Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership and leadership activities: the influence on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment, engagement and the successfulness of

(1)

University of Amsterdam Faculty of Economics and Business

Master in Business Studies

Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership and leadership activities: the influence on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange,

affective commitment, engagement and the successfulness of change

Author: Cornell Vernooij, 10456031

Supervisor: Nesrien Abu Ghazaleh, PhD

Second Reviewer:

Date: 15-08-2014

Final draft

(2)

2

Abstract

Nowadays, many changes occur in the world of work. Organizations need to adapt to these changes, to stay viable in a competitive environment. Despite growing interest for the subject of organizational change, change implementations still often fail. Thus, it is important for researchers to provide insights into opportunities for improving the success of these changes. Many of the studies, investigate how employees perceive future change. However, very few studies consider the employees perception of past change and especially the successfulness of past change. The present study explores the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment, engagement and the employee perception of the successfulness of change. Also, the influence of Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership and leadership activities on this relationship is studied. An online-survey has been filled in by 141 participants who experienced a radical change in their organization in the past two years. The findings indicate that Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment and engagement have a positive relation with successfulness of change as perceived by the employee. The expected influence of transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership and leadership activities on these relationships (moderation-effect) was not found. Explorative data analysis has been done by the researchers. At first, separate mediation analysis was done. During this, indications has been found for transformational, ethical servant leadership and leadership activities being a requirement for successfulness of change (mediaton-effects). After this a multiple mediation model was tested witch made indications for one leadership style being a significant mediator between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment, engagement and the successfulness of change: transformational leadership. This could imply that organizations confronting change should take a close look at the leadership style and activities of their managers. Managers could for example be trained in ethical, servant leadership activities and especially in transformational leadership courses. However further research is needed to strengthen these conclusions.

(3)

3

1. Introduction

One of the most prominent subjects in the organizational research field is organizational

change (Beck, Brüderl & Woywode, 2008). The concept, organizational change, implies an

attempt or series of attempts to modify an organization's structure, goals, technology or work

tasks. Organizational change is described as the attempt to change the structure, goals or

strategy of an organization (Iverson, 1996). Organizational changes differ in their reach and

the consequences they have. Weick & Quin (1999) make the difference between episodic and

continual change, with episodic being more complex and radical and continual being more

gradual. In times of episodic change, the existing equilibrium is broken and the search for a

new equilibrium is started. Bartunek (1984) uses another terminology: first order (continual)

and second order (radical) change. Radical more often than continual leads to unsuccessful

change, because there are less possibilities to guide and to maintain the process. Therefore,

the subject of the study presented here is radical change or second order change. When

organizational change is mentioned, in this study, radical, second order change is meant. An

example of radical, second order change is: a structural change targeted with the improvement

of the effectiveness of the organization through changes in tasks, structures or technology.

Organizational change processes, for instance, structural changes, become more and

more complex because the rapidity of developments in a global world seems to grow

incessantly. Nowadays companies need to be more innovating and enterprising than ever.

Despite growing interest for the subject of organizational change, change implementations

still often fail (Smith, 2005). A study of LaClair & Rao (2002), who looked at the change

process of more than 40 organizations, showed that 58% of the change initiatives failed, while

20% created an added value less than expected. Beer & Nohria (2000) even speak of a fail

percentage of 70 % of the initiatives of organizational change: installing new technology,

(5)

5

when organizations fail to realize successful change efforts, they lose a great deal of time,

money and human resources. Thus, it is important for researchers to provide insights into

opportunities for improving the success of these changes.

In the academic research, the believe that organizational change is about change

perceptions, behavior and tasks is becoming more prominent. Researchers who study

perceptions of organizational change of the employee, mostly focus on employees' support of, or resistance to organizational change, using constructs such as openness to change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000), readiness for change (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts & Walker, 2007),

commitment to change (Fedor, Caldwell & Herold, 2006) and resistance to change (Lines, 2004). Many of the studies, using these concepts, investigate how employees perceive future change. However, very few studies consider the employees perception of past change and especially the successfulness of past change. Most of the times, success has been treated as a single outcome and seldom success has been connected to proposed or observed practices. But in many cases the consequences of change can have many effects that call for multiple measures as described in Bourgious & Brodwin (1984).

Nutt (1998) is one of the few researchers that has developed a reliable measurement scale for assessing the employee perception of past success of change while using multiple dimensions. In his questionnaire the employee perception of the degree of past change success was determined along three dimensions: the degree of adoption of change, the value that was

given to change and degree of efficiency of change. Also, Lau & Woodman (1995) developed

a scale of four items to measure the employee perception of past change. This scale is also found to relate positively to employees’ commitment to change, including readiness to change and openness to change (Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). In the

study presented here both, the scale of Nutt (1998) as well as the scale Lau & Woodman

(6)

6

contribution to the little research done in the this field.

Many factors influence the successfulness of change, yet in the work of Coch &

French (1948), the researchers identified that few factors are as important as employees’

reactions to the change. Still, only in the few last decennia it has become widespread that

human factors are a very important factor in the success of organizational change. Thus,

human factors are becoming more and more subject of academic research. In this line of

research, the believe that organizational change is about how to change individual

perceptions, behavior and tasks is becoming more prominent. There has been a growing

interest in the human factor, psychological, processes that are involved in employee

experiences influencing change (Oreg, 2006). Three of these human factor processes in

relation to organizational change success, will be further investigated in the study here

presented. The first process is about the two-way relationship (dyadic relationships) between

supervisors and subordinates as reflected by the Leader Member Exchange. The second

process is also an important element of the human factors: affective commitment, defined as

the employee's positive emotional attachment to the organization. The third process is about

employee engagement: the degree to which people commit to an organization and the impact

that commitment has on how profoundly they perform and their length of tenure (Federman,

2009). These three processes are intensively studied in the academic literature, but not as a

factor related to the employee perception of past change success.

An important factor, that does have been often identified as playing a key role in the

context of organizational change is leadership (Oakland & Tanner, 2007). Organizational

leaders are seen as responsible for change strategy, implementation and monitoring change,

hence a organizational leader can have a function as change agent (Kanter, Stein & Jick,

1992). Through their behavior, leaders influence the work environment and thereby could

(7)

7

their article, managing change is one of the most fundamental and enduring roles of leaders.

However, as argued in Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu (2008) there have been no conclusive

research on the connection between leadership and change, and there is little integration of the

leadership and change management literature. As stated by Higgs & Rowland (2005),

empirical research is missing that studies the behavior of organizational leaders engaged in

change. Further there is no consensus on the aspects of leadership that are essential to the

success of change (Wren & Dulewicz, 2005).

In the study presented here, three of widely discussed leadership styles will be

investigated: transformational, ethical and servant leadership. Also, there will be looked at

specific leadership activities related to change. A contribution to the academic literature will

be made by first examining the relations of Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment

and engagement to employees perception of the successfulness of change. After that, the

effects of transformational, ethical, servant leadership and leadership activities on that

relationship will be investigated. After a extensive search in the literature it became apparent

that this particular research subject wasn’t investigated before. Especially the comparison of leadership styles also makes it practically very interesting for organizational leaders to see

how leadership style or activities can influence the relationship between psychological

processes of the employee and the successfulness change.

The research presented here will be done by analyzing quantitative data collected from

a survey filled in by 141 employees who have experienced a change in the past 2 years at the

different organizations they work in. This study is structured in four chapters. The theoretical

background is presented in chapter two. In this literature review, first of all, Leader Member

Exchange, affective commitment and engagement are discussed with the expected

relationship they have on the perceived successfulness of change. Secondly transformational,

(8)

8

expected influence on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective

commitment, engagement and the perceived successfulness of change. In the third chapter the

research methodology will be explained. In the fourth chapter the results of the research

question and hypotheses are presented. Finally, in chapter five the interpretation of the results,

implications and the limitations of this study are discussed and a conclusion is given.

2. Literature review

2.1 Leader Member Exchange

Most leadership theories approach leadership from the view of the leaders (e.g. trait approach,

skills approach, and style approach (Northouse, 2007). But as stated by (Hackman, &

Wageman (2005) effective leadership is not just reliant on traits or characteristics that leader

shave, the relationship between the two parties that demonstrate the quality of exchange is at

least an evenly important factor. As follows, to explain the effects of leadership, especially in

the complex situation of change, a relevant approach, is appropriate that is centered on the

interactions between leaders and followers: Leader Member Exchange. As mentioned before,

Leader Member Exchange is the two-way relationship between supervisors and subordinates.

LMX theory suggests that exchanges (work and social interactions) take place between

managers and their employees. Build on these exchanges, managers develop relationships of

different quality and intensity with their employees.

The study of Liden & Maslyn (1998) introduced 4 dimensions of Leader Member

Exchange: affect, loyalty, contribution and professional respect. The first dimension is

defined as the interpersonal liking of members in the dyad for each other (affect). Loyalty is

seen as the expression public support of each other of the leader and the subordinate.

Contribution is defined as the extent of work-related efforts which leaders and followers put

(9)

9

by the extent to which both the leader and the subordinate has built a reputation within the

organization of excelling in his or her work.

In a situation of change, particularly because the relationship between the leader and

the subordinate in many cases comes under an amount of tension, due to uncertainty, for

instance having a high degree of interpersonal liking, loyalty and professional respect could

have a positive effect on the outcomes of the change. High Leader Member Exchange has

been found to be related with more positive work attitudes of the employees. These attitudes

cause them to engage in more positive behaviors (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne & Kraimer, 2001).

These positive behaviors result, in turn, in a number of benefits: increased communication,

better roles, higher levels of emotional support, and better access to varied resources (Wayne,

Shore, & Liden, 1997), which could also result in more successful change. Few studies have

actually been done to the direct effect of Leader Member Exchange on organizational change:

(Schyns, 2004; Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008) and no studies has been found in the

extensive literature research, in which the direct relationship between Leader Member

Exchange and successfulness of change is examined. Schyns (2004) found that high Leader

Member Exchange has positive relations with effective work outcomes especially in a context

of organizational change. Good social exchange between the employees and their managers

may result in employees behaving proactively and showing willingness to engage in

occupational change activities (Schyns, 2004). Van Dam, Oreg, Schyns (2008) reported a

negative relationship between Leader Member Exchange and employees resistance to

organizational change. Despite no research being done at direct relationship between Leader

Member Exchange and successfulness of change, when considering the results of Schyns and

Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, on willingness to change and resistance to change, a positive

relationship is expected for the study presented here: H1a: The Leader Member Exchange of

(10)

10

2.2 Affective commitment

Since the 1990's, organizational commitment is extensively studied in the academic literature.

Meyer & Allen (1990) were the first to propose a three dimension model for organizational

commitment and this has been a dominant model since. In this model organizational

commitment is defined as attachment to the organization, an individual’s way of thinking of

how much of his/her value and goals are in line with the organization and how to overcome

conflicts (Meyer and Allen, 1997). The three dimensions of organizational commitment are:

affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. Affective

commitment is associated with employees strongly identifying with the goals of the

organization and the desire to remain part of the organization. The reason for organizational

commitment is this desire to remain in the organization. Continuance commitment is when a

member of an organization is described as being committed to the organization because

he/she perceives high costs of losing organizational membership. The reason to stay in the

organization differs from affective commitment, here the employee remains a member of the

organization because he/she has to stay in the organization. Normative commitment is when a

member of an organization commits to and remains with an organization because of feelings

of obligation. The reason to stay in the organization is because he/she ought to stay in the

organization.

In a meta-analysis of Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky (2002) from 155

independent samples involving 50,146 employees of 99 different articles concerning

commitment, was found that, forms of commitment are related yet distinguishable from one

another. Also they concluded that affective commitment had the strongest and most favorable

correlations with organization-relevant (attendance, performance, and organizational

citizenship behavior) and employee-relevant (stress and work–family conflict) outcomes.

(11)

11

employee-relevant outcomes, it is also expected that affective commitment will have the

strongest relation with successfulness of change. For this reason and to limit the number of

questions asked in the survey, to ensure that it can be completed within 20 minutes (to keep

the response rate as high as possible), there has been chosen to only include affective

commitment in this research.

Various related employee and organizational outcomes are intensively studied in

relation to affective commitment. This is not the case for organizational change. Few

researchers have linked the total concept of affective commitment to organizational change.

The study of Madsen (2011) has shown that commitment was positively related to individual

readiness for change. Also the study of Mangundjaya (2011) has shown that the three

dimensions of organizational commitment will influence individual readiness for change: the

higher the organizational commitment of employee, the higher the employee readiness for

change. Hercovitch & Meyer (2002) and Neubert & Cady (2001) longitudinal study have both

examined the role of affective commitment in change and have found a positive relation

between affective commitment and organizational change initiatives. Following these studies

about readiness for change and change initiatives, for the study presented here the following

hypothesis has been formulated: H2a: Affective commitment of the employee has a positive

relationship with the successfulness of change.

2.3 Engagement

A concept often related positively to affective commitment is engagement (e.g. Richardsen,

Burke & Martinussen, 2006; Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli & Salanova, 2006). As described by

Federman (2009), employee engagement is the degree to which people commit to an

organization and the impact that commitment has on how profoundly they perform and their

length of tenure. Employee engagement consists of three dimensions, as been differentiated

(12)

12

the level of energy and high mental attitude when individuals accomplish their jobs, the

willingness to put spirit in their jobs, as well as the persistency when facing difficulties and

challenges at work. Dedication is the strong identification with the job, including enthusiasm,

inspiration and pride. Absorption can be described as full concentration of happy feelings

when doing work: the feeling that time goes by so quickly and that it is difficult to leave the

job.

Employee engagement has been a consistent subject in the academic literature and has

been linked to many positive organizational outcomes: satisfaction, organizational

commitment, intentions to quit, and organizational citizenship behavior (Saks, 2006). The

relationship between employee engagement and successfulness of change has not been so

intensively studied. Although in a few studies positive relations has been found between

engagement and organizational change. In the very recent study of Albdour & Altarawneh

(2014) was found that all the three dimensions of employee engagement influenced individual

readiness to change: the higher the employee engagement, the higher the readiness to change.

Also, Schmidt & Jackson (2005) conclude that in much of the research concerning change

management strategies, employee engagement is listed as a primary function to the success of

properly implementing a change management initiative. Following these conclusions, for the

study presented here the following hypothesis has been formulated: H2a: Engagement of the

employee has a positive relationship with the successfulness of change.

2.4 The influence of leadership on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment, engagement and the successfulness of change

Two approaches have generally been used to better understand the role played by leadership

in shaping followers’ responses to change. The first has considered change as a situational contingency that moderates the effectiveness of certain leadership styles like transformational,

(13)

13

focuses on what specific behaviors leaders should engage in when leading change (Herold,

Fedor, Caldwell, Liu, 2008). In this literature review, first findings in the literature of the

leadership styles: transformational, ethical and servant leadership will be discussed with their

effects on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment,

engagement and the successfulness of change. Secondly specific leadership activities related

to change will be discussed with the effect on the relationship between Leader Member

Exchange, affective commitment, engagement and the successfulness of change. After which

the conceptual research model of this study is presented.

2.4.1 Transformational leadership

Transformational leaders, are those who stimulate and inspire followers to both achieve

extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadership capacity. A

transformational leader helps followers grow by responding to individual followers' needs by

empowering them and by aligning the objectives and goals of the individual follower and the

leader (Bass & Rigio, 2006). As defined in Bass (1985) transformational leaders articulate an

attractive and realistic vision of the future that can be shared, stimulate subordinates to see old

problems in new ways, support subordinates and pay attention to the differences among them.

Within the academic literature transformational leadership is most described by four

dimensions.

The first dimension of transformational leadership is charisma. Weber (1968) defines

charisma as a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is considered

extraordinary and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically

exceptional powers or qualities. A charismatic leader provides vision and a sense of mission,

instills pride, gains respect and trust, and increases optimism (Den Hartog & Koopman,

2011). This dimension is also referred to as idealized influence. This charismatic dimension is

(14)

14

meaning in uncertain times (De Hoogh, 2013). The second dimension is inspiration. Bass

(1985) originally conceptualized inspiration as a sub factor within charisma. Inspiration

describes a leader’s capacity to act as a model for subordinates, the communication of a vision

and the use of symbols to focus efforts. The third dimension of transformational leadership is

individual consideration. Individual consideration is for the biggest share being a coach of the

employee, providing the employee with continuous feedback and trying to link the need of

the individual to the mission of the organization. The fourth dimension is intellectual

stimulation, this implies examining new perspectives to employees for solving problems and

completing tasks (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2011).

The four dimension approach has recently been criticized (Antonakis, Avolio &

Sivasubramaniam, 2003). The first two dimensions of Idealized Influence and Inspirational

Motivation are often combined into a single factor as charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1998).

The other two dimensions of Transformational leadership, Individualized Consideration and

Intellectual Stimulation, can be viewed as behavior to increase employees’ self-confidence through empowerment (Graham, 1998). Based on these statements, Yukl (1999) argues that

Transformational should also include aspects of participative leadership, in order to empower

subordinates. The more recent study of De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman (2004) bases

transformational leadership on both charisma and empowerment, while including the aspects

of participative leadership. This base of transformational leadership will also be used in the

study presented here.

Already in his article of 1985, Bass noted that transformational leadership traits:

charisma, attention to individualized development, and the ability and willingness to provide

intellectual stimulation, are critical to leaders whose firms are facing change. In addition,

Tichy and Devanna (1986) claim that transformational leadership could help to trigger a

(15)

15

followers or organizational missions and purposes. Hence, the development of

transformational leaders in organizations should be given priority. In their study Boal &

Byrson (1988) argue that, specifically during times of change, transformational leaders tend to

be more effective in handling minor crisis and adjustments that the organization faces. Hunt,

Boal & Dodge (1999) found out that charismatic qualities of the leader become more

prominent when the organization is in a change process. When needs for a strong direction are

acute and there is anxiety among employees, transformational leaders are able to interpret the

crisis and offer vision to cope with it successfully and thus organizational change success is

augmented (Yuki, 2012).

In the academic literature, no research has been found that directly examines the

influence of transformational leadership on the relationship between Leader Member

Exchange, affective commitment and engagement. Palmer, Walls, Burgess & Stough (2001),

in their research, did found that transformational leadership was positively related to the

ability to monitor and manage emotions in oneself and others. Since Leader Member

Exchange measuring mutual respect, trust, and the overall quality of the working relationship,

this ability of transformational is essential at least at certain times and under certain

conditions (Gerstner and Day, 1997). These conditions are essential in times of change,

because the relationship between the leader and the subordinate in many cases comes under a

amount of tension, due to uncertainty. Here, being a coach of the employee, providing the

employee with continuous feedback and trying to link the need of the individual to the

mission of the organization (individual consideration) is most valuable in times of change.

Following this line of research it is expected that especially at times of change the relation

between Leader Member Exchange and successfulness of change is positively influenced by

transformational leadership. Therefore the following hypothesis has been formulated: H1b:

(16)

16

Exchange and successfulness of change.

For commitment and engagement, transformational leadership could also have

positive influence on the relation with successfulness of change. Individualized consideration,

the fourth dimension of transformational leadership, is positively related to followers’

commitment to the organization. Thus giving personal attention and support to the individual

employee, especially in uncertain times, effects the respect of their subordinates. Besides,

followers are much more likely to persist when they perceive their leader to be supportive.

(Bandura, 1986). Hereby, followers are encouraged to stay focused on the goals of the

change-initiative and to keep trying when they suffer a setback. This combined with the

charismatic aspect of transformational leadership, what gives employees a clear mission and

vision, in particular in the time of change, the transformational leadership style could

positively influence the relation between commitment, engagement and the successfulness of

change. As follows, hypotheses for engagement and commitment are formulated: H2b:

Transformational leadership positively influences the relationship between affective

commitment and successfulness of change, H3b: Transformational leadership positively

influences the relationship between engagement and successfulness of change.

2.4.2. Ethical leadership

In their article, Brown & Trevino (2006) define ethical leadership as follows: the

demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal

relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way

communication reinforcement, and decision-making. Brown & Trevino (2006) differentiate

between two dimensions of ethical leadership: the moral person dimension and the moral

manager dimension. By the dimension of moral person, leaders were thought to be honest,

trustworthy, fair and principled decision makers, who care about people in the broader

(17)

17

influence ethical and unethical behavior of their followers. Moral managers communicate an

ethics and values message, by visibly and intentionally role modeling ethical behavior, and by

using the reward system (rewards and discipline) to hold followers accountable for ethical

conduct.

There are several leadership styles that overlap with ethical leadership. Also

Transformational leadership addresses the moral potential of leadership in some way (Brown

& Trevino, 2006). Burns (1978) proposed that transformational leadership is moral leadership

because transformational leaders inspire their followers to look beyond self-interest and work

together for a collective purpose. Bass (1985) argued that transformational leaders could be

ethical or unethical depending upon their motivation. Bass & Steidlmeier (1999) in Brown &

Tevino (2006) distinguished between authentic and pseudo transformational leaders. Pseudo

transformational leaders would be expected to be more selfishly and politically motivated.

They argue that authentic transformational leaders are moral leaders because of the legitimacy

of the leader's moral values and the leaders social motivation. Ever since no conclusive

research have been on the relations between the concepts of transformational and ethical

leadership so in this research they are treated as concepts on their own.

There has been a range of studies on the outcomes of ethical leadership. In their

literature review, Brown & Tevino (2006) found a range of positive outcomes of ethical

leadership: more organizational citizenship behavior, less counter productive work behavior,

follower satisfaction, positive work attitudes and ethical decision making. However the

concept of ethical leadership has not been directly linked to organizational change

successfulness. Ethical leadership has been linked to Leader Member Exchange, affective

commitment and engagement. Ethical leaders are viewed as persons who are honest and

trustworthy who care about the greater good of employees and the organization. When

(18)

18

Exchange because of high levels of loyalty, emotional connections and mutual support

(Wayne, Shore, Bommer & Tetrick, 2002). Trevino, Weaver & Reynolds (2006) highlight

that: ''because ethical leaders are caring, relationships with ethical leaders are built upon social

exchange and norms of reciprocity'' (p.967). Also trust is established in the relationship

because an ethical leader asks about the ideas of employees without censorship. As a result

ethical leaders build meaningful interpersonal relationships and heighten the Leader Member

Exchange. Precisely in a situation of change, when there is a lot of uncertainty and anxiety,

this meaningful trustful relationship (high Leader Member Exchange) can be important for

achieving change success. Thus we expect a positive influence of ethical leadership on the

relationship between Leader Member Exchange and the successfulness of change: H1c:

Ethical leadership positively influences the relationship between Leader Member Exchange

and successfulness of change. Also for affective commitment and engagement the meaningful

trustful relationship between supervisor and employee is important. Moreover, ethical leaders

are likely to trust employees with responsibility and to increase employees’ perception about

the importance of their job. Such ethical leadership would increase both, the affective

commitment and engagement of the employee. As said before, especially in times of change

with lots of uncertainties, this trust, responsibility and sense of importance is crucial in the

relationship between affective commitment, engagement and successfulness of change.

Therefore the following hypotheses are formulated about the relationship: H2c: Ethical

leadership positively influences the relationship between affective commitment and

successfulness of change, H3c: Ethical leadership positively influences the relationship

(19)

19

2.4.3. Servant Leadership

In 1970, Greanleaf introduced the concept of servant leadership in which, serving the greater

needs of others, is seen as the primary goal of leadership (Greenleaf, 1991). In 2004 Ehrhart

identified seven dimensions of servant leadership. The first dimension involves forming

relationships with followers, such as spending quality time and forge interpersonal bonds.

Second, servant leaders empower followers by incorporating follower input on important

managerial decisions. Third, servant leaders help followers grow and succeed by providing

opportunities to enhance follower skills. Fourth, servant leaders behave ethically. Fifth, these

leaders demonstrate conceptual skills, such as balancing daily work with future vision. As

sixth: they put followers first by promoting follower success. As seventh and final dimension:

servant leaders create value for others outside the organization, for example by encouraging

followers to engage in community service opportunities outside of work.

Servant leadership has a moral component similar to ethical leadership, but differs in

its focus on all organizational stakeholders and inclusion of altruistic and self-reflective

behaviors (Hunter, Neubert, Perry, Witt, Penny & Weinberger ,2013). While it shares

similarities with related leadership theories, there is mounting evidence that the concept of

servant leadership is distinct from other leadership theories. Its distinctiveness, offers the

potential to have a unique influence on organizations and their stakeholders (Hunter, Neubert,

Perry, Witt, Penny & Weinberger, 2013). Servant Leadership has a lot of similarities with

transformational leadership. Characteristics, that both a transformational and a servant leader

posses, are: exerting influence, communicating a clear vision, being respected and trusted by

employees, delegate tasks to employees and being a role model (Stone, Russell, & Patterson,

2003). Despite these similarities there is one evident difference between the two leadership

styles. The biggest difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is

(20)

20

their employees. Transformational leaders focus on enthusing employees to reach the goals of

the organization; the focus lays with the organization. The focus of the leader is the

differentiating factor between a transformational and a servant leader. (Stone, Russell, &

Patterson, 2003). As described before in this literature review, transformational leadership has

a positive influence on affective commitment. Because of the similarities between servant

leadership and transformational leadership (e.g. communicating a clear vision, being

respected and trusted by employees, and being a role model) is it reasonable to also expect a

positive effect of servant leadership on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange,

affective commitment engagement and successfulness of change. Moreover, the

differentiating factor between transformational and servant leadership: the focus on the

employee, could even strengthen the positive influence (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003).

This because the focus becomes even more on the coaching of the employee and personal

attention which can, combined with high Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment

and engagement lead to more successful change. Thus for Leader Member Exchange,

affective commitment and engagement the following hypotheses are formulated: H1d:

Servant leadership positively influences the relationship between Leader Member Exchange

and successfulness of change, H2d: Servant leadership positively influences the relationship

between affective commitment and successfulness of change, H3d: Servant leadership

positively influences the relationship between engagement and successfulness of change.

2.4.4. Leadership activities

Opposed to the leadership style literature, in which change is considered as a situational

contingency, in the change management literature, leadership is seen as specific behaviors the

leader should engage in when leading change. This approach is less concerned with stable

cross-situational leadership behaviors or styles. It focuses on what activities the leaders should

(21)

21

sense of urgency and allow for inputs). Leadership style approaches seem to presume that

certain types of leaders will just naturally handle a change situation better. Instead, change

management approaches assume appropriate behaviors can be stated and every leader can use

these behaviors in change and accomplish positive outcomes (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu,

2008). The leadership activities during change has been shown to be a powerful determinant

of individuals’ reactions to changes (Beer, 1980). Very few research has been done about the effect of specific change behaviors on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange,

affective commitment, engagement and successfulness of change. The only research that has

been found of Yukl, O'Donnel & Taber (2008) states that relations-oriented behaviors of

leadership activities (supporting, recognizing, consulting, and delegating) were strongly

related to Leader Member Exchange in times of change. A high degree of related-oriented

behaviors predicted a high Leader Member Exchange in times of change. The same effect

could occur for commitment and engagement in relation to successfulness of change due to

the same relation-oriented behaviors. Supporting, recognizing and consulting result in

personal attention which, what can, in combination with affective commitment and

engagement lead to organizational change success. The following hypotheses are formulated

about the effect of leadership activities on the relation between Leader Member Exchange,

affective commitment, engagement and successfulness of change: H1e: Leadership activities positively influence the relationship between Leader Member Exchange and successfulness of change, H2e: Leadership activities positively influence the relationship between affective commitment and successfulness of change, H3e: Leadership activities positively influence the relationship between engagement and successfulness of change.

(22)

22

2.5 Conceptual model

Now the important literature has been discussed the conceptual model is presented in figure 1.

The hypotheses which are derived from the literature are presented in this model as arrows.

The specific relationship between the variables is expressed by the direction of the arrow.

Within this model transformational, ethical, servant leadership and leadership activities

function as moderators of the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective

commitment, engagement and successfulness of change.

Figure 1: Conceptual research model

3. Methods

3.1 Procedure & research design

In this research a between-subjects-design was used with as independent variables: Leader

Member Exchange, affective commitment and engagement. Perceived successfulness of

change was used as dependent variable. The leadership styles: transformational leadership,

(23)

23

were included as moderating variables. Besides, age and gender of the employee will be

considered as control variables.

By using software of Qualtrics, an online self-administered survey was used to collect

data. There are a few reasons for the choice of an online survey: it is cost saving, easy to use

for the participant and the direct link between the online software and the database will reduce

the chance of mistakes while entering the data. To minimize the chance of mistakes on the

side of the participant, an accessible lay-out is used, according to the principles of Bowers

(1999). The survey was spread via e-mail, Facebook and LinkedIn, among friends, family

and colleagues who were asked to on their turn to spread the survey among their friends,

family and colleagues. Due to this, the survey was completed by employees in a variety of

industries of which the most frequently mentioned are retail (21%) and healthcare (21%). The

size of the organizations, in number of employees, also differed widely: 1-10 (5.7 %), 11-50

(28.4%), 51-100 (17.0%), 101-200 (9,9%) and more than 200 (39.0%). Because the survey is

also spread among social media, it is not possible to give a response rate of the survey.

The total survey consisted of 110 questions and it is fairly possible to complete the

survey within 20 minutes. When the participants open the link to the online survey, they were

shown a short introduction and instructions to the survey. The population of the research are

employees that work or worked in an organization where they experienced an organizational

change in the past 2 years and have or have had a supervisor during the time of change. This

was done so the employees would be able to accurately answer questions about their style of

leadership. Therefore, after reading the introduction, participants got the question if they

experienced an organizational change in the past 2 years at the organization they work for.

Participants who answered "no" to this question, were not admitted to fill in the rest of the

survey. 28 participants were therefore excluded of participation. The 141 participants who

(24)

24

at their organization. The kinds of organizational changes that were mentioned most

frequently were large scale layoffs (13,8%), organizational reformations (11,1%) and new

work methods (12,1%). After this question the participants filled in how many months ago the

change happened and what the time span of the change was. The average time that have

passed since the organizational change is 10.6 months (SD = 6.3). The average time span of

the change was 19.3 weeks (SD=27.0). In the survey, participants were not allowed to skip

questions, therefore there are no missing data found in the dataset. The dataset was analyzed

afterwards using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.

3.2 Participants

The sample consists of 141 respondents, of which 64 are male and 77 are female. The average

age is 39.0 years (SD = 14.6 years) and the length in years that the participant work for the

organization where the change has occurred is 10.4 (SD = 10.3). Information about the

education level of the participants is represented in table 1.

Table 1.

Distribution of Highest Completed Education of the Participants

Education N VMBO 10 HAVO 17 VWO 17 MBO 32 HBO/ WO Bachelor 43 HBO Master 10 WO Master 12 Note. N=141

(25)

25 3.3 Measures

Leader Member Exchange (LMX) was measured using Scandura & Grean (1984)

seven-item scale (α = .92) with items such as "My manager understands my problems and

needs". This scale measures the extent to which employees feel their supervisors are

supportive and believe they have close working relationships with their supervisors. The items

were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Affective commitment was measured using Allen and Meyer (1997) 9-item scale (α =

.85), which measures the extent to which employees feel a sense of emotional attachment and

belongingness to the organization and wish to retain membership of the organization. The

scale consists items such as: "The organization has a big meaning for me" and the reversed

item "I don't feel a strong sense of connection with the organization". The items were rated on

a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Work engagement was measured by the shortened version of The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale by Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The scale measures the degree to which people commit to an organization and the impact that commitment has on how profoundly they perform and their length of tenure. The scale is build on 3 dimensions: vigor, dedication and absorption, consisting each of them 3 items (9 items total) (α = .94) such as: "I'm enthusiastic about my job" and "I am proud on the work that I do". The items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 6 (Always).

Ethical leadership is measured by the scale developed by Brown & Trevino & Harrison (2005) consisting of 10 items (α = .90). Example item: "Mijn leidinggevende dacht eerder aan het beste voor de groep, dan aan het beste voor zichzelf.". The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Transformational leadership is most frequently measured in the academic literature by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). The MLQ addresses the four dimensions of TL since years, but recently it has been criticized as been discussed in the literature review. The first two dimensions of Idealized Influence and Inspirational

(26)

26

Motivation are often combined into a single factor as charisma The other two dimensions of transformational leadership, Individualized Consideration and Intellectual Stimulation, can be viewed as behavior to increase employees’ self-confidence through empowerment. Based on these statements, Yukl (1999) argues that transformational leadership should also include aspects of participative leadership, in order to empower subordinates. However, these aspects are not included in the regular MLQ. Therefore, this study measures transformational leadership through 11 items of CLIO scale as developed by De Hoogh, Den Hartog & Koopman (2004) (α = .93). The more recent CLIO questionnaire bases the transformational leadership scale on both charisma and empowerment, while including the aspects of participative leadership. An example item of the scale is "My supervisor talks with employees about what is important for them". The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Servant leadership was measured by the shortened Servant Leadership Survey (SLS), the most used scale in research to servant leadership (Ehrhart, 2004) (α = .93). The SLS consists of 14 items, with statements such as:" I spend time building qualitatively good relations with employees". For the purpose of this research the items are converted from self-evaluation to perceived leadership of the manager. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Leadership activities were measured by a scale which was constructed from organizational development literature on change leadership, by Liu, Herold, Fedor and Caldwell (2008) (α = .88), describing what leaders need to do to effectively implement change. Sample items were "My leader developed a clear vision for what was going to be achieved by our work unit" and "My leader made a case for the urgency of this change prior to implementation". The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Successfulness of change, was first measured by two different questionnaires and then merged into one as explained below. The success of implemented change was originally measured by the questionnaire of Nutt (1998) (α = .79). This questionnaire measures the change success along three dimensions: adoption, value and efficiency with two items each, forming a total of a six-item scale.

(27)

27

The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). An example of a reversed item is: “There were too many people involved in the change”.

Also, the scale measuring ‘attitudes toward organizational change’ (ATOC) is used to measure the independent variable of the success of the implemented change. This scale contains four items and is adopted from the study of Lau & Woodman (1995). It is found to relate positively to employees’ commitment to change, including readiness to change and openness to change (Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). A recent study of Choi (2011) identified employees’ ATOC rather as a state than as a personality trait, because one’s ATOC “may change over time as individuals’ experience change” (Choi, 2011, p. 479). These results do suggest external influences such as the experienced leadership style. The ATOC scale was also rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Example item: "I think it is good that the change has happened".

The success of implemented change and the ATOC variables are highly correlated on a significant level (c = .775, p < .001). A single dependent variable on change success (‘successfulness of change’) was therefore constructed by merging the items of those two variables. This procedure is conducted in order to include the different aspects that may define organizational change success, such as adoption, value, efficiency and employees’ attitude. Thus, the ‘successfulness of change’ variable is from now on used as the dependent variable in all further regression analyses.

Age and Gender are considered as the two control variables for this research. This was done because the significant influences of age and gender found in the research discussed below. Vakola and Nikolaou (2005) in their research found that men on average are more hesitant towards organizational change than women. Besides, Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006) found that engagement was weakly positively related with age. Also, in this research gender differences were observed, as men scored slightly higher on the engagement scale than did women. Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova (2006) argue though that the age and gender differences lack practical significance.

(28)

28

4. Results

The first goal of the research was to determine if there were direct effects of Leader Member

Exchange, affective commitment and engagement on the successfulness of change. Besides,

in this study, there has been an investigation to look at the contribution to this relation of

transformational, ethical, servant leadership styles and specific leadership activities related to

change by conducting a moderator analysis. Also, an explorative analysis is done in which a

multiple mediation-analysis is tested from Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment

and engagement on successfulness of change via transformational, ethical, servant and

leadership activities. First of all, the means, standard deviations, inter-correlations and

Cronbach's alpha of the different variables are represented in table 2.

4.1 Correlations

Table 2

Means (M), Standard deviations (SD), Inter correlations and Cronbach's alpha r

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Leader Member Exchange 3.14 .98 (.92)

2. Affective commitment 3.74 1.0 .38** (.85) 3. Engagement 4.54 1.2 .39** .56** (.94) 4. Tranformational leadership 3.36 .89 .67** .35** .30** (.93) 5. Ethical leadership 3.28 .81 .74** .32** .32** .85** (.90) 6. Servant leadership 3.00 .82 .73** .31** .25** .85** .87** (.93) 7. Leadership activities 3.31 .87 .68** .33** .29** .71** .69** .71** (.88) 8. Succesfulness of change 3.20 .97 .53** .34** .28** .61** .59** .55** .53** (.92) 9. Age 38.97 14.6 -.04 .02 .23* -.16 -.01 -.07 -.01 -.18 - 10. Gender - - -.03 .2 .07 -.11 -.32 -.02 -.09 -.10 .11 - N=141. * p < .05, ** p < .01.

(29)

29

To test the direct effects and the moderation-effects, a hierarchical regression analysis

has been done. The results of the regression analysis are represented in table 3 till 6. As

shown in the tables, step 1 of the analysis consisted of entering the control variables Age and

Gender. In Step 2 Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment and engagement were

added to the model. Further, in step 3 transformational (table 3), ethical (table 4), servant

leadership styles (table 5) of the manager and specific leadership activities related to change

(table 6) are added to the model. Step 4 consisted of the adding of the interaction terms of the

different variables stated above.

4.2 Direct effects: Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment and engagement

The following hypothesis are formulated about the effect of Leader Member Exchange,

affective commitment and engagement on the successfulness of change: H1a: The Leader

Member Exchange of the employee has a positive relationship with the successfulness of

change, H2a: Affective commitment of the employee has a positive relationship with the

successfulness of change, H3a: Engagement of the employee has a positive relationship with

the successfulness of change.

The first hypothesis predicted that Leader Member Exchange is positively related to

successfulness of change. The correlation coefficient is 0.53 which indicates a positive

relationship between both constructs which is significant at the 0.001 level. Thus this study

found support for H1a. Moreover, as can be seen in step 2 of the regression analysis shown in

table 3 till 6, Leader Member Exchange accounts for a significant part of the variance in

successfulness of change (F (1, 140) = 54,48, p < .01). Thus Leader Member Exchange is a

significant predictor of successfulness of change.

(30)

30

successfulness of change. The correlation coefficient is 0.34 which indicates a positive

relationship between both constructs which is significant at the 0,001 level. Thus this study

found support for hypothesis H2a. For affective commitment the regression analysis also

indicates that the variable accounts for a significant part of the variance in successfulness of

change (F (1, 140) = 17,86, p < .01). Affective commitment is a significant predictor of

successfulness of change (t (140) = 4,23 p < .01).

The third hypothesis, predicted that engagement is positively related to successfulness

of change. The correlation coefficient is 0.28 which indicates a positive relationship between

both constructs which is significant at the 0,001 level. Thus this study also found support for

hypothesis H3a. The regression analysis points out that engagement explains a significant

variance in the successfulness of change (F (1, 140) = 11,34, p < .01). Engagement is a

(31)

31

4.3 Moderation effect of transformational leadership

Table 3

Regression analysis of the effect of Leader Member Exchange, Affective commitment and Engagement on successfulness of change with Transformational leadership as a moderator, controlling for Age and Gender

Sucessfulness of change

Β R2 _ΔR2

Control variables .04 .04

1 Age -.01

Gender -.16

Leader Member Exchange

2 Leader Member Exchange .52 .31 .27**

3 Transformational leadership .47 .41 .14**

4 LMX * Transformational leadership .02 .41 .00

Affective commitment

2 Affective commitment .38 .18 .14**

4 Affective commitment * Transformational leadership .02 .41 .00

Engagement

2 Engagement .26 .15 .11**

4 Engagement * Transformational leadership -.04 .40 .00 N=141 * p < .05, ** p < .01

The following hypothesis are formulated about the effect of transformational leadership, on

the relationship between Leader Member exchange, affective commitment, engagement and

successfulness of change: H1b: Transformational leadership positively influences the

relationship between Leader Member Exchange and successfulness of change, H2b:

Transformational leadership positively influences the relationship between affective

commitment and successfulness of change, H3b: Transformational leadership positively

influences the relationship between engagement and successfulness of change.

After the addition of transformational leadership to the model, a significant part of the

(32)

32

Within this model there was a main effect of transformational leadership on successfulness of

change (t (138)= 8.22, p < .01). After the addition of transformational leadership the main

effect disappeared of engagement (β = .08, t (138) = 1,45, p = .15). The main effects were

reduced, but stayed significant, of affective commitment (β = .14, t (138) = 2.04, p < .05) and

Leader Member Exchange ((β = .22, t (138) = 2.54, p < .05).

In the last step the interaction term of Leader Member Exchange and transformational

leadership, affective commitment and transformational leadership and engagement and

transformational leadership are added. The interaction term of Leader member Exchange and

transformational leadership did not significantly increase the variance explained by the model

(F (1, 137) = 0.14 p = .71). The same was true for the interaction terms of transformational

leadership and affective commitment (F (1, 137) = 0.00 p = .95) and transformational

leadership and engagement (F (1, 137) = 0.52 p = .47). The hierarchical regression analysis

also showed that there is not a significant effect of the interaction term of Leader Member

Exchange and transformational leadership (t (137) = 0.37, p = .71), affective commitment and

transformational leadership (t (137) = 0.68, p = .95) and engagement and transformational

leadership (t (137) = -0.72, p = .47) on successfulness of change. Hypothesis H1b, H2b and

H3b are thereby rejected, this means that transformational leadership has no significant effect

on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment and

(33)

33

4.4 Moderation effect of ethical leadership

Table 4

Regression analysis of the effect of Leader Member Exchange, Affective commitment and Engagement on successfulness of change with Ethical leadership as a moderator, controlling for Age and Gender

Β R2 ΔR2

Control variables .04 .04

1 Age -.01

Gender -.16

3 Ethical leadership .53 .40 .13**

4 LMX * Ethical .02 .41 .00

4 Affective commitment * Ethical Leadership .07 .43 .01

Engagement

2 Engagement .26 .15 .11**

4 Engagement * Ethical leadership -.05 .41 .00 N=141 * p < .05, ** p < .01

The following hypothesis are formulated about the effect of ethical leadership, on the relationship between Leader Member exchange, affective commitment, engagement and successfulness of change: H1c: Ethical leadership positively influences the relationship between Leader Member Exchange and successfulness of change, H2c: Ethical leadership positively influences the relationship between affective commitment and successfulness of change, H3c: Ethical leadership positively influences the relationship between engagement and successfulness of change.

After the addition of ethical leadership to the model, a significant part of the variance was accounted for by ethical leadership (F (2, 138) = 40.44, p < .01). Within this model there was a main effect of ethical leadership on successfulness of change (t (138)= 4.39 p < .01). The main effect of engagement (β = .08, t (138) = 1.36, p = .18) disappeared after the addition of ethical leadership. The

(34)

34

main effect was reduced, but remained significant of affective commitment (β = .16, t (138) = 2.29, p < .05) and Leader Member Exchange ((β = .20, t (138) = .20, p < .05).

In the last step the interaction term of Leader Member Exchange and ethical leadership, affective commitment and ethical leadership and engagement and ethical leadership are added. The interaction term of Leader member Exchange and ethical leadership did not significantly increase the variance explained by the model (F (3, 137) = .39 p = .54). The same was true for the interaction terms of affective commitment and ethical leadership (F (3, 137) = .34 p = .56) and engagement and ethical leadership(F (3, 137) = .92 p = .34). The regression analysis also showed that there is not a significant effect of the interaction term of Leader Member Exchange and ethical leadership (t (137) = -0.62, p = 0.54), affective commitment and ethical leadership (t (137) = 0.58, p = 0.56) and engagement and ethical leadership (t (137) = -0.96, p = 0.34) on successfulness of change. Hypothesis H1c, H2c and H3c are thereby rejected, this means that ethical leadership has no significant effect on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment and engagement and the successfulness of change.

(35)

35

4.5 Moderation effect of servant leadership

Table 5

Regression analysis of the effect of Leader Member Exchange, Affective commitment and Engagement on successfulness of change with Servant leadership as a moderator, controlling for Age and Gender

Β R2 ΔR2

Control variables: .04 .04

1 Age -.01

Gender -.16

3 Servant leadership .39 .36 .05**

4 LMX * Servant Leadership .04 .37 .01

4 Affective commitment * Servant Leadership .11 .38 .01

Engagement

2 Engagement .26 .15 .11**

4 Engagement * Servant Leadership .02 .36 .00

N=141 * p < .05, ** p < .01

The following hypothesis are formulated about the effect of Servant leadership, on the relationship between Leader Member exchange, affective commitment, engagement and successfulness of change: H1d: Servant leadership positively influences the relationship between Leader Member Exchange and successfulness of change, H2d: Servant leadership positively influences the relationship between affective commitment and successfulness of change, H3d: Servant leadership positively influences the relationship between engagement and successfulness of change.

After the addition of servant leadership to the model, a significant part of the variance was accounted for by servant leadership (F (2, 138) = 35,24, p < 0.01). Within this model there was a main effect of servant leadership on successfulness of change (t (138)= 3,43, p < .01). The main effects of

Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership and leadership activities: the influence on the relationship between Leader Member Exchange, affective commitment, engagement and the successfulness of

Abstract

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

2.5 Conceptual model

3. Methods

4. Results