How pride can be beneficial for organizations and how to stimulate it

(1)

How Pride can be Beneficial for

Organizations and how to Stimulate it.

April 2014, Amsterdam

Mara Janssen

10082417

Bachelor Thesis

Supervisor: D.N. Den Hartog

Business Studies 2013-2014

(2)

Abstract

In this research we focus on pride, its beneficial outcomes and how it can be stimulated. A survey was distributed among 97 Dutch managers and 102 Dutch employees. From the results became clear that transformational leadership is positively influencing pride and that this relationship is mediated by job satisfaction. Furthermore a positive relationship was found between transformational leadership and OCB and between pride and OCB as well. Hypotheses 1, 3 and 4 were all confirmed by the results while hypothesis 2 could not be supported by the data. Pride can be seen as a strategic asset, this study is of importance for organizations since it provides important information on the benefits of pride and how pride can be stimulated.

(3)

1.Introduction

Have you ever visited an Apple Store? If you never have you definitely should. What you will find next to all the Apple equipment is probably the most loyal workforce you can imagine, also called the Apple Store’s Army. Most of the employees in the Apple stores are die-hard Apple fans and really enthusiastic. How come? Apple employees are really proud of their company and this is the message they put out there. And this approach seems to work, in an article by the New York times it was found that the Apple stores in America generated more money per square foot than any other United States retailer (New York Times, 2012). So it seems that proud employees may perhaps help generate more profit.

From a study by Gunter and Furnham (1996) is concluded that feelings of pride indeed lead to beneficial outcomes for firms such as a good working spirit among employees. Arnett, Laverie and McLane (2002) also studied the feelings of pride of employees and they found that when employees experience feelings of pride, they also engaged in positive employee behavior. John Katzenbach (2003) even sees pride as a strategic asset.

In the current economic situation, organizations have to stand out from the rest in order to survive. As we have seen now it could be that pride is the key to success. So if we can make our employees proud, the result will be beneficial. The next question then of course is, how do you get yourself proud

employees? There are different ways in which feelings of pride can be stimulated. Of which management style and job satisfaction are discussed in this paper.

In order to test whether and in what way pride is influenced by management and job satisfaction and to see what the exact benefits are, we came up with the following research question: Does pride lead to more pro-organizational behavior and how can it be stimulated?

First, the relevant literature on this topic is reviewed after which a conceptual framework is put together from which the hypotheses that are further researched become clear. Second, the research method used to answer these hypotheses is clarified after which the actual research with its results are explained. This paper is concluded with a discussion of the findings and a conclusion.

(6)

2. Literature review

In order to define the research topic more precisely, in this section, the existing literature that is related to the research problem is evaluated and explained. First the concept of pride is explained, next the possible outcomes of pride are assessed after which it is examined how organizations can influence pride. Finally, a short conclusion is provided in order to emphasize the need for this research.

2.1 What is pride?

Wubben, De Cremer and van Dijk (2012) provide some definitions of pride by philosophers. For instance Spinoza who describes pride as ‘Pleasure arising from a man’s thinking too highly of himself’(2006, p. 130). Another famous philosopher has a more positive view on pride, Aristotle sees pride as ‘Crown of the virtues’ (trans. 2008, p. 116). So there is a more positive and a more negative view on pride. In recent studies, researchers continued to see pride as having two different facets.

In the literature these two facets of pride are distinguished as, ‘Authentic’ pride and ‘Hubristic’ pride (Lewis, 2000; Tracy and Robins 2007a). To provide a better view of these facets a research by Tracy, Shariff and Cheng (2010) is discussed. In this research participants were asked to think of words that are relevant to pride. From the answers the respondents gave it was clear the answers formed two separate clusters. The first cluster, authentic pride, included words such as “accomplished” and “confident”, this fits with the pro-social, achievement-oriented conceptualization of pride. The second cluster, hubristic pride, included words such as “arrogant” and “conceited”, this fits with a more self-overvaluing conceptualization.

So it appears there are two types of pride that are opposites. In this study we will only focus on authentic pride, whenever the word pride is used in this study the concept of authentic pride is meant. Now that we have an idea what kind of pride is meant in this study we will continue to further explain the concept of pride. Arnett, Laverie and McLane (p.90, 2002) describe pride as :’An emotion that is crucial to understanding human behavior. It is derived from both self-appraisals and others’opinions. Pride represents a belief that one is competent and viewed positively by others. It encourages self-control and is responsible for people behaving in accordance with norms.’

Pride has been linked to a range of positive social outcomes. Tracy et al. (2010) stated in their article that individuals that are high on dispositional pride tend to experience many benefits like being low on trait anxiety, social phobia, aggression, hostility, rejection sensitivity and having a low probability of becoming depressed. In addition these individuals tend to be high on relationship satisfaction, dyadic adjustment, social support and they are known for being strongly attached to their relationship partners. Furthermore

(7)

Tracy et al. concluded that pride is a pro-social and achievement oriented emotion. Williams and DeSteno (2008) found that pride promotes the acquirement of skills, genuine self-esteem and perseverance at difficult tasks.

So we can conclude that pride is a favorable emotion in an organization. However, the above mentioned benefits cannot easily be translated into concepts that will help the organization beat their competitors. Therefore we will now take a closer look at the organizational benefits of pride.

2.2 The benefits of pride for the organization

The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is one of the most discussed outcomes of pride in literature. OCB is an abbreviation for Organizational Citizenship Behavior. This concept was explained in a research paper by Organ (p.4, 1988) as ‘ Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes effective

functioning of the organization’. OCB includes behavior such as following the rules and helping others on the job (Hodson, 1998). Other aspects that are often associated with OCB include ‘conscientiousness (Smith et al. 1983, Organ 1994), altruism (Smith et al. 1983), personal industry, individual initiative, interpersonal helping and loyal boosterism (Karambayya, 1990) and citizen responsibilities such as obedience, loyalty, and political participation (Graham, 1991) (Hodson, p.308, 1998).

Now that we know what OCB is, we reviewed the literature in order to see whether there is a link between pride and OCB. From the paper by Hodson (1998) it is concluded that pride is significantly and positively related to OCB. In the study by Verbeke, Belschak and Bagozzi (2004) on pride in personal selling is confirmed that pride indeed stimulates extra-role performance in the form of OCB. They also found some other positive outcomes of pride like the stimulation of in-role performance-related motivations (work hard and feel self-efficacious). Jon Katzenbach, former director at McKinsey and Co., sees pride as a strategic asset to a company. In his article he states: ‘More than any other motivator, it is pride that fosters cooperation and collective effort as well as individual initiative. It is pride in one’s fellow workers that encourages information sharing as well as camaraderie. And it is pride in collaborating with respected colleagues that leads to team performance’ (p.35, 2003). Katzenbach elaborates about the employees taking initiative, being proud of their colleagues and collaboration. These types of behavior can be viewed as OCB.

Arnett et al. (2002) conducted a study on the effects of pride on employees in the workplace, they focused on employees in the hotel industry. When they studied this industry they found that employees that experience a high level of pride in an organization perceive this organization as being important, meaningful, effective and as a valuable part of the community. As a result, these employees are more

(8)

likely to engage in activities that help the organization meet its goals. They found a positive relationship between pride and positive employee behavior (OCB). We can conclude that pride has many beneficial outcomes for the company of which we will focus on OCB. It becomes clear that pride really can be a strategic asset for companies. Therefore is it important to know how pride can be stimulated in organizations, this is what is discussed next.

2.3 What concepts influence feelings of pride within an organization?

Research by Arnett et al. (2002) shows that there are three concepts that positively and significantly influence pride in an organization. These are job satisfaction, the evaluation of management and

organizational performance. In this study we will only focus on the first two concepts mentioned by Arnett et al. (2002) since these have the strongest positive relation with pride.

2.3.1 Job Satisfaction

The concept that was found by Arnett et al. (2002) to have the strongest positive influence on pride is Job satisfaction. “Job satisfaction refers to an employee’s general affective evaluation of his or her job” (Arnett et al. p 89, 2002). They also state that job satisfaction will lead to the intentions of employees to keep performing their job tasks well. Gunter and Furnham (1996) confirmed that job satisfaction has a positive influence on pride. In their paper the relation between job satisfaction and pride is tested within four organizations. From this research it was concluded that in the organizations where job satisfaction was rated highest, pride was rated as being the highest as well. Furthermore it was found that job satisfaction was positively correlated with job definition/clarity, job importance/challenge, job performance awareness, encouragement to work hard, organization performance and rewards and recognition across all four organizations. In three out of the four examined organizations job satisfaction was significantly and positively correlated with some other climate perceptions like: influence over job, management involves staff, section/department performance, know what is going on, different people get on well, work enjoyment and training adequacy. So, if an organization wants to make sure it’s employees are satisfied with their jobs they should study and apply the above mentioned concepts.

2.3.2 Evaluation of management/transformational leadership

The second concept that influences pride within an organization according to Arnett et al. (2002), is the evaluation of management. Managers are important to the employees because they have to provide them with the proper training and resources in order for them to be able to do their job properly. Furthermore it is very important that managers listen carefully to the employees and act appropriately. Verbeke et al. (2004) also argued that management could have a positive influence on pride. From their research it was

(9)

concluded that employees experience feelings of pride when they have matched or exceeded expectations set with respect to their performance. Since it is often the managers who set these expectations, so they can stimulate and manage feelings of pride in their employees in this way.

In literature different management/leadership styles can be found of which Transformational leadership is believed to be the most stimulating pride within employees. In an article by Bass (1997) he states that the transformational leader has the ability of moving the followers beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group, organization or society. Furthermore, it is believed that the transformational leader inspires followers to do more than originally expected (Den Hartog, van Muijen and Koopman, 1997). Hater and Bass state that ‘Transformational leaders are postulated to be responsible for performance beyond ordinary expectations as they transmit a sense of mission, stimulate learning experiences and arouse new ways of thinking’ (p.695, 1988). Bass (1999) argues that employees can be stimulated intellectually when the leader helps them to become more creative and innovative. He also found that consideration on an individual level is displayed when leaders pay attention to the developmental needs of employees and supports and coaches this development. The transformational leader delegates assignments as

opportunities of growth.

Hater and Bass (1988) found that ‘The dynamics of transformational leadership involve strong personal identification with the leader, joining in a shared vision of the future, or going beyond the self-interest exchange of rewards for compliance’ (p.695). Another statement in an article by Bass (1999) about transformational leadership: ‘Idealized influence and inspirational leadership are displayed when the leader envisions a desirable future, articulates how it can be reached, sets an example to be followed, sets high standards of performance, and shows determination and confidence. Followers want to identify with such leadership’ (p. 11).

These outcomes of transformational leadership can be seen as very positive and stimulating for

employees. But does transformational leadership leads to pride within employees as well? In 1985, Bass distributed an open ended survey among 70 executives. They were asked to describe attributes of transformational and transactional (leadership style based on rewards) leaders. The items that reliably could be placed within either the transactional or transformational category were then put into a

preliminary survey administered to military officers. Then, principal components factor analyses of the 73 items resulted in three transformational and two transactional factors, this was called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. For transformational leadership the outcomes of the MLQ were:

Transformational leadership

1. Charisma: The leader instills pride, faith and respect, has a gift for seeing what is really important, and transmits a sense of mission.

(10)

2. Individualized consideration: The leader delegates projects to stimulate learning experiences, provides coaching and teaching, and treats each follower as an individual.

3. Intellectual stimulation: The leader arouses followers to think in new ways and emphasizes problem solving and the use of reasoning before taking action (Hater & Bass, 1988).

Bass (1985) also found evidence demonstrating that transformational leaders can positively contribute to employees’ satisfaction, their self-reported effort and job performance. Howell and Frost (1989) studied the impact of different leadership styles on employee performance and productivity in a laboratory setting. They found some positive outcomes for charismatic/transformational leaders. These outcomes were: better performance, greater satisfaction and less role conflict (than for other leadership styles). So we can conclude that transformational leadership has a direct and indirect (through higher job satisfaction which has a positive effect on pride as well) effect on feelings of pride within employees.

Now that we have reviewed the literature thoroughly we can conclude that pride has many benefits for the organization of which we will focus on OCB. Furthermore, we found that organizations can stimulate feelings of pride through the use of job satisfaction or transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was also found to be positively related to job satisfaction. How these concepts are incorporated into a conceptual model is discussed next in this paper.

We would like to conclude this literature review by addressing the importance of this paper. Although we now know that feelings of pride within employees can be a strategic asset for organizations, not many research on this subject has been done. Especially not in relation with transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Therefore we believe this paper is an addition to the existing literature and furthermore of importance for organizations. Organizations can use this paper to find out how they can stimulate feelings of pride within their employees and accordingly enjoy the strategic benefits of pride.

(11)

3. Conceptual Framework

As stated above, the four most important constructs in this research are transformational leadership, job satisfaction, pride and OCB. Transformational leadership and job satisfaction are believed to be positively related to pride and pride is believed to be positively related to OCB. In this study the focus is on positive outcomes of pride for the organization (OCB) and on how the organization can stimulate pride. The frameworks used to study these relationships are provided and explained in this section.

3.1 Transformational Leadership, pride and OCB

Many researchers found that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with OCB (Purvanova, Bono and Dzieweczynski, 2009; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang and Xiong Chen, 2005). We however believe that, after reviewing the literature thoroughly, the concept of pride is

mediating this relationship. In this section is argued why pride is seen as a mediator and different hypotheses are provided.

3.1.1 Transformational leadership and OCB

As mentioned above, there are many studies that found that transformational leadership has a positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior (see e.g., Purvanova, Bono and Dzieweczynski, 2009; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang and Xiong Chen, 2005). So when looking at theory we expect some effects between transformational leadership and OCB but in the current study we can only test the relationship between the two. Although we believe that there are some constructs that are mediating this relationship, we will still test if transformational leadership indeed has a positive relationship with OCB. Therefore, we came up with the following hypothesis:

H1: Transformational Leadership of the manager is positively related with OCB of the subordinate. 3.1.2 Pride as a mediator

From the research by Hater & Bass (1988) it becomes clear that transformational leadership is believed to lead to feelings of pride within employees. Although Verbeke et al. (2004) do mention management in relation with pride, there has not been that much research on transformational leadership in relation with pride. But based on the previously mentioned research (Hater & Bass, 1988; Verbeke et al., 2004) we do believe that there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and pride.

We did however find some evidence in the literature that pride is positively related to OCB (Arnett et al., 2002; Hodson, 1988; Katzenbach, 2003 and Verbeke et al., 2004). With pride being positively related to both transformational leadership and OCB it could be that pride is mediating this

(12)

relationship. This is what is tested using the following hypothesis:

H2: Feelings of pride of the employee mediate the relationship between transformational leadership of the manager and OCB of the subordinate.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the first conceptual framework.

3.2 Transformational leadership, job satisfaction and pride

Since we also would like to know what organizations could do to create an optimal environment for stimulating pride within its employees, we will test the relationship between the following the variables transformational leadership, job satisfaction and pride.

3.2.1 Transformational leadership and pride

As said before the study by Hater & Bass (1988) reports a positive relationship between transformational leadership and pride. In the first conceptual model pride was used as a mediator, in this model pride is used as a dependent variable. The relationship between transformational leadership and pride is tested with use of the following hypothesis:

H3: Transformational leadership of the manager is positively related with feelings of pride within the subordinate.

3.2.2 Job satisfaction as a mediator

Since job satisfaction appears to be an important variable in the literature (see e.g. Griffith, 2004; Howell and Frost, 1989; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter, 1990; Arnett et al., 2002 and Gunter and Furnham, 1996) we will test whether job satisfaction mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and pride.

Several studies found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and job

satisfaction (Griffith, 2004; Howell and Frost, 1989; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter, 1990).

(13)

Moreover there are studies that report a positive relationship between job satisfaction and pride as well (Arnett et al., 2002 and Gunter and Furnham, 1996). Reviewing this we have enough suggestions to assume that job satisfaction mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and pride. To test this the following hypothesis is provided:

H4: Job satisfaction of the employee positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership of the manager and feelings of pride within the subordinate.

Figure 2 presents an overview of the second conceptual framework.

(14)

4. Method

In this section is explained how the previous mentioned hypotheses are tested. It is explained how the research was designed, how the data was collected and who were asked to participate in the research. Furthermore the measures and the method used to analyze the data is discussed.

4.1 Research Design

In order to collect the necessary data to test the hypotheses a questionnaire-based survey was used. The questionnaire was self-administered, so participants could fill it out themselves, without any help. Therefore it was important that the questions in the survey were easy to understand because otherwise there would be a risk that participants would for instance not understand a question and drop out of the research. Another risk would be that participants would feel that filling in the questionnaire would take them too much time (longer than expected) and drop out of the research. In order to overcome these problems, the questionnaire consisted mostly out of items with ranking and scaling types of answering. In this way the questions were easy to understand and could be filled out quickly. Furthermore an

introduction was added to the questionnaire in which was explained what the research was about and how long filling in the questionnaire would take.

4.2 Sample

To collect the data, a group of seven bachelor business students has been working together. We all chose a research question that entailed more or less the same research constructs and therefore we could all use the same questionnaire. Every person in the group had to find as many sets of participants as possible. A set entailed one manager plus one, two or more subordinates of this manager. Every person in the group used his/her own network to find 20 sets of participants. Since the seven people in the group were only related to each other by their studies, their networks differed a lot which was desirable because in this way a varied sample was composed. The sample entailed (Dutch) employees from different industries, education level and age. In total the questionnaire was completed by 199 participants of which 97 participants were managers and 102 participants were subordinates. In order to make sure the sample is normally distributed a sample of at least 100 participants is required, so the collected sample was large enough to conduct a reliable research.

4.2.1 Description of the sample

Below a table is provided that contains the descriptives of the sample in this study.

(15)

Table 1. Descriptives of the sample (averages) Table 1. (continued) Level of education

Employee Manager Total Employee Manager Total

Age 37 44 40 High School 7.8% 1.0% 4.5%

Female 56% 36% 46% MBO 22.5% 11.3% 17.0%

Male 44% 64% 54% HBO 34.3% 49.5% 41.7%

Tenure 9.7* 11.9** 10.6 University 32.4% 35.1% 33.7%

Parttime 35% 20% 28% Other 3.0% 3.1% 3.1%

Fulltime 65% 80% 72%

Note: *3 employees did not fill out their tenure, therefore they were left out when computing average employee tenure. **22 managers left out their tenure, they were left out when computing average manager tenure.

4.3 Data Collection

When a set of manager and subordinate(s) that wanted to participate was found they both received a separate link with which they could open the questionnaire by e-mail. It was very important that the right link was send to the right person because there were two different questionnaires, one for the manager and one for the subordinate(s). After clicking the link the participant could open the questionnaire and fill it in online. For this online questionnaire the website www.qualtrics.com was used. When the participants opened the questionnaire they were first offered a short introduction on what to expect and the purpose of the survey. The survey was in Dutch and anonymous.

We chose to have participants fill in the questionnaire online because in this way a large sample of participants could be reached, even in geographically dispersed places. Another advantage of the online survey is that if participants completed the questionnaire, the results were immediately available online through www.qualtrics.com and did not have to be put into the computer manually which of course saves time. Also, almost every working person has e-mail nowadays, a lot of participants were reached on their work e-mail. If necessary it was possible to fill out the questionnaire on paper but none of the participants requested this. Of course this method of collecting data involved some disadvantages as well, first of all you cannot see who is filling in the questionnaire, participants could for instance e-mail the link to someone else and have that person filling in the questionnaire. We tried to overcome this disadvantage by distributing codes to the participants but then still you cannot be sure the right person is filling in the questionnaire. Another disadvantage would be that you do not know if participants are using their full concentration when filling in the questionnaire, it might be that they are doing multiple things at the same

(16)

time and therefore lose focus. For this research we considered the advantages to be greater and more important than the disadvantages.

4.4 Measures

In order to test the variables it has to be clear how they are measured. Furthermore it is important to know whether these variables are reliable, so if they test what we expect them to. In order to check the reliability of the variables the Cronbach’s Alpha was computed. In this section all the relevant variables will be discussed, so we will start with gender and then proceed with transformational leadership, job satisfaction, pride and OCB. A copy of both the manager and the subordinate questionnaire can be found in the

Appendix.

4.4.1 Transformational leadership

Transformational leadership was measured by asking the employee to rate his/her manager on items that are believed to correspond to transformational leadership. The measures used are an adaptation from De Hoogh, Den Hartog and Koopman (2004). It contains 11 items that are measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1= ‘Totally not’ and 7=’totally yes’. An example of one of the items is: ‘(My manager) talks to employees about what is of importance to them’. So the higher the employee scored his/her manager, the more transformational this manager is. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .911, which is excellent so the scale is reliable and therefore usable in this research.

4.4.2 Job Satisfaction

In this study we only use the level of job satisfaction of the employee. From the article by Gunter and Furnham (1996) on job satisfaction can be made clear that there are a lot of factors that influence job satisfaction. When Blegen (1993) studied job satisfaction among nurses she found that stress (-.609), organizational commitment (.527), communication with supervisor (.447) and job autonomy (.419) were most strongly associated with job satisfaction. Since stress and communication with supervisor are variables that are quite hard to measure when using a survey we decided to use organizational commitment and job autonomy to measure job satisfaction.

The scales that were used to measure commitment are an adaptation from Meyer, Allen and Smith (1993). It contains six items that are measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1=’Totally Disagree’ and 7=’Totally Agree’. An example of one of the items is: ‘I feel emotionally attached to this organization’. The higher the score of the employee, the more committed he/she feels to the organization.

To measure autonomy, scales that are an adaptation of Hackman and Oldham (1980) were used. It contains three items that are measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1=’Totally Disagree’ and

(17)

7=’Totally Agree’. An example of one the items is: ‘I can decide personally how I do my job’. The higher the score of the employee, the more autonomy he/she in his/her job.

In order to check whether the combination of autonomy and commitment makes a reliable scale to test job satisfaction a reliability analysis was conducted. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .883, which is good so the scale is reliable and therefore usable in this research.

4.4.3 Pride

In this study we are only concerned with the feelings of pride of the employee. In the questionnaire the feelings of pride within the employee and the feelings of pride towards the organization were measured. Up until now we have seen pride as one emotion, we did not make a distinction feelings of pride within the employee or towards the organization. Therefore, both types of pride are used in order to be able to make assumptions about the general feelings of pride of employees.

The measures used to measure feelings of pride within the employee are an adaptation of Tracy and Robins (2007a). It contains seven items that are measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1=’Never’ and 7=’Always’. An example of the items is: ‘(How often do you feel) successful?’. The higher the score of the employee, the more feelings of pride this employee experiences.

The measures that we used to measure feelings of pride towards the organization are an adaptation of Tyler and Blader (2002) and contains four items. The items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1=’Totally disagree’ and 7=’Totally agree’. An example of one of the items is: ‘I feel proud to work for this company’. So the higher the score of the employee, the more feelings of pride towards the

organization he/she experiences.

In order to check whether this scale is reliable we conducted a reliability analysis, for this analysis we combined the scales for pride and organizational pride into one variable which is ‘Pride’. The

Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .791, which is good so the scale is reliable and therefore usable in this research.

4.4.4 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organizational citizenship behavior was tested by asking the employee to rate his own organizational citizenship behavior and by asking this employees’ manager to rate the organizational citizenship behavior of this employee. According to research by Taylor and Brown (1988), participants rate themselves more favorably and less negatively than generalized others (in this case the manager). Therefore, in order to overcome this type of self-evaluation bias, we will use the managers ratings of the employees OCB. Furthermore, there are two types of OCB addressed in the survey. These are OCB-O (voice behavior) and

(18)

OCB-I (affiliative OCB, helping and courtesy). For this study we are interested in the organizational citizenship behavior of the employee in general and therefore both types of OCB are used in this research. To measure OCB-O of the employee, scales that are an adaptation of Van Dyne and Le Pine (1998) were used. The scale consists of five items which were measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1=’Totally disagree’ and 7=’Totally agree’. An example of one of the items is: ‘He/she comes up with new ideas on processes and the way we work within the organization’. The higher the manager scores the employee on this scale, the more this employee engages in OCB-O.

To measure OCB-I of the employee, scales that are an adaptation of MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter (1991) were used. The scale consists of seven items which were measured on a 7-point Likert scale where 1=’Totally disagree’ and 7=’Totally agree’. An example of one of the items is: ‘He/she is always willing to help people around him/her’ . The higher the manager scores the employee on this scale, the more this employee engages in OCB-I.

In order to check whether this scale is reliable we conducted a reliability analysis, for this analysis we combined the scales for OCB-O and OCB-I into one variable which is ‘OCB’. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is .822, which is good so the scale is reliable and therefore usable in this research.

4.5 Data Analysis

The collected data was analyzed by use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program. In SPSS some statistical tests (like regression and correlation) will be performed in order to test the hypotheses and to answer the research question.

4.6 Analyses and Predictions

Both conceptual models in this study are analyzed in four steps. In this section is discussed what steps are taken and what kind of statistical analysis is used.

4.6.1. Conceptual model 1

Conceptual model 1 contains 3 variables: the independent variable in this model is transformational leadership, the dependent variable is OCB and the mediator variable is pride. To test whether pride is indeed a mediator, the data is analyzed in four steps. First the relation between transformational leadership and OCB is tested. We predict there is a positive effect of the independent variable transformational leadership on the dependent variable OCB. In the second step, the relationship between the independent variable transformational leadership and the mediator variable pride is tested. We predict this relationship to be positive. Third, the relationship between the mediator variable pride and the dependent variable OCB is tested. Again, we predict this relationship will be positive. In the final step the mediation effect of the

(19)

mediator variable pride, on the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB is tested. We predict this mediation effect to be positive.

4.6.2. Conceptual model 2

Conceptual model 1 contains 3 variables: the independent variable in this model is transformational leadership, the dependent variable is pride and the mediator variable is job satisfaction. To test whether job satisfaction is indeed a mediator, the data is analyzed in four steps. First the relation between transformational leadership and pride is tested. We predict there is a positive effect of the independent variable transformational leadership on the dependent variable pride. In the second step, the relationship between the independent variable transformational leadership and the mediator variable job satisfaction is tested. We predict this relationship to be positive. Third, the relationship between the mediator variable job satisfaction and the dependent variable pride is tested. Again, we predict this relationship will be positive. In the final step the mediation effect of the mediator variable job satisfaction, on the relationship between transformational leadership and pride is tested. We predict this mediation effect to be positive.

(20)

5. Results

In this section, the proposed hypotheses are tested using statistical tests such as correlations and regressions.

5.1 Correlations

In order to test how the variables are related to each other and how strong this relationship is, the Pearson’s r Correlation test is used.

5.1.1 Conceptual model 1

For conceptual model 1 the correlation between the variables transformational leadership (independent variable), OCB (dependent variable) and pride (mediator variable) was measured. As explained before in the measures section, feelings of pride in the employee were measured by having the employee rating his/her own feelings of individual pride and pride towards the organization. These two different types of pride showed a correlation of r(102)=0.216, p<0.05 and in the remainder we use these two types of pride together in one variable which is named pride.

There was no significant correlation found between pride and manager rated OCB, and a positive one between pride and self-rated OCB. In the remainder we decided to use the mean of the employee rated and manager rated OCB taken together (labeled overall OCB) as we felt that the ratings of the manager and the self-ratings of the employees could show some differences. By taking these two different ratings together we hope to balance out these differences. More on this choice and possible explanations for manager rated OCB not being significantly correlated with pride can be found in the discussion section. Table 1 demonstrates the correlations between the variables. As expected there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and overall OCB, r(102)=.45, p<0.01. This indicates a moderate to strong positive relationship between these two variables. Transformational leadership was also positively correlated with Pride, r(102)=.41, p<0.01., this relationship is moderate to strong as well. Finally, the relationship between Pride and overall OCB was tested. These two variables are moderately and positively related, r(102)=.27, p<0.01. Below, table 1 is provided in which the mean, standard deviation and the earlier reported Cronbach’s alpha are provided for every variable in the conceptual model.

(21)

Table 1. Descriptives and correlations between the variables (Cronbach's alphas on diagonal)

M SD 1 2 3

1.Overall OCB (DV) 5.54 0.52 (.88)

2. Pride (MV) 5.08 0.67 .27* (.79)

3. Transformational leadership (IV) 5.45 0.89 .45* .41* (.91) Note. N=102. *p<.01.

For conceptual model 2 the correlation between the variables transformational leadership (independent variable), Pride (dependent variable) and Job satisfaction (mediator variable) was measured. As explained before in the measures section, feelings of pride in the employee were measured by having the employee rating his/her own feelings of individual pride and pride towards the organization. These two different types of pride showed a correlation of r(102)=0.216, p<0.05 so therefore we could use these two types of pride together in one variable which is named pride. Job satisfaction was also measured by combining two variables, specifically commitment and autonomy. These predictors of job satisfaction showed a

correlation of r(102)=0.337, p<0.01. Since there is a positive correlation between these two predictors we could use them together in one variable which is named job satisfaction.

Table 2 demonstrates the correlations between the variables. As expected there is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and Pride, r(102)=.41, p<0.01. This indicates a moderate to strong positive relationship between these two variables. Transformational leadership was also positively correlated with Job Satisfaction, r(102)=.58, p<0.01., this indicates a strong relationship between these two variables. Finally, the relationship between Job satisfaction and Pride was tested. These two variables are strongly and positively related, r(102)=.61, p<0.01. Below, table 2 is provided in which the mean, standard deviation and the earlier reported Cronbach’s alpha are provided for every variable in the conceptual model.

(22)

5.2 Regression

To further estimate and explain the relationship between the variables in this study, regression analyses were carried out. For the analyses and to check whether there is a case of mediation, the four steps by Baron and Kenny (1986) were used. The outcomes of these analyses can be found in table 2 for conceptual model 1 and in table 4 for conceptual model 2.

In model 1 the relationship between the independent variable transformational leadership and the dependent variable overall OCB is tested. As we predicted, model 1, with an explained variance of 20 percent shows that transformational leadership indeed has a significant and positive effect (β=.45, p<.001, R²=0.20) on overall OCB. These results indicate that the more transformational an employees’ manager is, the more this employee will engage in organizational citizenship behavior.

For regression model 2 we expected a positive relationship between transformational leadership and pride. This prediction was confirmed as model 2, with an explained variance of 17 percent , shows that transformational leadership has a significant and positive effect (β=.41, p<.001, R²=0.17) on feelings of pride within employees. This means that the more transformational an employees’ manager is, the more feelings of pride this employee will experience.

For regression model 3 we predicted a positive relationship between pride and overall OCB, this prediction was confirmed by the results. The model shows an explained variance of 7 percent and a significant and positive relationship (β=.27, p<.01, R²=0.072) between pride and overall OCB. These results indicate that the more feelings of pride an employee experiences, the more this employee will engage in organizational citizenship behavior.

Finally, model 4 with an explained variance of 21 percent showed that pride did no longer effected overall OCB (β=.10, ns.) when both pride and transformational leadership were in the regression equation, while the effect of transformational leadership on overall OCB remained significant (β=.41,

(23)

p<.001, R²=0.21). The outcome of this test shows that our predications about pride being a mediator were wrong. Pride does not mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and overall OCB. Below a figure of conceptual model 1 with the according betas is provided.

In regression model 1 the relationship between the independent variable transformational leadership and the dependent variable pride is tested. As we predicted, model 1, with an explained variance of 17 percent shows that transformational leadership indeed has a significant and positive effect (β=.41, p<.001,

R²=0.17) on pride. These results indicate that the more transformational an employees’ manager is, the more feelings of pride this employee will experience.

For regression model 2 we expected a positive relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. This prediction was confirmed as model 2, with an explained variance of 33 percent , shows that transformational leadership has a significant and positive effect (β=.58, p<.001, R²=0.33) on job satisfaction. This means that the more transformational an employees’ manager is, the more satisfied with his/her job this employee is.

For regression model 3 we predicted a positive relationship between job satisfaction and pride, this prediction was confirmed by the results. The model shows an explained variance of 38 percent and a significant and positive relationship (β=.61, p<.001, R²=0.38) between job satisfaction and pride. These results indicate that the more satisfied an employee is with his/her job, the more feelings of pride this employee will experience.

Finally, model 4 with an explained variance of 38 percent showed that transformational leadership did no longer effect pride (β=.09, ns.) when both job satisfaction and transformational leadership were in the regression equation, while the effect of job satisfaction on pride remained significant (β=.56, p<.001, R²=0.38). The outcome of this test supports our predictions about job satisfaction positively mediating the

(24)

relationship between transformational leadership and pride. Below a figure of the conceptual model with the according betas is provided.

(25)

(26)

6.Discussion

In this section the results are discussed after which the hypotheses can be rejected or confirmed.

Furthermore the limitations, implications and contributions of the study are discussed. The main goal of this study was to find out whether pride leads to organizational citizenship behavior and how pride can be stimulated. The research question was: Does pride lead to more pro-organizational behavior and how can it be stimulated?

6.1 Key findings

6.1.1 Conceptual model 1 6.1.1.1 Hypothesis 1

Overall the results for conceptual model 1 were unexpected. Hypothesis 1 stated that the transformational leadership of the manager is positively related with OCB of the subordinate. From the results it became clear that these constructs were indeed positively related so hypothesis 1 is supported.

However, the positive relationship that was found was not as strong as we expected. As stated before, many researchers have found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and OCB

(Purvanova, Bono and Dzieweczynski, 2006; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang and Xiong Chen, 2005). Transformational leaders are very charismatic and really inspire their employees to take that extra step, therefore we would also expect that transformational leadership would have a large positive influence on OCB but only a moderate positive influence was found. We tried to come up with some possible explanations for this moderate instead of strong relationship.

The first possible explanation is a problem with the way in which OCB was measured. In the results section was already mentioned especially for manager rated OCB the relationship was not there. OCB was first of all measured by asking the manager to rate the organizational citizenship behavior of his/her subordinate. This was done since some studies have showed that the perception most people have of themselves is unrealistic and overly positive (Alicke, 1985; Alloy and Ahrens, 1987; Brinthaupt, Moreland and Levine, 1991; Brown, 1986; Pyzczynski, Holt and Greenberg, 1987). So using only the employee rated OCB could give overly positive results. However, when the manager rated OCB was used there was no relationship found between pride and OCB which may underestimate the true relationship between pride and OCB. It may well be that managers do not see all of the OCB that employees show, for example. Or it could be that the OCB towards colleagues may be underestimated by managers and

therefore it was decided to use both employee rated and manager rated OCB as a combined overall OCB 26

(27)

score.

This is in line with a research by Jones and Nisbett (1971) that shows that observers (in this case the managers) usually rate the performance of the actor (in the case the employee) more negatively than it really is because observers tend to attribute behavior to stable dispositions of the actor. If this assumption would hold for this research as well, it could be that the employees have been rated lower on OCB than they actually are. So when the employees rate themselves more favorably and the managers rate the employees more negatively it could be that using both ratings is a better ‘balancing act’.

Another possible explanation (and also an implication for the study) could be that, because the survey was conducted at a specific point in time, the managers could not perfectly recall the behavior of the employee. Furthermore it could be that the employee does perform organizational citizenship behavior but not that much around the manager, for instance because the manager is not there very often. This would mean the OCB of the employee would be rated lower (or unreliable because the manager just fills something out while not being sure) than it actually is. If this holds true for this study, this could be an explanation for the relationship being weaker than expected.

Transformational leadership was also measured using observers, the employees were asked to rate their managers on transformational leadership. If we use the outcomes of the study by Jones and Nisbett (1971) this could mean that the employees have rated the managers more negatively, so lower on

transformational leadership, than they actually are. This is a possible explanation for the relationship to be weaker than expected.

6.1.1.2 Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 stated that the feelings of pride of the employee are positively mediating the relationship between transformational leadership of the manager and OCB of the subordinate. From the results we can conclude that there was no mediation and therefore hypothesis 2 has to be rejected.

Since the hypothesis could not be confirmed we had to think of possible explanations. The relation between transformational leadership and pride is almost of the same strength as the relation between transformational leadership and OCB. That the relation between transformational leadership and pride is of a moderate strength is not very surprising since there was not that much literature found on this relationship. What was however surprising, is the low to moderate strength of the relationship between pride and OCB. Quite some studies have found a positive relationship between these two variables literature that pride is positively related to OCB (Arnett et al., 2002; Hodson, 1998; Katzenbach, 2003 and Verbeke et al., 2004). So a stronger positive relation was expected. The fairly low effect could have been

(28)

caused by the way the variable pride was measured. In the survey two different types of pride were measured, personal pride and organizational pride. These two types of pride were put together to measure pride. It could however be that just taking organizational pride would result in a stronger relationship with OCB because these two are more related than personal pride and OCB. This is something that could be studied in future research.

6.1.2 Conceptual model 2 6.1.2.1 Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 stated that the transformational leadership of the manager is positively related with feelings of pride within the subordinate. From the results we can conclude that there is indeed a positive

relationship between transformational leadership and pride so hypothesis 3 is confirmed. This relationship was already discussed in the section on conceptual model 1.

6.1.2.2 Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 stated that job satisfaction of the employee positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership of the manager and feelings of pride within the subordinate. The results support hypothesis 4. This means that job satisfaction enhances the relationship between transformational leadership and pride.

The results of this model and the strengths of the relationships were as we expected them to be. The relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction was quite strong and after reviewing the literature we already expected this. Although this outcome is not surprising, we still came up with possible explanations. It could for instance be that that the employees have rated their managers to be more transformational than they really are. An explanation for this could be that, even though the

questionnaire was anonymous, the employee was afraid his/her manager would find out how he/she rated him/her, and therefore rated the manager to be more transformational than he/she actually is.

There is however a remark that should be made on the measurement of job satisfaction. Since there was no question in the survey that directly asked employees: How satisfied are you with your job? Job satisfaction was measured by asking employees questions about their job autonomy and organizational commitment, these two factors were found to be good predictors of job satisfaction (Blegen, 1993). It could be that this type of measurement has influenced the results. Therefore in future research, employees should be asked how satisfied they are with their jobs.

(29)

The strongest relationship in this study was found between job satisfaction and pride. This was a

little bit surprising since only some studies showed a positive relationship between these two

variables

(Arnett et al., 2002 and Gunter and Furnham, 1996). It can however be that there has not been much research on this relationship, in this case we think the strong relationship that was found should be a stimulus for future research.

6.2 Implications and limitations

In this study we came about some implications and limitations that should be taken into account in future research. We would like to start with the biggest limitation of this study. Since this study is cross-sectional study, it was not possible to test causal effects and neither was it possible to test the direction of the effects. To test causality, another type of research and sample should be used, this is something that could be done in future research on this subject.

Second, the survey was conducted at a specific point in time. So how the participant is feeling at that moment could influence the results. If a participant is for instance very happy because of a good deal, this participant could give answers that overly positive. To overcome this problem you could have

participants filling out the survey a couple of times a year. We however do not feel that this could have influenced the results significantly.

Another implication when working with surveys is that you cannot check whether the participants are filling in the survey with their full attention, it could be that they are doing other things while filling in the survey. Or they could even have the survey filled in by someone else. To overcome this problem you should make appointments with participants and have them filling out the survey while you are there. This however takes a lot of time that we did not have in this research.

Although there are more things that can be improved in this study, we think the way the research is conducted now is reliable and valid enough to imply that the findings will be useful.

6.3 Contributions

This study contributes to the existing literature on pride because it focuses on the beneficial outcomes of pride and what triggers pride. Therefore this research is very usable for organizations, because now we know that when organizations want their employees to feel proud, a transformational leader can do the job. Even more useful would it be that transformational leaders have a positive influence that is quite strong on the job satisfaction of its employees. Job satisfaction then can lead to feelings of pride within employees which can lead to organizational citizenship behavior which can be a strategic advantage. Furthermore it became clear that job satisfaction positively mediates the relationship between

(30)

transformational leadership and pride. So job satisfaction is a very important factor in this research and therefore it would be interesting to study this variable more thoroughly in future research.

When future research is done it would probably be most interesting to look at the relationship between job satisfaction and pride, this was also the strongest relationship that we found in this study. It would for instance be interesting what other factors, than management style, could influence job satisfaction. Furthermore we could look more thoroughly at the different types of pride and maybe test whether they have an influence on different types of outcomes such OCB or job performance.

(31)

7. Conclusion

From this paper we can conclude that pride can be a strategic asset for firms. To test whether pride has beneficial outcomes for firms we tested conceptual model 1. In this study a moderate positive relationship was found between transformational leadership and OCB, although pride did not mediate this relationship there were still moderate positive relationships found between transformational leadership and pride and between pride and OCB. This outcome shows that pride indeed can lead to beneficial outcomes for organizations (OCB) and that pride can be stimulated by transformational managers.

To find out more about how pride can be stimulated another variable was added in conceptual model 2: job satisfaction. A quite strong relationship was found between transformational leadership and job satisfaction and between pride and job satisfaction as well. Furthermore it was found that job satisfaction positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and pride. This outcome tells us that pride can best be stimulated by having transformational managers who make sure their employees have a high job satisfaction which in its turn will lead to more feelings of pride within these employees. Some interesting relationships were found in this study, especially the relationship between job

satisfaction and pride could be an important and interesting subject for future research.

(32)

Bibliography

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621-1630.

Alloy, L. B. & Ahrens, A. H. (1987). Depression and pessimism for the future: Biased use of statistically relevant information in predictions for self versus others.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 366-378. Aristotle. (2008). The Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle (Trans.).

Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar. (Origibal work 350 BCE)

Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A. & McLane, C. (2002). Using Job Satisfaction and Pride as Internal-marketing Tools.

The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43 (2), 87-96.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the Transactional-Transformational Leadership Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Boundaries?

American Psychologist, 52 (2), 130-139.

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1), 9-32.

Blegen, M.A. (1993). Nurses’ Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of Related Variables. Nursing research, 42 (1), 36-41.

Brinthaupt, T. M., Moreland, R. L. & Levine, J. M. (1991). Sources of optimism among prospective group members.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 36-43.

(33)

Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353—376.

De Hoogh, A.H.B, Den Hartog, D.N., & Koopman, P.L. (2004). The Development of the CLIO: a Questionnaire for Measuring Charismatic Leadership in Organizations.

Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 354-382.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J. and Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus Transformational Leadership: An Analysis of the MLQ.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-34. Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights journal, 4, 249-270.

Griffith, J. (2004). The Relation of Principal Transformational Leadership to School Staff Job Satisfaction, Staff Turnover and School Performance.

Journal of Educational Administration, 42 (3), 333-356.

Gunter, B., Furnham, A. (1996). Biographical and climate Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Pride in Organizations.

The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 130 (2), 193-208.

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Hater, J. J. & Bass, B.M. (1988). Superiors’ Evaluations and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Transformational and Transactional Leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 73 (4), 695-702.

Hodson, R. (1998). Pride in task completion and organizational citizenship behavior: Evidence from the ethnographic literature.

Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organizations, 12 (4), 307-321. Howell, J.M. & Frost, P. J. (1989). A Laboratory Study of Charismatic Leadership.

Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 43 (2), 243-269.

(34)

Jones, E.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the

causes of behavior.

Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.

Karambayya, R. (1990). Contextual predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of management journal, August, 221-225.

Katzenbach, J. (2003). Pride: A strategic Asset. Strategy & Leadership, 31 (5), 34-38.

Lewis, M. (2000). Self-conscious emotions: Embarrassment, pride, shame, and guilt. Handbook of emotions, 2, 623-636.

MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Objective Behavior and Objective Productivity as Determinants of Managerial Evaluations of Salespersons’ Performance.

Organizational Behavior an Human Decision Processes, 50 (1), 123-150.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Management, 20 (2), 465-478.

Piccolo, R.F. & Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics.

The Academy of Management Journal, 49 (2), 327-340.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.

The Leadership Quarterly, 1 (2), 107-142.

(35)

Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership, Job Characteristics, and Organizational Citizenship Performance.

Human Performance, 19 (1), 1-22.

Pyszczynski, T., Holt, K. & Greenberg, J. (1987). Depression, self-focused attention, and expectancies for positive and negative future life events for self and others.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 994-1001.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Neat, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: its Nature and Antecedents.

Spinoza, B. (2006). The Essential Spinoza Ethics and Related Writings. (M.L. Morgan, Ed., & S. Shirley, Trans). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Taylor, S.E. & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and Well-being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health.

Psychological Bulletin, 103 (2), 193-210.

Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F. & Cheng, J. T. (2010). A Naturalist View of Pride. Emotion Review, 2 (2), 163-177.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psyhology, 92, 506-525.

Tyler, T.R. & Blader, S.L. (2002). Autonomous vs. Comparative Status: Must we be Better than Others to Feel Good About Ourselves?

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89 (1), 813-838.

Van Dyne, L. & LePine, J.A. (1998). Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity.

Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108-119.

Verbeke, W., Belschak, F. & Bagozzi, R.P. (2004). The adaptive consequences of pride in personal selling.

Journal of the academy of marketing science, 32 (4), 386-402.

(36)

Wang, H., Law, K.S., Hackett, R.D., Wang, D. & Xiong Chen, Z. (2005). Leader-member Exchange as a Mediator of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Followers’ Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

The Academy of Management Journal, 48 (3), 420-432.

Williams, L. A. & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 94 (6), 1007-1017.

Wubben, M.J., De Cremer, D & van Dijk, E. (2012). Is pride a Prosocial Emotion? Interpersonal Effects of Authentic and Hubristic Pride.

Cognition & Emotion, 26 (6), 1084-1097.

(37)

Appendix A: Survey ‘werknemer’

Geachte deelnemer,

Allereerst willen wij u hartelijk bedanken voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek. De vragenlijst die u invult maakt deel uit van het project ‘Trots in Organisaties’ dat wordt uitgevoerd door een onderzoeksteam van de Amsterdam Business School van de UvA. Dit onderzoek richt zich op de werkomstandigheden en het gedrag van mensen op de werkvloer. Voor meer informatie kunt u terecht bij onze begeleiders Prof. Deanne Den Hartog (d.n.denhartog@uva.nl) en Dr. Frank Belschak (f.d.belschak@uva.nl).

LEES A.U.B. DEZE INSTRUCTIES ALVORENS TE BEGINNEN

In de bijgaande vragenlijst worden u vragen gesteld of uitspraken voorgelegd, die betrekking

hebben op uw werksituatie. Het is de bedoeling dat u het antwoord kiest dat het best past bij de

situatie waarin u dagelijks uw werk uitvoert en uw ervaringen tijdens het werk.

U kunt bijvoorbeeld antwoorden met: 1 Volledig mee oneens 2 Mee oneens

3 Gedeeltelijk mee oneens 4 Eens noch oneens 5 Gedeeltelijk mee eens 6 Mee eens

7 Volledig mee eens

Voorbeeld: “Ik voel mij een ‘deel van het gezin’ in deze organisatie.”

Als u in dit geval antwoord 7 zou omcirkelen, betekent dit dat u het met deze uitspraak volledig eens bent. Bedenkt u alstublieft dat

• Er geen goede of foute antwoorden zijn;

• Alleen uw EIGEN mening belangrijk is, niet die van anderen;

• Het belangrijk is dat u ook in moeilijke gevallen een antwoord geeft. Daarom gelieve alle vragen invullen. N.B. Op deze pagina staat een code vermeld. Deze wordt alleen gebruikt om de vragenlijst te koppelen aan de vragenlijst van uw leidinggevende. De antwoorden op deze vragenlijst worden strikt vertrouwelijk en anoniem behandeld en zijn uitsluitend bestemd voor onderzoeksdoeleinden! Alleen het onderzoeksteam krijgt de antwoorden te zien!.

Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw deelname.

Eva Steenman, Joëlle Zander, Wendy Streumer, Romy Rohmer, Mara Janssen, Ritesh Tikai, Britt van Ballekom

(38)

Vooraf een aantal algemene vragen:

1. Wat is uw leeftijd? ...

2. Wat is uw geslacht?  Man  Vrouw

3. Wat is uw hoogst genoten onderwijsniveau?  Middelbare school

 MBO  HBO  Universiteit

 Anders, namelijk ...

4. Bij dit bedrijf werk ik:  Parttime  Fulltime

5. Hoe lang bent u al werkzaam bij uw huidige werkgever? ... jaren 6. In welke branche is de organisatie waar u voor werkt actief? ...

Hieronder staan een aantal kernwoorden. Kunt u de mate aangeven waarin u zichzelf over het algemeen zo voelt? Nooit Altijd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Talentvol        2. Snobistisch        3. Succesvol        4. Pompeus        5. Goed presterend        6. Verwaand        7. Voldaan       

8. Beter dan anderen       

9. Trots        10. Egoïstisch        11. Zelfverzekerd        12. Arrogant        13. Productief        14. Zelfvoldaan        15. Onoverwinnelijk        38

How pride can be beneficial for organizations and how to stimulate it