards the organization. Based on the previous, the following research question was addressed: “To what extent does voice
quantity of employees towards colleagues positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and voice quality of employees towards managers? To what extent does employees workload negatively moderates the relationship between voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards managers?” (see figure 1
on page 15 for a visual representation of the proposed model).
There were five hypotheses addressed in order to answer the research questions. Unfortunately, the regression analyses conducted support only one hypothesis (H3).
Alternative Explanations and Unpredicted results
This study found a positive relation between voice quantity of employees towards colleagues and voice quality of employees towards the manager (H3). This implies that the more frequent employees exchange ideas with each other the more original and useful the voice communicated towards the manager. This outcome seems to suggest that when employees are more confident to voice towards managers the originality and usefulness of the voice increases. Increase in confidence can cause an improvement in the quality of communication (Norgaard, 2011). In addition, Norgaard (2011) found that training could improve confidence. Based on this, it could be argued that employees who frequently speak up, which can be seen as a form of training, become confident due to this training and improve the quality of their voicing. This additionally explain why results of our study show a positive relation between voice quantity and voice quality.
This study did not find support for the other hypotheses, a result that was of course unexpected. H1 argued that transformational leadership positively influences voice quantity of employees. This relation between transformational leadership and voice quantity was not found because an aspect of transformational leadership, charisma, seems to have a negative effect on the voice quantity of employees. Not finding an effect between transformational leadership and voice quantity was highly unexpected since research done by Crant & Bateman (2000) and Detert & Burris (2007) found that transformational leadership positively effects voice quantity of employees. In addition, previous studies found that charisma should enhance group performance and cooperative behavior (Howell & Avolio, 1993; De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2002) therefore this unpredicted outcome cannot be refuted and needs further investigation.
H2 argued that transformational leadership positively influences the usefulness of ideas and opinions communicated towards managers. The relation between transformational leadership was not found despite the fact that an aspect of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, seems to have a positive effect on the voice quality of employees. The finding that intellectual stimulation positively effects voice quantity is new, however it builds on Bass (1985), who argued that intellectual stimulation encourages the development of intellectual and intelligence. Based on previous and current findings, managers in organizations should stimulate
intellectual development in order to achieve ideas that are useful. Not finding an effect of charisma on voice quality can be refuted by existing literature of Bass (1985). In charisma trust in the leader is created, this trust does not directly influence the originality and usefulness of voice.
H4 argued that voice quantity positively mediates the relation between transformational leadership and voice quality. Although this study found that voice quantity and voice quality are positively related to each other (see the explanation of H3) their mediating effect was not found due to reasons described at the explanation of unpredicted results of H1 and H2.
H5 argued that workload negatively moderates the relation between voice quantity and voice quality. Although no negative moderating effect on the relation between voice quantity and voice quality has been found, workload seems to have a positive effect on voice quantity. Since voice quantity and voice quality are relatively new terms, the influence of workload on these terms cannot be refuted by scientifically knowledge. However, it is possible that people who voice often face higher workload, because they have more ideas and opinions how to improve organization performance. As a consequence these employees attract more workload, because the perceived work demands of the employee on a particular day are higher then that of a person who less often voice his or her ideas (Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater, 2010). However, Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater (2010) also argued that workload could lead to bad performance towards the organization, which was expected to have negative influence on voice quantity. How these relations work towards each other needs further investigation.
Sample
Different methodological causes could be designated as well to explain why the expected outcomes have not been found. First, the sample used in this study consists of Dutch employees and managers from different organizations. A complete Dutch sample does not mean that they live throughout The Netherlands. As discussed earlier, participants in this study were recruited through the researchers. The researchers mainly had contacts in two provinces of The Netherlands, namely South-Holland and North-Holland. This limited the generalizability of this study.
Furthermore, the participants in this study were recruited through convenience sampling. Although researchers emphasized that the results were processed anonymously, it is possible that people do not dare to answer the questions honestly since participants were acquaintances of the researchers. This could have negatively influenced the relationship between different variables, because when the answers were given truthfully the outcomes would have either positively or negatively differed from current answers. Further research can overcome this problem by either use another form of sampling or use another data gathering. Another form of data gathering will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Questionnaire
Another point of discussion is the way in which the data was gathered. As mentioned earlier, the data was gathered through a survey, measured in one-point-of-time. The actual behavior of both employees and managers may change over time; a one-point-of-time questionnaire does not take this in account. In addition, a measurement taken in one-point-of-time makes it possible that the rating of colleagues or managers is falsified through events or conflicts prior the start of the questionnaire. It is possible that when the data was gathered through an experiment, where the researcher controls the behavior of the manager and employees, the results differ from the outcomes of this study. It is possible that the outcomes differ because an independent researcher will probably value bahvior less biased than an inexperienced random participant.
Voice Quality and Voice Quantity
Voice quantity was initially measured in fifteen items, but two items were removed because of insufficient scores. Initially voice quality was measured in twenty-seven items, but due to mistakes in the managers’ interpretation of seven counterbalanced items and the insufficient score of the changing items a major part of the items were deleted. Voice quantity and voice quality are new variables; no previous research has been executed with use of this variables. Therefore, it could be argued if these items are measured correctly. It is possible that the items in voice quantity and voice quality not measure what they are intent to measure. If the items do not measure what they intent to measure, this could have influenced the outcomes of the
study. Further research using the items should critically review the items used in the questionnaire.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership was measured from an employees’ point of view. As earlier discussed, transformational leadership was rated from an employee point of view, this makes the measurement really dependable of the relation between the manager and the employee. The relation between manager and employee makes the rater prejudged. As a consequence, it is possible that the employee not objectively answered items about the leadership of his or her manager; this could have negatively biased the outcomes of this study, which could have resulted in the disappointing outcomes of this study. Further research should make the measurement of transformational leadership less dependent of the relationship between manager and employee.
Workload
The employees who participated in this study rated workload among themselves. Measuring workload among the participant itself could have biased the outcome of this study. It is for example possible that what for one employee tends to be low workload is for another employee high workload. In addition it is possible that, although confidentially was secured, employees did not honestly answered the items asked. Therefore, it can be discussed if measuring workload through a questionnaire is the right method to measure workload. Further research should look for other, more countable methods to measure employee workload.
Further research
The complete survey contained a lot of questions and took a lot of time of the participants; this could have biased the results. Further research should shorten the questionnaire, this to ensure people do not give random answers to quickly finalize the questionnaire. Perhaps a shorter questionnaire could not measure all items so extensive as the current survey, but it ensures that no random answers will be given, which ensures the quality of the measurements found. Another possibility is that further research tries out a new type of research, like an experiment. As discussed earlier, within an experiment an independent researcher observes the
behavior of the participants. This improves the reliability of the measurements, which makes it more likely to find the expected relations.
Further research could also aim for a deeper understanding of existing knowledge about transformational leadership, voice quality, voice quantity and workload. As mentioned earlier, in this study transformational leadership was measured through two aspects, charisma and intellectual stimulation. Further research could aim for an explanation why charisma seems to have a negative relation with voice quantity, while charisma was, based on existing literature of Bass (1985) expected to improve voice quantity towards colleagues. In addition, future research among transformational leadership could investigate why intellectual stimulation not lead to higher voice quantity while it leads to higher voice quality, where it was expected to positively influence both voice constructs.
For the voice behavior of employees, further research could investigate if all types of voice, suggestion-focused, problem-focused and opinion-focused, have an positive effect on the extent to which voice is considered as changing, useful or original. This could be useful because if it turns out that one type of voice really entails high quality, managers could focus on that type of voice.
Further research on workload should primarily focus on why workload seems to positively influence voice. Existing literature discusses that workload lead to bad performance (Ilies, Dimotakis & De Pater, 2010), based on this a negative influence of workload among voice was expected. The outcome of this study suggests that there is a relation between workload and voice because employees who voice more frequently have more opinions and ideas about how to improve organizational performance, therefore these employees attract more work, which results in higher workload. Further research should investigate if this really is the case and how increasing workload due to voice relates to bad performance.
Conclusion
Through a questionnaire among 70 dryads this study expected to find a positive mediating effect of employee voice quantity among colleagues on the relationship between
expected to find a negative moderating effect of employee workload on the relation between voice quantity towards colleagues and voice quality towards managers. The data collected in this study did not find support the two hypotheses. However the support for the two hypotheses where not found, this research contributes to existing literature. First, this study established a positive relation between frequency employees voice towards colleagues and the extent managers consider voice of their employees useful and changing.
Another contribution of this study to existing knowledge is the recognition that not all aspects of transformational leadership lead to higher voice quantity or voice quality. Charisma seems to have negative effects on the voice quantity and voice quality expressed by employees, while the intellectual stimulation of employees seems to have positive effects on usefulness of ideas and opinions communicated towards the manager.
Managers and organizations could use the outcomes of this study to improve the flow of useful and changing ideas. Eventually, for organizations it is most important that employees express the most valuable ideas and opinions how to improve organizational effectiveness. Based on the outcomes of this study managers could influence this. As discussed before, managers could influence this by stimulating employees to voice to other and complement ideas of others with own ideas and opinions. This will increase the usefulness of the ideas that are communicated to the manager. Another way to ensure the usefulness of ideas communicated to manager’s increases is to encourage intellectual thinking. This study found that managers who encourage intellectual thinking ensure the expression of useful and changing ideas.
References
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. (1999). Ethics, character and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 1999, vol. 10 (2), 181-217.
Belschak, D. & Den Hartog, D.N. (2011) When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy ad role breathe self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2012, vol. 1, 194-202.
Bindle, U.K. & Parker, S.K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. APA handbook of industrial and
organizational phycology.
Carrere, S., Evans, G.W., Palsane, M.N. & Rivas, M. (1991). Job strain and occupational stress among urban public transit operators. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, vol. 64 (4), 305-316.
Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.
Crant, J.M. & Bateman, T.S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75.
Den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman P.L. (2001). Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology – 2, 166-187.
Detert, J.R. & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., Zempel, J. (1996) Personal Initiative at Work: Differences between East and West Germany. The Academy of Management Journal (1996), vol. 39 (1), 37-63
Gardell, B. (1987). Efficiency and health hazard in mechanized work. Work stress, pp 50-71. New York: Praeger.
Grant, A.M., Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2008, vol. 28, 3-34.
House. R.J., Woycke, J., & Fodor, E.M. (1988). Charismatic and noncharismatic leaders: differences in behavior and effectiveness. Charismatic leadership: the elusive
factor in organizational effectiveness, 99-121.
Ilies, R., Dimotakis, N. & De Pater, I.E. (2010). Psychological and physiological reactions to high workload: Implications for well-being. Personnel Psychology. Kroon, B., Van de Voorde, K., Van Veldhoven, M. (2009). Cross-level effects of
high-performance work practices on burnout; Two counteracting mediating mechanism compared. Personnel Review, 2009, vol. 38 (5), 509-525.
Morrison, E.W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: integration and direction for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5:1, 373-412.
Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 2002, vol. 13, 705-750.
Parker, S.K. & Collins, C.G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633-662.
Parker, S.K., Williams, H. & Turner, N. (2006) Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assissing and comparing indirect effect in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40:3, 879-891.
Rydstedt, L.W., Johansson, G. & Evans, G.W. (in press. The human side of the road: Improving the work conditions of urban bus drives. Journal of Occupation Health
Psychology.
Sosik, J.J. & Godshalk, V.M. (2000). Leadership styles, mentoring functions received, and job-related stress: A conceptual model and preliminary study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 2000, vol. 21(4), 365.
Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J.A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
Yammarino, F.J. & Bass, B.M. (1991). Person and situation views of leadership: A multiple levels of analysis approach. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 121-139.
Appendixes
1. Informed consent form 2. Thank e-mail
3. Exploratory Factor Analysis 4. Questionnaire items
Appendix – Informed consent form
a) Informed consent bij standaardonderzoek
‘Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de bovenstaande informatie brochure ‘Prestatie en Innovatie’. Mijn vragen zijn naar tevredenheid beantwoord.
Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze
instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden behoef op te geven en besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het experiment. Indien mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt zullen worden in wetenschappelijke publicaties, dan wel op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens zullen niet door derden worden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming.
Als ik nog verdere informatie over het onderzoek zou willen krijgen, nu of in de toekomst, kan ik me wenden tot de onderzoeker: ………..……….. (e-mail: ………...……...) of de coordinator: Inge Wolsink (i.wolsink@uva.nl). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kunt u zich wenden tot het hoofd van de afdeling Human Resource Management: Deanne Den Hartog (D.N.denHartog@uva.nl)
Aldus in tweevoud getekend:
……… ………
Naam deelnemer Handtekening
‘Ik heb toelichting verstrekt op het onderzoek. Ik verklaar mij bereid nog opkomende vragen over het onderzoek naar vermogen te beantwoorden.’
……… ………
Appendix – Thank e-mail
Geachte heer/mevrouw,
U heeft vandaag deelgenomen aan ons onderzoek. Wij zijn u daarvoor zeer dankbaar.
Voor uw deelname krijgt u van ons in maart 2014 een rapport met daarin de antwoorden op onze onderzoeksvragen.
Wij waren specifiek geïnteresseerd in de rol die bewuste gecontroleerde aandacht speelt in het
ontwikkelen van creatieve ideeën en de communicatie van creatieve ideeën naar collega's en managers. Invloeden van tijd, werkdruk, actie- en denkstijl en de leiderschapsstijl van managers zijn hierin ook meegenomen.
Mochten er nog andere werknemers binnen uw organisatie zijn die ook deelnemen aan dit onderzoek, dan verzoeken wij u dringend de bovenstaande informatie NIET met hen te bespreken ten behoeve van de betrouwbaarheid van de onderzoeksresultaten.
Naast het rapport loot u mee voor de geldprijs van €250,-. Als u heeft gewonnen nemen wij contact met u op.
Mocht u verder nog vragen hebben over het onderzoek, neemt u dan vooral contact met ons op.
Met vriendelijke groet,
_________________________________
Inge Wolsink - PhD Candidate UvA Faculty of Economics and Business
Department Business Studies – HRM-OB group Plantage Muidergracht 12, Amsterdam @ i.wolsink@uva.nl
M1.24 020-525/4342 LinkedIn
Appendix – Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor solutions and loading for Voice Quality items
Voice Quality item Factor
I II
The ideas of my employee are innovative. .996 -.101
The suggestions of my employee are original. .965 -.098 If my employee expresses an idea, the idea is original. .920 -.025 If my employee has an idea this is innovatory. .890 .013 Suggestions done by my employee are innovative. .873 .015
Advises of my employee are original. .872 .026
The opinion of my employee is original. .808 .078
If my employee expresses a suggestion, then it is innovative. .793 .102
My employee has a refreshing view. .752 .165
If my employee offers an opinion, the opinion is refreshing. .699 .210 If my employee expresses his / her worries about processes that are not
functioning optimally, this is valuable. -.150 .829
The opinion of my employee is helpful. .185 .693
If my employee gives his / her opinion, this is about important matters. -.012 .615
My employee thinks about how his / her ideas should be implemented. .215 .573
The ideas of my employees are properly applied. .278 .557
If another comes up with an idea, my employee contributes useful
additions. .253 .489
If my employee comes with a new product / method, this is worked out
accurately. .306 .387
Eigenvalue 10.79 1.39
% variance 61.81 5.80
Note: Numbers are factor loadings. Factor loadings in bold within one
column are grouped together in subsequent analyses. Factor I = originality; Factor II = usefulness.
Factor solutions and loadings for Transformational Leadership items
Transformational Leadership item Factor
I II
My manager encourages employees to think independently. .882 -.140 My manager encourages employees to develop their talents as much as
possible. .842 .048
My manager involves employees in decisions that are important for their work. .826 -.035 My manager talks to employees about what are important to them. .704 .159 My manager gives employees the feeling to work on important and common
goals. .691 .199
My manager encourages employees to think about problems in a new way. .631 .287 My manager is able to make others excited for his / her plans. .521 .385 My manager has vision and a clear picture of the future. -.036 .810
My manager shows to be convinced of his / her ideals, beliefs and values. -.023 .765
My manager is always looking for new opportunities for the unit or
organization. .159 .627
My manager shows confidence in his / her vision and ideas. .303 .606
Eigenvalue 7.16 0.92
% variance 62.23 4.92
Note: Numbers are factor loadings. Factor loadings in bold within one column
are grouped together in subsequent analyses. Factor I = individualized stimulation / intellectual stimulation; Factor II = charisma.
