Psychological capital & shared leadership effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment

(1)

Psychological capital & shared leadership

effects on job satisfaction and organizational

commitment

Amsterdam, August 18, 2017

Liebei Ku, 10399976

Supervisor: Dr. Andreas Alexiou

Programme: MSc. in Business Administration – Strategy Track Academic year: 2016-2017

Final Version

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Liebei Ku who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

As the literature surrounding the concept of positive organizational behavior (POB) is emerging, the focus of this study is on its core construct called psychological capital

(PsyCap). PsyCap consists of four psychological state-like capacities, i.e., self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. This paper researched the relationship of PsyCap and two desirable employee attitudes that are often linked to each other, though distinctive, i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Further, it sought to identify if shared leadership at team-level would moderate the relationship between individual-team-level PsyCap and individual-team-level job satisfaction and organizational commitment. A cross-sectional study was done through an online survey using Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which resulted in n = 133. The majority of these subjects resided in the U.S. and India. The hierarchical multiple regression analysis found that PsyCap is positively related to both job satisfaction and organizational

commitment, even after controlling for several socio-demographic factors. A moderation analysis revealed no moderation effects of shared leadership at team-level on the relationship between individual-level PsyCap and the two individual-level desirable employee attitudes. However, a direct effect was found of shared leadership on both job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. These findings contribute both to theory and practice, in that it expanded the scope of PsyCap and shared leadership research. Also, PsyCap and shared leadership should both be developed and deployed in current and future employees, seen its effect on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Keywords: psychological capital (PsyCap); shared leadership; job satisfaction; organizational commitment

(6)

1. Introduction

“You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them.” –Maya Angelou (2012)

In recent years, managing the knowledge and experiences of one’s employees, also known as human capital (i.e., what you know), has become essential in achieving increased performance and therefore competitive advantage (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). Together with social capital (i.e., who you know) it goes beyond the notion of traditional economic capital (i.e., what you have). These former two concepts have become a unique capability for employees and organizations to possess. The agile business environment, represented by fast-paced innovation and increased globalization has triggered this attention (Luthans et al., 2004). However, within this growing acknowledgement, the emerging concept of positive psychological capital (i.e., who you are) has been mostly overlooked by both scholars and practitioners (Luthans 2002a; Luthans et al., 2004; Luthans et al., 2007).

Positive psychological capital (PsyCap) is a construct that consists of four established state-like psychological capacities, namely self-efficacy (confidence), hope, optimism, and resilience (Luthans, 2002a). The PsyCap construct is central to positive organizational behavior (POB), which only over the last ten years has been able to differentiate itself from the traditional focus on negative perspectives of organizational behavior (OB) (Luthans, 2002a). Focusing on the positive psychological aspects of who you are and who you can become, instead of letting uncontrollable events guide and effect you (Angelou, 2012), can provide individuals with an improved stance towards life and their work (Choi & Lee, 2014). The potential effects of positive PsyCap on work-related outcomes are promising (Luthans et

(7)

al., 2007); therefore this study attempts to further the understanding of the emerging PsyCap construct.

It is suggested that these four positive psychological capacities of PsyCap can influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors, which successively can contribute to

organizational outcomes (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). The existing, though limited in scope, research of PsyCap has often been in relation towards work performance or negative work-related employee outcomes, such as employee absenteeism, stress, anxiety and turnover (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009; Luthans et al., 2007). However, given the early stages of development of the PsyCap construct, more research should be done in regards to desirable employee attitudes and behaviors, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans & Youssef, 2007).

Further, current literature makes it evident that there is an absence of research regarding possible moderators between the relation of PsyCap and work-related outcomes (Newman et al., 2014). To better understand the core construct of PsyCap and its influence, research needs to identify and analyze potential moderating effects. Additionally, Newman et al. (2014) argue that studies on cross-level applications of PsyCap are lacking. For example, potential moderating effects of leadership behavior at team-level on individual-level PsyCap and work-related outcomes.

Therefore, this study researches the potential effects that shared leadership at team-level can have on the relationship between PsyCap and certain work-related outcomes, in specific job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Shared leadership, which has never been researched before in relation to PsyCap, refers to an internal team property whereby leadership influence is shared across its team members rather than focused on a single selected leader (Carson et al., 2007). This approach has recently emerged to team

(8)

2007). This is especially important seen the dynamic and fast-pasted environment today’s organizations face.

Further, job satisfaction and organizational commitment through past studies have shown a positive relationship with work performance (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). It is therefore of relevance to further the understanding of PsyCap’s effect on these two desirable outcomes in relation to shared leadership. As this can contribute not only to the theory building of PsyCap, but also gives a practical contribution to organizations for example in their hiring process. It can turn the needed attention of organizations toward PsyCap and/or shared leadership. This study will broaden the scope regarding the literature of PsyCap and shared leadership. It can further theoretical specification of the antecedents of both job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986) through PsyCap and shared leadership.

The research questions are the following: (1) what is the influence of PsyCap on job satisfaction and organizational commitment and (2) what is the impact of shared leadership on the relationship between PsyCap & job satisfaction and organizational commitment? This study can assist organizations in understanding the need for designing work environments and practices that support the development and deployment of PsyCap and shared leadership (Newman et al., 2014).

(9)

2. Literature review

In this section, the existing literature related to the research gap will be reviewed and

discussed to further understand the concepts within this proposed gap. First the emergence of POB is reviewed and the need thereof. Subsequently the literature concerning PsyCap and its four positive psychological capacities are discussed, followed by the work-related outcomes i.e. job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Finally, the importance of shared leadership will be emphasized.

2.1 Positive organizational behavior (POB)

Positive organizational behavior (POB) follows the recently emerging theory and research of positive psychology that focuses on people’s strengths and psychological capabilities (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). POB is a positive approach to the traditional organizational behavior (OB), which through the years has often taken a negative perspective in academic literature by both management scholars and practitioners (Luthans, 2002a). POB is first defined by Luthans (2002a) as followed: “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace” (p. 59). As mentioned, OB has taken primarily a negative approach as a computer search of up-to-date literature in psychology found approximately 375.000 articles on

‘negatives’ (e.g. anxiety, fear, and depression) however only about 1000 articles on several positive capabilities that people can possess (Wright, 2003). Focusing more on negative aspects of human nature has led to the reason why much applied research is lacking relevance as it neglects the ‘positives’ (Luthans, 2002b; Wright, 2003). There has thus been a need for a proactive and positive approach emphasizing strengths and a focus on building positive

(10)

qualities, instead of continuing in the downward spiral of negativity trying to fix weaknesses and problems in the workplace (Luthans, 2002a; 2002b; Wright, 2003).

This need has therefore let to the emergence of POB, emphasizing the goal of

enhanced workplace performance (Wright, 2003) and other desirable work-related outcomes (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). While over the years OB has given more attention to managerial and employee dysfunctions, it has however since the beginning of its academic field

recognized a clear relationship between the positive feelings of employees in the workplace and their performance. POB can thus contribute to more effective managers and human resource development by focusing on positive OB concepts (Luthans, 2002a), which can potentially contribute to e.g. employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance (Choi & Lee, 2014). These positive concepts can suggest researchers and practitioners with a high-potential source of competitive advantage to explore and on which to capitalize (Luthans & Youssef, 2007).

POB differentiates itself from positive psychology and other OB concepts by having unique distinguishing characteristics. For a positive psychological capacity to qualify for POB it has to meet its inclusion criteria (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). First, it must be positive and have extensive theory and research bases and valid measures. Moreover, it must be state-like, implying that positive state-like capacities are relatively malleable and thus are open to change and development and manageable for performance improvement (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). These positive psychological capacities open to development may provide organizations with a unique potential source of competitive advantage through their own people. Seen that this developmental characteristic is especially relevant to today’s workplace where flexibility is essential to match the realities of a fast-paced and

unpredictable business environment. This state-like criterion differentiates POB from other positive approaches that focus on positive traits, which are relatively more stable over time

(11)

and applicable across situations (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). State-like positive capacities lie along a continuum with traits-like ones (Luthans, 2002a). Specifically, positive states that are very changeable characterizing momentary feelings lie on one extreme of the continuum. Next along the continuum are the before mentioned state-like positive psychological capacities that are still quite malleable, open to development but do not change with each momentary situation. These are followed by trait-like positive psychological capacities that are relatively stable and difficult to change. On the other extreme end of the continuum lie positive traits that are very stable, fixed and extremely difficult to change (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Lastly, the final POB criteria is that the positive capacities are primarily researched, measured, developed, and managed at the individual and micro level (Luthans, 2002a), separating POB from positive perspectives that are on a macro-level (e.g. positive organizations) (Luthans & Youssef, 2007).

State-like psychological resource capacities that best meet the above mentioned inclusion criteria of POB are defined by Luthans & Youssef (2007) as self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency. These four capacities combined form the underlying higher-order core construct of Psychological capital (PsyCap), which will be discussed in the next paragraph.

2.2 Psychological capital (PsyCap)

Psychological capital (PsyCap), a core construct of POB consists of four positive psychological states of development that an individual can have, under which self-efficacy (confidence), hope, optimism, and resilience (Luthans et al., 2004). PsyCap (who you are) goes beyond and is just as important for a potential competitive advantage resource as human capital (what you know) and social capital (who you know), which both in contrast to PsyCap have been highly acknowledged in theory, research, and practice (Luthans et al., 2004).

(12)

PsyCap should get more attention from both business academics and practitioners, as became evident in the previous paragraph discussing POB. By focusing on personal strengths and good qualities, leaders, managers and employees in today’s global economy can develop self-efficacy (confidence), hope, optimism, and resilience, thus possibly improving both individual and organizational performance (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). These four positive

psychological resource capacities, forming PsyCap, will be discussed more in depth.

2.2.1 Self-efficacy (Confidence)

According to Luthans (2002a; 2002b), the positive psychological capacity that has the highest impact and best fits the POB inclusion criteria of the four is confidence, or usually termed in psychology as self-efficacy. However, self-efficacy has been generally ignored or given very little attention in both the traditional OB field and the emerging discussions of positive psychology (Luthans, 2002a; 2002b). This is mainly due to that self-efficacy (not general efficacy) is known as being a state, while those in the forefront of the positive psychology movement are most concerned with trait-like characteristics and features

(Luthans, 2002b). Though it is this state-like nature of self-efficacy that rationalizes Luthans’ (2002b) claim of self-efficacy being such a good fit with the definition of POB. Self-efficacy may not be as unique to POB as the other three proposed psychological capacities, but it is argued to best meet POB inclusion criteria of valid measurement, ease of development, and possible effective management for performance improvement (Luthans, 2002a). While seldom being included in OB and discussions of positive psychology it is argued that self-efficacy is the most widely recognized and established of the four psychological capacities, seen its extensive theoretical foundation and research support (Luthans, 2002a; 2002b).

This is due to a small core group of efficacy academic advocates, in specific Albert Bandura (1997), a leading self-efficacy theorist and researcher known for his positive concept

(13)

of self-efficacy (or simply confidence); which is part of his social cognitive theory. This positive concept of efficacy is right in line with POB. Bandura (2000) argues self-efficacy to be the most universal and important of the psychological mechanisms for positivity. His belief entails that people can produce desired effects when they believe in themselves and concurrently forestall undesired effects by their own actions. According to Bandura (2000), if this core belief that one has the power to produce desired results is not present within the individual, they will have little incentive to act.

The most formal and widely used definition of self-efficacy is Bandura’s early statement regarding an individual’s perceptual judgment or belief of “how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). Building on Bandura’s (1997) extensive empirical research on self-efficacy, Stajkovic & Luthans (1998b, p. 66) define the concept as: “an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context”. This broader definition is more applicable to POB than Bandura’s early statement of self-efficacy (Luthans, 2002a; 2002b). As it contains this task and context specificity, due to Bandura declaring an efficacy belief to not be a decontextualized trait, which means that confidence can be developed in e.g. employees for specific tasks in given situations (Bandura, 1982; Luthans, 2002b). Further, Choi & Lee (2014) along the same lines describe self-efficacy as an individual having the confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks.

It is important to understand the conceptual difference between the before mentioned specific state-like self-efficacy and general efficacy; another dimension of efficacy that is trait-like (Bandura, 1997; Luthans, 2002a; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a). General efficacy does not meet the inclusion criteria of POB, as it is stable over time and across situations (Luthans, 2002a) and can be represented as a decontextualized conglomerate (Bandura, 1997).

(14)

General efficacy therefore consists of trait-like characteristics that are not tied to specific situations or behavior, oppositely to self-efficacy, but instead generalize to a “variety of situations” (Sherer et al., 1982, p. 664). The specific state-like self-efficacy or confidence, that forms PsyCap together with the other three positive capacities, is argued to be a leader and human resource strength that can be developed and effectively managed for enhanced performance (Luthans, 2002a).

Bandura’s theory and research support indicates the more confident an individual is, the more likely he or she is to make the choice to get into an task and welcome the challenge. Moreover, the more effort and motivation one will give to successfully complete the task and the more persistence will be present when faced with obstacles or when dealing with initial failure (1986; 1997). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a) indeed found in their meta-analysis of 114 studies that there is a strong relation between self-efficacy and work-related performance, making self-efficacy fit with the POB inclusion criteria (Luthans, 2002a).

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy can be developed through four approaches or sources in order of importance. First, confidence can be developed through mastery

experiences or performance attainments as it involves direct information about success. Though, Bandura (1997) points out that accomplishments should not simply be associated with future confidence. Rather, how e.g. an employee interprets and processes his or her preceding success is the key to developing subsequent confidence (Luthans, 2002b). Also, when success is accomplished through hard work it will form a stronger and longer lasting sense of confidence compared to when success is easily handed (Luthans et al., 2004). Developing confidence for PsyCap can also be achieved through vicarious learning or modeling (Bandura, 1997). Individuals can vicariously learn by observing and modeling relevant others, seeing others that are similar succeed makes themselves have the confidence that they, too, have the capacity to thrive (Luthans et al., 2004). The more similar the model

(15)

(e.g. age and sex), the more the observer is able to relate to and identify with this model, and consequently the more impact there will be on building confidence. This is especially

important for those with little direct experience (Luthans et al., 2004). Thirdly, confidence can be developed through social persuasion or feedback on progress (Bandura, 1997). This

approach is not as powerful as the former two, as persuading an individual can be seen as a “can-do” attitude. However, negative feedback (e.g. “you can’t do that”) undeniably hurts one’s confidence a lot. Giving positive feedback does not carry, as much impact as the negative, but can become a source for effective confidence development (Luthans et al., 2004). Comparably, physiological and psychological arousal when being negative (e.g. stress and anxiety) can be a serious distraction from confidence. Nonetheless, if the physical and mental arousal is positive it can serve as a good starting point to develop confidence for PsyCap (Luthans, 2002a). Since self-efficacy is a state that is open to development it makes a good fit with POB (Luthans 2002b), and positive PsyCap can therefore be invested in and managed within organizations just like human and social capital. Additionally, this can be done at moderately little economic costs unlike traditional financial capital (Luthans et al., 2004).

2.2.2 Hope

The second positive psychological capacity is hope, though not as extensively researched or applied to the workplace as self-efficacy, it nevertheless makes an important contribution to PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2004). In everyday speech, hope is usually used in terms of hoping for the best or hoping a specific thing will turn out fine in times of distress (Luthans, 2002a). However, hope as a positive psychological concept goes beyond this, having taken on a specific and operational definition (Luthans, 2002b). Charles Rick Snyder, a clinical and positive psychologist, and his theory building and research surrounding the

(16)

positive psychological capacity of hope is the most widely known (Luthans, 2002a). Hope is based on “a reciprocally derived sense of successful: (a) agency (goal-oriented energy or determination) and (b) pathways (planning of ways to meet goals)” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 571). It is thus persevering toward objectives and, when required, redirecting paths to objectives in order to succeed (Choi & Lee, 2014). Hope reflects an individual’s determination that certain goals can be accomplished, while additionally reflecting an

individual’s belief that pathways can be identified in order to reach the goals while being self-motivated. Hope can therefore be seen as the cumulative level of perceived agency and pathways (Snyder et al., 1991).

Snyder et al. (1991) also use the term willpower for agency and way power for pathways; linking hope to the phrase “where there’s a will, there’s a way”. This element of hope is what sets it apart as a positive psychological capacity from other similar positive concepts such as self-efficacy or optimism (Luthans, 2002b; Snyder et al., 1991), the later, which will be discussed, in the next section of this paper. Specifically, the willpower part of hope can be compared to efficacy expectancies and the way power dimension to self-efficacy outcome expectancies (Snyder et al., 1991). Although, the difference between the two lies in that Bandura (1997) argues self-efficacy expectancies to be all-important, while Snyder (2000) sees the agency and the pathways as equally important. The agency and the pathways of hope operate in a combined and iterative way (Snyder, 2000). As compared to optimism, hope is argued to be a principally cognitive capacity of which the pathways are initiated and determined through the self (Snyder et al., 1991). While optimism expectancies are, argued to be, mainly formed through others and by forces that are beyond the control of the self (Scheier & Carver, 1987; Snyder et al., 1991). The dual focus existent in the hope construct, including the pathways, is what differentiates it as a POB concept (Luthans 2002b),

(17)

and studies have indeed shown discriminant validity for hope among positive psychological constructs (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999).

As mentioned before, hope is not researched or applied as much to the workplace as self-efficacy. Luthans (2002a; 2002b) argues that hope would be the most unique POB

capacity as it has been given the least attention of the four POB concepts. However, emerging research does support the relevance of hope to the workplace and its (potential) impact on performance outcomes (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). For example, Peterson and Byron (2008) found that more hopeful employees were better at problem solving and more successful at goal achievement, and engaged in behaviors and thoughts that may translate to higher job performance. Such findings suggest the utility of the hope construct as part of PsyCap, and PsyCap in general, in contributing to (sustainable) competitive advantage (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Moreover, high-hope individuals, in the context of academic achievement and athletic accomplishment research, found to have a higher perception of goal attainment, a sense of challenge, focusing more on success instead of failure (Snyder et al., 1991). Such a profile is argued by Luthans (2002b) to be fitting for managers and employees in today’s fast-paced organizational environment.

Besides hope being positive and unique to POB, and it being measurable, it also meets the POB inclusion criterion of that is can be treated as state-like. It is therefore open to

development within employees and organizations and to the possibility of being managed (Luthans, 2002b). Snyder (2000) and Luthans and Jensen (2002) mention several specific guidelines that could be used to build hope for positive PsyCap. Such guidelines include setting and clarifying both specific organizational and personal goals that are challenging; thus establishing specific stretch goals (Luthans & Jensen, 2002). Further, a stepping method can be used, breaking specific and complex goals down into manageable sub-steps (Snyder, 2000). Alternative pathways and action plans to the goals should be developed, keeping in

(18)

mind not to solely focus on the final achievement, but rather enjoying the process toward the goals. Formulating such pathways can help one prepare for possible obstacles and create persistence when faced with these obstacles (Luthans & Jensen, 2002). Lastly, the individual should be prepared and trained in knowing when and how to “re-goal”, to avoid false hope. If there is a possibility of the original goal being absolutely blocked, the individual must thus be able to recognize when and how to alter the original goal, through e.g. conducting mental rehearsals (Luthans & Jensen, 2002). All in all, comprising the state-like nature of hope, this positive psychological capacity needs to be explored and applied more in workplace contexts for POB (Luthans, 2002b).

2.2.3 Optimism

Furthermore, the third positive psychological capacity of PsyCap, optimism, is associated with overall positive psychology more so than the other capacities (Luthans et al., 2004), and is argued to be the heart of POB (Luthans, 2002a). Likewise to hope, optimism is a term commonly known and used in everyday language as the power of positive thinking (Luthans, 2002a). Optimism has long been recognized within positive psychology, as it has found to positively impact physical and psychological health. It has also found to positively impact perseverance, motivation, and achievement resulting in athletic, academic, political, and occupational success. Along the same lines, pessimism, on the other hand, has found to cause inactiveness, failure, isolation, and even depression and death (Seligman, 1998). However, it is important to note that even optimism can carry negative consequences, as physically fit individuals for example tend to be so optimistic about their future well being that they neglect health maintenance (Seligman, 1998). This is the reason that positive psychology and POB are moving more towards realistic and flexible optimism (Luthans, 2002a).

(19)

The definition of optimism as a POB and PsyCap concept, however, goes beyond the power of positive thinking and optimism is argued to be both motivated and motivating (Peterson, 2000). Seligman (2002) defines optimism based on one’s explanatory style of both good and bad events by using two dimensions, which are permanence (time) and

pervasiveness (space). Individuals that are optimistic interpret bad events as being temporary, whereas pessimists interpret them as being permanent. In regards to good events, the opposite holds, optimists make permanent attributions, while pessimists make temporary ones

(Seligman, 2002). As to pervasiveness, for bad events, optimistic individuals make specific attributions (interpreting the problem to only the specific situation), while pessimistic individuals make global ones (undermining everything they do). For good events, again, the opposite holds (Seligman, 2002). Summarized, pessimists are those whose attributions are internal (blaming themselves), stable, and global when explaining bad events. Optimists, on the other hand, are those whose attributions are external (blaming factors outside the self), unstable, and specific (Peterson, 2000). Choi and Lee (2014) argue that optimism therefore takes on the meaning of a positive attribution about succeeding now and in the future. Similar, Luthans and Youssef (2007) define it as building positive expectancies that motivate an individual in pursuing their goals and in their approach of coping behavior in the future.

Meeting the POB inclusion criteria, just like the other three capacities within PsyCap, optimism can also be treated as state-like. Meaning that optimism is malleable and subject to learning and development, neutrals or pessimists can turn into optimists and vice versa (Luthans, 2002a). Although, the guidelines for optimism development are not as extensive as those for self-efficacy and hope, it still holds value with several training programs available (Luthans et al., 2004). Optimism can for example be developed through realistic and flexible perspectives (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Additional, optimism has recognized evidence of performance impact in workplace settings (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). For instance, Seligman

(20)

(1998) found in his research at Metropolitan Life Insurance that optimistic sales agents had higher performance and retention. Optimism thus holds for the POB inclusion criterion of its manageability for performance improvement.

2.2.4 Resilience

The fourth capacity of PsyCap is resilience, which has been recognized in the positive psychology movement mainly through its deep roots of child psychopathology (Masten, 2001). However, resilience is just emerging in the management literature (Luthans &

Youssef, 2007). Resilience was formerly thought of as a gift fairly rare in people, but it is now argued that resiliency comes “from the everyday magic of ordinary, normative human

resources” and “has profound implications for promoting competence and human capital in individuals and society” (Masten, 2001, p. 235). And it is this “normalness” of resiliency that explains the high implications and relevancy for applications to today’s turbulent workplace and business environment (Luthans, 2002b).

Resilience is defined by Luthans (2002b) as a positive psychological state in which individuals have “the capacity to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility” (p. 702). This definition

recognizes the state-like nature of resilience and it being a learnable capacity that can be developed in most people, fitting the POB criteria (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Coutu (2002), supporting the “normalness” of resiliency, acknowledges that individuals who are resilient possess over three characteristics. Bouncing back from hardship can be achieved with one or two of these characteristics, but one will only be truly resilient when holding all three. Firstly, resilient people are those who really accept and face reality. As Coutu (2002) argues, when one truly stares down reality, one can prepare him- or herself to act in a certain way that allows them to endure and survive unimaginable hardship. The second building block of

(21)

resilience is the ability to make meaning of awful times so that bridges can be built from current hardships to a brighter future. Strong values often reinforce this deep belief of meaningfulness of hardships (Coutu, 2002). The third characteristic of a truly resilient individual is the ability to flexibly improvise and effectively adapt to significant changes and unexpected situations (Coutu, 2002; Luthans & Youssef, 2007).

Similar to optimism, the developmental guidelines for resilience are not as extensive as those for self-efficacy and hope. Although, specific development programs to build resilience are emerging targeting individuals and organizations (Luthans et al., 2004). For example, Reivich and Shatte (2002) mention resilience-building skills, such as, avoiding negative thoughts when faced with difficulties and remaining focused when being overwhelmed by emotion or stress. Also, Benard (2004) has found characteristics within resilient individuals such as problem solving skills, social competence, autonomy, and a sense of purpose and future. All these can be used for its development as PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2004). Besides its state-like nature and openness to development, resilience also meets the POB inclusion criteria of uniqueness, positivity, and valid measures (Luthans, 2002b). The extensive resilience theory and research from positive psychology implies that resilience can contribute to positive PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2004). As individuals who are highly resilient tend to be more effective in the current complex world, in which organizations find

themselves, and through a wide range of life experiences, which can be possibly carried over to the workplace (Luthans, 2002b).

Accordingly, PsyCap is not solely concerned with “who you are”, but also, and

perhaps more importantly, with “who you are becoming” seen the developmental possibilities of the four positive psychological capacities (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006). Comprehensively, PsyCap is defined as followed: “an individual’s positive

(22)

psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007, p. 3).

Research has found that when PsyCap is conceptualized and treated as a higher-order construct through the framework of these four psychological resource capacities a synergy exists between them (Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans & Youssef, 2007). As, PsyCap can draw from within, but also across each psychological resource capacity (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Bandura (1997) theorizes that individuals with high self-efficacy will consequently be more resilient when faced with hardships. Additionally, Snyder (2000) found that individuals with high hope tend to have higher self-efficacy on specific tasks and are also more resilient. PsyCap as a higher-order construct seems to be adding value, based on preliminary research, to traditional financial capital, human capital, and social capital in the context of work attitudes (Larson & Luthans, 2006). Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Li (2005) similarly argue that PsyCap at an organizational level can provide competitive advantage by enhancing work performance. By improving the performance of individuals as is possible due to the developmental possibilities of PsyCap (Luthans, Avey, & Avolio, 2007). Additional, research found PsyCap as a core construct to be better in predicting certain outcomes, such as

performance, compared to any of the individual strengths (i.e. self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) that make it up (Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans et al., 2007). Thus, supporting the higher-order construct of PsyCap. Choi and Lee (2014) further argue that the increasing amount of research suggests PsyCap to have a positive effect on principal work attitudes and behaviors. This implies that attention must be

(23)

given to conceptualizing related outcomes. In specific, two different but linked work-related outcomes will be discussed in the next paragraph, namely job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

2.3 Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is an employee attitude, which is defined by Locke (1976) as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1304). Taking on this definition, Locke (1976) points out the importance of the affective (feeling) and cognitive (thinking) aspects that are involved with job satisfaction. Likewise, Wright and Cropanzano (2000) argue that this attitude partly depends on what an individual employee feels and partly on what an individual employee thinks. In contrast to job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction applies when one has negative emotions resulting from

evaluating one’s job (Locke, 1969).

Further, job satisfaction in prior research has been measured as overall job satisfaction, but also as individual aspects of job satisfaction (Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986; Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). These individual aspects are usually in regards to the work situation, such as the work itself, pay, co-workers, supervision, and workload (Porter et al., 1974; Saari & Judge, 2004). Moreover, cultural and dispositional aspects have been gaining significant research attention in how they can impact job satisfaction. Although, it is argued that these are not fully understood by human resource practitioners (Saari & Judge, 2004). This paper thus seeks to further develop the understanding between the relation of dispositions (i.e., in the form of PsyCap) and overall job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is one of the most often-researched employee attitude variables within organizational studies. This is mainly because of various favorable outcomes that are

(24)

job satisfaction is in turn related to job performance, as Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton (2001) found an estimated mean correlation of .30 between overall job satisfaction and job performance in their meta-analysis with an N of 54,417. They also argue that satisfied

employees tend to be more likely in better moods when in the workplace, which is shown for example through their motivation and creative problem solving (Judge et al., 2001).

Moreover, there is support for job satisfaction affecting one’s life satisfaction, and the other way around (Judge & Watanabe, 1994; Tait, Padgett, & Baldwin, 1989). A relation is actually found between job dissatisfaction and depression, which means that one’s job dissatisfaction, can affect one’s organizational effectiveness, well-being and life satisfaction (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Several studies have also found that employees who are dissatisfied with their job are more so to be absent or leave their job (higher turnover) than more satisfied

employees. Job dissatisfaction too seems to be related to other withdrawal behaviors, such as lateness and decision to retire (Saari & Judge, 2004). These assumed favorable outcomes of job satisfaction thus underline the importance to have an understanding of which antecedents lead to higher job satisfaction (Luthans & Youssef, 2004).

2.4 Organizational commitment

Another employee attitude, often linked to job satisfaction, is organizational commitment (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Although organizational commitment can be defined with its emphasis put on behavioral commitment, it is generally defined in terms of an employee attitude (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). This attitudinal commitment occurs when an individual’s identity is linked to that of an organization or when the goals of the individual become more and more incorporated with those of the organization (Mowday et al., 1979). The definition that is most commonly known for organizational commitment is that of Porter et al. (1974), as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and

(25)

involvement in an organization” (p. 3). Organizational commitment can be divided into three factors of commitment, identified by Porter et al. (1974). Firstly, an employee should have a strong belief in the values and goals of the organization. The second component is that an employee should have a willingness to utilize a significant amount of effort on the

organization. And lastly, an organizationally committed employee will tend to have a strong want to remain a member of the organization (Porter et al., 1974).

Additionally, Meyer and Allen (1991) go beyond the difference between behavioral and attitudinal commitment. As they distinguish three components of organizational

commitment, namely affective, continuance, and normative commitment. A strong affective commitment entails that employees remain with the organization because they have a desire and want to do so. Employees with a strong continuance commitment stay with the

organization because they need to, which is often linked to the costs that are associated by employees with leaving an organization. Those with a strong normative commitment remain with the organization because they feel an obligation to do so (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employees can feel varying degrees of each of these components of commitment or

psychological states as termed by Allen and Meyer (1990). This paper focuses specifically on affective organizational commitment, as this emotional attachment is the most used approach in literature, which refers back to the definition previously given by Porter et al. (1974). It has also been argued that personal characteristics are one of the antecedents of affective

organizational commitment, which does not as strongly apply to the other two components of commitment (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 2013).

Organizational commitment differs from job satisfaction in that it is a more global construct as it reflects an employee’s general feelings towards the organization as a whole. While job satisfaction is more specific towards the job or a certain aspect of the job (Mowday et al. 1979). Organizational commitment is also argued to be more stable over time compared

(26)

to job satisfaction as employees gradually develop their commitment attitudes. Whereas attitudes towards one’s job satisfaction can be seen as a more instant reaction (Porter et al., 1974).

Moreover, organizational commitment is linked to an employee’s desire and intent to stay with the organization and is inversely related to the actual turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Porter et al., 1974; Steers, 1977). While Meyer et al. (2002) found all three components of commitment to be negatively correlated with turnover, the correlation of affective commitment was the most strong, followed by normative and continuance organizational commitment. Being committed to the organization also has a relation to other desirable work behaviors. In specific, affective organizational commitment was found to lower absenteeism at work within employees (Meyer et al., 2002). Organizational commitment has also been shown, similar to job satisfaction, to have a relationship with performance (Judge et al., 2001). Lastly, affective organizational commitment suggests lower levels of employee stress at work, work and family conflict, and overall better employee well being (Meyer et al., 2002).

2.5 Shared leadership

In this paragraph, shared leadership at team-level will be discussed. Leadership has been argued to be the most crucial factor for facilitating team effectiveness. Though previous research has placed the focus mainly on the effects of an individual leader that is typically external to the team itself. Leadership that comes from the internal team members themselves has therefore been mostly overlooked by research (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). The need of having leadership originate from within a team instead of from an individual leader, however, has become more prominent as teams are seemly more complex and ambiguous. More, organizational structures are becoming flatter and the existence of self-managing teams

(27)

in industries, such as the U.S., has become deep-rooted (Carson et al., 2007). This complexity of teams is due to organizations currently finding themselves in an era defined by

globalization and information technology. Thus, to be able to effectively steer and manage such environments that are highly competitive and dynamic, organizations have turned to team-based structures (Nicolaides et al., 2014).

One of the first leadership scholars to point out the importance of such a team-based structure, namely shared (distributed) leadership, was Gibb (1954). Gibb (1954) distinguished between focused and distributed leadership, placing the two concepts on a continuum. The former arises when a single individual holds the leadership position within a team, while the later entails two or more individuals sharing the leadership role and the functions and

responsibilities that come with it (Gibb, 1954). Scholars have further argued two certain types of actions to be necessary for shared leadership to occur (Katz & Kahn, 1978). First, team members must propose leadership and pursue the ability to impact the motivation, support, and direction of the group. Moreover, the whole team must be disposed to depend on leadership that comes from multiple team members (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Therefore, shared leadership is a concept that contrasts with the traditional theory of leadership, also known as vertical leadership. This traditional concept emphasizes a

hierarchical leadership of a single manager that is external to, and formally assigned to lead the team (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce & Sims, 2002). Shared leadership, based on the early suggestions of importance (Gibb, 1954; Katz & Kahn, 1978), however, is defined by Pearce and Conger (2003) as: “a dynamic interactive influence process among individuals in groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (p. 1). The definition of shared leadership is thus based on multiple sources (i.e., team members) of active influence that are internal to the team (Carson et al., 2007). These team members share responsibility of

(28)

outcomes and partake in collaborative decision-making (Hoch, 2013), thus both voluntarily providing and responding to leadership (Carson et al., 2007). Besides leadership being shared by team members (internal), Morgeson et al. (2010) also argue that shared leadership

represents informal leadership where the team members do not have formally designated leadership roles. However, other scholars have suggested that shared leadership can occur within a team either with a formal appointed leader (i.e., not external to the team) or without (i.e., informal emerging leaders) (Carson et al., 2007; Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004).

In accordance with this core sense of shared leadership, Carson et al. (2007) defined it as an “emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members” (p. 1218). And it is this definition that will be followed throughout this paper as Carson et al. (2007) further found that shared leadership in an internal team environment consists of three dimensions that form a higher-order construct. The first dimension is shared purpose, which occurs when all team members have a similar

understanding of the team objectives, direction, and also take action to make sure that the focus is on collective goals (Carson et al., 2007). Shared purpose is further argued to increase the readiness of team members to share the leadership responsibilities (Avolio, Jung, Murry, & Sivasbramaniam, 1996). The second dimension is social support, which Carson et al. (2007) defined as providing both emotional and psychological support to others within the team, which can for example be done by encouraging one another when needed. Creating such a supportive climate can lead to team members being more cooperative and, as shared purpose, more disposed to share the responsibilities of team outcomes (Carson et al., 2007; Hoch, 2013). The third dimension of shared leadership is voice, which Carson et al. (2007) defined as “the degree to which a team’s members have input into how the team carries out its purpose” (p. 1222). Voice thus refers to contributive behaviors and the possibility thereof

(29)

from all team members, which in turn is argued to reinforce the other two dimensions of shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007). Accordingly, these three dimensions together indicate the level of shared leadership within a team.

Finally, Hoch (2013) argues that shared leadership can assist teams in their capability to adapt to the rapid change most organizations currently experience, mainly because

knowledge is being shared among team members. This consequently impacts the innovative behavior of the team (Hoch, 2013). Moreover, Day, Gronn and Salas (2006) suggest that shared leadership influences the development and performance of the team in the future. Besides some of these findings, it is nevertheless being stressed that questions regarding the development of shared leadership remain (Hoch, 2013). Still, too little research has been done concerning the antecedents, outcomes, and moderation effects of shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007; Day et al., 2006; Hoch, 2013; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Pearce & Conger, 2003). As mentioned, the focus here is on the possible moderation effect of shared leadership, which will be further discussed in the next section of this paper.

(30)

3. Conceptual framework

In this section, the relationships among the concepts previously mentioned are further specified. Accordingly, the hypotheses will be developed and the conceptual framework model will be presented.

3.1 Psychological capital & Job satisfaction and Organizational commitment PsyCap as a higher-order construct has found to influence a range of outcomes, including some work-related outcomes. Several studies have researched PsyCap in relation to desirable employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance (Newman et al., 2014). As

mentioned previously, the four psychological capacities that form PsyCap have

developmental qualities for performance improvement. Several scholars have found PsyCap to have a positive influence on performance (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011; Lifeng, 2007; Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans et al., 2007; Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Zhang, 2011). It has been argued that performance is related to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Judge et al., 2001; Lawler & Porter, 1967). Therefore, it can in return be argued that PsyCap is related to these two employee attitudes (Larsen & Luthans, 2006).

Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman (2007) suggested that employees with a positive PsyCap (i.e., higher levels of PsyCap) might be generally more satisfied with their job and managers. Employees with higher levels of PsyCap are more confident in facing difficult challenges within the job and have a positive prospect regarding future outcomes. These psychological states are argued to influence the motivation of the employees to put more energy in their job and perform well, which improves their satisfaction with the job (Luthans et al., 2007). This claim was supported in their study containing two samples from the U.S., namely employees from a high-tech manufacturing firm and employees from an insurance

(31)

service firm. As Luthans et al. (2007) found that PsyCap has a significant positive relation with performance in both the manufacturing firm (r = .33, p < .01) and the service firm (r = .22, p < .01). And a positive relationship was found between employees’ level of PsyCap and their job satisfaction in both samples (r = .32, p < .01 in the former and r = .53, p < .01 in the latter). Further, the meta-analysis of Avey et al. (2011) also found a positive relation between PsyCap and desirable employee attitudes, under which job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

In regards to dispositional factors (i.e., an individual’s internal characteristics), evidence suggests that differences in employee’s disposition are linked to differences in their level of job satisfaction (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). An employee’s disposition or personality can affect the experience that one has of significant emotional situations at work, which consecutively impacts job satisfaction (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Regarding more state-like dispositions, the cross-sectional study of Youssef and Luthans (2007) researched the relationship of hope, optimism, and resilience with job satisfaction and organizational

commitment. Suggesting that individuals with high hope, optimism, and resilience have “perceptions of job enrichment and self-actualization” (p. 784), which can heighten job satisfaction. Accordingly, they found hope and to a slighter degree optimism and resilience to positively relate to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Also, Peterson and Luthans (2003) found that leaders with high hope had better satisfaction and employee retention. It is too argued that individuals with high hope perform better and are more likely to be satisfied when faced with stressful situations (Luthans, 2002a). Further, individuals that are realistically (i.e., varies depending on the circumstances) optimistic are argued to be quickly motivated to perform better. These individuals consider personal letdowns and obstacles as momentary instead of personal shortcomings, which makes them more satisfied (Luthans, 2002a). Positive self-efficacy, moreover, can affect an

(32)

individuals’ positive thought pattern and increase their resistance to stress (Bandura, 1986). There is also support for the relation between self-efficacy and desirable attitudes, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). The evidence that PsyCap as a core construct better predicts work-related outcomes than the individual

capacities (Larson & Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans et al., 2007), implies that the findings of these mentioned single dispositional studies are promising for the research of PsyCap as a higher-order construct.

Thus, based on the existing theory and research, the following is hypothesized (see figure 1):

Hypothesis 1: PsyCap will be positively related to overall job satisfaction.

Besides the previous relations mentioned, scholars found that PsyCap as a core construct has a negative relation to several undesirable employee attitudes, such as turnover intention (Avey et al., 2009; Avey et al., 2011; Choi & Lee, 2014), job stress (Avey et al., 2009; Avey et al., 2011), and cynicism and anxiety (Avey et al., 2011). The capacities of PsyCap are said to act as a suppressor of undesirable employee attitudes, such as job stress (Avey et al., 2011). These undesirable employee attitudes are supposedly connected with job dissatisfaction (Avey et al., 2009), which refers back to what is formerly hypothesized. But it is also

connected to employee burnout and organizational withdrawal, which can entail absenteeism, lateness, and less organizational commitment (Avey et al., 2009; Blau & Boal, 1987).

Further, individuals with high levels of PsyCap believe they have the ability within themselves to achieve success, are more positive about future happenings, and are more resistant to adversity (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). Given these capacities, it is argued that employees with high PsyCap are more committed to the organization. This is possibly

(33)

because the desires of these individuals for e.g. self-efficacy are satisfied within that

organization (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, 2008). Seligman (1998), for example, found that optimistic sales agents are less likely to quit and thus be more committed to the

organization. Similarly, the research of Luthans and Jensen (2005) on nurses in the Midwest found a positive relation between an employees’ positive PsyCap and their organizational commitment towards the objectives of the organization. Finally, a study on Chinese workers by Lifeng (2007) also indicated that PsyCap had a positive impact on the employee’s

organizational commitment. Therefore, the following is hypothesized (see figure 1):

Hypothesis 2: PsyCap will be positively related to organizational commitment.

3.2 The moderating effect of shared leadership

Walumbwa, Peterson, Avolio, and Hartnell (2010) found that the team-level moderator, service climate, positively moderated between the relation of individual-level PsyCap and individual-level job performance. Similar to service climate, shared leadership provides a sense of shared understanding of the objectives and direction of the organization to the team members (Carson et al., 2007). When team members have a greater harmony and shared understanding between them, it is argued that they can attain an improved group efficacy towards the achievement of certain objectives (Gibson & Earley, 2007). Considering that individuals with high PsyCap, belief they have the personal ability to succeed now and in the future, and combining this with improved group efficacy may perhaps strengthen the positive relationship of PsyCap with both job satisfaction and organizational commitment, as previously hypothesized. Further, Newman et al. (2014) argue “PsyCap may be expected to generate stronger outcomes for individuals operating in supportive and stimulating team climates” (p. 132). Shared leadership provides such a climate through shared purpose, social

(34)

support, and voice for team members (Carson et al., 2007). It may facilitate an environment where individuals can more easily exploit the positive psychological capacities of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience.

Moreover, participative leadership styles are suggested to enable the deployment of PsyCap within employees (Newman et al., 2014). Despite individuals having high levels of PsyCap, a factor as leadership can guide these individuals into behaviors that generate greater outcomes (Hitt & Duane, 2002). Therefore, Newman et al. (2014) presume participative leadership styles to emphasize the positive relation between PsyCap and desired employee attitudes. Additionally, it is theorized that traditional leadership styles that are more

hierarchical may act as a boundary for PsyCap levels within employees, possibly leading to a negative relation between PsyCap and work-related outcomes (Newman et al., 2014).

Also, shared leadership entails collaborative decision-making and knowledge sharing, which can assist individuals in adapting to change, thereby possibly improving their

performance, ability to achieve success and competitive advantage for the organization (Day et al., 2004; Hoch, 2013). This fits with the capacities of PsyCap that likewise make

individuals more believing in being able to succeed on the job. Katz and Kahn (1978) further argue that team members that offer leadership to achieve team purpose (shared purpose) and to other team members (social support) should be more committed. They share

responsibilities and put more effort in trying to achieve team objectives (Hoch, 2013; Katz & Kahn, 1978). It is also suggested that job experiences that satisfy the psychological needs of employees to feel capable and relaxed within their job and organization (e.g. which can conceivably be enhanced by social support and voice) can lead to organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Having voice for example can enable an employee to participate more in the decisions that are being made with regards to the objectives and direction of the team (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Carson et al., 2007).

(35)

Although, there is no existing research evidence yet, the potential moderation of shared leadership on the relationship between PsyCap and work-related outcomes is

promising. Based on these prior suggestions by scholars and the previously two hypotheses, the following is hypothesized (see figure 1):

Hypothesis 3: Shared leadership positively influences the relationship between PsyCap and overall job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Shared leadership positively influences the relationship between PsyCap and organizational commitment.

(36)

4. Methods

4.1 Procedures and data sample

To test the hypotheses, primary research data was collected through an online survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing marketplace (MTurk, n.d.). Workers on this website were recruited and paid to complete the survey, a task which is also known as a Human Intelligence Task (HIT) (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012). The

HIT was advertised with a one-sentence description of the survey topic and the amount of compensation a worker will get after completion. This method of data collection is chosen due to its inexpensiveness in terms of both time and costs. MTurk is argued to often reach a diverse participant pool, making the research results more generalizable. By using MTurk, the anonymity and privacy of respondents are maintained (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012).

It was explained to the participants, through a cover letter, that the purpose of the study was to explore if shared leadership and “who you are” as a person can influence

people’s attitudes in a working context. It was specifically noted that the study would be used for purely academic purposes and confidentiality of all answers was assured. A screening question regarding the guarantee of the presence of teamwork, excluded those who were not currently part of a team in their organization from continuing the survey. To test the

hypotheses regarding the shared leadership construct, being part of a team at work was required.

In total 230 MTurk workers were surveyed in a period from the 26th_{of May to the 9}th of June 2017. From those 230 MTurk workers, 133 provided usable answers, resulting in a 57.8% response rate. These participants were each compensated $.20 per completion with usable responses, as was formerly advertised. Accordingly, the convenience sample consisted

(37)

of n = 133 individuals that are each currently in their work routine part of a team, of which 87 were males and 46 were females. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 69 years, with an average of 32.56 years old (SD = 10.20). The majority of these participants reside in the U.S. (50.4%) and India (45.9%). 77.4% had an education level of graduating from college (i.e., bachelors degree) or higher. Furthermore, 41.4% of the participants had job positions at middle management level, 30.8% at management level, 25.6% at professional non-management level, and 2.3% at executive level. Participant had an organizational tenure of 1-3 years (40.6%), 4-6 years (1-36.1%), 7-9 years (5.1-3%), 10 years and more (12.8%), and less than 1 year (5.3%). Also, participants were part of team consisting of 2-3 members (10.5%), 4-5 members (27.1%), 6-7 members (19.5%), 8-9 members (9.8%), and 10 or more members (33.1%).

4.2 Measures

4.2.1 Independent variable: Psychological capital (PsyCap)

PsyCap was measured using the 12-item scale (self-rater shortened form) derived from the original 24-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ). The 12-item scale was used instead of the 24-item scale due to concerns regarding the length of the survey. Luthans, Avolio, and Avey (2007) granted research permission to the 12-item scale through Mind Garden.* This PCQ has been pre-validated, representing a reliable and valid construct (Luthans, Avolio, & Avey, 2007; Luthans et al., 2007). Luthans et al. (2007) reported an overall reliability with the Cronbach’s alpha for efficacy (.80), hope (.76), resilience (.70),

*_{Copyright © 2007 Psychological Capital (PsyCap) Questionnaire (PCQ) Fred L. Luthans,} Bruce J. Avolio & James B. Avey. All rights reserved in all medium. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com

(38)

and optimism (.75). The 12-item scale consisted of items 1-3 (efficacy), items 4-7 (hope), items 8-10 (resilience), and items 11-12 (optimism). All items were measured on a six-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). The items were aggregated and averaged to form the measure of PsyCap as a higher-order construct comprising of efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism. A sample item of efficacy is, “I feel confident in representing my work area in meeting with management”. A sample item of hope is, “I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals”. And a sample item of resilience is, “I usually take stressful things at work in stride” (Luthans, Avolio, & Avey, 2007).*_{Recent research has} reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .90 for the 12-item scale (Choi & Lee, 2014).

4.2.2 Dependent variables: Job satisfaction & Organizational commitment

This research studied the relation of PsyCap with both job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. The 3-item scale by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983) was used to measure job satisfaction. All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The items are the following: “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”, “In general, I don’t like my job” (reversed item), and “In general, I like working here” (Cammann et al., 1983). Cammann et al. (1983) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 for this satisfaction scale. The values of the reversed item were recoded into a new variable for the statistical analysis.

Organizational commitment was measured using the 6-item scale of affective

commitment used by Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli (2001). This 6-item scale consists of five items derived from the Affective Commitment Scale of Meyer and Allen (1997), and one item from the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire of Mowday et al. (1979). Affective commitment has been the most used dimension of organizational commitment in

(39)

organizational research (Porter et al., 1974). All items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. An item example is, “I really feel that problems faced by my organization are also my problems” (Rhoades et al., 2001). This scale has been pre-validated, and is reported by Rhoades et al. (2001) to have high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.

4.2.3 Moderating variable: Shared leadership

Shared leadership was measured using the 10-item scale of Carson et al. (2007), which measures the internal shared leadership environment within a team through the three

dimensions of shared purpose, social support, and voice. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. This scale has been pre-validated for the three dimensions forming a higher-order construct, and thus a single measure factor (Carson et al., 2007). These three dimensions were aggregated and all scores were subsequently averaged to create a single measure score of shared leadership. Sample items are: “The members of my team spent time discussing our team’s purpose, goals, and expectations for the project” (shared purpose), “The members of my team give

encouragement to team members who seem frustrated” (social support), and “People in this team are encouraged to speak up to test assumptions about issues under discussion” (voice) (Carson et al., 2007). Carson et al. (2007) noted a Cronbach’s alpha of .94 for the scale.

4.2.4 Control variables

Furthermore, several socio-demographic variables were included as control variables. In specific, gender, age, education level, country of residence, organizational tenure, job position, and team size. In regards to potential alternative explanations for job satisfaction and organizational commitment, the effects of these variables were controlled for during the data

Psychological capital & shared leadership effects on job satisfaction and organizational commitment