Master Thesis
Will the empowering leadership style bring us to the
desired level of proactive behavior?
Author: Jean Dohmen Student number: 10514902
Date of submission: January 29, 2016
Executive Programme in Management Studies – Leadership and Management Track Amsterdam Business School (ABS), University of Amsterdam (UvA)
1
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Jean Dohmen 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.
2 Table of Contents Abstract 03 1 Introduction 03 2 Theoretical Framework 07 2.1 Proactive behavior 07 2.2 Empowering leadership 10 2.3 Regulatory focus 12 2.4 Conceptual model 16
3 Data and Method 17
3.1 Research design 17
3.2 Method 17
3.3 Sample, Respondents and Procedures 17
4 Results 22
5 Discussion 27
6 Conclusion 34
Reference list 36
3 Abstract
Although a lot of scholar research and practical business organizational developments are already conducted, this research will contribute another small building block in the total overview of proactive behavior related to possible driving forces. In particular empowering leadership and promotion focus of the leader are selected to determine how extensive their possible impact could be on proactive behavior of the follower. In this study, I suggest that the impact of empowering leadership and promotion focus of the leader contributes on a positive way to proactive behavior of the follower. Using a quantitative approach based on a cross sectional survey, I collected all relevant data. The 378 completed questionnaires (response rate = 34.7%) delivered me the opportunity to analyze data and interpreting the results that indeed proactive behavior is positive related to empowering leadership style, with promotion focus as a positive moderator in this construct. Besides theoretical and practical implications as stated in many comparable studies, the practical implications are demonstrating that this research is adding value and is connecting but above all contributing to daily business practice.
Key words: empowering leadership, proactive behavior, regulatory focus, promotion focus.
1. Introduction
Companies in general have to improve their competitive advantage to survive the battle of the fittest (Porter, 2008). A significant part of this competitive advantage is
improving internal performance. Enabling for example a supply company towards a next level of world-class performance in order to improve this competitive advantage, will ask a lot of effort and attention of the total organisation. By adapting the relevant strategies to improve, not only the management layers in an organisation have to develop according these chosen strategies, but the total population defined in literature as the human capital pool. In the resource-based view of the organization, these resources are the foundation of competitive
4 advantage (Wright et al., 1994). The managers in this role, have to lead by example and motivate their teams in the right way. In many profit organizations is the concurrent situation, that the management in general, is strongly focussed on managing and controlling the so called key performance indicators, and not striving enough to a winning culture and mindset by optimizing the total human capital pool, which will bring an important contribution to realise a step-change, towards a next level of improving performance (Combs et al., 2006) Next to the change of strategy as such, the cultural change of management style is one of the most important enablers in this context to reach a ‘winning’ world-class performance
organisation as competitive advantage (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). This is bringing us to the statement: to improve performance, an organization has to focus as well on the leadership style, but also at the result of the leadership style(s), expressed in behavior of their employees. In addition I will state that in an efficient organization, the employees must be able to perform their routine work without a direct and continuous supervision. To enable this, the behavior of the employee should be flexible, responsive but most of all proactive. Summarizing: this study is investigating the relation of a higher level of proactive behavior of the employee, supported by a specific leadership style as driver.
The content of this thesis concerns research the leadership style to enable an organization to grow to a next level of performance. More specific by researching the relation between the empowering leadership style and the possible impact of this style on proactive behavior. The specific leadership style I want to focus on in this study is defined as empowering leadership. This specific style because on the one hand this is enabling a higher level of independence for employees and on the other hand, this style is positive related to intrinsic motivation and creative process engagement (Zhang & Bartol, 2010), what could have a positive influence on proactive behavior. The empowering leadership style as such also because of the fact that despite increasing interest and attention for this subject, less specific
5 research is conducted in relation to behaviors. (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). The relation with proactive behavior finds its reason in the wide-ranging impact that proactive behavior has to be a “high-leverage concept rather than just another management fad”(Crant, 2000: p. 435). Although this scholarly importance, are some topics regarding proactive behavior not well understood (Grant and Ashford, 2008). Bringing us to an important relation to research in this study, expressed as: the possible impact of the empowering leadership style to proactive behavior of the follower.
Exploring the relation of empowering leadership style to proactive behavior is interesting because a lot of research is done in relation to these topics separately and related to their antecedents, but less to their possible interrelation dependency (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Crant, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2010). Proactive behavior is as stated earlier, leading to better performance of the employee. An additional question could be formulated as: why is this employee with a higher level of proactive behavior motivated to perform on a higher level? A motivation of a person and the way in which they go about achieving their goal is defined as regulatory focus. (Higgins, 1997). This Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT) posits two separate and independent self-regulatory orientations: prevention and promotion (Higgins, 1997) Achieving better performance by higher level of proactive behavior could be linked to eagerness, envisioning success, which could be linked again to appointing pleasure what stands for the definition of promotion focus, above the prevention based focus, that should be realized because it fulfills the need for security, protection and prevention of negative outcomes according Higgins (1997). This all resulting in a very interesting research question, formulated as: what could be the possible impact of promotion focus on the relation of empowering leadership to proactive behavior?
Proactive personality may be an important predictor of leadership (Bateman & Crant, 1993). This statement brings us to the question: to what extension stands proactive behavior
6 in relation to leadership? To get more insights, I want to elaborate and explore more in the literature review on proactive behavior, the antecedents of proactive behavior and specifically on the role of empowering leadership related to proactive behavior as a substantial part of this thesis. Further research will be conducted on the roll of promotion focus as such, but specially the impact of this promotion focus towards the level of proactive behavior and the possible role of promotion focus of the leader as a impact on the relation between the empowering leadership style of the leader and the level of proactive behavior of the employee. My expectations are as well the empowering leadership style, but also the promotion focus of the leader will have a positive influence to the level of proactive behavior of the employee. The prediction is also that promotion focus of the leader by appointing pleasure and success to achieve goals will have a positive influence on the relation between empowering leadership and proactive behavior, resulting in better performance as an enhancer of competitive advantage of the organization.
Next to aforementioned introduction of this thesis, I will review existing literature and theories related to proactive behavior, empowering leadership and regulatory focus resulting in a conceptual model concerning my research questions. This conceptual research model will be designed as a kind of triangular construct, whereby empowering leadership will act as an independent variable towards proactive behavior as resultant. Promotion focus will be tested as independent variable as well towards proactive behavior, but also as a moderator in the relation of empowering leadership to proactive behavior. Subsequently followed by describing data & method, completed by results, discussions and conclusions.
7 2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Proactive behavior
“Proactive behavior at work is about making things happen. It involves self-initiated, anticipatory action aimed at changing either the situation or oneself” (Bindl & Parker, in press, p.1). Crant (2000, P.436) defines proactive behavior as “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions”. Proactive behavior is seen as a high-leverage concept rather than just another management fad, and can result in increased organizational effectiveness (Bateman & Crant, 1999). Proactive work behavior is particularly relevant because companies are changing in uncertain times, asking for more innovations, high speed response times, and striving to operational excellence (Bindl & Parker, in press).
A practical example of proactive behavior in a business organization context is an employee developing and implementing a software tool, to improve the output with better quality. The employee shows the initiative in addition to his regular job description. This typical example is in line with the definition of Bindl and Parker (in press, p.9): “ a useful approach is to consider proactivity as a self-directed way of behaving (or process) that involves thinking ahead to take charge of a situation and to bring about change in that situation or in one’s self”. Other examples of proactive behavior confirmed by academic research are: employees who redefine the goals they are provided with by the organization to come up with more challenging goals (Hacker, 1985) and taking charge, referring to active efforts to bring about change on work methods (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). All these types of behaviors have in common that they are focussed on taking control, looking ahead and initiating change (Bindl & Parker, in press). The latter mentioned types of behavior are very important for an organization striving for a higher level of proactive behavior, resulting in
8 operational excellence. Emphasizing the importance of proactive behavior in this context, I would like to discuss the origin and antecedents of this concept.
Antecedents of proactive behavior
Several studies have been done on the prediction of proactive behavior. Proactive personality has been shown to predict proactive problem solving (Parker et al., 2006) and individual innovation (Seibert et al., 2001) as well more strategic proactive behaviors such as entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996). Other outcomes of research on antecedents of proactive behavior are: individual differences in knowledge, and situational differences (e.g. leadership and climate related constructs). These types of differences form distal antecedents of proactive behavior according Bindl and Parker (in press). Parker et al. (2006, p.645) concluded out of their research “supportive supervision did not play an important role in the proactive process”, but the same research concluded that multiple factors could contribute to explain the level of proactive behaviour of the worker. In enhancing this proactive behavior of the follower, the applied leadership style is one of the most important antecedents. The importance can be explained by the fact that the leadership style can be influenced, but personality less. As proactive behavior of employees is contributing on a positive way for organizational performance as explained earlier, leaders of this employees play a significant role in this context. The question will rise: ‘how are leaders able to affect proactive behavior of the follower’?
9 The role of leadership related to proactive behavior
Leaders have an impact on the motivation of their subordinates, by the way that they effect the working environment (Yukl, 2013). This is likely to play a role in shaping proactive action or behavior (Bindl & Parker, in press). Various studies have proven that a transformational leadership style has a positive contribution towards motivation and initiative of the subordinate, which is part of the proactive behavior construct (Crant, 2000). Moreover a high quality exchange between leader and employee creates a climate of trust. This climate of trust can grow by devolving autonomy from a leader to an employee, leading to management-initiated change as an example. (Parker et al., 2006) As a result, enabling employees to grow towards change-oriented, self-initiated behaviors. This will be certainly contribute in enhancing the desired level of proactive behavior.
As earlier already stated, the relation between supportive leadership and proactive behavior has not been consistent across several studies (Bindl & Parker, in press). A finding of Straus et al. (2009 p.288) regarding the role of leadership related to proactivity is stating: “Our results suggest that leaders at both the team and organizational level might play an important role in developing the proactivity of employees, but that different levels of leadership are likely to affect proactivity in different ways”. Furthermore an important conclusion of the work of Bindle and Parker (in press) is that a company can shape employee proactivity through leader behaviors among others.
As already mentioned, proactive behavior of the follower is influenced by the applied specific leadership style. The question might be asked: ‘Why am I going to look at the empowering leadership style in this context? First, the empowering leadership style as such is important and therefore interesting in the context of this research, because this style of management is encouraging employees to demonstrate a higher level of proactive behavior (Spreitzer, 2008). Secondly, the empowering leadership style in combination with the
10 appropriate form of regulatory focus defined as promotion focus could bring new insights, because this promotion focus is directed to positive outcomes and ideals (Higgins, 1998). It is also evident to mention that the empowering leadership style in relation to proactive behavior, as scholarly research results are not consistent so far. Especially what a pre-defined leadership style as empowering leadership could contribute towards organization performance improvement by proactive behavior of the employee.
2.2 Empowering leadership
Empowering leadership: a clarification
Empowerment is the idea of sharing power with subordinates, aiming for the goal of cascading relevant decision-making power to lower levels of the organizational hierarchy (Spreitzer, 2008). “In order to adapt to today’s competitive market, old patriarchal management needed to change, and competition in industry has required a variety of initiatives to motivate employees and improve productivity, develop cost-cutting strategies and improve attention to customers ‘needs’” (Hakimi et al., 2010, p.701). A key initiative in this transformation has been the empowerment of employees (Hakimi et al. 2010). Relevance is key- empowered employees have the power to make decisions that fit within the scope and domain of their work. For example, manufacturing employees might not be making decisions about firm strategy but instead make decisions about how and when to do their own work (Spreitzer, 2008). To develop these specific key-empowered employees, an organization needs managers or leaders with a corresponding leadership style: the empowering leadership style. Empowering behavior by a leader is defined by Hakimi et al. (2010, p.702) as: “leader behaviors involving the delegation of authority and responsibilities to followers”. According to Kirkman and Rosen (1999), empowering leadership means power sharing with a view toward enhancing employees’ motivation and investment in their work. In these definitions
11 the terms: authority, responsibilities and motivation of the follower are concepts related to empowerment as a construct, and will be part of this research.
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment of the follower is a crucial consequence for acceptation and adapting of decision-making power to lower levels in the organization. This is confirmed by Conger and Kanungo (1988), who state that the concept defined as empowerment is directly linked to the nature of psychological empowerment. Empowering leadership affects psychological empowerment, which in turn influences both intrinsic motivation and creative process engagement (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). These concepts of intrinsic motivation and creative process engagement are also key issues in relation to the earlier explained proactive behavior. This implies the importance to understand the relation of empowering leadership and psychological empowerment of the follower.
Interest in psychological empowerment comes from a time when global competition and change was requiring employee initiative and innovation (Drucker, 1988). According Yukl (2013) is the term psychological empowerment formulated as the way how intrinsic motivation and self- efficacy of people are influenced by job characteristics, leadership behavior, organization structure, and their own needs and values. A study of Spreitzer (1995) stated that one of the propositions found enough support that psychological empowerment is constructed by four elements: meaning, self-efficacy, self-determination and impact. Whereby Spreitzer (2008) argues that the essence of empowerment is the cohesion and interplay between the four dimensions rather than just the independent effects of each dimension. Yukl (2013) links the emphasis on the four elements of psychological empowerment to earlier theory and research on: work motivation (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Shamir, 1991), job design (e.g., Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), participative leadership (e.g. Sagie &
12 Koslowsky, 2000; Vroom & Jago, 1988), and organizational programs for employee involvement (e.g., Cotton, 1993: Lawler, 1986).
Going back to the question: ‘why is empowering leadership important for proactive behavior of the follower?’ brings us to the construct of psychological empowerment defined by Spreitzer (2008). First: meaning is defined as a fit between the needs of one’s work role and one’s beliefs, values and behaviors (Hackman& Oldham, 1980), Second: self-efficacy referring to, or a belief in one’s capability to perform work activities with skill (Gist, 1987; Bandura, 1989), Third: self-determination as a sense of choice in initiating and regulating one’s actions (Deci et al., 1989), Forth: impact as the degree to which one can influence strategic, administrative, or operating outcomes at work (Ashforth, 1989). The merging and interactive affect of these four elements are reflecting an active orientation to a proactive work attitude, and therefore important for proactive behavior of the employee. Out of this reasoning can be assumed that there is an apparent relationship between empowering leadership style and proactive behavior of the follower. Based on this argumentation, I propose my first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Empowering leadership style of the leader relates positively to proactive behavior of the follower.
2.3 Regulatory focus
Regulatory focus theory: a further explanation.
The regulatory focus theory examines the relationship between the motivation of a person and the way he / she will think about achieving their goal. This theory posits two separate and independent self-regulatory orientations, defined as the ‘promotion’ and ‘prevention’ focus (Higgins, 1997). Both types of regulatory focus are applied to
13 phenonomena that have been treated in terms of either; appointing pleasure as a promotion focus, or avoiding pain as a prevention (Higgins, 1997). The human psychological preference is related to avoiding pain and approaching pleasure. Higgins (1997) proposed that managers have two basic self-regulation systems. One regulates the achievement of rewards and focuses individuals on promotion goals, while the other regulates the avoidance of punishments and focuses individuals on prevention goals. Promotion goals represent the "ideal self" and include hopes, wishes, and aspirations, whereas prevention goals represent the "ought self" and include duties, obligations, and responsibilities (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Managers who are acting according to a safe and secure way and are more motivated by avoidance feedback are prevention-focused leaders. In contrast to leaders who are aiming for stimulation,
approaching positive outcomes and more related towards positive feedback could be defined as promotion-focused leaders (Kark & van Dijk, 2007).
The relationship between regulatory focus and proactive behavior.
Förster et al. (2001) concluded that the so called approach motivation associated with success feedback are more likely to occur when performers are in a promotion than a
prevention focus and that the avoidance motivation associated with failure feedback are more likely to occur when performers are in a prevention than a promotion focus. Additionally Brockner and Higgins (2001) are stating that eagerness or ensuring gains is predominating promotion-focused people. This eagerness and ensuring gains associated with promotion focus, may be linked more to ‘making things happen’ and ‘taking initiative to improve’ than the avoidance that is associated with a prevention focus.
The promotion-oriented leader has more openness to change, whereas the prevention oriented manager shows a more conservative and traditional style of leadership. In
14 people are motivated by growth and development needs in which they attempt to bring their actual selves (their behaviors and self-conceptions) in alignment with their ideal selves (self-standards based on wishes and aspirations of how they would like to be). When prevention focused, people are responsive to security needs in which they try to match their actual selves with their ought selves (self-standards based on felt duties and responsibilities)”. Arguing this could lead to the interpretation that employees and/or subordinates will be influenced by the particular regulatory focus of the leader. Findings form Crant and Bateman (2000) are stating that proactive personality of a follower was positively related with leaders' perceptions of charismatic leadership. Presuming that charismatic leadership is an essential component of promotion focus, leaders might engage proactive behaviors of the employee enhancing such a style of leadership. Trying to relate the concepts of promotion focus and proactive behavior, I can argue that promotion focus on the one hand is concerned with advancement, growth and accomplishment (Crowe & Higgins, 1997) and proactive behavior on the other hand can be defined as taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones (Crant, 2000). Leaders with an almost continuous promotion focus and openness to change are likely at a higher level of Motivation To Lead (MTL) and will be more applying transformational or charismatic leadership styles. (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). Especially in a changing and dynamic organizational context in combination with a demanding improving organizational
performance, leading to competitive advantage if the right promotion focus of the leader delivers a higher level of proactive behavior of the employee. This challenge is leading to a dependency between the leader promotion focus and follower proactive behavior, which is defining my second hypothesis:
Hypothesis2. Promotion focus of the leader positively relates to follower proactive Behavior.
15
Effect of the promotion oriented leader towards proactive behavior of the follower Taking into account the aforementioned hypotheses 1 and 2, it could be argued that the effect of empowering leadership on proactive behavior of the follower could be stronger when the same leader applies a promotion focus. This argumentation is in line with findings from Higgins (1998), stating that self-regulation with a promotion focus is concerned with advancement, growth and accomplishment, in addition this work showed evidence that the ways of regulating pleasure (promotion focus) have a major impact on people’s feelings, thoughts and actions. Higgins (1998) also stated that individuals in a promotion focus have a predilection to reach for desired end states, by focussing more on positive and successful strategies, in contrast to thinking about possible negative and unsuccessful strategies. Higgins (1998) is also stating that regulatory focus can account for the variability of all employees and related situations that occur within positive and within negative motivational states. This motivational state of the employee in the role of follower in relation to his or her leader can be influenced and affected by this leader. A promotion focus of the leader will probably affect the motivational state of the follower on a positive way. This positive motivational state of the follower could lead to a higher level of proactive behavior.
Hypothesizing that empowering leadership as well as promotion focus of the leader are positive related to proactive behavior of the follower, it seems to be logically that the promotion focus of the leader will be influencing the relation of empowering leadership style on proactive behavior on a positive way. Expressed in another way: the promotion focus of a leader could be a conditional effect in the relation between empowering leadership and proactive behavior of the follower as a result. But the term ‘it seems to be logically’ has to be validated by further research and confirmed by systematically statistical analyses. This leads to my third hypothesis:
16 Hypothesis 3. Promotion focus of the leader has a positive moderating influence on the relationship between empowering leadership and proactive behavior of the follower.
2.4 Conceptual model Research Question
The research question will be formulated as: ‘Is the empowering leadership style and/or personalities of leaders important for the proper development of a proactive behavior style by the followers, necessary to achieve a next level of organizational performance? And is the promotion focus of the leader contributing on a positive way to the proactive behavior of the follower in a direct relation, or via a moderating way in the relation between
empowering leadership style of the leader and proactive behavior of the follower?’
17 3. Data and Method
3.1 Research design
Out of a Positivm philosophy, the research approach will be deployed from a deductive point of view, making use of a survey research strategy executed by cross-sectional questionnaires a technique to collect all the relevant data. (Saunders et al., 2012)
3.2 Method
As a general introduction regarding the method, I applied a method to collect the relevant data by using a survey methodology. The survey making use of questionnaires was sent out to all organizational layers of a Dutch FMCG Company.
3.3 Sample, Respondents and Procedures Sample description
The context and nature of the organization where the survey will be executed can be described as a Dutch FMCG industry, which is in favour to develop and apply more the empowering leadership style to make a step change towards the formulated future vision of the organisation. This is driven by the fact that management positions will be reduced (by quantity) and that subordinates will be challenged to grow in role breadth self-efficacy and taking charge in a more empowering context. This to improve overall productivity in a learning organisation regarding organisational behavior.
All potential respondents were invited via a personal e-mail to fill out the questionnaire in a self-completing Internet–mediated way. After one week of sending the initial invitation, a reminding e-mail was send again to all potential respondents, with objective to increase the overall response rate. In total 1088 questionnaires were spread within the Dutch supply organization. I only invited employees with a permanent contract to fill out
18 my survey. Temporary flex workers and trainees are excluded because the relative short tenure in the organisation. The final response was 378 completed questionnaires, leading to a response rate of 34.7%. The survey is designed in such a way that respondents can’t skip any questions in order to acquire only completed questionnaires. Out of these 378 completed surveys, 44 respondents are female (11.6%) and 334 male (88.4%). Out of the total 378 respondents, 376 filled out their age. The average age is 47,7 year (SD=9.2). The youngest respondent is 24 year of age and the oldest is 64 year. 31 Respondents (8.2%) are employed as part-timer.
Respondents
Respondents can be defined in three different subgroups. First; the senior management subgroup is representing departmental managers up to managing director level. These senior managers are all on an educational academic level and responsible for departments varying from 10 up until 300 Full Time Equivalents. (FTE’s). Second; the middle management subgroup are all so called team leads with a bachelor education level, leading operational groups from 3 to up until 25 employees. Third; the operational subgroup consists out of operators, technicians, forklift drivers, quality analysts and support functions like HR, purchasing, planning and finance.
The methodology of sampling can be defined as Non-Probability on a voluntary base, aiming for a maximum quota of respondents. In the first level of research is the operational level defined as ‘follower’ according the conceptual model. Middle management as subgroup is representing ‘the leaders’ in the model, influencing the proactive behavior of the follower. In the second level of research, a similar construct can be defined whereby the senior management as a subgroup is acting towards the middle management subgroup, as
19 leader towards follower, whereby the middle manager performs in this situation the role of ‘follower’ related to the senior manager.
Research procedures and measures Research dosing strategy
In general, surveys using questionnaires are popular as they allow the collection of standardised data from a defined population, because they allow collecting data from a certain group of possible respondents in an economical way, allowing comparison (Saunders et al., 2012). In addition, the survey strategy is percieved as well known by people in general and is both comparatively easy to explain and to understand. I executed a pilot testing of the questionnaire. This with limited members of defined subgroups as possible respondents. Reason for this is to make sure that instructions are clear, attractiveness of the questionnaire is good, understandability of the questions is fine, and time to fill out the questions is not too long. This pilot had a response rate of 66% (10 responses out of 15 invitations)
An Internet mediated tool called ‘qualtrics’ executed data collection of the survey-based questionnaire. (www.qualtrics.com). Reliability/consistency of the findings must be ensured. To test the internal consistency the Cronbach’s Alpha factor should be > 0.70. Reliability and validity of the measures must be tested by statistical calculation and by test-retest. (Saunders et al., 2012)
Measures of proactive behavior of the follower
As already stated in the theoretical framework part of this paper “proactive behavior at work is about making things happen. It involves self-initiated, anticipatory action aimed at changing either the situation or oneself” (Bindl & Parker, in press, p.1). In my research, I used six different categories to approach the concept of proactive behavior, each from a different
20 perspective related to proactive behavior of the follower. This to be sure that the most important antecedents of the proactive behavior are covered by relevant questions in my research questionnaire. The measures of proactive behavior are defined as: personal initiative (Frese et al., 1997), taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), problem prevention (Parker & Collins, 2010), proactive safety behavior (Neal & Griffin, 2006), promotive voice and prohibitive voice both according Liang et al. (2012). For the specific survey questions related to this subject see figure XX in appendix YY. This scale of in total 18 questions formed a statistical reliable scale with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .86. This Cronbach’s alpha value is not increasing with more than 0.1 if or more of the 18 items would be deleted. For the total overview of Cronbach’s alpha values see Table 1 in appendix YY.
Measures of empowering leadership style
In total 12 questions related to empowering leadership style were prepared in my research questionnaire. This scale has been compiled out of the different categories in relation to the empowering leadership style, emanating from the research of Zhang and Bartol (2010). These categories are: enhancing the meaningfulness of work, fostering participation in decision making, expressing confidence in high performance and providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints. For the applied questions related to this subject in the survey see figure XX in appendix YY. This scale of questions formed a statistical reliable scale with a Cronbach’s Alpha of α = .89. This Cronbach’s alpha value is not increasing with more than 0.1 if or more of the 18 items would be deleted.
Measures of promotion focus of the leader
According Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda (2002) I included 18 questions as a scale concerning motivation by positive or negative role models related to inspiring regulatory focus. As a supplement part of this scale, I applied 3 questions Prevention based and 3
21 questions promotion based according Stam et al. (2014) The original research plan was the intention to connect the follower (employee) directly to his leader (supervisor). This to analyse the direct relation of the promotion focus of the leader towards the follower. Because of technical infrastructural problems with sending, collecting and coding the survey results, it was not possible to identify this typical follower/leader relation out of the respondent’s data. For this reason I had to eliminate the 18 questions and respondent’s data from the Lockwood, Jordan and Kunda (2002) scale, because these were intended to analyse the direct and linked relation between follower and leader. Next to aforementioned facts, I analysed out of the collected data from respondents that the Cronbach’s Alpha value of the Prevention based part according Stam et al. (2014) resulted in a value of α = 0.48. This value states that this measure is showing an insufficient internal consistency, and that these 3 items as a group are proving reliability, which is too low to justify carrying out further analyses. At the other hand the Cronbach’s Alpha value of the promotion based part according Stam et al. (2014) resulted in a value of α = 0.83, meaning that these 3 items as a group can be taken in further analyses for this research. For the specific survey questions related to this subject see figure XX in appendix YY.
Demographics
As demographics I added a set of 8 items namely: age, gender, full/part-time, tenure, supervisor yes/no including organisational level, department, location and tenure with actual supervisor or manager. Missing data in demographics has been left open and not replaced. When cross-sectional data (for example, demographics) are missing, replacement with the group mean leads to an underestimate of the standard deviation (SD) and inflation of the Type I error rate. Data and analyses of these demographics see table XX in appendix YY
22
4. Results
Scale means and normality of distribution.
Statistically, two numerical measures of shape – skewness and kurtosis – can be used to test for normality. The values for asymmetry and kurtosis between -1 and +1 are considered acceptable in order to prove normal univariate distribution (George & Mallery, 2010). Before proceeding next steps to analyse the results, the mean values of all items per subject is created and added as separate variables. The skewness and kurtosis are depicted in table 2. The conclusion can be drawn that empowering leadership style of the leader as total of 12 single items is pointy, a little bit shifted to the right as a result of a negative skewness and almost normal distributed.Promotion focus of the leader (as total) is almost normal distributed with a
slightly more flat peak in comparing to a normal distribution, and the peak shifted to the right hand side. Proactive behavior of the follower shows a slight left hand tail and also moderate negative Kurtosis, meaning a moderate flat peak in the graph.If the amount of respondents is high enough (> 200, according Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), then brings removing the outliers (-to reach for normal distribution-) not an essential difference in the results of analysis. For this reason I did not remove the outliers in further analyses. In this model n=378.
Table 2: Skewness and Kurtosis
Correlation
As expected he part-time/Fulltime status has a moderate positive correlation with gender. (r= .46, p<.01) So: how higher the gender (male is coded as 1, female is coded as 2)
23 how stronger that can be predicted that the respondent is working as a part-timer (fulltime is coded as 1, part-time is coded as 2). This is according the demographical analyses earlier. Older people tend to have longer tenure. (r=.81, p<.01). Management level (r=.23, p<.01) as well as promotion focus (r=.61, p<.01) is positively correlated with empowering leadership. Although the correlation of promotion focus is stronger as management level with empowering leadership. Both promotion focus (r=.25, p<.01) and empowering leadership (r=.33, p<.01) positively correlated with proactive behavior.
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Regression
The ANOVA results, -as a part of the hierarchical regression model- are telling that step 1 is statistically significant F(6,330) =3.14, p=.00. After entry of empowering leadership and promotion focus in Step 2, the results are showing a repeating significant effect F(8,328) = 6.75, p=.00. So for this step does the model fit to the data, meaning that the total variance explained by the model as a whole is 14% by F(8,328) =6.75. The introduction of empowering leadership and promotion focus explained additional 8 % variance in proactive
24 behavior, after controlling for age, gender part-time/fulltime, tenure, management level, and tenure with current leader (R2 Change=.08; F(8,32)=6.75). In the total and final model 1 out of 8 predictor variables is statistically significant. In line with Hypotheses 1, empowering leadership significantly predicted proactive behavior (b=.24, p=.00).
Promotion focus is not significantly predicting proactive behavior (b=.08, p=.18) meaning that the analyses prove that Hypothesis 2 is rejected and Hypothesis 1 is not.
Table 4: Hierarchical regression model
Moderation effect
To investigate and analyse the possible moderation effect, the so called: PROCESS model according Hayes (2012), is applied in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences application (SPSS), specifically related to the aforementioned research model and Hypotheses. PROCESS is a modeling tool, which integrates many of the functions of existing
25 and published statistical tools for mediation and moderation analysis and even their integration. “Moderation analysis is used when one is interested in testing whether the magnitude of a variable’s effect on some outcome variable of interest depends on a third variable or set of variables” according Hayes (2012, p.4). To check if a moderation effect M has an influence on the relation between independent variable X, and dependent variable Y, whereby XM is the product of X and M. In figure 2 (graphical depicted below), the statistical model takes the form of a linear equation: Y= i + c1X + c2M + c3XM + ey
Figure 2: Conceptual Model and Statistical model related to moderation. According Hayes (2012)
As stated earlier, Hypothesis 2 is rejected and Hypothesis 1 is not. The possible moderation effect is defined as Hypotheses 3. After analysing the data, table 5 is depicting the most relevant results for the possible moderation effect.
26 Table 5: Moderation analysis PROCESS-according Hayes (2012)
As we can see in table 5, the interaction effect turned out to be significant (b=.16, p= .00) Meaning that the moderation is statistical significant, so the moderation Hypotheses 3 will not be rejected. To interpret this interaction effect, I created an interaction plot using Dawson’s excel tool.
Figure 3: Interaction effect between empowering leadership and proactive behavior for both low and high promotion focus according Dawson (2014)
Figure 3 suggests that a higher level of promotion focus of the leader combined with a higher level of empowering leadership style will lead to a higher level of proactive behavior of the follower. If the level of promotion focus of the leader is lower, a higher level of empowering leadership will lead also to an improvement of proactive behavior, but on a lower level
27 compared to a higher promotion focus of the leader. Overall, it can be concluded that Hypotheses 3 is supported.
5. Discussion
The objective of this study is striving to wide and deepen the knowledge of the impact
of leadership to proactive behavior of the follower as a construct. More specific: the impact of empowering leadership to proactive behavior. In addition, possible effects from promotion focus of the leader on proactive behavior as a direct relation, as well the moderation effect of
the promotion focus in the relation of empowering leadership towards proactive behavior
were examined. This to find out if the mentioned topics: empowering leadership and promotion focus are able to increase the level of proactive behavior. First, I found that empowering leadership significantly predicted proactive behavior. Second, the promotion focus of the leader is not a positive predictor of proactive behavior of the follower. However promotion focus turned out to be a positive moderator in the relation between empowering leadership and proactive behavior. A very interesting finding is the evidence that empowering leadership will have a stronger impact on proactive behavior when the leader demonstrates a strong promotion focus.
Theoretical implications
The most important intention of my study was to clarify more the relation between empowering leadership and proactive behavior. This research differs from existing literature in a way that there are comprehensive scholarly findings concerning empowering
leadership(e.g. Hakimi et al.,2010; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999) and proactive behavior(e.g. Bindl & Parker, in press; Crant,2000; Parker et al.,2006) related to these topics itself, but hardly on the interaction of these subjects. Especially the kind of research were empowering leadership and proactive behavior is linked with initiative in an encouraging context.
28 Unfortunately I cannot explain the reason why there is hardly any literature available on the subject of my study. Therefore I am convinced that the results of this work will bring new insights, enrichments and opportunities for further research.
Proactive behavior as personal trait and influenceable mindset is an important topic in
actual organizational development related to improving performance and continued demand
for innovation as competitive advantage (Crant, 2000; Frese and Fay, 2001; Parker, 2000).
This study focussed on proactive work behaviors as: taking charge, voice, problem
prevention, personal initiative and proactive safety behavior. Almost analogously to the
definition of proactive work behavior according Bindl and Parker (in press). As already
elaborated in this thesis, the role of leadership is related to proactive behavior. Belschak and
Den Hartog (2010) stated positive relationships between proactive behavior and
transformational leadership. This specific finding is in line with the observation of this study
stating that empowering leadership is positively related to proactive behavior. Though, I do
not pretend that transformational leadership could be equal defined as empowering leadership.
A lot of larger organizations nowadays adopted a certain kind of empowering leadership for at least one or more parts of their company aiming for better performance. Empowering leadership is positively related to intrinsic motivation according research of Zhang and Bartol, (2010). Furthermore, the model of Proactive Motivation and Antecedents (p.830) from Parker et al. (2010) is showing that intrinsic motivation is linked to proactive behavior. This reasoning, it is explainable that there is a relation between empowering
leadership and proactive behavior, confirmed by findings of my study. A difference regarding existing literature and this research related to proactive behavior is the fact that most of existing literature is elaborating on different topics affecting proactive behavior separately. This research is distinguishing form existing scholarly results, by exploring two different
29 topics, which are affecting proactive behavior simultaneously by the same leader, namely empowering leadership and promotion focus.
In addition to one of the basic principles Bindl and Parker (in press) stating that it is a useful approach to consider proactivity as a self directed way of behaving, I deepened out promotion focus of the leader as a moderator. Promotion focus as a motivational principle driven by accomplishments, hopes and aspirations (Higgins, 1998) and striving for desired end-states by approaching matches (Higgins, 1997). The finding that the promotion focus of the leader is predicting a positive moderation influence between empowering leadership and proactive behavior is in line with one of the propositions mentioned in the study of Kark and van Dijk (2007). The proposition of Kark and van Dijk (2007) includes the influence of leader behavior enhanced by promotion focus leading to a higher level of positive outcomes,
creativity and affective commitment by followers. This proposition is in line with the finding that Hypotheses nr 3 of my study is not rejected. Although Kark and van Dijk (2007) were not focussing on proactive behavior of the follower, but more specific on the motivation to lead in relation to promotion focus of the leader. Again concluding, that there are hardly any results available concerning the relation of leadership style and proactive behavior in existing literature. Most of the available literature is referring to specific styles of leadership. These styles are not directly linked to presence or absence of regulatory focus of the leader. This specific study is exploring a combination of a specific leadership style, with a specific mindset of the same leader, referring to promotion focus, defining the overall concept as distinctive to existing literature. Promotion focus as a moderator defined in Hypotheses 3 was an obvious option in relation with accompanying theoretical framework, however the analyses showed also a positive moderate correlation between promotion focus and empowering
leadership. This relation is unfortunately not defined as a Hypothesis and therefore not further deepened in this research.
30 Further reasoning on empowering leadership, Spreitzer et al. (1999) found that leaders who demonstrated higher levels of empowerment were seen by their followers as more innovative, upward influencing and inspirational. Knowing that the latter three terms can be seen as elements of the promotion focus definition (Higgins, 1997; Higgins, 1998), the finding of Spreitzer et al. (1999) was consistent with the findings of this research regarding the positive interaction effect of promotion focus between empowering leadership and proactive behavior. This positive moderation effect as a finding of this research is a
remarkable point of interest because the findings are stating that a low promotional focus of the leader even combined with a high level of empowering leadership is hardly resulting in a higher level of proactive behavior of the follower. In contrast, a high promotion focus of the leader contemporary with high level of empowering leadership will result in a significant higher level op proactive behavior of the follower. However these findings are not according a citation of Parker et al. (2006, p.645) stating that: “supportive supervision did not play an important role in the proactive process”, stating that the concept ‘supportive supervision’ could be interpreted as promotion focus is therefore not very likely.
Limitations and Future Directions
This work has, of course its weaknesses and its limitations. Limitations could be classified in two main groups; First the so called methodological limitations and second limitations of the researcher e.g. based on new insights originating from the results of the research. A contextual limitation (as a methodological example) of this study as a scholarly approach in relation with a better organizational performance of a company is cited in following assertion: “By definition, empowered managers see themselves as competent and able to influence their jobs and work environments in meaningful ways,” (Spreitzer, 1995, p.1448). This is leading to my first limitation of the single source way of obtaining the
31 relevant data. So it would be adding value if a multi source method would be used for collecting the data in answering the same research question. A second methodological limitation is the fact that the results are based on self reported data, so the results of this study are not independently verified. A third methodological limitation related to context. A limitation of the research related to progressive insights is defined as employee commitment. Why specific commitment ? The answer is going back to one of the results of Strauss et al. (2009), arguing that organizational leaders increase proactivity by enhancing employees’ commitment to the organization. Stating that personal commitment of the employee is an important behavioral trait, probably this could be more explored in the context of possible effects of empowering leadership style towards proactive behavior of the employee. A second limitation of the research as such can be defined as work environment.
“Work environment antecedents of proactive work behavior (-there are only a few studies
done on that subject-) related to individual differences play both a unique role concerning
proactive behavior at work” (Parker et al., 2006,p.646).
Interventions such as empowerment may have long-term positive consequences that are underestimated in much of the literature because of the predominance of cross-sectional designs or longitudinal studies with relatively short time frames. (Parker et al. 2006). Consequently, a similar study could be repeated more than once to confirm the results. Possible disadvantages as changing circumstances and respondents could influence outcomes whereby the longitudinal effect would be questionable. Related to the antecedents of
proactive behavior, Parker et al. (2006) suggests that organizations striving for a proactive workforce, encounter processes which might be partly driven by the stable characteristics that individuals bring to a situation (i.e., their proactive personality), but they are also affected by contextual characteristics of the situation itself. (i.e. working climate). Especially in
32 climate characteristics as a possible mediator in the measures of scale. Earlier studies are stating that organizational climate and supportive leadership are related to empowerment (e.g.: Mok & Au‐Yeung, 2002). This as a valuable extension of this applied research model. Additional to this suggested future direction it would be interesting to investigate the possible effect of psychological empowerment on proactive behavior. Especially psychological
empowerment as mediator in the relation of empowering leadership and proactive behavior of the follower. This because an important part of research is done by Zhang and Bartol (2010) concerning the influences of psychological empowerment, but not as a possible mediator to proactive behavior, as far as known. Another consideration for future direction is could be job characteristics. Whether an employee is feeling and acting empowered in a positive way related to a higher level of proactive behavior, also depends on aspects of job characteristics
(Spreitzer, 2008), and personality traits of the person involved (Yukl, 2013), among others. In
particular job characteristics could yield additional insights concerning levels of proactive
behavior for defined group of respondents, and possible different results between these predefined groups.
The promotion focus as moderating effect in this construct is based on a set of only 3 items in a scale of measures. To create more robustness in findings it would be a consideration to extend the quantity of items related to this moderator, or select an additional scale of measures for promotion focus in this context. In addition to this limitation it would certainly value-added if the survey was provided with a pre-defined coding system to identify in the analyses phase exactly the direct relation between follower and his direct supervisor. With this direct relation mechanism it would be possible to discriminate different organizational layers, and possible significant effects regarding the applied research model. A justification on doing research by using a multi level approach over different layers of the organization is given by Bindl and Parker (in press) who are stating that it could be important
33 for employees to perceive not only support from their direct line managers, but also from more important decision makers in the company at higher hierarchical levels, this to enhance proactive behavior by followers.
Practical implications
Empowering leadership is according this study positive related to proactive behavior of the follower. But this specific leadership style could have also problematic sides to take into account at forehand by developing this in an organizational context as Hakimi (2010, p.711) is stating: “It is up to the leaders to empower their followers without losing control over their followers actions.” Given the importance of implementing or developing
empowerment to organizations and their leaders it is a recommendation to take into account the situational, relational and personality circumstances which can influence the behavior of the leaders and the consequences in daily practice (Hakimi et al. 2010). Focusing on the relational circumstances of Empowerment, this research pointed out a weak correlation of empowering leadership with management level. In organizational context: how higher the management level, the more intensively the empowering leadership style will be applied. This is certainly recognizable within the FMCG industry, were this research was conducted.
According Srivastava et al. (2006), empowering leadership is positively related to both knowledge sharing and team efficacy, and both last mentioned items are positively related to performance of the organization. These findings are implicating in practice, that a higher level of empowering leadership is not only leading to a higher level of proactive behavior but also to a better team performance. Tough personal circumstances of the employee, organizational context and culture can influence the level of this positive enhancement.
Results of this study are revealing that practioners who want to increase the proactive behavior of their employees ideally have to strive for the strong combination of a higher level
34 empowering leadership and simultaneously a strong promotion focus of their leaders. Within organizations the challenge will be for sure to develop the leaders both in empowering
leadership and promotion focus. In daily practice it is therefore important to combine the style of empowering leadership encouraged by senior management and the right mindset to
enhance promotion focus. Important preconditions to reduce the risks of related moral hazard remain at first: clear limits and boundaries for the level of empowerment, second: building trusting relationships and third: measure and reward key performance goals (Spreitzer, 2008).
Siebert, Crant and Kraimer (1999) proved in examining the relationship between proactive
behavior and career success, initial evidence that proactive behavior and personality
contributes significantly positive to career success. So, increasing the level of proactive
behavior on the one hand by applying the empowering leadership style and on the other hand
the promotion focus of the leader as moderator is resulting in a better chance to make a
successful career in an organizational context. With this finding I am able to create a link
between an academic study and the practical implication related to the title of this Master
Thesis: “Will the empowering leadership style bring us to the desired level of proactive
behavior?” Answering this question with a resounding: Yes.
6. Conclusions
This study is contributing to a wider area of research in enhancing proactive behavior of employees specific related to a delineated part of leadership. The findings found support for previous scholars stating that an empowering leadership style influences the proactive behavior of employees. Involving promotion focus as a motivational principle directly towards the proactive behavior or as moderating actor in the relation between empowering leadership and proactive behavior delivered interesting results. On the one hand, the expected moderation effect of promotion focus was confirmed, but on the other hand, I found
35 insufficient support to confirm that promotion focus directly relates positively to proactive behavior. The finding that promotion focus is correlated on moderate level to empowering leadership is evidence that scholar research always calls for further deepening and additional research. Hopefully are the results of this study contributing for clarification of similar hypotheses and moreover triggering many questions how to proceed in this field of great importance for scholars particular and science in general.
36
References
Arnold, J., Arad, S., Rhoades, J., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, (21), 249-269.
Ashforth, B. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 (2): 207–242.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986. Bandura, A. (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory, American Psychologist,
September: 1175–84.
Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103-118.
Bateman, T. and Crant, J. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations. Business Horizons, 42(3), 63-70.
Belschak, F., & Hartog, D. (2010). Pro‐self, pro-social, and pro‐organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475-498.
Bindl, U. and Parker, S. (in press). Proactive work behavior: Forward thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook of industrial psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brockner, J., and Higgins, E. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(1), 35-66.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational
performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 501-528.
Conger, J., and Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.
Cotton, J. (1993). Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work attitudes. Sage Publications, Inc.
Crant, J. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34: 42-49
37
Crant, J. , and Bateman, T. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of
proactive personality. Journal of organizational Behavior, 21(1), 63-75.
Crant, J. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435-462. Crowe, E., and Higgins, E. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: promotion and
prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 117-132.
Dawson, J. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1-19.
Deci, E., Connell, J. and Ryan, R. (1989). Self–determination in a work organization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (3): 580–590.
Den Hartog, D., and Belschak, F. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth
self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194-202.
Drucker, P. (1988). The coming of the new organization. Harvard Business Review, 66: 45-53.
Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L., and Higgins, E. (2001). Success/failure feedback,
expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253-260. Fried, Y., and Ferris, G. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and
meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal
initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 70(2), 139-161.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133-187.
George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson.
Gist, M. (1987) ‘Self–efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management’, Academy of Management Review, 12 (3): 472–485.
Grant, A., & Ashford, S. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 2008 3–34.
Hacker, W. (1985). Activity: A fruitful concept in industrial psychology. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal directed behavior: The concept of action in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 262-283.
38 Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279. Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign (Vol. 72). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hakimi, N., Van Knippenberg, D. and Giessner, S. (2010). Leader empowering behaviour: The leader's perspective. British Journal of Management 21.3: 701-716.
Hayes, A. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Higgins, E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist 52.12 (1997): 1280-1300.
Higgins, E.(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology 30 (1998): 1-46.
Kark, R. and Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review 32. 2: 500-528.
Kirkman, B., and Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Harvard Business Press.
Lawler III, E. (1986). High-Involvement Management. Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.
Liang, J., Farh, C., & Farh, J. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71-92. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. and Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role
models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of personality and social psychology, 83(4), 854-864.
Mok, E., & Au‐Yeung, B. (2002). Relationship between organizational climate and
empowerment of nurses in Hong Kong. Journal of nursing management,10(3), 129-137.
Morrison, E., and Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946
39 Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role
orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49: 447-469.
Parker, S. and Collins, C. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management 36. 3: 633-662.
Parker, S., Bindl, U. and Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation." Journal of management. 36. 4 : 827-856.
Parker, S., Williams, H., and Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of applied psychology, 91.3: 636-652.
Porter, M. (2008). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. Simon and Schuster.
Sagie, A., and Koslowsky, M. (2000). Participation and empowerment in organizations. Team Performance Management: An International Journal,6(1/2), 37-38.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students. 6th Edition, Pearson.
Seibert, S., Crant, J., & Kraimer, M. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 416.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, M. and Crant, J. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel psychology, 54(4), 845-874.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3), 405-424.
Stam, D., Lord, R., Knippenberg, D. & Wisse, B. (2014). An Image of Who We Might Become: Vision Communication, Possible Selves, and Vision Pursuit. Organization Science, 25(4), 1172-1194.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M., and Rafferty, A. (2009). Proactivity Directed Toward the Team and Organization: The Role of Leadership, Commitment and Role‐breadth Self‐
efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 279-291.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Individual empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
40 Spreitzer, G., De Janasz, S. , & Quinn, R. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of
psychological empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511-526.
Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. Handbook of organizational behavior: 54-73.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K., & Locke, E. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of management journal, 49(6), 1239-1251.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics.
Vroom, V., and Jago, A. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Wright, P., McMahan, G. & McWilliams, A. (1994). Human resources and sustained
competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. International journal of human resource management, 5(2), 301-326.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education Limited (Eight Edition) Zhang, X. and Bartol, K. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal 53.1: 107-128.
41
Appendices
