The relationship between charismatic leadership, motivation, organizational commitment and job performance in the public sector

Page | 1

The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership, Motivation,

Organizational Commitment and Job Performance in the public

sector

Master Thesis

Student Name: Ai-Hsiang Pan

Student Number: 10128700

Thesis Supervisor: mw. Dr. C.T. Boon

Second reader:

Business Studies

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business

Page | 2

Abstract

This study examined the mediating role of motivation and organizational commitment in the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance in the public sector. Moreover, the moderating role of the personality trait openness to experience was studied. The findings indicate that the positive effect of charismatic leadership on the outcomes of motivation, organizational commitment and job performance was confirmed. The results showed the positive mediating effects of motivation and organizational commitment. In addition, the relationship between charismatic leadership, motivation and job performance was stronger than the relationship between charismatic leadership, organizational commitment and job performance. Openness to experience moderated the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation. Charisma was associated with higher motivation for employees scoring high on openness to experience. No support was found for openness to experience as a moderator between charismatic leadership and organizational commitment, and charismatic leadership and job performance.

Thus, the relationships between charismatic leadership, motivation, organizational commitment and job performance are similar for employees in the public sector as in the private sector. Openness to experience sigificantly moderated the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation for employees scoring high on openness to experience.

Keywords: charismatic leadership, motivation, affective commitment, job performance, openness to experience

Page | 3

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Corine Boon for her constructive support, valuable feedback and guidance in the process of writing this thesis. I would like to thank Hannah Berkers and Sofija Pajic for their practical support in setting up my research and analysing the results.

My thanks also goes to the employees of the Public Health Service (GGD Amsterdam), the Water Service (Waternet Amstel Gooi & Vechtstreek) and the middle managers (Gemeente Amsterdam) who responded to my survey. I appreciate their confidence and input.

Moreover, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support and understanding. I am grateful to my parents, who have taught me to do my best. A special word of thanks goes to my fiance Pascal, who has taken our kids Sophie and Michiel on numerous walks outside, while I was writing, and who has always supported me along the way during my master education.

Page | 4

Table of contents

1.4. Structure of the thesis ... 11

2. Literature Review ... 11 2.1. Leadership ... 11 2.1.1. Charismatic leadership ... 12 2.2. Motivation ... 13 2.3. Organizational Commitment ... 16 2.4. Job Performance ... 18 2.5. Personality ... 18 2.5.1. Openness to experience ... 19 2.6. Hypotheses ... 19 3. Research Method ... 26 3.1. Research Design ... 26

3.2. Sample and procedure ... 27

3.3. Measures ... 29 3.3.1. Charismatic Leadership ... 30 3.3.2. Motivation ... 30 3.3.3. Organizational Commitment ... 30 3.3.4. Job Performance ... 30 3.3.5. Openness to experience ... 31 3.3.6. Control variables ... 31 3.4. Data analysis ... 31

Page | 5 4. Results ... 34 4.1. Descriptives ... 34 4.2. Reliability ... 35 4.3. Correlation analysis ... 38 4.4. Regression analysis ... 39 4.5. Mediation ... 41 4.6. Moderation ... 48 5. Discussion ... 51

5.1. Theoretical and practical implications ... 51

5.2. Limitations ... 55

5.3. Future research ... 56

5.4. Conclusion ... 57

References ... 58

Appendix Questionnaire ... 71

Page | 6

1. Introduction

This section explains the relevance of the topic of charismatic leadership style, motivation, organizational commitment and job performance. The purpose of this study, the conceptual model and its contributions are described.

1.1.

Overview

Much attention has been given in the leadership literature to the effect of leadership on motivation, commitment and job performance (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 1999). The relationship between leadership style and job performance has been examined extensively in the leadership literature, however this relationship has been a neglected area of study in the public sector. One explanation for this neglect is probably that the aim of public organizations is not to maximize profits. Job performance refers to in-role behavior describing the responsibilities that are outlined in the job description. The employees of public sector organizations have other considerations to work in the non-profit sector. Prior research revealed that individuals with greater public service motivation are likely to perform better in public sector work (Perry & Wise, 1990). Several scholars found that employees in the public sector, and especially those in managerial and professional roles, are more likely to value intrinsic rewards such as the opportunity to help others and to do meaningful work for society (Houston 2006; Park and Rainey 2007; Moynihan and Pandey 2007). This implies that employees are motivated differently by leaders and the effect on job performance may be different. It is important to examine this, as leaders might improve job performance by motivating employees differently. There are two possible explanations for employees in the public sector performing differently. It is possible that the criteria in the job description are not concise enough to perform actual measurements of in-role performance. Another

Page | 7 explanation is that employees in the public sector exert more extra-role behaviors and perform better than their job description, except there is not a formal measurement.

Organizational commitment has been studied extensively in the context of leadership (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Meyer & Allen 1991, Conger & Kanungo 1998). Charismatic leaders create conditions that contribute to the motivation of employees to remain within the organization, which is also called affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This is achieved by motivating employees to work together in the best interests of the organization and at the same time by satisfying individual needs. Although a lot of previous research has focused on the themes of leadership, performance, motivation and commitment, public sector scholars have largely ignored the influence of leadership style on performance and the areas of motivation and commitment. Given that public sector organizations are continuously under pressure to reduce costs, improve productivity and adapt to new circumstances within the current economic downfall with situations of reorganizing and downsizing, it is essential that researchers start to address these issues in the context of public organizations (Van Wart, 2003). Moreover, the characteristics of the employee influence the style of the leader and the performance of the employee. This means that the effect of charismatic leadership is different for employees based on their personality. Therefore, it is important to gain more insight in the employee responses to charismatic leadership. Openness to experience is examined as a moderator, because employees that have a high level of openness to experience are expected to exert behaviors that are not in the formal job description. Employees with a high level of openness are more imaginative, open-minded to try new things and are more creative. Thus, they are expected to perform better as well.

Page | 8

1.2.

Proposed model

Despite the vast amount of research in the field of leadership, the effects of motivation and commitment and the link between leadership and performance, little attention has been paid to the effects of these relationships in the public sector. This leads to the following research question: To what extent does charismatic leadership style influence employee motivation and organizational commitment, and therefore job performance in the public sector?

Page | 9

1.3.

Theoretical Contribution

The current study adresses this gap by examining how charismatic leadership influences performance and the mediating influences of intrinsic motivation and organizational commitment.

This proposed model contributes to the existing literature by providing an understanding of employee motivation in the public sector. People that work in the public sector are interested in other need fulfillments. Employees are attracted by the need to do something good, or to help other people, e.g. financial rewards are usually absent. Charismatic leadership reinforces these other need fulfillments (influencing causes either to which employees are strongly committed or on a personal level by making a difference (Grant, 2007). Charismatic leadership influences the attitudes and the performance of employees. Therefore, charismatic leadership appears to be relevant in the public sector. Second, the research aims to contribute to the leadership literature by exploring the question of how leadership style is related to

Charismatic Leadership Motivation Performance Organizational Commitment Openness to Experience Openness to Experience Openness to Experience

Page | 10 motivation, commitment and job performance in the public sector. This is of relevance as there is little research on the topic in the public sector.

Third, the suggested research examines the strength of the relationship between leadership style, motivation and job performance on the one hand and leadership style, organizational commitment and job performance on the other hand. This is interesting since motivation is a construct focusing on the individual and organizational commitment is a construct with an organizational focus. If the relationship focusing on the organization is stronger between charismatic leadership, organizational commitment and job performance, it means that organizations can motivate employees and employees commit themselves to an organization as a long as the right leadership style, charismatic leadership is exerted. This is regardless of which manager or person shows charismatic leadership. If the relationship focusing on the individual is stronger between charismatic leadership, motivation and job performance, it means that individual leaders who exhibit charismatic leadership will motivate employees and therefore improve job performance. This means that once an individual leader leaves the organization, the employee is not motivated anymore, and this will lead to a lower job performance as a result.

Finally, this study adds to the existing literature by examining the effect of the personality trait of the employee openness to experience on the relationship between charismatic leadership and performance, so that this relationship is stronger for higher values of openness to experience.

Page | 11

1.4.

Structure of the thesis

This thesis is structured as follows. First, the construct of charismatic leadership is addressed. Then, the related constructs of motivation and commitment are described. Fourth, the construct of job performance is discussed. In considering these issues, hypotheses are developed that serve as the basis for the proposed model. The results of the analyses will serve as basis for the conclusion and finally implications for future research are provided.

2. Literature Review

This research will focus on the relationship between leadership style, motivation, commitment and job performance.

2.1.

Leadership

Review of the research and theoretical literature on leadership revealed various definitions of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001, p.166). Based on the literature one can conclude that leadership is about influencing people to achieve the goals of an organization and that great leaders can make a difference. Leadership can be defined in various ways, for example “Leadership is the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House et al. 1999, p. 13). Yukl (1998) defined leadership in terms of mobilizing the workforce to attain organizational goals. Executive leaders determine the strategic direction, influence the culture, and control directly and indirectly all of the organizational practices including the skills taught to managers and employees. The style of the leader is important in achieving organizational goals. Therefore, charismatic leadership style is

Page | 12 assumed to have an influence on organizational commitment, which in turn leads to better job performance.

2.1.1. Charismatic leadership

In many studies on leadership, the factors leadership, follower and situational context play an important role. By enhancing followers’ self-efficacy and self-worth, transformational and charismatic leaders can influence their followers (House & Shamir, 1993). A charismatic leader is a symbol of success and accomplishment for his followers (Bass, 1985 p 34). Weber (1947) originally considered charisma more as an individual trait and House et al. (1992) allocates personality characteristics to a charismatic leader. Charismatic leadership refers to a pattern of interaction between leaders and followers that results in (1) making the followers’ self-esteem contingent on the vision and mission articulated by the leader, (2) strong internalization of the leader’s values and goals by the followers, (3) a strong personal or moral (as opposed to calculative) commitment to these values and goals, and (4) a willingness on the part of followers to transcend self-interest for the sake of the collective (team or organization) (House & Shamir, 1993, p.86).

Bryman (1992, p.41) developed a working definition of charismatic leadership: “by virtue of both the extraordinary qualities that followers attribute to the leader and the latter’s mission, the charismatic leader is regarded by his or her followers with a mixture of reverence, unflinching dedication and awe”. Conger & Kanungo’s behavioral model builds upon the idea that charismatic leadership is an attribute based on followers’ perceptions of their leader’s behavior (Conger, 1999). Three different stages can be distinguished. The first stage (the environmental assessment stage) is characterized by two dimensions, the follower’s perception of the manager’s desire to change the existing situation (or status quo) and the leader’s sensitivity to environmental opportunities, constraints and follower’s needs (Conger

Page | 13 et al. 2000). In stage two (the vision formulation stage) an inspirational vision is shared and effectively communicated by the manager. This vision is connected to the ability and communication style of a manager, how he presents the context with future goals and his motivation to lead. In the third stage (the implementation stage) the managers empowers subordinates and builds the trust needed to motivate them to make that extra effort (Conger, 2000). It is also obvious that charismatic leadership has profound effects on followers. The underlying process is, however, unclear. Shamir et al. (1993, p 581) developed a self-concept based theory using four main parts: leader behavior, effects on followers’ self-concepts, further effects on followers and the motivational processes by which the leader’s behavior produce the charismatic effects. Charismatic leaders tie self-concepts of followers to the goals and collective experiences of their missions which results in them becoming valued aspects of the followers’ self-concept (Conger, 1999). The main aspect is again communicating the message to reach the followers in the first place and to aim for alignment of the followers’ self-concept with the message and messenger. According to Den Hartog et al. (1997), four elements of rhetoric are linked to charisma: content, composition, style and delivery. For instance, charismatic leaders are able to switch between different styles depending on the audience and they make use of metaphors to emphasize the importance of the message. On the one hand, powerful delivery might be necessary for the content to have its full effect (Den Hartog et al. 1997, p 362). However, on the other hand, message content when placed within an environmental context has much power of its own.

2.2.

Motivation

Work motivation has been defined as the psychological processes that direct, energize, and maintain action towards a job, goal, task, role or project (Kanfer, 1990). Grant & Shin

Page | 14 (2011) describe five core theoretical perspectives of work motivation: expectancy theory, goal-setting theory, equity theory, job design and self-determination theory. Expectancy theory argues that employees choose to invest effort in courses of action by weighing their relative utilities- i.e. their probabilities of achieving desired outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Goal setting theory looks at the motivational effects of goals or targets for action. Locke & Latham (1990) assert that specific goals motivate high performance by focusing attention, increasing effort and persistence, and encouraging the development of novel task strategies. Equity theory focuses on the motivational effect of the match between inputs and outcomes of one person compared to another person in an exchange relationship (Adams, 1963). Inputs are all of the factors a person gives to the situation such as effort, intellect and training. The compensations a person receives such as job satisfaction, independence, salary are outcomes. When a person perceives a difference between his own ratio of outcomes to inputs and the ratio of another person, this person will feel inequity. Because of this inequity, a person will be motivated to reduce this inequity. A person will take actions for instance increasing input by asking for a raise or reduce output by decreasing coworkers output. (Deci, 1971). Job design refers to the way how jobs are structured and its effect on motivation (Oldham & Hackam, 2010). Self-determination theory argues that when the three needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness are satisfied, employees are intrinsically motivated and internalize extrinsic goals (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan & Deci (2000a) provide the following definition of motivation “To be motivated means to be moved to do something. A person who feels no impetus or inspiration to act is thus characterized as unmotivated, whereas someone who is energized or activated toward an end is considered motivated”.

Typically, public organizations do not have a goal to increase profit; the main goal of many public organizations is to provide a service to the public, which is either free or at minimum

Page | 15 cost. Perry and Hondeghem (2008) defined public service motivation as the beliefs, values, and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest to energize employees to do good for others and contribute to the well-being of organizations and society. Wright (2001) found that external rewards are not necessarily required to strengthen the relationship between goals and productivity. The presence of rewards may enhance employees’ perceptions of the importance of the goals and ultimately improve their commitment to them. The meta-analysis of Wofford, Goodwin, and Premack (1992) reports that managers who want to ensure that challenging goals are set and met should try to improve employees’ abilities to carry out goals, as well as their knowledge of the results their efforts are producing.

An individual can be motivated intrinsically or extrinsically, this will affect the relationship between organizational commitment and job performance. Intrinsic motivation refers to the personal satisfaction employees derive from the achievement of goals and tasks (Deci, 1975). It means that employees enjoy the work they are doing and act based on the interest and thus are motivated to do this work. Intrinsic motivation concerns the sense of competence and self-determinance. Intrinsic motivation is usually effective in the long term, as the activity itself creates satisfaction and there is no continuous stimulus needed from the environment.

Intrinsic rewards such as the opportunity to help others and to do work that is useful to society and that serves the community and the public interest are valued by public employees (Park and Rainey, 2007). Locke and Latham (1990) introduced an integrated model of work

motivation and satisfaction in which challenging and specific goals lead to high performance, which, in turn, leads to increased rewards, greater satisfaction and ultimately a stronger commitment to the organization.

Page | 16

2.3.

Organizational Commitment

There are many definitions of organizational commitment and it can be measured in several different ways. Organizational commitment can be depicted as an attitudinal approach, regarding commitment as an attitude. Attitudinal commitment is defined as the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday et al. 1979, p 226). Conceptually, attitudinal organizational commitment is characterized by at least three factors: a) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values; b) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization; and c) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Mowday et al., 1982, p. 27). The behavioral approach views commitment as the nature and quality of the linkage between an employee and the organization regarding commitment as a set of behavioral intentions.

The multidimensional model developed by O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) is based on the premise that commitment represents an attitude towards the organization. O’Reilly & Chatman (1986) suggest that commitment can take three distinct forms. These three forms are compliance, identification and internalization. Compliance refers to the attitudes and behaviors that are posited in order to gain specific rewards. Identification occurs when an individual accepts influence to establish or maintain a satisfying relationship. Internalization refers to the acceptance of influence by internalizing the attitudes and behaviors of the organization, since these are comparable with the existing individual values (Meyer & Hersovitch, 2001).

Page | 17 Calculative organizational commitment is the second most popular form of commitment besides attitudinal commitment and is defined as "a structural phenomenon which occurs as a result of individual-organizational transactions and alterations in side-bets or investments over time" (Hrebiniak &Alutto, 1972, p. 556). In this sense, individuals become bound to an organization because they have side bets, or sunk costs (e.g., a pension plan), invested in the organization and cannot "afford" to separate themselves from it.

Meyer & Allen (1991) argue that commitment can be divided in three components, which are affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Commitment is viewed as a psychological state. Affective commitment depicts the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affective commitment is comparable to attitudinal commitment. Continuance commitment refers to the continuation of an action and the perceived costs of continuance. It recognizes the costs of leaving an organization or remaining with an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Normative commitment concerns the degree to which an employee feels obligated to stay in a company. These three psychological components of commitment describe the desire, the need and the obligation of an employee to remain with an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

The focus of this study is affective commitment because the employee’s emotional attachment, identification and involvement in the organization influence organizational outcomes such as job performance, productivity and lower absenteeism. Affective commitment shows a positive attitude towards change, which is influenced by leadership behaviors. Meyer & Allen (1997) found that employees with strong affective commitment to the organization are more valuable employees. Affective commitment focuses on the

Page | 18 behavioral component, which can be influenced by charismatic leaders. Therefore, it is the focus of this thesis.

2.4.

Job Performance

Job performance can be defined and measured in different ways. In-role job performance refers to the behaviors that are specified in the formal job description, while extra-role performance is regarded as the behaviors that are not part of the formal job description (Williams & Anderson, 1991). In this study, job performance is operationalized in terms of in-role performance. In-role performance (or also referred to as task performance) indicates how well an individual performs the responsibilities that are required by the job. In practice, this indicates that employees that do their job as stated in their formal job description are performing well, while employees that exhibiting other behaviors go beyond what is expected from them (Williams & Anderson, 1991). The meta-analysis of Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer (1996, p.396) reports that subjects working under a charismatic leader had a high rate of task performance and a high level of adjustment to the leader and the work group in which they worked.

2.5.

Personality

The performance of employees does not only depend on the style of the leader but also on the personality of the employees. Goldberg (1991) developed a model which provides a complete description of an individual’s personality, the Big Five model or also called the five factor model. The five factor model decribes the different personality traits that people have: these are Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to Experience. Extravert people are assertive, bold,energetic and social. Agreeableness refers to

Page | 19 people who are compassionate, cooperative, usually avoiding conflict. Individuals who score hign on conscientiousness are responsible, well organized and striving to achieve their goals. Individuals who score high on neurotocism feel anxious, depressed, they have a low level of self-esteem. Open indviduals show a high level of imagination, letting go of control and being open-minded to new things. In the past, personality traits have been examined as a personality trait of the leader, therefore this research will take into account the personality traits of the employee.

2.5.1. Openness to experience

McCrae & Costa (1987) characterize individuals that score high on openness to experience as imaginative, unconventional, autonomous, creative and they think divergently. Openness to experience is also referred to as intellect or imagination. Bono & Judge (2004) found empirical evidence linking openness to experience to leadership. Charismatic leaders will stimulate employees to be curious, open to new things and think divergently. Individuals that have high levels on openness to experience are most likely to understand the goals and vision set by the charismatic leader as they are more imaginative and creative.

2.6.

Hypotheses

Five hypotheses are developed in order to test the relationship and effects between the different factors. Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 test the effect of charismatic leadership on motivation, organizational commitment and job performance. Hypotheses 4 and 5 examine the mediating effects of motivation and organizational commitment. The sixth hypothesis attempts to determine if the influence of leadership style on motivation and performance is

Page | 20 stronger than the effect of leadership style and organizational commitment and job performance. In addition, the moderating role of openness to experience is examined on the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation, organizational commitment and job performance.

Bass (1985) considers four components to determine transformational leadership: charisma, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Charismatic leadership refers to the charisma component of transformational leadership focusing on articulating a strategic vision and building identification with the leader and setting moral and ethical principles and values for followers (Avolio et al, 1999). Charisma is a way for leaders to influence their followers. Klein & House (1995) define the condition upon which charisma is based. First, the leader needs charismatic capabilities, the followers need to be responsive to charisma and the context needs to be open to charisma. Charismatic leaders influence followers by creating a sense of meaning with the goals and ideas of employees. This identification process builds on the association followers make with charismatic leaders. Charismatic leadership is found to increase intrinsic motivation in followers by raising their confidence in completing goals, by focusing on long-term rather than short-term goals and by creating shared identities and values (Shamir et al, 1993). In addition, charismatic leaders are able to motivate their followers to higher levels of achievement. According to Den Hartog & Koopman (2001), charismatic leaders express high expectations of followers and they believe followers will live up to these expectations. Other behaviors shown by charismatic leaders are serving as a role model, emphasizing the collective interest as opposed to self-interests and taking personal risks. This is in line with the theory that charismatic leaders raise followers’ aspirations and activate their higher-order values such that followers identify with the leader and his or her mission and vision, feel

Page | 21 better about their work, and perform beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House, 1976; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). Thus:

Hypothesis 1: Charismatic leadership style has a positive effect on motivation.

Organizational affective commitment is defined as an employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.67). Meyer & Allen (1991) found that employees with strong affective commitment are most likely to stay with the organization because of their own desire and predisposition to exert effort on behalf of the organization. Charismatic leaders are able to transcend the vision, goals and values of the organization to employees. When the values of the organizations are viewed as compatible to their own, employees are more attracted to the organization and willing to take on more responsibilities. Moreover, organizations displaying humanity values such as consideration, fairness, courtesy and moral integrity increase the level of affective commitment (Finnegan, 2000). Charismatic leaders speak positively about the organization and demonstrate the relevance of their behavior for the organization to employees, in addition, they show that employees are respected and valued by the organization. This appreciative behavior increases the sense of involvement in the organization and as a result, employees are more committed to the organization. Several scholars found charismatic leadership to be positively linked to affective commitment (Judge & Bono, 2000) and normative commitment (Bycio et al., 1995). Employees will infer the positive behaviors, communication and emotions displayed by the charismatic leaders reflecting a positive organizational membership. Based on these theoretical arguments:

Page | 22

Hypothesis 2: Charismatic leadership style has a positive effect on organizational

commitment.

Williams & Anderson (1991) defined in-role job performance as assessing managerial behaviors that are part of the formal job description. A charismatic leader sets a clear vision and allocates the responsibilities for performing the tasks. Charismatic leaders are able to inspire enthusiasm and stimulate followers by personal attributes, behaviors and showing exemplary qualities. The ethical and moral integrity and role modelling behaviors of charismatic leaders build strong emotional ties that cause employees to produce superior performance results. Charismatic leaders stimulate cooperation to reach common goals and communicate high expectations. Previous studies suggest that charismatic leadership has a positive influence on individual performance (Yukl, 1999; Walumba & Hartnel, 2011). Ingram et al. (1989) found that leadership behavior positively influences job performance by increasing effort. Conger (2000) found that empowerment of employees heightened the trust and motivates employees to make that extra effort which increases performance. Thus:

Hypothesis 3: Charismatic leadership has a positive effect on job performance.

Motivation is expected to be a positive mediator of the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance. Shamir et al. (1993) found that charismatic leaders have a positive impact on the motivation of followers by inspiring them and setting clear goals. Consequently, this will lead to higher motivation and a higher job performance. The positive effects of charismatic leadership include higher motivation, personal initiative and creativity, commitment and cooperation. All of these effects should lead to increased job performance. Previous studies by Den Hartog & Koopman (2001) and Choi (2006) support these results. Therefore:

Page | 23

Hypothesis 4: The positive effect between charismatic leadership and job performance is

mediated by motivation.

As stated before, affective organizational commitment is characterized by an emotional attachment to one’s organization that results from shared values and interests (Mowday, 1998). This implies that the shared values and interests of the employees need to be the same as the organizations’ values and interests in order to establish a connection between the employee and the organization. Charismatic leaders are able to influence the emotional attachment of an employee towards the organization by serving as role models and transcending the organizational values to the employees, thereby increasing the level of affective commitment and the performance. Previous findings support the positive relationship between organizational commitment and individual job performance (Meyer et al, 1989; Baugh & Roberts, 1994; Ward & Davis, 1995; Jamarillo et al., 2005). Only when employees view the goals and values of the organization as their own, and when they are committed to perform beyond expectations, affective commitment will mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance positively. Since the construct of affective commitment is focusing on the organization, it is expected to have a negative influence on the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance. Thus, it is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 5: The positive effect between charismatic leadership and job performance is

mediated by organizational commitment.

Charismatic leaders are able to inspire and motivate employees by setting clear goals and articulating a clear vision. They set challenging expectations and motivate employees to

Page | 24 perform better by empowering employees. Charismatic leaders teach their employees to think out of the box and be creative in problem solving, paying attention to individual needs and personal development. When charismatic leaders appeal to the integrity and morale of the individual, employees will identify themselves with the leader, become intrinsically motivated, and perform better. The relationship between charismatic leadership, motivation and job performance focuses on the individual, while the relationship between charismatic leadership, organizational affective commitment and job performance needs to create a link between the individual and the organizations’ values and interests. This attachment is more difficult to establish, thus:

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between charismatic leadership, motivation and job

performance is stronger than the relationship between charismatic leadership, organizational commitment and job performance.

The Big Five personality traits are composed of broad facets that describe an individual. These personality traits are studied to examine the individual differences in relationship to motivation, affective commitment and job performance. The focus in this study is the trait openness to experience. Openness to experience is associated with imaginative, intelligent and open to other cultures. These traits are associated with positive attitudes towards learning experiences (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Charismatic leaders increase the motivation, attitude and morals of their employees and stimulate the employees’ ability to become more creative and innovative which as result leads to better performance than initially expected (Yukl, 1999). This is in line with employees that score high on openness to experience; they are more creative, imaginative and unconventional. Employees are motivated to rise above their

Page | 25 own ability and be more effective. In addition, they are also motivated to try out creative solutions to challenge the status quo (Bass, 1985). Thus:

Hypothesis 7: When employees score high on openness to experience, the positive

relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation will become more positive as openness to experience strengthens this relationship.

It is argued that charismatic leaders that increase the willingness to do the work and enthusiasm for the work by articulating an attractive vision and display behavior that reinforces the values inherent in that vision will increase the meaningfulness of the work that employees do (De Hoogh et al. 2004). Meyer & Allen, (1991) defined organizational commitment as the degree to which an employee is attached to the company, involved, not willing to leave and feels obligated to continue performing for the organization. Employees with high levels of openness to experience are be able to think out of the box and cooperate with coworkers and feel committed to the values of the vision stated by the leader. Therefore, it is expected that the positive relationship between charismatic leadership and commitment is positively moderated by openness to experience. Thus:

Hypothesis 8: When employees score high on openness to experience, the positive

relationship between charismatic leadership and commitment will become more positive as openness to experience reinforces the positive effect.

Shamir, House & Arthur (1993) stated that charismatic leaders change needs and values from followers from self-interests to collective interests and articulate a clear vision and inspire followers. This is in conflict with the assumption that individuals who have high levels of openness develop their own vision and ideas and use unconventional methods to reach organizational goals. Employees with high levels of experience are imaginative and do not

Page | 26 blindly trust and follow charismatic leaders. They are inspired to think out of the box which is opposing the charismatic leadership style of influencing followers. Therefore:

Hypothesis 9: When employees score high on openness to experience, the positive

relationship between charismatic leadership and performance will become less positive or even negative.

3. Research Method

This chapter describes the method used to collect data in this research. The overall research design is described; the sample and procedure are given. After which, the scales that measure the variables charismatic leadership, motivation, organizational commitment, job performance are discussed. Then, the measurement scale for the moderator openness to experience is provided. In addition, the control variables are described, and then the analysis is depicted. See the Appendix for the complete questionnaire in Dutch.

3.1.

Research Design

Data was gathered by sending the questionnaires to managers and employees of the different organizations by email with a link to an online survey. This is a fast, efficient and cheap method to reach a large population. This research is a cross-sectional survey. Data is collected from employees of public sector organizations at one point in time. A deductive approach has been used to test the hypotheses. The overall design of this research is a survey and data has been collected using a questionnaire. A survey is intended to collect quantitative data about phenomena that cannot be directly observed. In this case, it is not possible to observe if charismatic leadership style will lead to a higher level of motivation and therefore

Page | 27 will lead to higher performance. The same observation holds for the effect of charismatic leadership style on the level of organizational commitment and job performance. The nature of this study is explanatory. It attempts to explain the nature of certain relationships that exist between variables by testing hypotheses. The purpose of this research is to determine the proportion of people who behave in a certain way, to make predictions for the choice of leadership style and to determine the relationships between variables (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Internal validity has been ensured by deriving the research framework from existing literature (Gibbert et al., 2008).

Confidentiality and anonymity were emphasized in the instruction. The questionnaire contains demographic controls for age, gender, tenure, level of education, management position, salary scale, and contract hours per week. The constructs of charismatic leadership, motivation, organizational commitment and job performance and the moderating effect of openness to experience are measured using validated scales. The population is Dutch and therefore validated translated items of these scales are used in the questionnaire. Qualtrics, an online program was used to develop and send out the questionnaire.

3.2.

Sample and procedure

This research is conducted in the public sector namely the municipality of Amsterdam, the public health service of Amsterdam and the water service of Amsterdam Gooi and Vechtstreek (Gemeente Amsterdam, GGD Amsterdam en Waternet AGV). The employees of the Public Health Service and the Water Service are of special interest. These are professionals that are motivated by their profession intrinsically, in other words, they live for health and water.

Page | 28 First, a pilot study has been conducted with ten respondents to ensure content validity. A cover letter was included to explain the objective of the research, the confidentiality and to motivate participation. The pilot was done to remove any issues such as multi interpretable items and unclear questions. For example, questions about age and tenure are phrased as open questions, whereby respondents choose from a dropdown list instead of letting the respondents fill in the number to reduce error. After some small corrections in the questionnaire and cover letter, the final survey was sent.

Data collection started on 24 March 2014 and on 11 April 2014, the survey was closed. The employees of the Public Health service were approached only once by email, the same procedure was carried out for the middle managers of the municipality of Amsterdam. At the Water Service, an announcement has been placed on the intranet with a link to the questionnaire asking employees to respond. A reminder was placed one week after the first message.

The survey resulted in data from 297 employees from the Public Health Service, 123 employees from the Water Service, and 166 middle managers from the municipality of Amsterdam. Thirty-nine of the 586 entries turned out to be incomplete and thus were removed from the dataset. The final sample consists of 547 respondents. The response rate of the Water Service is approximately 7,2%, the response rate of the middle management group of the municipality of Amsterdam is 22,2% and the response rate of the Public Health Service is 24,8%. Green (1991) provided basic rules for the minimum acceptable sample size. To test the model overall, the sample N = 50 + 8*k (k is the number of predictors). In this study, there are three predictors, Charismatic leadership, motivation, and organizational commitment. 547 > 50 + 8*3. Therefore, the sample size is large enough. To test the individual predictors within the model the formula N = 104 + k. In this case 547 > 104+ 3

Page | 29 means that the sample size is also sufficient to test the individual predictors. Of the 547 employees that returned the questionnaire, 46 % were male and 54% were female. The age of the employees ranged from 23 to 65 years, and the average age was 46 years and 6 months. Furthermore, 39,45% are managers and 60,55% are in non-management positions.

The education level of the participants is widespread. 7,14% of the respondents had only completed a secondary education program (MAVO/VMBO = 2.38%, LBO = 0.18%, HAVO = 2.93%, VWO = 1.64%). A majority of 55,49% of the participants completed an educational program at a school of higher education. 34,25% of the respondents completed an education program at a research university or a university of applied sciences. The remaining 3,11 % filled in other kinds of education such as HBS-A, ULO, post-university, post HBO, promotion, medical specialist.

Of the 276 respondents from the public health service, 59,42% had a non-medical function. The average contract hours per week are 32 hours and the tenure of the employees that worked in the organization was 10 years and 7 months. 43,85% of the employees lived in the municipality of Amsterdam and 56,15% live in other towns.

3.3.

Measures

This section describes the variables and measurements used in this study. The Statistical software Package for Social Sciences SPSS (IBM SPSS statistics 22) was used to perform the statistical analyses. Validity refers to the extent in which a test measures what it is supposed to measure. By using validated translated scales to Dutch, the items in the questionnaire are measuring the constructs of charismatic leadership, intrinsic motivation, affective organizational commitment, in-role performance and openness to experience. Cronbach’s alpha provides a reliability estimate for the scales that are used in this research.

Page | 30

3.3.1. Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO) is measured using a scale developed by De Hoogh et al. (2004). The scale consists of 12 questions. The answers range on a 7 point Likert scale from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. Examples of the statements are: ‘My manager encourages employees to think independently’ and ‘my manager delegates challenging responsibilities to employees’. The reliability of these 12 items Cronbach’s Alpha is 0,949 in this study.

3.3.2. Motivation

To measure intrinsic motivation, a 6-item scale developed by Hackman & Lawler (1971) was used. Example items are ‘I feel bad when I do my job poorly’ and ‘I produce a large quantity of work’. A 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly disagree was used to measure these items. Cronbach’s α = 0,623.

3.3.3. Organizational Commitment

To measure organizational (affective) commitment, a 5 item scale (Cronbach’s α = 0,830) developed by Allen, Meyer & Smith (1993) was used. A 7 point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree measured the affective commitment items. The items were measured by asking the respondents statements such as ‘I am emotionally attached to the organization’.

3.3.4. Job Performance

The variable individual performance (in-role behavior) was measured by 4 items developed by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). Based on these 4 items, Cronbach’s α = 0,807.

Page | 31 Example items include ‘I adequately complete responsibilities’ and ‘I fulfill the requirements of my specified job description’. Participants are asked to respond on a 7 point scale indicating how strongly they agree or disagree with each statement.

3.3.5. Openness to experience

To measure openness to experience, the mini-IPIP scale developed by Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M., & Lucas, R.E. was used. Example of the item is ‘I have a vivid imagination’. A 5 point Likert scale indicating how strongly they aree or diagree was used to measure the 5 openness items. Cronbach’s α = 0,717.

3.3.6. Control variables

The following variables are included in this study as control variables: gender, age, tenure, level of education, management position, salary scale, contract hours per week, and the city in which the person lives. These variables serve as controls for the context in which the relationships are measured. Gender is measured as a dichotomous variable such that 1= male and 2 = female, the same holds for management position such that 1= management position and 2 is non-management. Age and tenure are measured in years.

3.4.

Data analysis

The Statistical software Package for Social Sciences SPSS (IBM SPSS statistics 22) was used to perform the statistical analyses. The initial dataset consisted of 586 entries, 39 entries were removed after close exploration. These 39 entries were either completely empty due to blanks in every question or partially empty due to only filling in the control questions and then quitting the questionnaire. The reduced dataset of 547 responses contained missing data for

Page | 32 several questions. There are several ways to handle missing data. List wise deletion analyzes only the cases without any missing data in any variable. It may reduce the effective sample size and introduces bias into estimates. Pairwise deletion analyzes only the cases without any missing data in each pair of the variables being analyzed. This creates biased estimates and mathematically inconsistent results. Mean substitution substitutes the missing values with the mean of the variable. It leads to artificial deflation of variation and potential to change the value of estimates. List wise deletion, pairwise deletion and mean substitution are easy to implement, however they also involve changes in statistical power and bias. In this study, hot deck imputation is used to handle missing data (Myers, 2011). Roth (1994) recommends hot deck imputation for all missing data scenarios, except those where the data are MNAR (Missing Not At Random) and constitute greater than 10% of the sample. Hot deck imputation replaces the a missing value with the value of a similar ‘donor’ in the dataset that matches the ‘donee’ in researcher determined categories The procedure for hot deck imputation is as follows, it sorts the rows (i.e. respondents) of a data file within a set of variables, called the deck (adjustment cells) (Andrige & Little, 2010). Hot deck imputation uses information that is available in the data to fill in information that is missing (Myers, 2011).

After the hotdeck imputation, reverse coded items were recoded, descriptive statistics, skewness, kurtosis, normality tests, and scale reliabilities were performed. To test if the items reflect the construct they are measuring, a principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed on all multiple scale items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure indicates the sampling adequacy for the analyses. From the preliminary analysis, the KMO value is .882, which falls into the range of ‘great’, therefore the sample size is adequate for factor analysis (Field, 2007).

Page | 33 Bartlett’s test of sphericity rejects the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity matrix, it is highly significant (p < . 001). To obtain the eigenvalues for each individual component, initial analysis was performed. Kaiser’s criterion of retaining factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 displayed seven factors with values greater than 1 and these factors explained 64.744% of the total variance.

Regression analyses were conducted to test the mediation effects between the variables. Moderated hierarchical regression analysis was performed to examine the effect of the moderator variable on the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance.

Page | 34

4. Results

After the data have been analysed, this section provides insights into the results. First, the descriptive statistics will give information about the sample, then the results for the reliability test are explained. Subsequently, the results of the factor analysis will be discussed, in addition, the correlation matrix will be described. After that, the regression analyses are discussed. Finally, the mediation and moderation analyses are explained.

4.1.

Descriptives

Due to the fact that one of the three target groups consisted of middle managers of the municipality of Amsterdam, the response among managers is relatively high (39%). The question of a medical function was only posed in the questionnaire at the Public Health Service. To examine if the respondents represent a proportionate share of the total population, the data of the control variables in the sample were compared to the data of the municipality of Amsterdam (Personeels Monitor Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013). The municipality of Amsterdam has 14.617 employees in 2013, equal to 13.557 fte. This means that the average contract hours per week are 33,4 hours. 47% is female and 53% is male. The average age is 47.0 years. The average tenure of the civil servants working for the municipality of Amsterdam is 14.3 years.

In our sample, 46% is male and 54 % is female. 16% is younger than 35 years of age, 58% of the respondents are between 35 and 54 years, approximately 27% is 55 years or older. This is comparable to the municipal of Amsterdam. The average tenure of the respondents is 10.6 years, which means there is a difference of 3.7 years on average. A large group of respondents has a wage scale from 7-9, however, in our sample the group of 10-12 is the largest, probably

Page | 35 indicating that most of the respondents are higher educated and therefore earn more, since the average tenure is lower. A possible explanation for this is the fact that the sample consists of more employees in a managerial position than on average can be expected.

4.2.

Reliability

Table 2 presents an overview of the descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities.The diagonal shows the results of the reliability tests. Cronbach’s alpha provides a reliability estimate for the scales that are used in this research. The reliability estimates range from 0 to 1.0. A coefficient of 0 means no reliability and a coefficient of 1.0 means perfect reliability. If the value of the reliability coefficient is above .80, it is considered to have very good reliability. If the coefficient is below .50, there is not a reliable test. Cronbach’s alpha for charismatic leadership, organizational commitment, job performance and openness to

Page | 36 experience are above .70, which indicates good or very good reliability. Scale analysis indicate that none of the items measuring charismatic leadership or job performance should be excluded. Scale analysis of openness to experience and organizational commitment suggest that by deleting item Open5 (‘ik heb uitstekende ideeen’) and Com1 (‘Ik ervaar problemen van de organisatie als mijn eigen problemen’) Cronbach’s alpha increases. Cronbach’s alpha increased from .717 to .725 for openness to experience and it increases from .830 to .831 for organizational commitment. As Cronbach’s alpha does not increase more than .05, it was decided to not delete any items in this research.

Cronbach’s alpha for motivation is below .70 (.623). By deleting item Mot3 (‘Ik voel me slecht als ik mijn werk slecht heb gedaan’), Cronbach’s alpha could only be slightly improved for motivation. Since this scale has been previously used in research by Hackman & Lawler, 1971) and since the effect is not more than .05, it was decided to retain this item in this research.

Page | 38

4.3.

Correlation analysis

Correlation analysis is a procedure to calculate the degree to which two variables are related. The correlation is small when r is between .10 and .29, medium when r is between .30 and .49, and the correlation is strong when r is between .50 and 1.00 (Cohen, 1988).

The control variable gender has a small significant negative relationship with openness to experience (r = -,138; p < 0.01) and organisational commitment (r = -,088; p < 0.05). Both age (r = ,159; p < 0.01) and tenure (r = ,177; p < 0.01) have a positive relationship with organisational commitment. Tenure has a significant negative relationship with charismatic leadership (r = -,094; p < 0.05). The control variable manager/employee has a significant negative relationship with organisational commitment (r = -,209; p < 0.01) and charismatic leadership (r = -,184; p < 0.01). Additionally, wagescale has a significant positive relationship with openness to experience (r = ,185; p < 0.01), motivation (r = ,110; p < 0.05), organisational commitment (r = ,207; p < 0.01) and charismatic leadership (r = ,120; p < 0.01). The level of education reported significant positive relationships with openness to experience (r = ,169; p<0.01), motivation (r = ,086; p < 0.05) and job performance (r = ,125; p < 0.01). Contracthours shows a positive relationship with openness to experience (r = ,117; p < 0.01); organizational commitment (r = ,129; p < 0.01) and job performance (r = ,105; p < 0.05). Living in Amsterdam has significant relations with other control variables gender and educationlevel but not with any of the five constructs.

The analysis reveals medium positive correlations between motivation and organizational commitment (r = ,310; p < 0.01), job performance (r = ,368; p < 0.01) and charismatic leadership (r = ,129; p < 0.01). The results also reveal small positive correlations between organizational commitment and job performance (r = ,160; p < 0.01) and charismatic

Page | 39 leadership (r = ,228; p < 0.01). In addition, a small positive correlation is reported between charismatic leadership and job performance (r = ,107; p < 0.05).

4.4.

Regression analysis

Regression analyses were conducted to test the mediation effects between the variables. Regression analysis explores the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables.

The first hypothesis states that charismatic leadership is positively related to motivation. In the first step all control variables were added to the model with de dependent variable motivation. In the second step, the independent variable charismatic leadership was added to the model. The results reveal that charismatic leadership has a positive significant relationship with motivation (β =.058 , SE =0.20 , p<.01). Therefore, the first hypothesis is supported. The second hypothesis states that charismatic leadership has a positive effect on organisational commitment. Linear regression analysis is performed to test this hypothesis. First, the control variables were added to the model with the dependent variable organisational commitment. Second, the indepent variable charismatic leadership was added to the model. The results indicate that charismatic leadership has a positive effect on organisational commitment (β = .186 , SE = .035 , p<.01). Therefore, the second hypothesis is supported. Step 2 explains 13,6% of the variance.

The third hypothesis states that charismatic leadership is positively related to job performance. A linear regression analysis is used to test this hypothesis. First, all control variables were added to the model with the dependent variable job performance. Second, the independent variable charismatic leadership was added to the model. The results show that there is a positive significant relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance (β = .049 , SE = .020 , p<.01).

Page | 41

4.5.

Mediation

Baron & Kenny (1986) described a four step procedure to test mediation. To establish mediation, the following conditions must be met: First, the independent variable must affect the mediator in the first equation; second, the independent variable should be significantly related to the dependent variable; third, the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third equation.Finally, the mediating variable should be significantly related to the dependent variable with the independent variable included in the equation. If all four conditions are met, then at least partial mediation is established. Perfect mediation holds if the independent variable has a non significant effect, when the mediator is controlled.

The fourth hypothesis describes the mediation of motivation in the model: the positive effect between charismatic leadership and job performance is mediated by motivation. This hypothesis tests the influence of motivation on the link between charismatic leadership and job performance. When this link is not corrected for motivation, the correlation r = ,107.

The SPSS macro of Preacher & Hayes (2008) was used to examine motivation as a mediating variable for the dependent job performance. Preacher & Hayes (2008) prefer the use of bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa) (as opposed to regression coefficients or regular confidence intervals) as a basis for statistical conclusions because it adjusts for bias and skewness of the dataset. Table 6 presents the results of regression analysis as proposed by Baron & Kenny (1986) to assess the role of motivation as a mediator. First, for job performance, the bias-corrected confidence interval BC95 = [0.0111, 0.0894] excluded zero, indicating that motivation mediated the effect of charismatic leadership on job performance. Results from the regression analysis support this indirect effect since the total indirect effect of charismatic leadership on job performance was found to be significant (B = .357 , p < .01), whereas the direct effect of charismatic leadership on job performance was found to be

Page | 42 insignificant (B = ,028 p > .05) (see table 6). Charismatic leadership significantly predicted motivation (β = ,0587, p < .01) and motivation significantly predicted job performance (β =

,3710, p < .01).

The fifth hypothesis proposes that the positive effect between charismatic leadership and job performance is mediated by organizational commitment. This hypothesis tests the influence of organizational commitment on the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance. When this relationship is not corrected for organizational commitment, the correlation r = ,228.

Bootstrap results and results from regression analysis supported hypothesis 5 which stated that organizational commitment mediated the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance. For job performance, the bias-corrected confidence interval BC95 = [0.0111,

0.0894]excluded zero, indicating that organizational commitment mediated the effect of charismatic leadership on job performance. In addition, results from regression analysis support this, since the total indirect effect of charismatic leadership significantly predicted job performance (B = .0630, p < .05), whereas the direct effect of charismatic leadership on job performance is insignificant ((B = .037 p > .05) (see table 7). Charismatic leadership significantly predicted organizational commitment (β = ,1937, p < .01) and organizational commitment significantly predicted job performance (β = ,0784, p < .01).

The sixth hypothesis stated that the relationship between charismatic leadership, motivation and job performance is stronger than the relationship between charismatic leadership, organizational commitment and job performance.

The PROCESS macro was used to test the hypothesis, it utilizes an ordinary least squares- or logistic-based path analytical framework to test for direct and indirect effects (Hayes, 2012). It allows researchers to explore parallel, serial and moderated mediation models.

Page | 43 Parallel mediation assumes that the constructs of motivation and organisational commitment mediate the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance in a comparable way. To test this parallel mediation, job performance was entered as outcome variable, charismatic leadership as the predictor variable, age, gender, tenure, manager, wagescale, education, contract hours and the city in which the person lives as covariates, and motivation and organisational commitment as mediators.

Page | 47 Table 8 provides the bootstrapped tests of the indirect effects. For motivation, the bias-corrected confidence interval BC95 = [,0061, 0.0383]excluded zero, indicating that motivation mediated the

effect of charismatic leadership on job performance. Organizational commitment has a Confidence Interval that includes zero and therefore is not significant. Charismatic leadership significantly predicted motivation (β = ,0576, p < .01) and motivation significantly predicted job performance (β = ,3529, p < .01). Charismatic leadership significantly predicted organizational commitment (β = ,1863, p < .01), however, the results show that the indirect effect of organizational commitment on job performance was insignificant (β = ,0080, p > .05),as well as the direct effect of charismatic leadership on job performance was insignificant (β = ,0268, p >

.05). As a result, this hypothesis is supported. Figure 2 shows the coefficients of the relationships

of parallel mediation. The effect of motivation as a mediator is stronger in the relationship between charismatic leadership and job performance than the effect of organizational commitment as a mediator. Charismatic Leadership Motivation Performance Organizational Commitment .0576 (.0198)** .3529 (.0430)** .0080 (.0243) .1863 (.0351)** .0268 (.0195)

Figure 2 Parallel Mediation Model *p < .05 **p < .01

Page | 48

4.6.

Moderation

Building on the mediation model established in the previous section, further analyses were conducted on the role of the personality dimension openness to experience as a moderator of the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation, charismatic leadership and organizational commitment and charismatic leadership and job performance.

Hypothesis 7 proposed a positive moderation effect of openness to experience on the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation. The interaction effect is significant, B = 0.0730, 95% CI [0.0053, 0.1407] , t = 2.1171, p < .05, indicating that the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation is moderated by openness to experience. The control variables are not significant and therefore do not influence the moderating effect. Table 9 presents the results of openness to experience as a moderator of the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation. Figure 3 shows the interaction effect of openness to experience, with control variables set to their sample mean. Openness to experience moderated the relationship between charismatic leadership and motivation in such a way that people who score relatively high on openness to experience more strongly viewed motivation as a result of charismatic leadership. While employees that score low on openness to experience are not motivated by charismatic leaders.

Page | 50 No support was found for hypotheses H8 and H9. Hypothesis 8 states that openness to experience moderates the relationship between charismatic leadership and organizational commitment. Openness to experience did not significantly moderate this relationship (B = 0.1173, t = 1.855, p > .05). Hypothesis 9 states that charismatic leadership and job performance is moderated by openness to experience, the results do not support this hypothesis (B = 0.0412, t = 1.1662, p > .05. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low Charismatic Leadership High Charismatic Leadership M ot ivat

ion Low Openness to

Experience

High Openness to Experience

Figure 3 Openness to Experience as moderator of the Charismatic