• No results found

The effects of leader vulnerability for men and women on organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The effects of leader vulnerability for men and women on organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange"

Copied!
37
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The effects of leader vulnerability for men and

women on organizational commitment through

leader-member-exchange.

MSc in Business Administration: Leadership and Management track

MASTER THESIS

Author: Marjet Welleweerd

Supervisor: Lisanne van Bunderen

Date: 22/06/2018

(2)

2

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Marjet Welleweerd, 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)

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 6

2. Theoretical framework ... 9

Leader vulnerability ... 9

Leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange ... 10

Gender ... 12

Leader-member-exchange and Organizational commitment ... 13

3. Method ... 15 Procedure ... 15 Sample ... 15 Measures ... 16 Leader vulnerability ... 16 Leader-member-exchange ... 16 Organizational commitment ... 16 Control variables ... 16 Statistical procedure ... 17 4. Results ... 18 5. Discussion ... 23 Theoretical implications... 24 Practical implications ... 26 Limitations ... 26 Conclusion ... 28 6. References ... 29 7. Appendix ... 34

(4)

4

List of tables

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations Table 2. Results of Regression Analysis

List of figures

Figure 1. Research conceptual model

Figure 2. Interactive effects of Leader Vulnerability and the gender of the leader on

(5)

5

Abstract

Leader vulnerability was usually seen as a weak characteristic to a person. Nowadays, it is seen as a strength of a leader. Given this change in the perspective of leader vulnerability, there is a growing body of research into understanding the effects of leader vulnerability on followers. However, previous research found contradictory effects of leader vulnerability on the leader-follower

relationship. Therefore, this study attempts to reconcile the contradicting predictions by considering the role of the leader’s gender. This study proposed that leader vulnerability would be positive related with leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment when the leader’s gender is female, but negatively related when the leader’s gender is male. Support is found for the positive relation between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment when the leader’s gender is female, no significant negative relation is found for male leaders. This results are obtained by distributing a survey with 136 leader-follower dyads.

Keywords:

(6)

6

1. Introduction

“Everything that we want more at work is trust, engagement, accountability, adaptability to change, innovation and creativity. Every single one of those is born out of vulnerability.” (Brené Brown, 2015)

In this statement, Professor of Social Work Brené Brown, whose main research focus is vulnerability, argues that vulnerability is the core of many positive employee outcomes. She believes that being vulnerable is the greatest measure of courage. Besides talking about vulnerability in the personal life, she also argues that vulnerability at work can be the biggest advantage. In an interview, Brown states that vulnerability is critical for leaders and employees alike and therefore every business can benefit from braver leaders and more courageous company cultures (Lewis, 2017). However, seeing

vulnerability as a strength is a relatively new concept throughout the history of leadership theories. As showing vulnerability goes against the leadership stereotype, which argues that leaders should be dominant, confident, persistent and masculine (Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002).

A number of scholars have investigated the effect on followers of leader vulnerability. Leader vulnerability is in this study defined as a leader who shows his/her weaknesses, is open about his/her insecurities, talks about his/her failures and shows his/her imperfections (Van Bunderen, 2018). The results of previous studies are contradictory. For instance, Judge, Piccolo and Kosalka (2009) stated that leader vulnerability can create affection in followers and therefore leader vulnerability leads to a better relationship between the leader and the follower. Furthermore, sharing vulnerabilities as a leader gives followers the opportunity to relate psychologically with the leader and might increase similarities between the leader and follower (Ito & Bligh, 2016). Additionally, through the process of sharing vulnerabilities, followers are more likely to perceive the situation from the leader’s point of view and perceive the leader as humane and trustworthy. The followers might be more willing to approach the leader directly, forming the foundation for a beneficial leader-follower relationship (Ito & Bligh, 2016). However, some scholars did find disadvantages of leader vulnerability. Judge et al., (2009) stated that next to a good relationship with the follower, leader vulnerability can also have a countervailing effect on the effectiveness of a leader. Specifically, the leader is vulnerable to be

(7)

7 manipulated or duped by others. Moreover, Michener and Lawler (1975) assume that members in a group with a leader who shows vulnerability may experience a heightened awareness of their ability to induce change by deposing him. This will cause a more vigilant and critical stance towards the leader and his policies (Michener & Lawler, 1975). Hence, the predictions of the effects of leader vulnerability on followers are contradictory.

I propose that the contradicting predictions of the effects of leader vulnerability may be reconciled by considering the role of the gender of the leader. Research shows that leadership positions are strongly dominated by men and therefore leadership is conventionally constructed mainly in masculine terms (Billing & Alvesson, 2000). Everything socially perceived as ‘non-masculine’, like family and acknowledgments of feelings, vulnerabilities and dependencies, is placed primarily outside the organization (Billing & Alvesson, 2000). Accordingly, leader vulnerability can be seen as a non-masculine behavior and this behavior matches more with the female gender

stereotype than with the male gender stereotype. Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek and Pascale (1975) conducted three experiments in which individuals performed counter-stereotypical behavior. In all three situations, those persons were punished for violating expectations, breaking norms, or

generally behaving in ways deemed socially inappropriate. Rudman and Phelan (2008) also stated that both males and females anticipate negative consequences for individuals who perform

counter-stereotypical behavior. This effect is called the backlash effect. Therefore, the effect of leader vulnerability might be positive for female leaders but negative for male leaders.

In this research, I will look specifically at the gender-moderated effects of leader vulnerability on leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment. Leader-member-exchange is a theory which suggests that there are differences in the way a leader relates with each of his or her

subordinates due to the limited time faced by the leader on the job as well as differences in subordinates’ role expectations (Adebayo & Udegbe, 2004, p.515). The quality of the exchange between leader and subordinate is divided into two groups. First, the in-group class with a high leader-member-exchange and a high degree of trust and, second, the out-group class with a low leader-member-exchange and a low degree of trust (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). It is chosen to research the relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange because it seems

(8)

8

interesting to have knowledge of the relationship of leader vulnerability on the interaction between leader and follower. Showing vulnerability is a process between two people and not individually on the follower. Moreover, trust is the crucial element in both concepts. Existing research seems to support the notion that leader vulnerability leads to a higher degree of trust. For instance, Hoy and Tarter (2004) stated that a mutual trust-relationship is built when the leader dares to show

vulnerability. Subsequently, the gender-moderated effect of leader vulnerability on organizational commitment are measured. As a result of the fact that organizational commitment is seen as one of the most important employee outcomes because committed employees have found to be less likely to leave their organization than uncommitted employees (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin & Jackson, 1989). Furthermore, committed subordinates are related to a better organizational performance (Ostroff, 1992).

Hence, to research the relationship between vulnerable leadership and leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment, considering the role of gender the following research question is formulated: To what extent does leader vulnerability for male and female leaders lead to a higher organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange?

Taken all into consideration, this study offers several contributions to the literature. First, this research contributes to the leadership literature by extending the research on vulnerability. The effects of leader vulnerability are contradictory in previous studies, this research contributes to the belief that leader vulnerability is a strength instead of a weakness. Moreover, this study examines the

relationship between leader vulnerability and the interaction between leader and follower, while previous studies did focus on one primary employee outcome. Second, this research contributes to the literature of leader-member-exchange and to the gender-leader literature simultaneously. Lastly, this study contributes to the literature of organizational commitment.

(9)

9

2. Theoretical framework

Leader vulnerability

“displaying vulnerability and “being vulnerable” are terms that are discussed in different kinds of literature and in many ways. Schroeder and Gefenas (2009) even state that defining vulnerability can be compared to the efforts of six blind men describing an elephant. These six blind men touch all different parts of an elephant but when they try to describe the entity they cannot agree. “Being vulnerable” and “displaying vulnerability” are two different concepts. “Being vulnerable” can be explained as “the ability to be easily physically, emotionally or mentally hurt, influenced or attacked” (Cambridge, 2018). Moreover, Chambers (2006) describes being vulnerable as defenselessness, insecurity, exposure to risk, shocks and stress. All definitions of being vulnerable are related to the weakness of a person. However, in this study leader vulnerability means displaying vulnerability and is defined as a leader who shows his/her weaknesses, is open about his/her insecurities, talks about his/her failures and shows his/her imperfections (Van Bunderen, 2018).

Leader vulnerability is increasingly seen as a strength, especially in the leadership domain (Beare, 2016). The role of the leader is to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute towards the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members (House, Hanges & Javidan, 2004). While Bunker (1997) argues that many leaders want to hide personal pain or vulnerability because they believe that masking their fears will create credibility, he states that the opposite is true. Bunker (1997) believes that leader vulnerability can be a tool to motivate members, showing vulnerability is freeing, energizing, motivating and rewarding and these feelings are related to trust and hope that is based on relationships (Bunker, 1997). Ito and Bligh (2017) state that when a leader embraces its failures and shares vulnerability with humility, followers are more able to connect with the leader on the psychological level and are more likely to share feelings of vulnerability themselves. Sharing vulnerability creates space for leaders and followers to connect more deeply and interact more authentically (Ito & Bligh, 2017). In addition to that, through the process of sharing vulnerability, followers are more likely to perceive the situation from the leader’s view and therefore, the leader becomes more humane and trustworthy (Ito & Bligh, 2017). Furthermore, according to the

(10)

10 similarity-attraction theory, relationships are stronger when there are more similarities between leader and follower (Osbeck & Moghaddam, 1997). When showing leader vulnerability, more similarities can be discovered between the leader and follower and only the fact of showing vulnerability towards each other will improve the relationship (Swallow & Kuiper, 1987). In sum, leader vulnerability was seen as a weakness but nowadays it is also seen as a strength.

Leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange

As mentioned above, vulnerability was seen as a weak characteristic to a person but now it is also seen as a strength, mainly due to the effects that it can have on other people. In the current study, the relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange will be researched. Most scholars seem to agree that leader vulnerability has a positive relationship with leader-follower relationships. For instance, Bunker (1997) argues that showing vulnerability leads to more trust and a better relationship and therefore a higher leader-member-exchange. However, some scholars argue the opposite. First, the leader-member-exchange theory will be explained. The quality of the relationship between leader and follower is mostly measured in research by the leader-member-exchange theory. This theory suggests that there are differences in the relationships between the leader and his or her members due to the time faced by the leader on the job as well as differences in subordinates’ role expectations (Abedayo & Udegbe, 2004). The quality of the exchange between leader and subordinate is divided into two groups, first, the in-group class with a high leader-member-exchange and, second, the out-group class with a low leader-member-exchange. A high leader-member-exchange is

characterized by a high degree of trust, interaction, loyalty, support and reward, and extends outside the employment contract. A low leader-member-exchange relationship is one that is within the bound of the employment contract (Dienesch & Liden, 2004; Brower, Schoorman & Tan, 2000).

Most scholars which agree that leader vulnerability has a positive relationship with the leader-follower relationship focus on the concept of trust. The terms vulnerability and trust are often

mentioned together and intertwined, by reason of the fact that trust is usually defined as “the willingness to be vulnerable” (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995). To further explain the argument that showing vulnerability leads to trust and therefore better relationships, the comparison between

(11)

11 vulnerability and trust has to be made. Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995) defined trust as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action, whereas the trustor does not have the ability to monitor or control that other part. In this definition, the importance of vulnerability within trust relationships is stated. Nienaber, Hofeditz and Romeike (2015) argue that the leaders’ perceived trustworthiness is the expression of actual vulnerability. Only when leaders are able to present themselves as vulnerable, they are able to build strong emotional based relationships with their followers and thus, real trust relationships. Moorman, Deshpande and Zaltman (1993) even state that without vulnerability, trust is unnecessary because the outcomes are inconsequential for the trustor. Thus, among scholars, there is a consensus that vulnerability is an essential precondition for trust (Lapidot, Kark & Shamir, 2007). As referring back to the leader-member-exchange theory. A high level of trust is generally ascribed to the “in-group” relations which lead to the conclusion that trust is a critical component leading to a high-quality relationship (Gomez & Rosen, 2001; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008). Hoy and Tarter (2004) even state that trust is an important component of the interpersonal relationships and in fact, the survival of a dyadic relationship depends on the members’ willingness to show vulnerability. On the other hand, some scholars argue that leader vulnerability has a negative relationship with leader-follower relationships. For instance, Michener and Lawler (1975) state that members of a group with a vulnerable leader may experience a heightened awareness of their ability to cause change by deposing the leader from his leadership position. Therefore, there is a more critical stance towards the leader and his ideas and this might cause a tense relationship between the leader and his followers. Furthermore, Hollander (1992) argues that when there is more psychological identification with the leader, through showing vulnerability, followers will be more critical towards the leader and there is a higher chance of withdrawal of the support of followers.

This study proposes that the contradicting predictions of the relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange may be reconciled by considering the role of the leader’s gender.

(12)

12

Gender

The link between gender and leadership is a much-discussed topic during the last decades. Especially because women increasingly enter leadership roles which were traditionally fulfilled by men (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). The focus of this debate is mostly on women in leadership positions because men have held these roles in the past and therefore men have created the leadership style to which people are used to. This is called the gender leader stereotype. The gender leader stereotype is mostly negative for women because descriptive stereotypes promote negative expectations about the performance of women by creating the lack of fit between the attributes of women and the attributes of an effective leader such as dominance, confidence, persistence and masculinity (Heilman, 2012; Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002). Besides this disadvantage for women, Eagly and Carli (2003) found that women exceed men on the components of leadership styles that have a positive relationship with leader effectiveness and men exceed women in the ineffective styles. Thus, there are advantages and disadvantages for women in leadership positions but what about the effect of the combination leader vulnerability and the leader’s gender on the leader-member-exchange?

As mentioned earlier, the conventional gender stereotype suggests that women are weak, vulnerable and unable to protect themselves from violence (Hollander, 2002, p.474). Beyond that, girls and boys are still raised differently. Most parents discourage their son’s to show their vulnerable sides and daughters are being encouraged to express their vulnerabilities (Levant, 1996). As reported by Derlega and Chaikin (1976) women are rated better under high disclosure than nondisclosure. Taken this argument into consideration, there can be concluded that leader vulnerability does match more with the female gender. When a female leader performs vulnerable leadership, she is confirming the gender stereotype and she is fitting the stereotype expectations of the follower. According to this, I suppose that there is a positive relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange when the leader’s gender is female.

Moreover, I suppose that there is a negative relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member exchange when the leader’s gender is male. The reason for this negative relationship is the backlash effect. The backlash effects are defined as the social and economic reprisals for behaving counter stereotypically (Rudman, 1998). Usually, this term is used for women who show

(13)

counter-13 stereotypically behavior and behaving masculine. However, men suffer from the backlash effects as well. According to the male stereotype, men are expected to be strong, proud, powerful and dominant. Men are not expected to show weaknesses (Moss-Racusin, Phelan & Rudman, 2010). So if a man shows vulnerability, this is counter-stereotypical behavior and this can cause backlash effects. Moss-Racusin, Phelan and Rudman (2010) indeed found that when a man behaves in a way which is not fitting the gender stereotype, he is found to be less likable and less predictable. Due to a lower likeability and lower predictability for counter-stereotypically behaving men, I suppose that leader vulnerability for male leaders will have a negative relationship with leader-member-exchange.

Hypothesis 1: There is an interaction effect between leader vulnerability and gender on

leader-member-exchange, such that leader vulnerability is positively related to leader- member-exchange when the leader is female, and negatively related when the leader is male.

Leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment

I propose that there is a positive relationship between leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is according to Porter, Crampon & Smith (1976) a subject with three different aspects namely: the extent to which an employee desires to remain in an

organization, the exert effort on its behalf and the level of beliefs and acceptance in the organization’s values and goals. Previous research on organizational commitment is not always reliable because only one or two aspects of organizational commitment are included in the study (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Organizational commitment is important for organizations because studies show that commitment is a better predictor for turnover than satisfaction (Koch & Steers, 1978). Mowday, Porter and Dubin (1974) found that high performing branches were linked to employees with high levels of commitment. Next to this, as reported by Ostroff (1992), committed subordinates are related to better organizational performance and committed employees have a low turnover rate and low absenteeism.

Klein & Kim (1998) argue that the primary determinant of commitment is the leader-member-exchange. A strong relationship is necessary for the supervisor and follower to be committed to perform at a higher level. This is because the leader-member-exchange is a dyadic relationship. First of all, the supervisor should be confident in the ability and willingness of the subordinate to

(14)

14 successfully complete the tasks. Next to this, the subordinate must also be confident in his or her own ability and willingness to accept a larger workload. Then the subordinate must trust the supervisor in receiving the advice, support and guidance in the process. When all of this is present in the

relationship between the leader and subordinate, the subordinate feels committed to the leader and to the organization and is able to perform better (Dienesch & Liden, 1986).

As described above, leader vulnerability will lead to more trust between the leader and subordinate, and when the leader’s gender is female this will lead to a higher leader-member-exchange and therefore to an increased organizational commitment. For male leaders, I suppose that leader vulnerability will have a negative relationship with leader-member-exchange and because of the expected positive relationship between leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment, a lower organizational commitment is expected. According to these arguments, the following

hypotheses are made.

Hypothesis 2: Leader-member-exchange is positively related to organizational commitment

Hypothesis 3: There is a moderated mediation effect of leader vulnerability and gender on

organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange.

(15)

15

3. Method

Procedure

This quantitative research was carried out using a cross-sectional survey design. Data was gathered by two different questionnaires; one for the leaders and one for the subordinates. Only leaders and subordinates who work for three days or more with each other are taken into account. Side jobs were not approved. The data was gathered digitally and the surveys were only distributed in the Dutch language. The questionnaires are distributed by a group of five master students; each student has taken care of at least 25 dyads. Before distributing the questionnaires, the questionnaires have been sent to a couple of respondents for a pretest. After approval of this pretest, the questionnaires were sent to the network of the five master students. Because of the fact that the respondents were mainly selected from the network of the five students collecting the data, convenience sampling was used in approaching the respondents. In the first place, an initial request was sent to the potential respondents to ask if they would be willing to participate. Secondly, an email was sent with all the necessary information and the link to the survey. Besides asking relatives to fill in the questionnaires, a flyer was posted on different Facebook and LinkedIn pages to gather more respondents. To reach more respondents, a gift voucher was offered by the five students. Five respondents did win a gift voucher worth fifteen euro. The survey was sent to 190potential respondent couples and 136 couples did fill in the surveys completely. Resulting in a response rate of 85%. Another 7.37% did fill in the survey by only one member of the couple and those surveys had to be removed. Each couple was sent a code which they had to fill in before starting the survey. This code was used to match the answers of the leader and the subordinate.

Sample

The population for this research were leaders and subordinates in the Dutch workforce.

The total sample consists of 136 leader-follower dyads. The leaders’ age ranged from 22 to 69 years old (M = 43.4 SD = 11.56), 49.3% of the leaders were male and 50.7% of the leaders were female, 78.7% of the leaders had a high level of education (50% HBO, 28.7% WO). The leaders had spent less than one year to 40 years in their current position, two to 480 months, this variable was measured

(16)

16 in actual months (M = 79.26, SD = 93.19). The employee sample did consist of respondents ranged from 18 to 66 years (M = 34.42, SD = 12.17), mostly female (60.3%), 70.6% of the employees had a high level of education (41.2% HBO, 29.4% WO). The number of years spent in current position ranged from less than one year to 42 years, from two to 500 months, measured in months (M = 66.26,

SD = 83.18). Finally, the amount of time that the leader and the follower had spent working together

ranged from less than one year to 26 years, from two to 360 months, measured in months (M = 34.77,

SD = 48.09).

Measures

Leader vulnerability and organizational commitment are follower rated. Leader-member-exchange and gender are leader rated. The questions were asked in Dutch for better understanding to the respondents. Back translation has been performed by several master students. For all measures, a 7-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “completely disagree” to “ completely agree”.

Leader vulnerability. Leader vulnerability was measured using the scale of Van Bunderen

(2018). Leader vulnerability is measured with 7 items. An example questionnaire is: “My supervisor shows his/her weaknesses”. The scale showed a high reliability (Cronbach’s ∝ = .88).

Leader-member-exchange (LMX). Leader-member-exchange is measured using the

SLMX-MDM scale by Liden and Maslyn (1998). This scale is a 12-item scale. An example of an item is: “My subordinate defends my decisions, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question”. The scale proved reliable (Cronbach’s ∝ = 0.81).

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment is measured by the organizational

commitment 15-item scale by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). An example of an item is: “I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.” The scale proved reliable (Cronbach’s ∝ = 0.88).

Control variables. Existing leadership studies rarely grounded the usage of control variables

in theory. A meta-analysis of the relationships between popular control variables and leadership constructs finds usually weak effect sizes (Bernerth, Cole, Taylor & Walker, 2018). According to Bernerth et al., (2018) the most common control variables within leadership research are gender, tenure, age and education. According to this research, the tenure, age and education of the leader and

(17)

17 follower were taken into account. The follower’s gender is used as control variable as well.

Furthermore, the work industry of the participants is included to make sure that the results of this study are not industry dependent. The actual duration that the leader and follower work together is also included.

Statistical procedure

Data sets from the two samples in Qualtrics were imported in the Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22) and both samples were linked into one sample by using the individual codes. Frequency checks were run to check for missing values, errors and outliers. In the items of the four main variables, no errors or missing data was found. A couple of outliers were found in the variable of leader vulnerability and organizational commitment, but these outliers were not removed because no disruptions were expected to be caused. In the leader vulnerability scale, one item had to be recoded because it was counter-indicative. In the leader-member-exchange scale no items had to be recoded and in the organizational commitment scale, six items had to be recoded. All the scales were tested as reliable and therefore, the scale means were computed together with the standard deviations. Finally, a correlation matrix was created to view the correlations before testing the hypothesis. The data was also checked for normality and multicollinearity. Based on the Shapiro-Wilk test, normality cannot be assumed for leader vulnerability (p = .000) and organizational commitment (p = .000). The leader-member-exchange scale is based on the Shapiro-Wilk test normally distributed (p = .467). The data is also checked for multicollinearity. The output shows that the variables report a VIF lower than 3; therefore, no exact linear relationship exists between any of the independent variables. Descriptive statistics of the skewness and kurtosis of the data were also analyzed. Each variable had a skewness between -1 and 1 and a Kurtosis between -2 and 2.

(18)

18

4. Results

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are presented in Table 1. To test the hypotheses, we used hierarchical regression analysis. Independent variables were centered before creating interaction terms.

In Hypothesis 1, I proposed that there would be an interactive effect between leader vulnerability and the leader’s gender on leader-member-exchange, such that leader vulnerability would positively relate to leader-member-exchange when the leader is female, but negative when the leader is male. I indeed found that the gender of the leader moderates the relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange, as there was an overall interaction effect of leader vulnerability and the leader’s gender on leader-member-exchange (β = .28, t = 3.12, p = .002, Adj. R2 = .03; see Table 2). Subsequently, the simple slopes of this interaction were examined at values one standard deviation above and below the moderator values. Leader vulnerability was positively related to leader-member-exchange when the gender of the leader is female (β = .22, t = 2.85, p = .005), and leader vulnerability was not related to leader-member-exchange when the gender of the leader is male (β = -.06, t = -.91, p = .36, see Figure 2). Thus, hypothesis 1 was partly supported.

In Hypothesis 2, I proposed that leader-member-exchange would be positively related to organizational commitment. This hypothesis was supported (β = .37, t = 2.79, p =.006, Adj. R2 =

.-.004; see Table 2). Leader-member-exchange was positively related to organizational commitment. In Hypothesis 3, I proposed a moderated mediation model, such that leader vulnerability is positively related to organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange when the gender of the leader is female but negatively related when the gender of the leader is male. The PROCESS macro (Model 7) by Preacher and Hayes (2004) with 5000 repetitions was used, and there was found a positive relationship between leader vulnerability and organizational commitment via leader-member-exchange when the gender of the leader was female (b = -.08; Bias and accelerated 95% CI: .02, .17) and there was no relationship found when leader’s gender was male (b = -.02; Bias and accelerated 95% CI: -.09, .02) Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. There is a moderated mediation

(19)

19 effect of leader vulnerability and the leader’s gender on organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange.

(20)

20

TABLE 1. Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations

Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1. Leader age 43.40 11.56 - 2. Leader tenure 79.26 93.19 .47** - 3. Leader educ 5.90 1.08 .10 .02 - 4. Follower age 34.42 12.17 .39** .24** .21* - 5. Follower gender 1.60 0.49 -.08 -.03 -.11 -.21* - 6. Follower tenure 66.26 83.18 .35** .31** .14 .65** -.15 - 7. Follower educ 5.82 1.14 .14 -.01 .20* .03 -.03 .00 - 8. Working together 34.77 48.09 .41** .53** .01 .44** -.03 .60** .05 - 9. Industry 4.87 2.97 .01 -.01 -.01 -.05 -.19* -.10 .01 -.15 - 10. Leader vul (M) 4.67 1.11 -.03 -.07 .01 .07 .00 -.08 .26** -.09 -.10 (0.876) 11. Leader gender 1.51 0.50 -.21* -.06 -.03 -.14 .28** -,06 -.16 -.01 -.29** .02 - 12. LMX 5.64 0.55 -.04 .03 -.06 .06 .06 .01 -.02 .07 -.11 .14 .06 (0.805) 13. Org. commitment 5.02 0.82 -.01 .02 .00 -.05 -.03 -.06 -.09 -.06 -.06 -.01 .07 .24** (0.883)

Note. N = 136. Gender (both for leader and follower) was coded as (0) = male, (1) = female; Reliabilities (Cronbach's α) are reported between brackets on the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

(21)

21

FIGURE 2. Interactive effects of Leader Vulnerability and the gender of the leader on

leader-member-exchange. 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9

Low Leader Vulnerability High Leader Vulnerability

L ead er -m em b er -e xc h an ge Men Women

(22)

22

TABLE 2. Results of Regression Analysis

N=136 Note. Standardized beta coefficients are presented. *p < .05, **p < .01

LMX Organizational commitment

Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Controls Leader age -.09 -.08 -.07 .03 .04 .04 .06 Leader tenure .03 .03 .08 .06 .06 .08 .06 Leader Educ .05 -.06 -.11 .02 .02 .00 .03 Follower age .01 .09 .06 -.03 -.03 -.04 -.05 Follower gender .10 .04 .03 -.05 -.07 -.07 -.07 Follower tenure .00 -.07 -.04 -.04 -.04 .03 -.02 Follower educ .04 -.03 -.05 -.09 -.09 -.09 -.08 Time working together .00 .10 .05 -.08 -.08 -.10 -.11 Industry .02 -.08 -.03 -.09 -.07 -.06 -.05 Leader vulnerability .14 -.12 .00 -.09 -.06 Leader Gender .01 .03 .06 .06 .05 Leader vulnerability x Leader Gender .39** .13 .04 LMX .24** R2 .03 .05 .12 .03 .03 .04 .09 Adjusted R2 -.04 -.03 .03 -.04 -.06 -.06 -.01 Change in R2 .03 .02 .07 .03 .00 .01 .05 Overall F .48 .59 1.40 .36 .32 .38 .88 Df 9, 126 11, 124 12, 123 9, 126 11, 124 12, 123 13, 122

(23)

23

5. Discussion

The current literature is still rather contradictory when discussing the effect of leader vulnerability. Some scholars argue that leader vulnerability has a positive effect on followers due to higher affection between leader and follower and a better understanding by the followers for the leader (Judge, Piccolo & Kosalka, 2009; Ito & Bligh, 2016). In contrast, others show that leader vulnerability has a negative impact on followers due to the countervailing effects of showing vulnerability and, through that, being manipulated or more critically treated (Judge, Piccolo & Kosalka, 2009; Michener & Lawler, 1975; Hollander, 1992). The current research assumed that the contradicting predictions on the effect of leader vulnerability may be reconciled by considering the role of the gender of the leader. In this study, the gender-moderated effects of leader vulnerability on leader-member-exchange and

organizational commitment have been specifically researched. It is chosen to research the relationship of leader vulnerability with leader-member-exchange because showing vulnerability is a process between two people and it does not only affect the follower. Furthermore, the relationship with organizational commitment is measured because organizational commitment and committed subordinates are related to a better organizational performance (Ostroff, 1992).

The results show that there is a significant interaction effect of leader vulnerability and the leader’s gender on leader-member-exchange. It appears that there is a positive relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange when the leader is female, but there is no

significant relationship when the leader’s gender is male. These results partly correspond with the hypotheses. As expected, there was a positive relationship between leader vulnerability and the female gender on leader-member-exchange. This can be explained by the fact that leader vulnerability

matches more with the female gender and showing vulnerability as a woman fulfills the predictions of others (Billing & Alvesson, 2000). This study predicted a negative relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange by male leaders because of the backlash effects. This hypothesis was not supported. No significant relationship was found. One possible explanation is that this research is performed in The Netherlands, a country known for its open and tolerant identity. The Netherlands is one of the countries with the highest absolute levels of self-expression instead of

(24)

24 traditional values (Inglehart & Welzel, 2010). Due to this Dutch identity, performing

counter-stereotypical behavior in The Netherlands might cause fewer backlash effects. Thus, behaving vulnerable as a male leader might not have a negative effect on the leader-member-exchange. Additionally, as expected, a positive relationship is found between leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment. Also, a moderated mediation model is found, where leader

vulnerability does have a positive relationship with organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange when the leader’s gender is female. There is no relationship between leader vulnerability and organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange when the leader’s gender is male.

The aim of this research was to address the contradictory effects of leader vulnerability on leader-member-exchange. The conclusion can be made that there are gender differences in the effect of leader vulnerability on leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment. There is a positive significant relationship found between leader vulnerability on organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange by female leaders. No significant relationship is found by male leaders. These findings allow us to make several contributions to organizational theory and research in different domains

Theoretical implications

First, this research contributes to the leadership literature by extending the research on vulnerability. Leader vulnerability has been defined in various ways in previous literature (Schroeder & Gefenas, 2009; Chambers, 2006) This research extended the leadership literature by giving a clear definition of leader vulnerability based on the leader vulnerability scale (Van Bunderen, 2018). The effects of leader vulnerability are contradictory in previous studies, this research contributes to the belief that leader vulnerability is a strength instead of a weakness. Moreover, the leadership literature is extended by showing the relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange. Whereas most previous studies have focused on the effect of leader vulnerability on one primary employee outcome, the present research focused on the effects of leader vulnerability on the interaction between leader and follower. The suggestion for further research within the leader vulnerability domain would be to focus once again on the process of showing vulnerability as a leader and the interaction with the

(25)

25 followers.

Second, this research contributes to the member-exchange literature. The leader-member-exchange literature is extended by the knowledge of the significant positive effect of leader vulnerability on leader-member-exchange by female leaders. This result confirms previous studies, which assume that trust is the essential part within a relationship and trust behavior comes as a result of the presence of vulnerability (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008).

Third, this research contributes to the gender literature. This study suggests that there are differences in the relation of vulnerability and leader-member-exchange between male and female leaders. Where a positive relationship exists between a female leader showing vulnerability and the leader-member-exchange, no relationship exists between a male leader showing vulnerability and the leader-member-exchange. Therefore, the contradictory effects of leader vulnerability in previous research might be reconciled by the gender of the leader. One suggestion for further research is to take the gender of the follower into consideration. According to the similarity and attraction theory

(Osbeck & Moghaddam, 1997), interpersonal relations are stronger whenever there are more

similarities between those people. Future research should investigate the effect of leader vulnerability when the leader and follower do have the same gender or opposite gender. This aspect is not taken into account in this research but deserves further attention.

Finally, this research contributes to the literature of organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is according to Porter, Crampon & Smith (1976) a subject with three different aspects namely: the extent to which an employee desires to remain in an organization, the exert effort on its behalf and the level of beliefs and acceptance in the organization’s values and goals. In most of the previous research on organizational commitment, only one or two aspects of

organizational commitment were included (Meyer & Allen, 1991). This study contributes to the literature of organizational commitment by including all three aspects of organizational commitment by using the scale of Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979). Furthermore, this study contributes to the organizational commitment literature by confirming the positive relationship between leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment. This result is in line with previous studies which argue that the primary determinant of organizational commitment is leader-member-exchange (Klein & Kim,

(26)

26 1998).

Practical implications

This research is relevant for organizations because of the fact that leadership styles change over the years. Back in the day, a leader was characterized by his masculinity (Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002). Nowadays, there are more women in leadership positions and therefore other leadership styles are performed. This research showed that showing vulnerabilities as a female leader is advantageous for the exchange. Female leaders can, therefore, improve the

leader-member-exchange by performing vulnerability. Moreover, female leaders can improve the organizational commitment, because leader-member-exchange is the primary determinant of organizational

commitment. This is an advantage because committed employees perform better (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). Female leaders should have knowledge of this relationship between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange. Now, female leaders know that they should not feel the pressure to behave masculine according to the gender-leader stereotype. According to this study, male leaders now have knowledge that no backlash effects are experienced by performing leader vulnerability in The Netherlands. Therefore, male leaders can perform leader vulnerability without experiencing backlash effects.

Furthermore, it is good for the employees and leaders in the organization to have knowledge of the concept of leader vulnerability to view this attribute as a strength rather than a weakness. When employees do have knowledge about this concept through a training, they might recognize this behavior from their leaders and appreciate this behavior more than before. Possibly leading to more mutual respect and a better work relation. In a way, that followers might approach their leader more and subsequently, the leader will find the confidence to discuss his/her insecurities with the followers. In that way, the leader will make better use of the qualities of the followers.

Limitations

This research is subject to some limitations. First of all, the sample of this research consists of leaders and followers in Dutch organizations. Both leaders and followers filled in a questionnaire. Some questions in the questionnaires were self-reported. This study is therefore exposed to a social desirability bias. Since this research is about leader vulnerability and the leader-member-exchange,

(27)

27 which are both considered as sensitive topics, it is possible that respondents answered these questions in a socially desirable way. To avoid this social desirability bias, the social desirability response set of Hays, Hayashi and Stewart (1989) could be included in the questionnaire. Moreover, some leaders were approached to fill in the survey and had to choose one of their followers to fill in the survey. These leaders might choose a subordinate with whom they have a good relationship. Hence, the answers on the leader-member-exchange scale might be more positive when comparing it to reality. Nevertheless, to avoid this bias, the anonymity and confidentiality were outlined throughout the survey.

Secondly, this research is a correlational cross-sectional study. The variables were measured at one point in time. Hence, causality cannot be proven. One could argue that leader vulnerability causes a better exchange, but there is also the possibility that a better leader-member-exchange causes leader vulnerability. In addition to this, third variables cannot be excluded. The recommendation for future research is to undertake longitudinal research or to set up an experiment. An example of an experiment design is to set up a two by two experiment. In scenario one and two, the participant is the follower and in scenario three and four, the participant is the leader. In scenario one a situation is created where the leader shows vulnerability and in scenario two a situation is created where a leader is not showing his/her vulnerabilities. In both cases, the leader-member-exchange should be measured. In scenario three and four, the participant is the leader. In scenario three, a situation is created where the leader and follower have a great relationship. In scenario four, a situation is set up where the leader and follower do not have a good relationship. Then, it should be measured how the leader is going to perform in situations, is the leader going to display his or her vulnerabilities or not. In such an experiment, the gender of the leader can be changed across

participants and it could be investigated whether the results change. One limitation for this experiment is that the ecological validity disappears. In the current research, the leader and follower are actually working together for some time. In the experiment, different relationships are displayed and situations are virtually created.

(28)

28 Thirdly, the data from this study was collected on the basis of convenience sampling.

Convenience sampling holds quite some limitations, such as a lack of generalizability of the sample to the population. As the sample is not randomly selected, certain groups might be underrepresented. However, the sample in this research is according to gender, age, tenure, industry and education level quite representative. We reached a high amount of female leaders and the sample resembles quite some diverse demographic characteristics. This research only took place in the Netherlands, so the results might not be representative for other countries. Moreover, we did not ask the participants about their cultural background, whereas there might be cross-cultural differences in values and work relations (Hofstede, 1980).

Conclusion

The aim of the current study was to measure the relationship between leader vulnerability for male and female leaders on organizational commitment through the leader-member-exchange. Previous research showed contradictory effects of leader vulnerability on leader-member-exchange. This study proposed that the contradicting prediction on the effects of leader vulnerability may be reconciled by considering the role of the leader’s gender. This study found support for the moderated mediation model, such that leader vulnerability is positively related to organizational commitment through leader-member-exchange moderated by the leader’s gender. A significant positive relationship exists between leader vulnerability and leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment when the leader’s gender is female and no significant relationship exists when the leader’s gender is male. Together, these findings provide interesting insights into why and when leader vulnerability effects leader-member-exchange and organizational commitment.

(29)

29

6. References

1. Adebayo, D. O., & Udegbe, I. B. (2004). Gender in the boss–subordinate relationship: A Nigerian study. Journal of Organizational behavior, 25(4), 515-525.

2. Beare Jr, R. K. (2016). Senior leaders' experiences with vulnerability: A multiple case study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).

3. Bernerth, J. B., Cole, M. S., Taylor, E. C., & Walker, H. J. (2018). Control variables in leadership research: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Management, 44(1), 131-160.

4. Brene Brown: “ There's No Creativity without Vulnerability.” 2015 YouTube, YouTube, 19

Apr. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6EiFVChXgM

5. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227-250. 6. Bunker, K. A. (1997). The power of vulnerability in contemporary leadership. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 49(2), 122.

7. Chambers, R. (2006). Vulnerability, coping and policy (editorial introduction). IDS bulletin, 37(4), 33-40.

8. Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereotypes hurt: Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(6), 520-530.

9. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1976). Norms affecting self-disclosure in men and 12‐ Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 781-797.

10. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of management review, 11(3), 618-634. 11. Due Billing, Y., & Alvesson, M. (2000). Questioning the notion of feminine leadership: A

critical perspective on the gender labelling of leadership. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3), 144-157.

(30)

30

12. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The leadership quarterly, 14(6), 807-834.

13. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of social issues, 57(4), 781-797.

14. Gomez, C., & Rosen, B. (2001). The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and employee empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1), 53-69. 15. Hays, R. D., Hayashi, T., & Stewart, A. L. (1989). A five-item measure of socially desirable

response set. Educational and psychological measurement, 49(3), 629-636.

16. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135.

17. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences.

18. Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54.

19. Hollander, J. A. (2002). Resisting vulnerability: The social reconstruction of gender in interaction. Social Problems, 49(4), 474-496.

20. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.

21. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250-259.

22. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 551-567.

23. Ito, A., & Bligh, M. C. (2016). Feeling vulnerable? Disclosure of vulnerability in the charismatic leadership relationship. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(3), 66-70.

24. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 765.

25. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The leadership

(31)

31

26. Klein, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (1998). A field study of the influence of situational constraints leader-member exchange, and goal commitment on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 88-95.

27. Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and turnover among public sector employees. Journal of vocational behavior, 12(1), 119-128.

28. Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers' trust in their leader. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 16-34.

29. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional psychology: Research and practice, 27(3), 259.

30. Lewis, G. (2017, October 9). Why Being Vulnerable at Work Can Be Your Biggest Advantage, According to Brené Brown.

31. Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72. 32. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of

organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.

33. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human resource management review, 1(1), 61-89.

34. Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of applied Psychology, 74(1), 152.

35. Michener, H. A., & Lawler, E. J. (1975). Endorsement of formal leaders: An integrative model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 216.

36. Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. the Journal of Marketing, 81-101.

37. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men &

(32)

32

38. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Dubin, R. (1974). Unit performance, situational factors, and employee attitudes in spatially separated work units. Organizational behavior and human performance, 12(2), 231-248.

39. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.

40. Nienaber, A. M., Hofeditz, M., & Romeike, P. D. (2015). Vulnerability and trust in leader-follower relationships. Personnel Review, 44(4), 567-591.

41. Osbeck, L. M., Moghaddam, F. M., & Perreault, S. (1997). Similarity and attraction among majority and minority groups in a multicultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1), 113-123.

42. Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 77(6), 963.

43. Porter, L. W., Crampon, W. J., & Smith, F. J. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover: A longitudinal study. Organizational behavior and human performance, 15(1), 87-98.

44. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments,

and Computers, 36: 717-731.

45. Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 74(3), 629.

46. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 61-79.

47. Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader—member exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 101-110.

48. Schroeder, D., & Gefenas, E. (2009). Vulnerability: Too vague and too broad?. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 18(2), 113-121.

(33)

33

49. Swallow, S. R., & Kuiper, N. A. (1987). The effects of depression and cognitive vulnerability to depression on judgments of similarity between self and other. Motivation and

Emotion, 11(2), 157-167.

50. Van Bunderen, L. (2018). The mitigating effects of leader vulnerability on hierarchy. Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Leadership Symposium, Chania, Crete.

(34)

34

7. Appendix

Leader Vulnerability scale by Van Bunderen (2018)

Mijn leidinggevende .. My supervisor..

Laat nooit een teken van zwakte zien Never shows a sign of weakness Laat zijn/haar zwaktes zien Shows his/her weaknesses

Is open over zijn/haar onzekerheden Is open about his/her uncertainties Praat over zijn/haar mislukkingen Talks about his/her failures Openbaart zijn/haar imperfecties Reveals his/her imperfections Geeft toe dat hij/zij niet perfect is Admits that he/she is not perfect Laat zijn/haar kwetsbare kant zien Shows his/her vulnerable side

(35)

35

Leader-member-exchange scale by Liden and Maslyn (1998)

Affection dimension

I like my subordinate very much as a person My subordinate is the kind of person one would like to have as a friend

My subordinate is a lot of fun to work with.

Affectie dimensie

1. Ik vind mijn werknemer leuk als persoon 2. Mijn werknemer is het soort persoon dat

je als vriend zou willen hebben 3. Mijn werknemer is erg leuk om mee te

werken

Loyalty dimension

My subordinate defends my decisions, even without complete knowledge of the issue in question.

My subordinate would come to my defense if I were ‘attacked’ by others.

My subordinate would defend me to others in the organization if I made an honest mistake

Oprechtheid dimensie

1. Mijn werknemer verdedigt mijn

beslissingen, zelfs zonder complete kennis van de zaak in kwestie

2. Mijn werknemer zal voor mij opkomen wanneer ik word ‘aangevallen’ door anderen.

3. Mijn werknemer zou mij verdedigen tegenover anderen in het bedrijf als ik een eerlijke fout zou maken

Contribution dimension

I provide support and resources for my subordinate that goes beyond what is specified in my job description.

I am willing to apply extra efforts, beyond those normally required, to help my subordinate meet his or her work goals. I do not mind working my hardest for my subordinate

Contributie dimensie

1. Ik verleen steun en middelen aan mijn medewerker die verder gaan dan wat in mijn taakomschrijving wordt genoemd. 2. Ik ben bereid om extra inspanningen te

leveren, die verder gaan dan normaal vereist, om mijn werknemer te helpen zijn of haar werkdoelen te bereiken

3. Ik vind het niet erg om mijn uiterste best te doen voor mijn werknemer

Professional respect dimension

I am impressed with my subordinate’s knowledge of his/her job

I respect my subordinate’s knowledge of and competence on the job

I admire my subordinate’s professional skills

Professioneel respect dimensie

Ik ben onder de indruk van de kennis van mijn werknemer over zijn/haar baan Ik respecteer de kennis en bekwaamheid van mijn werknemer op het werk Ik bewonder de professionele vaardigheden van mijn werknemer

(36)

36

Organizational commitment scale by Mowday, Steers and Porter (1979)

I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful

Ik ben bereid om veel meer te doen dan dat van mij wordt verwacht om dit bedrijf succesvol te maken

I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for

Tegen mijn vrienden spreek ik over dit bedrijf als een leuk bedrijf om voor te werken. I feel very little loyalty to this organization Ik voel zeer weinig loyaliteit naar dit bedrijf I would accept almost any type of job

assignment in order to keep working for this organization

Ik zou bijna iedere taaktoewijzing accepteren in dit bedrijf om bij dit bedrijf te kunnen blijven werken

I find that my values and the organization’s values are very similar

Ik vind dat de waarden van dit bedrijf en mijn eigen waarden sterk overeenkomen

I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization

Ik ben trots als ik anderen vertel dat ik onderdeel ben van dit bedrijf

I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work were similar

Ik zou net zo goed voor een ander bedrijf kunnen werken zolang de functie hetzelfde is. This organization really inspires the very best in

me in the way of job performance

Dit bedrijf inspireert en haalt het beste in mij naar boven als het gaat om prestaties op het werk

It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization

Er hoeft maar weinig te veranderen aan mijn huidige situatie om mij ertoe te brengen dit bedrijf te verlaten

I am extremely glad that i chose this organization to work for, over others I was considering at the time I joined

Ik ben ontzettend blij dat ik dit bedrijf heb gekozen boven andere bedrijven toen ik startte There’s not too much to be gained by sticking

with this organization indefinitely.

Er valt niet veel te winnen door voor

onbepaalde tijd bij dit bedrijf te blijven hangen Often, I find it difficult to agree with this

organization’s policies on important matters relating to its employees

Vaak vind ik het moeilijk om het eens te zijn met het organisatiebeleid over belangrijke zaken omtrent medewerkers

I really care about the fate of this organization Ik geef echt om het lot van dit bedrijf For me this is the best of all possible

organizations for which to work

Van alle mogelijke bedrijven om voor te werken, is dit het beste bedrijf voor mij.

Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part

De keuze om voor dit bedrijf te werken was een grote fout van mij.

(37)

37

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Maar om deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden, zullen we tegelijkertijd moeten onderzoeken hoe technologie vorm geeft aan onze morele kaders, en hoe we daar bij het beoordelen

I will evaluate the model in three situations: (1) discovering relations that are expressed by prepositions, (2) the performace of the decoder when using prepositions to

Waar in ander onderzoek (Alterovitz &amp;Mendelsohn, 2009) naar partnervoorkeuren naar voren komt dat mannen vooral geïnteresseerd zijn in een jongere vrouw en vrouwen in een

Hypothesis 3: Disclosing information concerning economic justification will positively influence the willingness to pay, compared to providing only information

Attitude towards the Poli Op Naam, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control all have a significant influence on one’s willingness to change, where attitude is determined to

The hypothesis is that personality similarity between follower and leader is positively related to LMX and that there is a positive relationship between group identification and

Therefore, under high workload employees are less likely to show citizenship behavior as a result of high LMX relationships, because these employees do not have the mental or

In this thesis, I hypothesize that an interpersonal regulatory fit between a supervisor and subordinate leads subordinates to perceive a higher leader-member exchange (LMX), which