The effect of transformational leadership on employees’ proactive behavior and the role of employees’ (effective) organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior

(1)

MASTER THESIS

Amsterdam Business School

Executive Programme in Management Studies - Leadership and Management Track

The effect of transformational leadership on employees’ proactive behavior and

the role of employees’ (effective) organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job

autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior.

Marlou Wisgerhof (10514929)

Date of submission and version 28 June 2015, final version

Supervisor

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Marlou Wisgerhof 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.

Signature:

(3)

Acknowledgements

I am thankful and proud to present my master thesis. I got the chance to write my thesis on the topic leadership, which is very appealing and inspiring to me personally.

First of all I want to thank my employer who gave me the chance to follow this fantastic education. In special I want to thank my manager Nicole Verwer, for her enormous help and support during my education.

Secondly I want to thank Rianne van Dijk for her support while writing the thesis.

Thirdly I want to thank all the respondents whotook the time and participated in this research by filling in the online questionnaire.

Lastly a special thanks to my supervisor Frank Belschak for his high quality feedback and input on my documents.

(4)

Abstract

Employees’ proactive work behavior is increasingly important for organizational success. By means of a web-based questionnaire (N = 147), this study investigated the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior. It examined how the different dimensions of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration) are related to employees’ proactive behavior. This study proposed that transformational leadership would enhance employees’ (affective) organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior, which would enhance employees’ proactive behavior. As expected, results show positive relations between employees’ (affective) organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior and employees’ proactive behavior. Leaders can support employees’ proactive behavior by stimulating employees’ (affective) organizational commitment through inspirational motivation and by stimulating employees’ job autonomy through individualized consideration. The multivariate regression analysis shows that only the dimension individualized consideration was positively and significantly related to employees’ proactive behavior. The findings demonstrate that leaders can enhance employees’ proactive work behavior through different behaviors and mediators.

Keywords: proactive behavior, personal initiative, transformational leadership, idealized

influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, job autonomy, (affective) organizational commitment, self-efficacy, cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior

(7)

2

1. Introduction

Proactive behavior is now more important than ever, because of the changing of work in the 21st century. Work has become more decentralized, complex and dynamic (Crant, 2000). For example, organizations that minimize surveillance functions depend more on employees’ personal initiative to solve and identify problems (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng & Tag, 1997). As a result of this changing work and the changing work environment, organizations need other types of employees in order to be successful. Employees who show future-oriented, self-starting and change-oriented behavior. In other words, employees who show proactive

behavior (Crant, 2000).

Proactive behavior is anticipatory actions which employees take to change their environment or themselves (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Employees who show proactive behavior are

becoming more important for organizational performance and organizational success (Crant, 2000). It is therefore interesting and important to look at how organizations can influence this behavior.

It has been shown that leaders’ behavior has a strong impact on employees’ behavior (Yukl, 1998). In line with this, research on proactive behavior also found that employees’ proactivity is linked to leadership behaviors (Bindl & Parker, 2010). In particular transformational leadership has been consistently related to proactive work behavior (e.g., Straus, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009; Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin, Parker & Mason, 2010; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). However, as far as I know, previous researchers have not researched which specific transformational leadership behaviors are related to employees proactive work

behavior. According to Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) this is one of the fundamental and fatal problems with researching charismatic-transformational leadership. The theory does not clearly show how each dimension of charismatic-transformational leadership is of influence on outcomes and mediating processes. Since no research has been done on the relationship

(8)

3 between the behaviors of transformational leaders and employees’ proactive behavior, it is not clear which behaviors transformational leaders can use to influence employees’ proactive behavior. According to Bass (1985) the behaviors of transformational leaders can be divided into four dimensions (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration). These dimensions has argued to influence employee behavior via different mechanisms (e.g., role modeling or increasing self-efficacy; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). This study builds on these streams of research and aims to investigate the different mechanisms through which the different

transformational leadership dimensions can be linked to employee proactive behavior. The different mechanisms used in this study are (affective) organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. To investigate this a web-based questionnaire was made and used to collect the data. Data was collected from three organizations of different backgrounds. One profit organization in the finance industry and two non-profit organizations. One in the healthcare industry and one in the education industry. All three organizations are located in the Netherlands.

In addition to the theoretical contribution this research will also be interesting from a practical perspective. It gives concrete guidelines for leaders in which behaviors to engage if they want to stimulate proactive work behavior in their employees.

(9)

4

2. Theory and hypotheses development

In this chapter first proactive behavior and transformational leadership will be described. Then the effect of transformational leadership on proactive behavior and the mediating effect of organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis on transformational leadership and proactive behavior will be explained. Each explanation will be followed by a hypothesis.

2.1 Proactive behavior

First proactive behavior is defined, then the different types of proactive behavior will be explained, followed by the effects and antecedents of proactive behavior.

2.1.1 Defining proactive behavior

According to Crant (2000) proactive behavior is defined as: “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions” (p. 436).

A distinction can be made between in-role and extra-role proactive behavior (Crant, 2000). In-role means that employees fulfill their basic job requirements. Extra-In-role on the other hand means that employees fulfill more than their basic job requirements. Proactive behavior is often treated as extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). But according to Grant and Asford (2008) it is often unclear when behavior is in-role or extra-role behavior. Proactivity can be seen as a process in which both in-role and extra-role activities can be applied (Crant, 2000). So, both in-role and extra-role behavior can be proactive. An example of in-role proactive behavior is when employees have completed their tasks ahead of schedule (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Extra-role behavior can be proactive when employees redefine or broaden their role (Crant, 2000). Whether or not employees show proactive

(10)

5 behavior is independent of in-role or extra-role behavior. Therefore in-role or extra-role behavior is not characteristic for identifying proactive behavior. According to Grant and Ashford (2008) there are two characteristics that can distinguish proactive behavior from more generally motivated behavior. These characteristics are: acting in advance and intended impact. By acting in advance Grant and Asford mean that employees are anticipatory in their actions. They are actively seeking opportunities to improve things (Crant, 2000). The second characteristic that distinguishes proactive behavior from more generally motivated behavior is intended impact. When employees show proactive behavior they want to make a difference. They want to have an impact on themselves or their environment (Crant, 2000). So, behavior that we call proactive is future-focused (Frese & Fay, 2001) and change-oriented (Bateman & Grant, 1993).

2.1.2 Types of proactive behavior

There are different ways how employees express proactive behavior. Proactive behavior is therefore conceptualized and measured in a variety of ways. Employees can for example show proactive behavior by: expressing voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001), expanding roles

(Parker, Wall & Jackson, 1997), crafting jobs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), taking

initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001), taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) and feedback seeking (Ashford & Cummings, 1983).

In this research I will focus on one specific type of proactive behavior: personal initiative (PI). According to Frese and Fay (2001) PI is behavior that is self-starting, proactive and persistent. Employees who engage in PI perform tasks without being told to do so (self-starting), have a long term focus and respond before they have to (proactive), and are goal-oriented

(11)

6 I will focus on this type of proactive behavior because I expect that jobs in the 21st century need employees with a higher level of PI than before. This is because innovations occur more successively, the competition becomes more and more global and temporary work has

increased. Because of these trends individual responsibilities have increased. Jobs change and therefore require other employees, with other skills and other knowledge. Thus it is important for organizations that employees show PI and that they develop their knowledge and skills actively to meet the changing requirements. Also Frese and Fay (2001) state that for organizations to succeed in this environment, employees who show PI are increasingly important.

2.1.3 Effects of proactive behavior

Proactivity is linked to many organizational and personal processes and outcomes (Crant, 2000). On individual level, proactive employees perform their jobs better than employees who do not show proactive behavior (Crant & Bateman, 2000). Another positive effect of

proactivity is that after being unemployed; it helps to quickly find a new job (Frese et al, 1997). Proactivity is also positively related to employees’ job satisfaction (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Another effect is that it is positively related to individual career success in different ways, for example in the number of promotions and salary (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). But when employees score high on proactivity by expressing voice, then the opposite happens. Employees who show proactive behavior by expressing voice receive lower salaries and fewer promotions than employees who show low proactive behavior in terms of voice (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). This difference is probably caused by the type of proactive behavior that is measured. Various types of proactive behavior have different effects. Usually there are some similarities between the different types and the effect it has on the outcomes. For example Tornau and Frese (2013) found high correlations

(12)

7 between proactive personality and personal initiative/personality in their meta-analysis on work-related proactivity concepts. They also found that the types of proactive behavior, voice, taking charge and personal initiative/behavior, were strongly related to each other. According to them there is an overlap between the different types of proactivity. But sometimes

contradictory results are possible as shown in the example above on expressing voice vs. receiving lower salaries.

Proactive behavior does not only have positive effects, it can also have some negative effects. According to Grant and Asford (2008) proactive behavior can be perceived as behavior that is self-serving, unethical or even harmful to others and the organization. For example, proactive employees take more risks. This behavior can lead to positive effects when developing new products for example (Frese & Fay, 2001). But this behavior can also be undesirable and lead to negative effects. For example, these employees may look for ways how to steal from their employer (Belschak, Den Hartog & Fay, 2010).

Proactive behavior on the organizational level also has several positive outcomes, for example on organizational performance. Research has shown that proactivity is positively related to profitability (Baer & Frese, 2003) and a successful organization (Frese & Fay, 2001). It is also positively related to organization effectiveness (Bateman & Grant, 1999).

Overall, there is a lot of evidence that proactive behavior has positive outcomes on both organizational and individual level. It can be seen as behavior that benefits the organization. It is therefore interesting to look at how organizations can influence this behavior.

2.1.4 Antecedents of proactive behavior

Bindl and Parker (2010) created a model which integrates existing research on antecedents, processes and outcomes of proactive behavior. According to them there are two broad categories of predictors of proactive behavior: individual differences and situational

(13)

8 differences. They distinguish individual differences between personality, demographics and knowledge and abilities. According to them these individual differences play a role in being proactive. In addition to the individual difference, the situation also makes a difference in being proactive. Therefore the situational differences are the second category in predicting proactive behavior. According to Bindl and Parker the situational differences can be

distinguished between job design, climate-related variables and leadership. The role of leader support in promoting proactive behavior has shown different results. According to Parker and Wu (2014) leader support boosts employees’ willingness and sense of competence to initiate future-focused change. Ohly, Sonnentag and Pluntke (2006) found that leader support was positively related to employees’ personal initiative. Parker, Williams and Turner (2006) on the other hand found no effect between supervisor support and proactive problem solving. These opposite effects may be explained by the content of the leader support. According to Parker et al. (2006) some types of leader support may enhance employees’ motivation to engage in proactive behavior, such as encouraging for idea generation. Other types of support may foster passivity such as implementing suggestions made by employees.

Frese and Fay (2001) state that proactivity often involves an antiauthoritarian element and therefore supervisors can sometimes limit employees’ initiative rather than support their initiative. Seibert et al. (2001) also state that employees’ proactivity can sometimes be limited rather than supported by their supervisor. According to them, employees who score high on voice may sometimes be punished by their supervisor because they may be perceived as too critical.

Other research on the link between leadership and proactive behavior also shows different results. Frese, Teng and Wijnen (1999) found no link between leadership in general and proactive behavior. In researching proactive service performance, Rank, Carsten, Unger, and Spector (2007) found that participative leadership, which encompasses subordinates’

(14)

9 involvement in decision making and emphasizes the value of subordinate contributions, predicts higher levels of proactive service performance than several individual antecedents. Strauss et al. (2009) demonstrate that leadership can be seen as an important antecedent of proactive behavior. In their research they focus on transformational leadership of team leaders and organizational leaders. The results in their research suggest that leadership on different levels influences proactivity via different mediators. Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) also focus on transformational leadership in their research. They found positive effects of transformational leadership, job autonomy and role-breath self-efficacy on employees’ proactive behavior. Another research focused on the different foci of proactive behavior and their relationship with transformational leadership, individual task performance and goal orientations (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). In that research Belschak and Den Hartog show that different foci of proactive behavior have different antecedents and consequents. Griffin et al. (2010) focused their research on the role of the leader’s vision in relation to proactivity. Their findings show that a compelling vision motivates employees, who have the confidence and openness that they can do it, to be more proactive. A compelling vision is one of the behaviors of a transformational leader. Given the studies above there is some empirical evidence that transformational leadership is related to employees’ proactive behavior.

2.2 Transformational leadership

This paragraph explains transformational leadership. After that, the different behaviors of transformational leaders will be described, followed by the effects these leaders have on their followers and their environment.

(15)

10

2.2.1 Transformational leadership

There are a lot of leadership theories that all refer to the same concept, referred to by House and Howell (1992) as “exceptional leaders who have extraordinary effects on their followers and eventually on social systems” (p.81). This kind of leadership is called transformational (Burns, 1978), inspirational (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982), visionary (Sashkin, 1988) and charismatic leadership (House, 1977). Because these kinds of leadership styles refer to the same concept, no distinction will be made between these concepts in this research. These concepts together will be called transformational leadership.

Burns (1978) was the first author who introduced the concept of transformational leadership. Bass (1985) based his theory of transformational leadership on the concept of

transformational leadership as described by Burns. According to Bass a transformational leader expresses a compelling vision of the future, intellectually stimulating his followers and acts as a coach or mentor. Transformational leaders elevate the interest of their followers and create acceptance of the mission of the group. They try to motivate their followers to put the group ahead of their self-interest (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

2.2.2 Dimensions of transformational leadership

According to Bass (1985) transformational leadership has four dimensions in which the behavior of a transformational leader can be distinguished. These dimensions are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.

2.2.2.1 Idealized influence

Idealized influence is about follower attributions of leadership. It is the way that the leader behaves so that his followers can identify themselves with their leader (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The leader inspires and excites his subordinates. He also instills pride, increases

(16)

11 optimism and tries to gain trust and respect from his followers (Bass, 1985). The leader

stresses the shared characteristics between the group members (Shamir et al., 1993), emphasizes the importance of the collective identity of the group, and puts the good of the group ahead of his self-interest (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This dimension is also referred to as charisma (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).

2.2.2.2 Inspirational motivation

Inspirational motivation is about the leader’s vision. The degree to which the leader

formulates a vision that expresses high expectations and which is inspirational and appealing to his followers (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). It is behavior that enhances confidence among subordinates to reach the collective goals (Wang & Howell, 2010). Also this dimension describes the degree in which the leader acts as a role model for his followers and the way that the leader uses symbols to focus efforts (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Originally this dimension was conceptualized by Bass (1985) as a sub-dimension within charisma.

2.2.2.3 Intellectual stimulation

Intellectual stimulation is the behavior to challenge assumptions and elicit followers’ ideas (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The leader tries to intellectually stimulate his followers to come up with challenging new ideas. He also stimulates his followers to come up with creative ways to solve and reframe problems (Bass & Riggio, 2006), and he stimulates his followers to

reconsider the way they do things (Bass & Avolio, 1990).

2.2.2.4 Individualized consideration

Acting as a mentor or coach and listening to the needs of his followers is behavior that fits within the fourth dimension of transformational leadership; individualized consideration

(17)

12 (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The leader provides continuous feedback and learning opportunities. He can create learning opportunities for example by giving his subordinates challenging assignments. With this behavior the leader empowers his subordinates to develop and achieve their highest potential (Wang & Howell, 2010; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). The leader also tries to foster follower’s abilities and skills by for example delegating responsibilities or giving subordinates more authority. The leader links the current needs of his subordinates to the organization’s mission (Bass, 1985).

2.2.3 Effects of transformational leadership

Transformational leaders have extraordinary effects on their followers. They motivate their followers to perform beyond expectations and they try to motivate followers to become highly committed to their mission (Shamir et al., 1993). Congar and Kanungo (1988) found that there is consensus among authors about the effects transformational leaders have on their followers. They observed that followers have a high attachment to their leader, trust in their leader and increased motivation and performance. Another effect is that there is a greater group cohesion in terms of shared beliefs. Commitment to the organizational goals is another effect that is often-mentioned as outcome of transformational leadership (Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen, 1995).

In their meta-analysis about the relative validity of transformational and transactional leadership, Judge and Piccolo (2004) found that transformational leadership shows positive, nonzero relationships with follower job satisfaction, follower motivation, follower leader satisfaction, rated leader effectiveness and group or organization performance.

Transformational leadership has also positive effects on individual-level follower

performance. In their meta-analysis, Wang, Oh, Courtright and Colbert (2011) found that transformational leadership was positively related to performance across several individual

(18)

13 performance criteria, including creative, task and contextual performance. Their results

further demonstrate that transformational leadership was positively related to different levels of performance (individual, organizational and team level performance).

The above-mentioned outcomes are positive outcomes of transformational leadership.

However, transformational leadership can also have some negative effects. This is sometimes called the “dark side of charisma” (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). These effects are for example negative consequences of unconventional and impulsive behavior, and poor interpersonal relationships (Conger, 1990; Yukl, 1998).

Transformational leadership also has some effects on organizational level. For example it enhances organizational performance (Wang et al., 2011). According to Bass (1990) a part of this link can be explained by the influence on employees’ proactive work behavior. So, with their behavior, transformational leaders can influence their employees´ proactive behavior which enhances organizational performance. It is therefore interesting to examine how transformational leaders can influence employees’ proactive behavior.

2.3 Hypotheses development

This paragraph explains how and when the transformational leadership dimension (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration) is related to employees’ proactive behavior. After that the mediating effect of organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior on transformational leadership and proactive behavior will be explained. Each explanation will be followed by a hypothesis.

(19)

14

2.3.1 Transformational leadership and proactive behavior

One purpose of transformational leadership is to ensure that employees perform beyond expectations (Bass, 1985). Idealized influence is among others the way the leader inspires and excites his subordinates (Bass, 1985). When a leader inspires and excites his employees to perform beyond expectations, I expect that this will lead to employees doing more than what is expected from them. This is because the leader explicitly asks for this. When employees do more than what is expected from them, they show initiative, a type of proactive behavior. I expect that when the leader explicitly asks for proactivity, in this case to perform beyond expectations, this will have a positive influence on employees’ proactive behavior. Therefore I propose that when a leader shows behavior of the dimension idealized influence, this will positively influence employees’ proactive behavior. This results in de following hypothesis:

H1: Idealized influence is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

One of the behaviors of the dimension inspirational motivation is that the leader acts as a role model for his employees (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). In line with the social learning theory of Bandura (1977) I expect that behaviors can be learned by observing. Because a transformational leader acts as a role model, employees will learn from their leader´s behavior. Transformational leaders on their own are more proactive and change-oriented (Crant & Bateman, 2000). Therefore transformational leaders can be seen as role models of proactive behavior (Shamir & Howell, 1999). When a leader is seen as a transformational leader and acts as a role model I expect that employees observe the proactive behavior of their leader and want to imitate this behavior. This will consequentially lead to employees who show more proactive behavior. Therefore I expect that when employees see their leader as a

(20)

15 transformational leader and role model, this will positively influence employees’ proactive behavior. This results in de following hypothesis:

H2: Inspirational motivation is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

Within the dimension intellectual stimulation, the leader tries to stimulate followers’ creativity and increase employees’ ability to think about problems in different ways (Bass, 1985). In this way, the leader asks employees to rethink the way of doing things and question the status quo (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Among others proactive behavior involves:

“…challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions” (Crant, 2000, p. 436). Therefore, with regard to the behavior of the dimension intellectual stimulation the leader explicitly asks and encourages his employees to show proactive behavior, in this case to challenge the status quo and rethink the way of doing things. I expect that when the leader explicitly asks and encourages proactivity, this will have a positive influence on employees’ proactive behavior. Therefore I propose the following hypothesis.

H3: Intellectual stimulation is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

According to the social exchange theory the reciprocation of valued resources fosters the maintenance and the strengthening of interpersonal relationships (Lynch, Eisenberger & Armeli, 1999). The reciprocity principles suggest that positive actions towards employees create obligations for employees to give something in return. The leader-member exchange is the exchange relationship between the employee and his supervisor (Settoon, Bennett & Liden, 1996). When a leader shows behavior of the dimension individualized consideration he acts as a mentor or coach and listens to the needs of his employees (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

(21)

16 This behavior and the focus on employees´ needs and abilities shows that the leader cares about his employees and that he wants to help and support his employees. When a leader gives his employees support and help this will strengthen the leader-member exchange and the leader contributions the employees receive will create obligations for employees to reciprocate (Graen & Scandura, 1987). According to Wayne and Green (1993) subordinates can reciprocate the supervisor contributions they receive when they engage in extra-role behavior that benefits the supervisor. Extra-role behavior means that employees fulfill more than their basic job requirements. This can be reached when employees show proactive behavior by taking initiatives to redefine or broaden their role (Crant, 2000). I expect that when a leader shows behavior of the dimension individualized consideration, this will

strengthen the exchanged relationship between the employee and his leader. When this strong leader-member exchange exists I expect that employees want to reciprocate the contributions they received from their leader by engaging in extra-role proactive behaviors that benefits their leader. Therefore I propose that when a leader shows behavior of the dimension

individualized consideration, he will positively influence employees’ proactive behavior. This results in the following hypothesis:

H4: Individualized consideration is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

Figure 1 presents the visual representation of the conceptual model of the direct effect of the transformational leadership dimensions on proactive behavior.

(22)

17

Figure 1

Visual representation of the conceptual model of the direct effect of the transformational leadership dimensions on proactive behavior.

The following part explains the mediating effect of organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior on transformational leadership and proactive behavior. Earlier research has shown that organizational commitment (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007), self-efficacy (López-Domínguez, Enache, Sallan & Simo, 2013) and job autonomy (Parker et al., 2006) are important factors for employees to engage in proactive behaviors. However, as far as I know previous researchers have not researched which specific transformational leadership behaviors are related to these factors. Therefore I find it interesting to examine how leaders can influence these mechanisms. This is the first study to examine the mediating effect of cost benefit analysis on the link between

(23)

18 proactive behavior is an important mechanism for employees if they want to engage in

proactive behavior. In line with earlier research (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), I expect that employees estimate the consequences of their actions and that employees engage more easily in a certain type of behavior, in this case proactive behavior, when they perceive that the benefits of showing proactive behavior will outweigh the risks. It is therefore interesting to examine how leaders can influence employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. Given the above, I have chosen to research the mediating effect of organizational

commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior on transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

2.3.2 Organizational commitment as mediator

Organizational commitment is the psychological attachment of an employee to the

organization. It characterizes the employee’s relationship with the organization. It also has implications for employees’ decisions to discontinue or continue membership in the organization (Myer & Allen, 1991). Myer and Allen describe three types of commitment: affective, continuance and normative. According to them: “affective commitment refers to employees’ emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (p. 67). They refer to continuance commitment when employees stay within the organization because of the cost associated with leaving the organization. If employees feel an obligation to the organization to continue their employment this can be called normative commitment (Myer and Allen, 1991). In order to measure organizational commitment I will use the definition of affective commitment in this research. I will use affective commitment because this form is expected to have the strongest effect on desirable work relevant behaviors (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).

(24)

19 There are mixed results for commitment as antecedent of proactivity. In their research of proactive work role behavior, Parker et al. (2006) found that proactive behavior was unrelated to affective organizational commitment. On the other side, Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) found that personal initiative was positively related to (affective) commitment.

According to Strauss et al. (2009) employees’ attachment to the organization can be seen as a motive for showing behavior that benefits the firm. Because proactive behavior has several positive outcomes for organizations, employees’ proactive behavior can be seen as behavior that is discretionary and will benefit the firm. Employees can choose to show discretionary behavior. I expect that when employees are affectively committed to the organization they will choose to show more discretionary behavior that benefits the firm. Which can ultimately lead to employees who show more proactive behavior, because proactive behavior is a kind of behavior that benefits the organization. Therefore I propose that when employees are

affectively committed to the organization they will show more proactive behavior. This results in the following hypothesis:

H5: Employees’ (affective) organizational commitment is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

According to Mowday, Porter and Steers (1982) leadership is considered as a main determent of organizational commitment. There has been evidence that transformational leaders create high levels of organizational commitment (Avolio, Zhu, Koy & Bhatia, 2004). Also previous research shows that transformational leaders enhance employees’ affective commitment (Bycio, Hackett & Allen, 1995). According to Rousseau (1998) the key to strengthening employees’ organizational commitment is to reinforce perceptions of organizational

(25)

20 the importance of the collective identity of the group. When the leader stresses the importance of the collective identity of the group to his employees, I expect that this will positively influence employees to see themselves as a member of the organization. Because by showing this behavior the leader reinforces employees´ perception of organizational membership I expect that this will enhance employees´ (affective) commitment to the organization. Also, by using behavior of the dimension idealized influence, the leader stresses the shared

characteristics between group members (Shamir et al., 1993). I expect that the leader will try to influence his employees´ perception and reinforce a collective “us” with this behavior. When employees perceive that their relationship with the organization forms an “us” they have stronger perceptions of organizational membership (Rousseau, 1998). This is the key to strengthen employees’ organizational commitment. Therefore I expect that when a leader stresses the shared characteristics between the group members this will reinforce a collective “us” which will enhance employees’ (affective) organizational commitment.

Because of the above I expect that leader behavior that fits within the dimension idealized influence will be positively related to employees’ (affective) organizational commitment. This results in the following hypothesis:

H6: Idealized influence is positively related to employees’ (affective) organizational commitment.

Inspirational motivation is about the leader’s vision. The degree to which the leader formulates a vision which is inspirational and appealing to his followers (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). According to Thomas, Butts, Vandenberg, Dejoy, and Wilson (2006) a characteristic in predicting employees’ organizational commitment is management communication. Rousseau (1998) states that by providing management information employees perceive themselves as

(26)

21 core members of the organization, which may enhance their attachment to the organization. I expect that when a leader articulates an appealing vision he provides employees with the organization´s management information. By providing this management information I expect that employees perceive to be core members of the organization and feel more attached to the organization, which will enhance their (affective) organizational commitment. This claim is additionally supported by the research of Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer (1996). They found that articulating a vision was positively associated with affective commitment to the organization.

Another type of behavior that fits within the dimension inspirational motivation is confidence enhancement among subordinates in order to reach collective goals (Wang & Howell, 2010). According to Rousseau (1998), to have common goals is one of the cues that reinforces a collective “us” and therefore reinforces perceptions of organizational membership. Which is the key to strengthening employees’ organizational commitment. I expect that when a leader enhances confidence among subordinates to reach collective goals, this will reinforce a collective “us” and reinforce perceptions of organizational membership, which will enhance employees’ organizational commitment.

Because of the above I expect that leader behavior that fits within the dimension inspirational motivation will have a positive influence on employees’ (affective) organizational

commitment. This results in the following hypothesis:

H7: Inspirational motivation is positively related to employees’ (affective) organizational commitment.

Figure 2 presents the visual representation of the mediating effect of (affective) organizational commitment on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

(27)

22

Figure 2

The visual representation of the mediating effect of (affective) organizational commitment on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

2.3.3 Self-efficacy as mediator

According to the social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) self-efficacy can be described as: “beliefs in one’s capacities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). It is the belief an employee has in his own ability to successfully accomplish a goal or task (Bandura, 1997). Employees’ self-efficacy is related to employees’ self-confidence. Self-confidence is the degree in which an employee believes himself to be successful, worthy and capable (Coopersmith, 1967). Previous research has shown that efficacy enhances proactive behavior (Speier & Frese, 1997) and that it increases people’s willingness to take on action (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). According to Stajkovic and Luthans employees are less likely to be proactive when they do not believe that they are able to have an impact. Also Straus et al. (2004) found that for employees to engage in proactive behavior, they need to feel confident. López-Domínguez et al. (2013) state that self-efficacy is an important factor for employees to engage in proactive behavior. According to them self-efficacy is an important factor because proactive behavior can entail certain psychological

(28)

23 risks. When employees are confident in their own capabilities, they are more confident that their actions will be successful and therefore they are more likely to take those risks (Parker et al., 2006). Because proactive behavior can entail certain psychological risks and employees who are confident in their own capabilities are more likely to take those risks, I expect that employees with a high degree of self-efficacy are more likely to show proactive behavior. Therefore I expect that employees’ self-efficacy will have a positive effect on employees’ proactivity. This claim is additionally supported by the research of Frese, Garts and Fay (2007). They demonstrate that self-efficacy beliefs link with high levels of self-initiative. This will result in the following hypothesis:

H8: Employees’ self-efficacy is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

There is evidence that charismatic leaders will enhance followers’ confidence and self-efficacy (House & Howell, 1992; Shamir et al.,1993). When leaders express a vision with high expectations and which is inspirational to their followers, they show behavior of the dimension inspirational motivation. With their appealing vision and high expectations the transformational leaders show confidence in their followers to meet these higher expectations (Yukl, 1989). According to Shamir et al (1993), when leaders show confidence in their employees’ abilities to meet expectations, this will have a positive influence on followers´ self-efficacy. I expect that when a leader expresses a vision with high expectations, one which is also inspirational and appealing to his employees to follow, he shows confidence in his employees' abilities to meet these expectations, which will enhance employees’ self-efficacy. This claim is additionally supported by Walumbwa, Avolio and Zhu (2008). According to them leaders can enhance employees’ self-efficacy by using verbal persuasion.

(29)

24 Another behavior of the dimension inspirational motivation is that the leader acts as a role model for his followers (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). According to Walumbwa et al. (2008) role modeling is one of the determinants of self-efficacy. Transformational leaders themselves have a high degree of self-efficacy (House & Howell, 1992). I expect that when employees see that their leader has a high degree of self-efficacy this will positively influence their self-efficacy because the transformational leader acts as a role model and self-efficacy can be enhanced by observing role models. Therefore I expect that when employees see their leader as a role model this will increase their feelings of self-efficacy. This claim is

additionally supported by the research of Walumbwa et al. (2008). According to them followers’ self-efficacy can be increased by a transformational leader when he acts as a role model.

Given the above I expect that when a leader shows behavior from the dimension inspirational motivation this will have a positive effect on employees’ self-efficacy. Therefore I propose the following hypothesis:

H9: Inspirational motivation is positively related to employees’ self-efficacy.

When leaders try to stimulate employees to think for themselves and to consider creative ways to solve problems, they show behavior of the dimension intellectual stimulation. Because the leader ensures their employees to think for themselves and consider creative ways to solve problems, the leader will create learning opportunities for the employees (House & Howell, 1992). When leaders create learning opportunities for their employees, I expect that this can be seen as a signal of the confidence a leader has in his employees for them to successfully take these opportunities. According to Shamir et al. (1993) a leader´s confidence in his employees has a positive influence on followers’ self-efficacy. Therefore I

(30)

25 expect that when leaders try to stimulate employees to think for themselves and to stimulate employees to consider creative ways to solve problems, they will enhance employees’ self-efficacy. That is why I expect that leader behavior that fits within the dimension intellectual stimulation will enhance employees’ self-efficacy. This results in the following hypothesis:

H10: Intellectual stimulation is positively related to employees’ self-efficacy.

Within the dimension individualized consideration the leader tries to foster followers’ abilities and skills by for example delegating responsibilities or giving their subordinates more

authority (Bass, 1985). I expect that delegating responsibilities and giving subordinates more authority can be seen as a signal to the employee that the leader has confidence in him to successfully take on these responsibilities. According to Shamir et al. (1993) the confidence the leader exudes will have a positive influence on followers’ self-efficacy. Therefore I expect that this kind of behavior will positively influence employees’ feelings of self-efficacy.

Behavior that also fits within the dimension individualized consideration is that the leader provides for continuous feedback. By giving feedback, leaders try to change the employees´ self-concept and enhance the feelings and beliefs that they can successfully complete challenging tasks (Walumbwa et al., 2008). I expect that when a leader provides continuous feedback he will change employees’ self-concept and enhance feelings that they can

successfully complete tasks, which will enhance employees’ feelings of self-efficacy. Therefore I expect that when a leader provides continuous feedback, this will positively influence employees’ feelings of self-efficacy. This claim is additionally supported by the research of Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996) they suggest that when transformational leaders provide adequate feedback to their followers they build followers’ feelings of self-efficacy.

(31)

26 Given the above I expect that when a leader shows behavior of the dimension individualized consideration this will enhance employees’ self-efficacy. This results in the following hypothesis:

H11: Individualized consideration is positively related to employees’ self-efficacy

Figure 3 presents the visual representation of the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

Figure 3

The visual representation of the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

2.3.4 Job Autonomy as mediator

According to Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) and Hackman and Oldman (1980) job autonomy is the degree in which a job allows an employee freedom, independence, the

(32)

27 authority to make decisions, the discretion to schedule work, and the extent in which the employee can choose which methods they use to perform their tasks. Job autonomy has positive effects on employees´ work attitudes, for example on their performance quality and employees´ job satisfaction (Aldag, Barr & Brief, 1981; Roberts & Glick, 1981). When an organization or manager gives employees more autonomy, this will be a signal to employees that they have the ability and opportunity to broaden their role and take initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001). I expect that when employees perceive that they have the ability and opportunity to broaden their role and take initiative, they are more likely to show proactive behavior because they have the ability and opportunity to do so. Therefore I expect that employees are more likely to engage in proactive behavior when they have a high degree of job autonomy. This statement is additionally supported by Hackman and Oldman (1976). According to them, employees are more likely to show proactive behavior in situations of autonomy or when they have the freedom to decide what to do and when and how they can do it. This also

corresponds with what Parker et al. (2006) state. According to them, employees who experience higher job autonomy are more proactive. Given the above I expect that when employees perceive more job autonomy, they are more likely to show proactive behavior. This results in the following hypothesis:

H12: Employees’ perceived job autonomy is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

Within the dimension intellectual stimulation, the transformational leader tries to stimulate followers’ creativity and increase employees’ ability to think about problems in different ways (Bass, 1985). The transformational leader stimulates employees to do things differently and to find new ways to achieve goals. By showing this behavior the leader gives his

(33)

28 followers the freedom to think for themselves and to create a new solution for problems. Among others, job autonomy is the degree in which a job allows an employee freedom (Hackman & Oldman, 1980). If employees have the freedom to decide which new solution they create, I expect that these followers will perceive a higher degree of job autonomy. Therefore I propose that employees perceive a high degree of job autonomy when a leader shows behavior of the dimension intellectual stimulation. This results in the following hypothesis:

H13: intellectual stimulation is positively related to employees’ perceived job autonomy.

According to Den Hartog and Belschak (2012) high-autonomy describes an environment which is less-prescribed with fewer cues. In this situation an employee is expected to figure out more on his own. Also, it allows more discretion from employees for turning the leader’s vision into action. A situation within which employees are expected to figure out more on their own can be created by a transformational leader when he shows behavior of the

dimension individualized consideration by empowering his employees to achieve their highest potential. By showing this behavior the leader gives the employee freedom to decide how and when he wants to achieve his highest potential. Because the employee is free to decide how and when he wants to achieve his highest potential, I expect that this will positively influence employees’ perceived job autonomy. Therefore I expect that when a leader empowers his employees to achieve their highest potential, this will be positively related to employees’ perceived job autonomy. Another kind of behavior that falls under the dimension

individualized consideration is for the leader to give his subordinates more authority (Bass, 1985). Authority is part of the definition of job autonomy. Job autonomy is among others the

(34)

29 degree in which a job allows an employee the authority to make decisions. I expect that when a leader gives their employees more authority this will enhance their perceived job autonomy. Given the above I expect that employees perceive a high degree of job autonomy when a leader shows behavior of the dimension individualized consideration. Therefore I propose the following hypothesis:

H14: Individualized consideration is positively related to employees’ perceived job autonomy.

Figure 4 presents the visual representation of the mediating effect of job autonomy on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

Figure 4

The visual representation of the mediating effect of job autonomy on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

2.3.5 Cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior as mediator

According to Posner (2000) the term cost benefit analysis can refer to a method of evaluation. It can be seen as input and as an instrument for a decision. According to Morrison and Phelps

(35)

30 (1999) employees estimate what consequences their actions will have. They suggest that when employees have less high political risks and resistance they will engage more easily in extra role behavior; taking charge in their research. In their case, the cost benefit analysis can be seen as an instrument for a decision, to engage more easily in extra role behavior. In line with the research of Morrison and Phelps, I expect that when an employee has a positive cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior, in which an employee perceives that the benefits of showing proactive behavior will outweigh the risks, they be more likely to engage in proactive behavior. This will result in the following hypothesis:

H15: Employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior is positively related to employees’ proactive behavior.

The dimension inspirational motivation among others describes the degree in which the leader acts as a role model for his employees (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Transformational leaders on their own are more proactive and change-oriented (Crant & Bateman, 2000). Therefore transformational leaders can be seen as role models of proactive behavior (Shamir & Howell, 1999). When the leader is seen as a transformational leader and the employees see their leader as a role model I expect that this will positively influence employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. This is because when their leader is a role model to them I expect the employees to be more willing to take some risks that their leader would also take. Also, I expect that when employees find their leader to be proactive, they can be expected to be rewarded by their leader for being proactive as well. Therefore I expect that when a

transformational leader shows behavior of the dimension inspirational motivation by acting as a role model, that this will have a positive influence on employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. This results in the following hypothesis:

(36)

31

H16: Inspirational motivation is positively related to employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior.

By intellectual stimulation, the transformational leader tries to stimulate followers’ creativity and increase employees’ ability to think about problems in different ways (Bass, 1985). In this way, the leader asks employees for challenging new ideas, and stimulates his followers to reconsider the way they do things and question the status quo (Bass & Avolio, 1990). I expect that when the leader explicitly asks for proactivity, in this case to question the status quo rather than adapting to the current state of affairs, this positively influences employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. This is because employees can be expected to be rewarded for their proactive behavior when the leader explicitly asks for it. Therefore I propose the following hypothesis:

H17: Intellectual stimulation is positively related to employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior.

When a leader acts as a mentor or coach and gives his employees his help and support he shows behavior of the dimension individualized consideration. When a leader gives his employees support and help this will strengthen the leader-member exchange and the leader contributions the employees receive will create obligations for employees to reciprocate (Graen & Scandura, 1987). Employees can reciprocate the leader contributions they have received when they engage in extra-role behavior that benefits their leader (Wayne and Green, 1993). Extra-role behavior means that employees fulfill more than their basic job

(37)

32 example taking initiatives to redefine or broaden their role (Crant, 2000). I expect that when a leader shows behavior of the dimension individualized consideration this will strengthen the exchanged relationship between the employee and his leader. When this strong leader-member exchange exists, I expect that employees can be expected to be rewarded for reciprocating the leader contributions they received by showing proactive behavior that benefits their leader. That is why I expect that behavior that fits within the dimension individualized consideration will have a positive influence on employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. This results in the following hypothesis:

H18: Individualized consideration is positively related to employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior.

Figure 5 presents the visual representation of the mediating effect of cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

(38)

33

Figure 5

The visual representation of the mediating effect of cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

Overall, as presented in figure 6, with regards to the mediating effect of (affective)

organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior, this results in the following conceptual model:

(39)

34

Figure 6

The visual representation of the conceptual model of the mediating effect of (affective)

organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior, on the link between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.

(40)

35

3. Research method

This chapter will explain how this research was conducted. First the procedure and sample are described. After that the different measures will be explained.

3.1 Procedure and sample

This study is based on random sampling of three different types of employees. Data was collected from three organizations of different backgrounds. One profit organization in the finance industry and two non-profit organizations. One in the healthcare industry and one in the education industry. The profit organization has 750 employees spread across 18 locations. The organization in the healthcare industry has 250 employees spread across 2 locations and the organization in the education industry has about 160 employees all working from one single location. All three organizations are located in the Netherlands.

Two web-based questionnaires were used to collect the data. The entire questionnaires were in Dutch. Two questionnaires were used because the employees who filled in the first questionnaire were asked to have a colleague rate their proactive behavior in a second

questionnaire. The participants were allowed to choose which colleague to ask. This was done because participants themselves know which person could best evaluate their behavior.

The last question of the first questionnaire asked the employees to assign a code. The respondents were to send this code to the person they chose to rate their proactive behavior. The first question of the second questionnaire asked participants who were chosen to rate the proactive behavior of their colleague to fill in this code. The code had to be unique because this code was used to match the two questionnaires. To prevent the various participants from inventing the same code certain requirements had to be met. The code had to consist of 6 characters, starting with the first letter of their first name, the last letter of their last name, the

(41)

36 first two numbers of their house number (whereas number 6 was written as 06), followed by the last two numbers of their telephone number.

All employees of the three organizations were given the opportunity to fill in the

questionnaires. The only requirement to participate in this research was that they worked under someone. The employees could apply themselves voluntarily by filling in the questionnaire. The respondents did not receive anything for participating. For both

questionnaires the confidentiality and voluntary nature of participation were stressed in an accompanying letter which was the first page of both questionnaires. This cover letter also indicated the research topic, the fact that their answers were valuable for this research, the time needed to fill in the questionnaire and how the results were used. The contact details of the researcher were also put in the accompanying letter. In case of questions the participant was referred to the researcher.

The respondents had 21 days to fill in both questionnaires. The profit organization put the web link to the questionnaire on intranet and employees were asked to take part in the

research via an intranet article. The non-profit organizations asked employees to participate in the research via email. After 7 days a reminder was put on intranet for the profit organization and for the non-profit organizations a reminder was send by email. After 14 days another reminder was put on intranet and sent by email for the profit organization. For the non-profit organizations a second reminder was sent by email. All the responses were directly sent to the researcher.

In total 147 questionnaires were filled out. 40 questionnaires could be matched by the code. Because the sample of 40 employee-colleague dyads is to small and has too little power for testing the hypothesis these dyads were not used in the analysis. Therefore the peer-ratings of proactive behavior were skipped and only the employee self-rating items of proactive

(42)

37 54% of the respondents were male. The average age of the respondents was 37 years (SD = 12.2), 18.6 % was younger than 25 years of age, 38.1% was between 25 and 35 years of age, 15.9% was between 36 and 45 years of age, 16.8% was between 46 and 55 and 10.6% was over 55 years of age. Average work experience was 14.6 years (SD = 11.1). On average, employees were employed at their current employer for 9.3 years (SD = 9.3), 52.3 % was employed at the organization for over 5 years, 31.9% for more than 10 years and 11.5% for more than 20 years. 45.6% of the respondents had a degree in higher education and 40.4% had a university degree.

3.2 Measures

In total nine variables were measured. Transformational leadership was measured by four variables: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Proactive behavior was measured by one variable; personal initiative (PI). As mediating effect four variables were measured: affective organizational commitment, self-efficacy, job autonomy and cost benefit analysis. In questionnaire 1, the respondents were asked to fill in questions about all nine variables. The items in this questionnaire were drawn up from the employee’s point of view. Eight variables were collected from one source, the perception of the employee who participated in the research. Proactive behavior was the only variable which was collected from two sources. From self- and peer-ratings. In Questionnaire 2, the respondents were asked to rate the proactive

behavior of the colleague who sent them the code. In this questionnaire the respondent had to fill in the questions about PI.

For all items the responses were given on a 7-point scale (from 1= completely disagree to 7= completely agree). Most of the items where derived from English studies. The research was conducted in the Netherlands, therefore these items were translated to Dutch.

(43)

38 Transformational leadership items were collected from the Dual-Level Transformational Leadership (TFL) Scale from Wang and Howell (2010). For their TFL Scale, they adapted some items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short from Avolio and Bass (2004). Items were selected from the TFL that fit the transformational leadership dimensions idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Some items were added to these variables from the Dutch Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO) questionnaire (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004). Items from different scales were used to measure transformational leadership to cover all of the transformational leader’s behaviors. For example within the dimension inspiration motivation, one of the behaviors was about the degree in which the leader acts as a role model for his followers. There were no items on the TFL scale

mentioning the degree in which the leader acts as a role model. Therefore the TFL scale was expanded with items from other scales.

The dimension idealized influence was measured by four items (Cronbach’s Alfa .893). For example, the following item was used: “My leader encourages others to place the interests of the team ahead of his own interests”. For the dimension inspiration motivation three questions about role modeling were added to the questionnaire. The scale of Rich (1997) was used to select three items (e.g. “My leader acts as a role model to me”). In total, inspirational motivation was measured by nine items (Cronbach’s Alfa .932). Other sample items were: “My leader articulates a compelling vision of the future for our team” and “My leader shows confidence in my ability to meet performance expectations”. Intellectual stimulation was measured by four items (Cronbach’s Alfa .906), (e.g. “My leader challenges me to think about old problems in new ways”). The last dimension individualized consideration was measured by five items (Cronbach’s Alfa .906). A sample item is “My leader suggests training to improve my ability to carry out my job”. Proactive behavior was measured by seven items

(44)

39 about PI (Cronbach’s Alfa .899). The scale from Frese et al. (1997) was used. These items were used for both the first and second questionnaire (e.g. “Whenever something goes wrong, I/ my colleague search for a solution immediately”). To measure affective organizational commitment a six-item scale from Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993) was used (Cronbach’s Alfa .912). A sample item is “I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own”. Self-efficacy was measured from the Personal Self-efficacy beliefs scale from Riggs, Warska, Babasa, Betancourt and Hooker (1994). In total they developed a 10-items scale. For this

questionnaire 5 items were selected to measure self-efficacy (Cronbach’s Alfa .852). A sample item is “I have confidence in my ability to do my job”. For measuring job autonomy three-items were derived from Hackman and Oldman’s (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey (Cronbach’s Alfa .920). A sample item is “I can decide how I perform my job”. No existing questionnaire was found for measuring the cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior. Therefore a five-item scale was made (Cronbach’s Alfa .848). The cost benefit analysis was used, in line with Posner (2000), as an instrument for decision. In this research, to engage more easily in proactive behavior. This research measured proactive behavior with items about PI. Therefore the items for the cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior included employees’ personal initiative. In line with the research of Morrison and Phelps (1999), it was assumed that when employees have less high political risks and resistance, they will engage more easily in extra-role behavior. Therefore the items on the scale about employees’ cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior include the risks or benefits for employees when they take initiatives. In this case what the employee expected their leader to think when he takes initiatives. Expected was that when the benefits of showing proactive behavior outweigh the risks, employees are more likely to engage in proactive behavior. Therefore it was assumed that the higher the score on the items, the less risks and resistance employees feel to engage in proactive behavior. Items to measure the cost benefit analysis of proactive behavior were for

(45)

40 example “I expect my leader to find initiatives from my side to be desirable” and “I expect initiatives from my side will lead to a better assessment”.

3.3 Control variables

In line with earlier research on proactive behavior (Fay & Sonnetag, 2002) gender and age are included in de analysis as control variables because these geographic variables might have a confounding effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and proactive behavior.